16

A screenshot of the nutrition facts of a can of Gatorade powder was posted on my Facebook feed:

Enter image description here

The label reads "Per 32 g (about 3 tbsp)", but if you read through the ingredients, the amount of carbohydrates listed exceed that of the serving size (33 g).

Is this depiction of the label accurate, and is the claim it makes true?

Peter Mortensen
  • 190
  • 7
yuritsuki
  • 1,965
  • 2
  • 15
  • 25
  • 13
    You might want to ask on chemistry.SE, there might be a reaction of that powder with the water you add - the 33g is in the prepared product, so if the water reacts with the powder to form new/heavier carbohydrates, that might be the reason why 32g of powder + 500g of water get you 33g of carbohydrates. – Sumyrda - remember Monica Aug 23 '15 at 09:21
  • 1
    The *Daily Value* percentage looks odd too: The [FDA recommends](http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm064928.htm) a DV of 300g carbohydrate, but 33/300=0.11 (11%), not 0.10 (10%) as listed. – Anko - inactive in protest Aug 23 '15 at 11:58
  • 1
    @Anko: Based on Oddthinking's picture below, that appears to have been a typo (as it's 11% on the website). – T.J. Crowder Aug 23 '15 at 15:59
  • 6
    @Sumyrda The numbers relate to the powder, not the prepared liquid. – Wolfram Schmied Aug 23 '15 at 16:14
  • 1
    Typo. The label also says that the carbohydrates are 11% of the content. 3.3 g is 10.3% of 32 g. Maybe they just forgot the decimal point. –  Aug 23 '15 at 06:44

2 Answers2

16

Is the depiction of the label accurate?

Yes, the same information is available directly from the manufacturer, PepsiCo Canada:

Image from Pepsico

The "why" question is largely out of scope of the site. It seems likely to be simply a rounding or experimental error.

Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
  • Could it be a typo? As in, did they mean 33 mg of sugar? Even if we assume a rounding error, 33 g / 32 g is a bit too much. I might believe 33g / 100g – John Dvorak Aug 23 '15 at 06:44
  • 2
    @JanDvorak that stuff is sweet, it "gives you energy." It's full of sugar. 33mg seems impossible. 120-130 calories corresponds to about 32g sugar. If this stuff isn't nearly 100% sugar, what else is in there? It isn't listed! – Level River St Aug 23 '15 at 07:55
  • 4
    @steverrill: I'm confused by your claim. The ingredients are listed - in two languages. – Oddthinking Aug 23 '15 at 12:16
  • @JanDvorak: We've seen the figure in two locations, including an easy-to-edit web-site. It *might* be a typo, but you are calling on me to speculate. We might also speculate that the product name is a spelling error too. Ultimately, the figure has been obtained by experimentation and calculation - both of which introduce small errors. – Oddthinking Aug 23 '15 at 12:19
  • @Oddthinking indeed the ingredients are listed, the point of the question being that they add up to slightly over 100%. If the sugar/carbohydrate were 33g/100g=33% as proposed by JanDvorak, there would instead be a massive shortfall, unless there was another (unlisted) ingredient. – Level River St Aug 23 '15 at 14:24
  • 1
    @steveverrill: Ah, I see. A simpler explanation of that point is that it say "% Daily Value" at the top of the column. – Oddthinking Aug 23 '15 at 14:27
  • Now I notice even more inconsistencies: not only does 32g of product contain 33g of carbohydrate, it also contains 0g of fat. Yet there are two types of fat listed in the ingredients. – Level River St Aug 23 '15 at 14:30
  • 9
    You are imbuing the label with an expectation of accuracy that is not warranted. [0.5g of fat may be rounded down to 0 g](http://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/LabelingNutrition/ucm20026097.htm) in the USA. Likely similar in Canada. – Oddthinking Aug 23 '15 at 16:04
  • I have no doubt the label is accurately represented. However, there's a clear mistake in the labels: 3 tbsp are not 32g, but more than that: a tbsp is ~15g. There are 3 types of tbsp, UK, US and SI, all of which are more than 11g. Also, the portion size is 35g on EU labels, which would explain the 33g of carbs. Finally, this would never happen in the EU because it's compulsory to have a "per 100g" column, to allow fair comparisons. – Sklivvz Aug 24 '15 at 08:39
  • @Sklivvz: Not sure how you worked that out, so I did my own back-of-envelope calculation: Bagged white sugar is [700 kg/m^3](http://www.sugartech.co.za/density/). Three tablespoons (whichever definition Google uses) is about [31g](https://www.google.com/search?q=700+kg+%2F+m%5E3+in+g+per+3+tbsp&oq=700+kg+%2F+m%5E3+in+g+per+3+tbsp) – Oddthinking Aug 24 '15 at 10:32
  • @Oddthinking http://www.convertunits.com/from/tablespoons/to/gram – Sklivvz Aug 24 '15 at 11:51
  • @Sklivvz: Let's go to chat. – Oddthinking Aug 24 '15 at 13:18
-1

Interestingly, the labeling is different in the US. For Gatorade G Series 02 Perform Frost Glacier Freeze Thirst Quencher Instant Powder Mix, 50.9 oz I find these "Nutrition Facts":

nutrition facts

So Canadians like heftier servings than USians. Perhaps the strange things about the Canadian label comes from an error converting the values from 14 g to 32 g?

Peter Mortensen
  • 190
  • 7
GEdgar
  • 1,547
  • 1
  • 11
  • 15