>Of Jim Elwell >Perhaps this "100 g edible portion" will start becoming more of a >"standard" in the world of nutrition, supplanting ounces.
I dug around on this topic. I am not sure that manufacturers have much discretion. There is a defined 'reference amount' and 'serving size' (I think it means the same as edible portion). The serving size must be the nearest sensible/practical amount that approximates the reference amount. See:
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/backgrounders/foodlabel/newlabel.html#serving
http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/CF101-12.HTML
I guess I saw the 100 g and didn't think through it all the way. Of course it does not make sense to always use 100 g portions, as a "reasonable" portion will vary widely depending on the food.
So, perhaps I should simply wish for metric portion sizes, rather than 100 g sizes.
Nonetheless, I think it is interesting that the USDA's database always shows 100 g portion as the default.
Jim Elwell, CAMS Electrical Engineer Industrial manufacturing manager Salt Lake City, Utah, USA www.qsicorp.com
