Most food labeling in the US is done this way. Gross measures (total volume, weight, etc) are in imperial while the nutrition facts are in metric. So milk will say, serving size 12 Oz, protein XX g.
> Most food labeling in the US is done this way. Gross measures (total volume, weight, etc) are in imperial while the nutrition facts are in metric. So milk will say, serving size 12 Oz, protein XX g.
Both net contents and serving size include metric measures.
"Food labels printed must show the net contents in both metric (grams, kilograms, milliliters, liters) and U.S. Customary System (ounces, pounds, fluid ounces) terms." [0]
"The serving size is expressed as a common household measure followed by the equivalent metric quantity in parenthesis." [1]
Except the metric serving sizes are very inconvenient unless you like to do long division in your head.
For example, I have two yogurts, one has 18g carbs per 170g serving, the other has 34 g per 227g serving. Quick, how much more carbs would I have if I ate the same amount?
It's a lot easier to tell if you know one is 6oz and the other is 8oz, or if the servings were designed in metric sizes (e.g. 150g and 200g).
Quick, how much of that tub of yoghurt is a serving? Are you supposed to eat the whole packet of crisps at once or just some of them because it's a "family pack"? The per-serving information is extremely crude and only good for a rough glance. If you want to be more precise, use the per-100g values or whatever they use in the US.
Actually they're very useful if you're weighing your food with a scale. A good food scale lets you work in both metric and imperial units, and usually provides mass in grams.
