If I’m making a sandwich, I’m using 2 pieces of bread, not 100 grams. Having the nutrition information denominated in slices simplifies calculating how many calories/macros/etc. I am eating.
In Europe, it is really bad with snacks. You can buy a pack of individually-wrapped chocolates, and the nutrition label will helpfully tell you there is 500 billion calories in 100g. Thankfully, I am not looking to eat a quarter pound of chocolate in one sitting, but I would be interested in knowing (without getting a scale and doing the math) on what one of the chocolates contains.
Serving sizes are imperfect, and in general American food is trash nutrition-wise, but the labeling standards are quite good. My biggest complaint is the loophole allowing 0.5g and less of sugar/trans fat/etc to be reported as 0g - not anything to do with the serving size.
It’s better for comparing two chocolates against each other. Besides, 100g is a standard bar of chocolate.
It will also have the full weight of the product with nutritional information. So dividing by no. of pieces should be easy.
I think Americans also tend to have larger formats for everything, so the calculations can sometimes be more tedious. Using the example of slices of bread, you would have to calculate how much are two slices compared to the whole pack to estimate their weight, and then you can know the nutritious values of your portion. Having everything per 100g is effectively better to compare different brand though.
They also use a weird weight unit system, so everything isn’t easily divisible.
Because 100 grams isn’t relevant for many foods.
If I’m making a sandwich, I’m using 2 pieces of bread, not 100 grams. Having the nutrition information denominated in slices simplifies calculating how many calories/macros/etc. I am eating.
In Europe, it is really bad with snacks. You can buy a pack of individually-wrapped chocolates, and the nutrition label will helpfully tell you there is 500 billion calories in 100g. Thankfully, I am not looking to eat a quarter pound of chocolate in one sitting, but I would be interested in knowing (without getting a scale and doing the math) on what one of the chocolates contains.
Serving sizes are imperfect, and in general American food is trash nutrition-wise, but the labeling standards are quite good. My biggest complaint is the loophole allowing 0.5g and less of sugar/trans fat/etc to be reported as 0g - not anything to do with the serving size.
It’s better for comparing two chocolates against each other. Besides, 100g is a standard bar of chocolate. It will also have the full weight of the product with nutritional information. So dividing by no. of pieces should be easy.
I think Americans also tend to have larger formats for everything, so the calculations can sometimes be more tedious. Using the example of slices of bread, you would have to calculate how much are two slices compared to the whole pack to estimate their weight, and then you can know the nutritious values of your portion. Having everything per 100g is effectively better to compare different brand though. They also use a weird weight unit system, so everything isn’t easily divisible.