Metric Measurements Mislead Many

What's Hot

23 Upgrades Under $50 to Make Your House Look AwesomeAround The House

Trump Worth $10 Billion Less Than If He’d Simply Invested in Index FundsBusiness

Do This or Your iPhone Bill May SkyrocketSave

11 Places in the World Where You Can Afford to Retire in StyleMore

19 Moves That Will Help You Retire Early and in StyleFamily

What You Need to Know for 2017 Obamacare EnrollmentFamily

8 Things Rich People Buy That Make Them Look DumbAround The House

50 Ways to Make a Fast $50 (or Lots More)Grow

32 of the Highest-Paid American SpeakersMake

The 35 Two-Year Colleges That Produce the Highest EarnersCollege

5 DIY Ways to Make Your Car Smell GreatCars

Amazon Prime No Longer Pledges Free 2-Day Shipping on All ItemsMore

More Caffeine Means Less Dementia for WomenFamily

7 Household Hacks That Save You CashAround The House

5 Reasons a Roth IRA Should Be Part of Your Retirement PlanGrow

30 Awesome Things to Do in RetirementCollege

Beware These 10 Retail Sales Tricks That Get You to Spend MoreMore

9 Tips to Ensure You’ll Have Enough to RetireFamily

We all know the value of a dollar, but is 25 grams of sugar a lot? Why do nutrition labels measure ingredients in metrics, anyway?

The following post comes from partner site Consumer World.

A new survey released today by found that many consumers can’t properly evaluate the nutritional value of the foods they eat because they don’t understand the metric measurements used on nutrition labels for key ingredients – nor how to convert them to more commonly understood amounts.

As a result, the long-established consumer education website concludes that the nearly 20-year-old FDA requirement to use only grams and milligrams on nutrition labels to express the sugar, fat, and salt content of products needs to be scrapped.

According to Consumer World, when testers were exposed to nutrition facts information where the amount of sugar in a product was expressed in grams rather than in common household measurements, up to 80 percent of them could not accurately say how much sugar that equated to, many significantly underestimated the actual amount of sugar in the product, and some overestimated how healthy the product was to consume.

For example, when asked whether 25 grams of sugar in a serving of yogurt was a lot or a little, fewer than 25 percent deemed the product “extremely sugary.” However, when the same product was labeled as containing 6 teaspoons of sugar – the mathematical equivalent – twice as many, that is, nearly half, characterized it as “extremely sugary.”

In fact, when the two labels were shown side-by-side (see graphic below), about a third of respondents thought that the product labeled with 25 grams of sugar was healthier, and 40 percent thought it was less sugary than the one labeled with 6 teaspoons of sugar – despite the fact that they are actually identical. Fewer than half of those surveyed recognized this equivalence. And significantly more men than women could not accurately evaluate the metric measurements found on nutrition labels.

“Is it any wonder that so many people are overweight in this country, when nutritional labels that are supposed to alert the public to overly sugary or fatty foods fail to communicate that message effectively because they use metric measurements that most people can’t equate to common household amounts,” commented Consumer World founder Edgar Dworsky. “Using metric measurements on food labels is like putting a safety warning on a hazardous product but only in a foreign language.”

Another survey question asked consumers to estimate how many teaspoons of sugar was in an unnamed 12-ounce beverage labeled as containing 39 grams of sweeteners. Their guesses were all over the map, with only 1 in 5 answering correctly. And, nearly two-thirds underestimated the actual amount of sugar, often by more than half. The unidentified beverage, not coincidentally, matched the nutritional specifications of regular Coca Cola, whose 39 grams of high fructose corn syrup is equal to about 9.2 teaspoons of granulated sugar per can. A teaspoon of sugar weighs about 4.2 grams.

Summing up their attitudes, nearly 4 out of 5 respondents thought that a nutrition label that used common household measurements like teaspoons was a more meaningful way to express nutrient content than one expressed in grams.

“Everybody has an idea how much six teaspoons of fat or sugar is, but tell someone the same serving has 25 grams of those ingredients, and their eyes glaze over,” explained Dworsky. “People can’t make smart food choices if they don’t know what they’re eating.”

Consumer World has sent the survey results to the Food and Drug Administration, suggesting that the agency consider revamping its nearly 20-year-old nutrition labeling rules to require the use of commonly understood household measurements instead of, or in addition to, metric system measurements on food labels.

The survey, conducted between Feb. 20 and March 1, questioned 721 readers of Consumer World. As such, the survey is not considered a random survey, and its respondents, who were thought to be more interested in and more educated about consumer matters, may not be representative of the average citizen whose knowledge of food and nutrition labels may be even more limited.

You can see a copy of the questionnaire and read a full tabulation of the survey results.

For related stories, see..

Stacy Johnson

It's not the usual blah, blah, blah

I know... every site you visit wants you to subscribe to their newsletter. But our news and advice is actually worth reading! For 25 years, I've been making people richer without making their eyes glaze over. You'll be glad you did. I guarantee it!


Read Next: Sam’s Club Reveals Details of Black Friday, 5 Other Holiday Sales

Check Out Our Hottest Deals!

We're always adding new deals and coupons that'll save you big bucks. See the deals to the right and hundreds more in our Deals section.

Click here to explore 1,721 more deals!