Which? labels packaging on food as 'unreliable
CONSUMERISM
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Nutritional information on food labels should be taken with a pinch of salt according to the Consumers' Association.
Of 70 products tested in a survey not one label was completely correct and only one in 10 contained nutrients in the exact quantities stated. Nearly half had errors of more than 10 per cent - the margin allowed by trading standards officials.
The report published in Which? magazine said laboratory tests found that labels on Marks & Spencer ice cream were found to be 72 per cent out in their measurements of fat levels while Somerfield baked beans contained only half the fibre declared.
Heinz Weight Watchers baked beans contained 72 calories per 100g, not the 56 stated on the pack, it claimed.
Which? managing editor, Charlotte Ganne, said: "Nutritional labelling is not much help to consumers if it is not accurate. The quality of information must be better so shoppers are not misled."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments