PDA

View Full Version : Nutrition label pet peeve



Hornblower
2011-Jan-16, 01:41 AM
As a recently diagnosed diabetic I need to count grams of carbohydrates and get the right amount in each meal. Not too much, not too little, but just right. In many cases the amount listed on a container of prepared food is for an assumed serving size, which often is not a simple fraction of the total and may be awkward to measure. When I use a can of soup or vegetables in a casserole I just want to know how much carb is in the can, and then measure or weigh an appropriate portion of the finished dish. Fortunately I can do the necessary extra number crunching, but plenty of mathematically illiterate folks would have trouble, with an increased risk of error.

Gillianren
2011-Jan-16, 07:55 PM
Talk to the feds.

TrAI
2011-Jan-16, 10:20 PM
As a recently diagnosed diabetic I need to count grams of carbohydrates and get the right amount in each meal. Not too much, not too little, but just right. In many cases the amount listed on a container of prepared food is for an assumed serving size, which often is not a simple fraction of the total and may be awkward to measure. When I use a can of soup or vegetables in a casserole I just want to know how much carb is in the can, and then measure or weigh an appropriate portion of the finished dish. Fortunately I can do the necessary extra number crunching, but plenty of mathematically illiterate folks would have trouble, with an increased risk of error.

Hmmm... That's interesting, the box of Lipton teabags I have here shows the typical content of 100ml of finished infusion, ah well, I suppose there is little use in showing the content in one bag, as most people will not eat that...

But anyway, over here the packages generally shows at least the content per 100g or 100ml of product in the form it is in the package, but having the content per completed serving in addition isn't that uncommon if it is applicable to the product. With this information, it isn't that hard to estimate or calculate the total amount in some arbitrary portion...

Jens
2011-Jan-17, 01:50 AM
When I use a can of soup or vegetables in a casserole I just want to know how much carb is in the can, and then measure or weigh an appropriate portion of the finished dish.

But that would involve using mathematics as well. The only way I can see around your problem is to have two labels, one for the whole package and the other for a portion.

Jeff Root
2011-Jan-17, 03:11 AM
Three: One for the whole package, one for a standard portion,
and one for a "universal" standard quantity (typically 100 grams).
They would be online instead of on the package. You tell your
computer how much you eat (perhaps by putting it on the scale
attached to your computer), and the program shows you how
much of everything you get. Or you tell your computer how much
carbohydrate you are allowed, and it shows you the serving size
you can take. I started designing a program to do this back when
the Commodore 64 was first described in magazines, but I never
got beyond the overall design. Since it was before the Internet, it
would have required a CD-ROM to hold all the data. When I went
to the first public demonstration of CD-audio in the Twin Cities, it
was because I wanted to use the technology for computer data.
CD-ROM became available a couple of years later. I don't know
whether it ever became possible to connect a CD-ROM to a C-64.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

SeanF
2011-Jan-17, 02:37 PM
Talk to the feds.
Well, yes, because if private companies aren't doing what you would like them to do the first thing you should do is try to get the government to force them.

(Sorry, Gillianren - I don't mean to pick on you, personally, but this attitude is a pet peeve of mine!)


I don't know whether it ever became possible to connect a CD-ROM to a C-64.
Well, it is now (http://www.ide64.org/), at least. :)

Perikles
2011-Jan-17, 02:58 PM
but plenty of mathematically illiterate folks would have troubleHmm, I'm just wondering whether they are just innumerate. But pedantry aside, I speak from personal experience when I say that this problem confronts all newly discovered diabetics. Very quickly one ditches the chemical balance and calculator approach because one develops a very good feeling for what is appropriate and what is not. The amount of carbohydrate required in one meal varies with all kinds of factors -weather, mood, physical activity, variable pancreas activity, etc, so one discovers that is not the exact science one would like it to be. Best of luck!

SeanF
2011-Jan-17, 03:03 PM
Hmm, I'm just wondering whether they are just innumerate. But pedantry aside, I speak from personal experience when I say that this problem confronts all newly discovered diabetics. Very quickly one ditches the chemical balance and calculator approach because one develops a very good feeling for what is appropriate and what is not. The amount of carbohydrate required in one meal varies with all kinds of factors -weather, mood, physical activity, variable pancreas activity, etc, so one discovers that is not the exact science one would like it to be. Best of luck!
I am now wondering about something else as well. I mean, if you put a whole can of vegetables in a casserole and then eat one-fifth of the casserole, there's no guarantee that you're eating one-fifth of the vegetables. Certainly there's no guarantee that you're getting one-fifth of the carbohydrate content of the can of vegetables.

Is what the OP is asking for even feasible? :think:

Perikles
2011-Jan-17, 03:37 PM
I am now wondering about something else as well. I mean, if you put a whole can of vegetables in a casserole and then eat one-fifth of the casserole, there's no guarantee that you're eating one-fifth of the vegetables. Certainly there's no guarantee that you're getting one-fifth of the carbohydrate content of the can of vegetables.

Is what the OP is asking for even feasible? :think:Good question. The thing is a diabetic does need to feel 'in control' of the diet. Being able to assess the amount of carbohydrate is possible, but not to the accuracy which some people think they need.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Jan-17, 09:19 PM
Well, yes, because if private companies aren't doing what you would like them to do the first thing you should do is try to get the government to force them.
(Sorry, Gillianren - I don't mean to pick on you, personally, but this attitude is a pet peeve of mine!)
Well, it is now (http://www.ide64.org/), at least. :)
Problem is that there are things that companies just plain won't do unless forced to it by someone they can't say no to.
Truthful labeling to ensure an ability to objectively compare their product with the competitors without advertising hype, is one of them.

Jeff Root
2011-Jan-17, 09:31 PM
Talk to the feds.
Well, yes, because if private companies aren't doing what you
would like them to do the first thing you should do is try to
get the government to force them.
Yes, since the Food and Drug Administration regulations specifying
the information that must be disclosed on processed foods made
and sold in the USA do not include all the information Hornblower
would like to have, the thing for Hornblower to do is to write to
all the companies that package foods and try to convince each of
them to include the additional info. Good idea.



(Sorry, Gillianren - I don't mean to pick on you, personally, but this
attitude is a pet peeve of mine!)
Guess what attitude is a pet peeve of mine! :)

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

SeanF
2011-Jan-17, 09:40 PM
Guess what attitude is a pet peeve of mine! :)
Independence and self-reliance? :)

Gillianren
2011-Jan-17, 09:45 PM
The reason I suggested writing the feds should be obvious. They do currently set how the information on food labels in the US appear. This is preferable to the situation as it existed prior to the FDA, where they didn't have to label much of anything at all. I don't much trust industry to have the welfare of anything but their own pocketbook in mind, and I do like standardization of labeling. I mean, it drives me crazy enough that there's no standardization of DVD labeling. Food? Yeah, that's actually important.

SeanF
2011-Jan-17, 09:53 PM
The reason I suggested writing the feds should be obvious.
It was obvious.


They do currently set how the information on food labels in the US appear.
I do not believe there is anything in current federal regulations that prevents companies from providing the information which the OP requested.

I should respond to this, also:

Problem is that there are things that companies just plain won't do unless forced to it by someone they can't say no to.
Truthful labeling to ensure an ability to objectively compare their product with the competitors without advertising hype, is one of them.
What the OP is requesting has absolutely nothing to do with comparison shopping. The current labels are, in fact, specifically designed with comparison shopping in mind - the OP wants something different.

astrophobe
2011-Jan-18, 01:55 AM
but plenty of mathematically illiterate folks would have trouble, with an increased risk of error.

I always thought the per-serving amounts were for the plenty of innumerate folks who lack the ability to calculate per-serving amounts when given the amount for the entire container.

NEOWatcher
2011-Jan-18, 07:28 PM
I always thought the per-serving amounts were for the plenty of innumerate folks who lack the ability to calculate per-serving amounts when given the amount for the entire container.
I think that comes from the the numerous companies that tend to state thier portion sizes in the same scale as the standard sizes.

I've never noticed difference before, but I have a container of hot cocoa mix that kind of threw me for a loop, and this thread helped clear it up.
In the nutrition facts:
Serving size 1/4 cup, 20 per container.

In the directions:
2 rounded tablespoons.

And a side-note on the package:
"This canister contains 26 servings using 2 rounded tablespoons per 6 oz. serving."
Ok; so they state that the actual serving is different. But the note continues:
"However, due to settling there may be fewer servings."
So; you don't even know what it is per serving because they didn't give the instructions in normal consumer conditions.
On top of that, how many people consider "rounded" to be about the same roundness.

I don't think it's worth printing the numbers for each condition, but I do think that the condition should be made a bit more obvious.

I also think that someone who doesn't have the ability to figure out their serving size is probably one who would have trouble with trying to keep track of thier overall intake in the first place.

SeanF
2011-Jan-18, 09:41 PM
A "rounded tablespoon" is generally considered to be equivalent to two level tablespoons (with the additional mound basically "mirroring" the level spoonful), which makes two rounded tablespoons equal to one quarter of a cup. The two serving sizes aren't different, so the servings per container shouldn't be, either.

I wonder if they recently changed the size of the container and forgot to change (one of) the labels... :think:

Hornblower
2011-Jan-18, 11:18 PM
I think that comes from the the numerous companies that tend to state thier portion sizes in the same scale as the standard sizes.

I've never noticed difference before, but I have a container of hot cocoa mix that kind of threw me for a loop, and this thread helped clear it up.
In the nutrition facts:
Serving size 1/4 cup, 20 per container.

In the directions:
2 rounded tablespoons.

And a side-note on the package:
"This canister contains 26 servings using 2 rounded tablespoons per 6 oz. serving."
Ok; so they state that the actual serving is different. But the note continues:
"However, due to settling there may be fewer servings."
So; you don't even know what it is per serving because they didn't give the instructions in normal consumer conditions.
On top of that, how many people consider "rounded" to be about the same roundness.

I don't think it's worth printing the numbers for each condition, but I do think that the condition should be made a bit more obvious.

I also think that someone who doesn't have the ability to figure out their serving size is probably one who would have trouble with trying to keep track of thier overall intake in the first place.

Yikes! That label must have been designed by a committee that never met.

Jeff Root
2011-Jan-18, 11:42 PM
I think that comes from the the numerous companies that tend to
state thier portion sizes in the same scale as the standard sizes.

I've never noticed difference before, but I have a container of
hot cocoa mix that kind of threw me for a loop, and this thread
helped clear it up.

In the nutrition facts:
Serving size 1/4 cup, 20 per container.

In the directions:
2 rounded tablespoons.

And a side-note on the package:
"This canister contains 26 servings using 2 rounded tablespoons
per 6 oz. serving."
Ok; so they state that the actual serving is different. But the
note continues:
"However, due to settling there may be fewer servings."
So; you don't even know what it is per serving because they didn't
give the instructions in normal consumer conditions.
On top of that, how many people consider "rounded" to be about
the same roundness.
It looks to me like two rounded tablespoons is a bit less than a
quarter of a cup. Using a quarter of a cup as the serving size,
you should get 20 servings. Using two rounded tablespoons as
the serving size, you should get 26 servings.

I happen to have a container of Swiss Miss cocoa mix, and except
for a difference in the size of the canister, the info matches yours.

The "Nutrition Facts" box says the serving size is 1/4 cup (34 g),
and that there are "about 32" servings per container. It specifies
8 oz of water or milk.

The directions say to use 2 rounded tablespoons of powder and
8 oz (1 cup) of water or milk.

It also says "This canister contains 39 servings using 2 rounded
tablespoons of mix per 8 oz. serving. However, due to settling,
there may be fewer servings." It also says "8 FL. OZ = 236ml"

Did you misread or mistype the "6 oz." figure?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

NEOWatcher
2011-Jan-19, 02:00 PM
ItI happen to have a container of Swiss Miss cocoa mix, and except
for a difference in the size of the canister, the info matches yours.
Possibly because it's the same brand. :lol:

Did you misread or mistype the "6 oz." figure?
Nope. I double checked, and they have it the same in 2 places (conventional and microwave directions) as "6 oz. (3/4 cup)".

So now we got the same brand stating differences within thier own container sizing. :eek:

I know they have several mixtures, so maybe the mixes are a bit different densities. If so, then to make an 8 oz in mine, it would have to be 2.7 rounded tablespoons. Try to explain that to someone.

ETA:
This brings up the issue of ingredient vs finished product. People want to drink a cup of cocoa, they don't care how many tablespoons it takes to make it. They want to know the nutrion of that cup vs a cup of another.
For something like cocoa where it's the only ingredient, it would make sense to use the finished product values.
For other types of ingredients it can get quite dicey if there's not a standard to go by (like a sugar substitue using the equivelant of a teaspoon of sugar rather than a teaspoon itself)

Gillianren
2011-Jan-19, 06:06 PM
There are products which include both. Brownie/cake mixes, I believe, and I'm pretty sure cereal boxes include information about values with milk (3/4 cup of skim? I don't eat cereal) added.

NEOWatcher
2011-Jan-19, 06:19 PM
I always thought cereals only did that so they can say how healthy thier product is when served as suggested.
This cocoa is made with water, so there's no advantage.

I always laugh at those drug or supplement commercials that say "when used with a healthy diet...".

Jeff Root
2011-Jan-19, 07:37 PM
I considered saying which cocoa mix it was, but somehow I felt
slightly uncomfortable about it, and there didn't seem to be any
need, so I skipped that. It is the milk chocolate flavor. Not as if
it had marshmallows in it or something! (And now I realize that
if you have marshmallows in yours... )

Real Men don't give a damn what they eat, or what other people
think they eat.

Nevertheless, I generally don't eat marshmallows. I never
claimed to be a real man.

All this to figure out why mine is a big hefty 8 oz and yours is a
dinky little 6 oz.

The coacoa mix has nutrition info for "with 8 oz Water" and
"with 8 oz 2% Milk with Vit. A". All the numbers are different
except for "Dietary Fiber" which is 1g in both columns.

Another powdered foodlike substance, Carnation Instant
Breakfast, has a column for the powder alone and a column
for "With 1 Cup Fat-Free Milk Vit A&D Added".

In addition to "foodlike substance", I'll also release into the
public domain my neologisms "foodilize" and "foodilization".
To use as food. Parallel to "utilize". "A cat will foodilize
anything it finds."

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

grapes
2011-Jan-19, 07:51 PM
I always laugh at those drug or supplement commercials that say "when used with a healthy diet...".Comedian Dave Barry's Grammar Person: It is wrong to say "part of this nutritious breakfast", it should be "adjacent to this nutritious breakfast."

NickW
2011-Jan-19, 08:46 PM
In addition to "foodlike substance", I'll also release into the
public domain my neologisms "foodilize" and "foodilization".
To use as food. Parallel to "utilize". "A cat will foodilize
anything it finds."

Is that like snackifying drinks, and drinkifying snacks? :)

Ara Pacis
2011-Jan-19, 09:32 PM
Confusion reigns when you suit to taste and rely upon volumetric measurements. Watch Alton Brown sometimes, he tries to do things by mass/weight.

Seanf, Part of the reason for government regulation is that companies have not always been forthcoming about their ingredients and the market as a whole does not compel them to do so because it tends to rely upon the invisible hand of the majority, whereas the representative government of some countries takes up the concerns of the minority, in this case diabetics. Alternately, you might rely upon lawsuits to coerce companies to do what members of the market desire, wush as letting them know if it is made in a facility that processes items that may cause allergic reactions, although you are still relying upon government. Or you could rely upon the anarchist/libertarian dream of a totally free market and let emotions drive purchasing once people realize that deaths could have been avoided... which sometimes (and rightfully) results in armed confrontation. Or you could rely upon an industry standards organization, but then it's performing the role of governance even if it lacks the ability to force compliance.

Good fences make good neighbors, and good rules make good players. Boundaries need to be set. We are social creatures and that requires expectations. Rules cannot be avoided. The best you can hope for is a method where you can have some say in how the rules are made and applied, which is what we have now. What do you want to do, go back to a feudal age of fiefs and fealty and their hired mercenaries or impressed workers to defend their production methods from armed uprising caused by the inevitable mismanagement (because people can't be trained to meet standards that don't exist)?

What are you worried about, that government will take away the freedom of innovation from companies or some even more remote and amorphous concern about losing personal liberty? Government regulation upon business ensures personal liberty. You can have standardization without conformity. And this isn't something new, Even the Code of Hammurabi had business regulations, because if you built a faulty structure that killed someone, you better believe that others would be mad. Trust me, I've seen first hand just how close to violence customers can get.

SeanF
2011-Jan-19, 10:16 PM
Seriously, Ara?

We have requirements for nutritional labelling on food products, which are specifically designed to prevent companies from misleading their customers.

The OP complained that his rather unique informational needs required some minorly complicated math.

The very first response was that he should run to the government for help.

I took exception to that.

Save your lectures.

Hornblower
2011-Jan-20, 12:36 AM
Let me remind everyone that the number crunching was not difficult for me. In fact I did virtually all of it in my head when getting started last month. My concern was for innumerate fellow citizens, some of whom get bumfuzzled by the simplest exercises, even without complications from odd fractions and mixups between volume and weight units.

Ara Pacis
2011-Jan-20, 08:40 PM
Hey, my post made it, I thought it got eaten by the board bug because as soon as I hit post I got a 404 error.


Seriously, Ara?

We have requirements for nutritional labelling on food products, which are specifically designed to prevent companies from misleading their customers.

The OP complained that his rather unique informational needs required some minorly complicated math.

The very first response was that he should run to the government for help.

I took exception to that.

Save your lectures.

Why? lectures are obviously in need here, as you yourself tried to demonstrate, and I'd like to think that my degree (and experience) in political science means I actually learned something that takes study instead of mere assumptions from those who are un- or less well studied on this topic.

I know the calculations and they are not hard since I have had to do them too for the same reason. Luckily I am borderline which means I don't have to focus on it too hard and you get used to eyeballing it after a while. I don't think it's unreasonable to have two columns of information for such types of packaging where the entire package is likely to be prepared for a single or shared meal. More to the point, the label information and form standards are prescribed by the government so it would need to be government that authorizes the changes, the hands of business are tied. They could do it on their own, and risk being fined; they could put it somewhere else on the label and hope anyone notices, which most won't unless they call attention to it with diabetics targeted ads and packaging; or they could lobby the government for the change, but that's what the American Diabetic Association is for. Lobbyists cost money; retooling the packaging equipment costs money, ads cost money, and of course fines cost money. The costs may not be significant, but many companies don't bother spending money if they can avoid it.

SeanF
2011-Jan-21, 12:53 AM
Why? lectures are obviously in need here...
Not lectures in general, your post in particular. It seemed to be aimed at someone who is essentially an anarchist, objecting to government regulation in general. I don't know how you reached that conclusion about me, from this thread.


...as you yourself tried to demonstrate
I'm curious as to which of my posts you think came across as a lecture. EDIT: Or did you mean that I demonstrated a need for lectures? :lol:


they could put it somewhere else on the label and hope anyone notices, which most won't unless they call attention to it with diabetics targeted ads and packaging
Well, since it seems to be diabetics (the OP and you - to be more general, people who would be actively looking for that information) asking for it, that would make a certain amount of sense, wouldn't it?

Ara Pacis
2011-Jan-22, 07:40 PM
Not lectures in general, your post in particular. It seemed to be aimed at someone who is essentially an anarchist, objecting to government regulation in general. I don't know how you reached that conclusion about me, from this thread.You're right about that response being targetted towards an anarchist, but anarchy and extreme libertarianism (little l, not being partisan or anti-partisan here) have been in vogue lately so I decided to nip it in the bud. Maybe that comes across as a strawman, but I think I got my point across.


I'm curious as to which of my posts you think came across as a lecture. EDIT: Or did you mean that I demonstrated a need for lectures? :lol:Both, I thought.


Well, since it seems to be diabetics (the OP and you - to be more general, people who would be actively looking for that information) asking for it, that would make a certain amount of sense, wouldn't it?A lot of diabetic-specific brands and health conscious brands do so. Eating just those brands might result in a diet of exclusion instead of moderation. So, it can be argued that it would be better for this information to be included and standardized. After all, it's not just diabetics looking for it. Anyone who follows carb intake might find it useful.

jrkeller
2011-Jan-25, 03:04 PM
I have an idea.

Maybe someone can develop an app for the Ipod, Iphone, etc, where all of these concerns can be calculated automatically.

Jeff Root
2011-Jan-25, 03:10 PM
That's pretty much what I said. Instead of the info being on the
package, it would be online. You would read the barcode into your
personal device and it would retrieve the data and massage it to
suit your personal needs.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

SeanF
2011-Jan-25, 05:40 PM
You're right about that response being targetted towards an anarchist, but anarchy and extreme libertarianism (little l, not being partisan or anti-partisan here) have been in vogue lately so I decided to nip it in the bud. Maybe that comes across as a strawman, but I think I got my point across.
That's fine. Might I request that, in the future, you not direct such generalized arguments towards me, directly, by name? :)


A lot of diabetic-specific brands and health conscious brands do so. Eating just those brands might result in a diet of exclusion instead of moderation. So, it can be argued that it would be better for this information to be included and standardized. After all, it's not just diabetics looking for it. Anyone who follows carb intake might find it useful.
The requested information is included and is standardized. You just need to multiply to get it.

And unless I'm very much mistaken, the very reason the legal requirements are for "per serving" rather than "per container" is specifically to avoid misleading people.

That being said, I find myself more and more confused by the original request. What has to be done now is:

1) Determine the carb content of the entire container (multiplication, and needs to be done for each ingredient)
2) Determine the carb content of the final dish (addition)
3) Determine what portion of the final dish would have the desired carb content (division)

Since changing the labels on the ingredients would help with step 1 but provide no assistance for 2 and 3, I don't see the point. Anybody's who mathematically capable of doing steps 2 and 3 can do step 1. Anybody who isn't won't be helped by additional information on the labels.

JeffD1
2011-Jan-28, 04:05 AM
I feel Hornblower's pain. I have kidney disease, though I have avoided needing dialysis for a lot longer than the docs thought.
I have to watch sodium, potassium, phosphate and protein amounts. Most labels do not list potassium and almost none list phosphate amounts. Some give more info on their websites but the info is often difficult to find as navigation to that part of the website is often a convoluted path.

NEOWatcher
2011-Jan-28, 01:08 PM
I feel Hornblower's pain...
And I feel yours too. I've been there. Luckily I've had an addition to my bodily organs for over a year now and the six year nightmare has ended.
I had to just about give up on any prepared foods, and just had to assume a restaurant was bad if the dish wasn't simple.
I even found that any packaged meats were loaded with phosphates and I had to get fresh cut.
My biggest surprise was that even Jello was bad.

Ara Pacis
2011-Jan-28, 10:01 PM
That's fine. Might I request that, in the future, you not direct such generalized arguments towards me, directly, by name? :)I thought I was replying to your comments and that you were going to espouse anarchistic leanings, but I'll try not to get ahead of the debate next time.


The requested information is included and is standardized. You just need to multiply to get it.

And unless I'm very much mistaken, the very reason the legal requirements are for "per serving" rather than "per container" is specifically to avoid misleading people.Actually, it's still not simple because serving sized aren't always based on uniform nutritional allowances or recommendations. For example, there was a issue with 12oz soft-drink cans because they would give a low amount of calories per serving, but the serving size was 2.5 per can, which some people thought was misleading. So, they are now putting the amount of calories per container and inflating serving size to match that container size. What is the proper serving size for a sugary beverage: 4.8oz, 12 oz? I don't know.

Then there are differences in something that the labels treat the same. It may tell you sugars and fiber under carbohydrates, but what about resistant starch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistant_starch)?

Gillianren
2011-Jan-29, 12:12 AM
There are also some regulations which allow companies to round down.

Jeff Root
2011-Jan-29, 05:25 AM
... serving sizes aren't always based on uniform nutritional
allowances or recommendations. For example, there was a issue
with 12oz soft-drink cans because they would give a low amount
of calories per serving, but the serving size was 2.5 per can, which
some people thought was misleading. So, they are now putting
the amount of calories per container and inflating serving size to
match that container size. What is the proper serving size for a
sugary beverage: 4.8oz, 12 oz? I don't know.
I thought 12 oz soft drink cans were always considered one
serving. Your figure of 2.5 servings can't be right. You must
have meant 1.5 servings, a serving size of 8 oz, which is
kinda standard for beverages.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Ara Pacis
2011-Jan-29, 04:06 PM
I thought 12 oz soft drink cans were always considered one
serving. Your figure of 2.5 servings can't be right. You must
have meant 1.5 servings, a serving size of 8 oz, which is
kinda standard for beverages.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

That might have been it. I don't have an old can to reference.

HenrikOlsen
2011-Feb-01, 11:29 AM
That's pretty much what I said. Instead of the info being on the
package, it would be online. You would read the barcode into your
personal device and it would retrieve the data and massage it to
suit your personal needs.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis
Sounds like something Google would do "for free" simply for the datamining prospects.