this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2026
1006 points (98.7% liked)

Mildly Interesting

26164 readers
1325 users here now

This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.

This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?

Just post some stuff and don't spam.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] frozen@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I think both "per serving" and "per 100g" should be required. Some foods/drinks come with "0g carbs" or "0 calories" in small enough servings, but only because the actual amount is negligible. The problem is that once the serving gets large enough, those things do start to matter, especially for instance carbs for diabetics.

Multiple times I've run into a "low carb" or "low sugar" drink that said something like 2 or 3g carbs per serving, and then had 2 or 3 servings per bottle, which ending up raising my blood sugar more than expected. Technically that's on me for not checking the "per serving" and "servings per container", and I've since learned my lesson, but it's still annoying.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Add in a "per container" for things that are realistically seen as a single serving, like your drink example.

That way I don't have to do the 'per 100g' figuring and I have a realistic assessment of that small can of soup that's somehow supposed to be 2 to 3 servings.

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 week ago

I completely agree - we need both!