Based on your email, I would venture a guess that the 100 g portion is commonly used in scientific nutrition work, even in the USA (given its use on the USDA site).
Jim
At 3/1/2003, 02:51 PM, Pat Naughtin wrote:
Dear Jim and Terry,
All of the cereal packages in Australia have at least two columns of nutrition information printed on the package. One of these columns refers to an 'average serving' and the other column refers to a 100 gram serving. As examples, the average serving of 'All-Bran' is 45 g and the average serving of rolled oats is 50 g.
Obviously, if you included (say) some rolled oats in a recipe it would be relatively easier to use the 100 gram information to calculate the proportions of energy, protein, carbohydrate, etc.
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin LCAMS Geelong, Australia
on 2003-03-01 07.09, Terry Simpson at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 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 > > > >
