eggs

[Stephanie]

Has anyone noticed on eggs that some are listed as 1 carb on their nutrtion label?
I read a post recently to recheck labels of things we buy all the time because maufacturers change them. It prompted me re-look at things I buy weekly and my eggs from shoprite list one egg as one carb? I am kind of mad about this lol ... any input?

[morgan]

Could it be the size of the egg stephanie?  Are they bigger?

[Stephanie]

You know what that might be the case... I will have to check if I picked up wrong size I just always assumed all eggs were 0.6 ....silly me

[shawn116]

Hi Stephanie here is what Doug posted about the carb count in eggs here:  http://www.fattoskinny.net/index.php?topic=2319.0

Food                                Net Carbs                      Sugar
Whole Eggs (1)                        1                       ¼ tsp sugar
1/4 cup egg beaters                   1                       ¼ tsp sugar
1/4 cup egg beater egg whites     1                       ¼ tsp sugar
1 fresh egg white                      1/2                           Negligible

There has been a lot of discussion in the past about eggs and their carb counts.  Some cartons say that they are 0 where others count them as 1.  Now that I have some time under my belt, so to speak, I believe it's because the eggs with a 0 are actually less than 1.  Probably the size as Morgan suggests.  It's frustrating to me that they are allowed to list them as 0 when they are less than one.      You will find some posts on here I'm sure where I count them as 0.....I figured heck who am I to argue right??  LOL Any more though... knowing what I know....I figured I should probably start keeping track of them.  After all if I go through 2 dozen eggs in a week that's 24 extra carbs not accounted for     I do split the difference though and count the ones that are listed as 0 as .6 

[morgan]

Awww for Pete's sake - the only thing in Australia listed at zero is cheese and some green olives.   
Don't even have the illusion of totally carb free.  Is our labelling stricter?

[shawn116]

I'm thinking so Morgan.  I heard on the news how they want to make some changes to make the labels easier to understand, but nothing about making them to be accountable for proper labeling.  http://www.businessnewsdaily.com/3824-fda-better-food-labeling-could-stem-obesity.html  It blows my mind that they are allowed to make the serving size so small in order to list them as 0 or a smaller amount.  In that instance I think it is just a marketing plow....if it's 0 carb and low calories and fat then we will sell more.  We aren't smart enough to count the servings we eat right??  sheesh. 

[morgan]

Generally speaking, all our labels must show nutritional values for 100g/100ml.  This helps when comparing to other foods even when serving sizes differ.  Also is good in that even if they fudged at the serving size portion the truth comes out when they have to state the values in the 100g/100ml part. They only tricky part I find is on some labels they already deduct the dietary fibre part -  say when carbs are stated at 2.1 and dietary fibre is 5.6 (well obviously too good to be true, so figure it has already been deducted and carbs are total carbs).

[Stephanie]

Thanks Shawn! Learn something new every day. All this time I have been counting as 0.6 and I have been losing but still like you said those extra carbs could matter in the days counts. I am usually under 20 carbs everyday so the difference would not throw me over but dammm these nutrition labels are something else. We wonder why America is the way it is.....look at what they can get away with ..shaking my head...

[mouseissue]

...  It blows my mind that they are allowed to make the serving size so small in order to list them as 0 or a smaller amount.  In that instance I think it is just a marketing plow....if it's 0 carb and low calories and fat then we will sell more.  We aren't smart enough to count the servings we eat right??  sheesh. 

Hi, Shawn!

It would be nice if the FDA regulations specified that the serving sizes be realistic.
How often have you seen a label on an obvious 1 serving package, that gave info for 2 (or more) servings?

It's no surprise that companies ALWAYS want to make their products "shine" as much as possible.
In that persuit, they're willing to be misleading, or outright lying.
It's always about the almighty dollar!!!

Tony

[mdanziger]

Generally speaking, all our labels must show nutritional values for 100g/100ml.  This helps when comparing to other foods even when serving sizes differ.  Also is good in that even if they fudged at the serving size portion the truth comes out when they have to state the values in the 100g/100ml part.

Wouldn't that be great if they would do that here.  I also hate when you have to compare one label that uses one cup as the serving size and another that uses three-quarters of a cup as the serving size.

[mdanziger]

Food                                Net Carbs                      Sugar
Whole Eggs (1)                        1                       ¼ tsp sugar
1/4 cup egg beaters                   1                       ¼ tsp sugar
1/4 cup egg beater egg whites     1                       ¼ tsp sugar
1 fresh egg white                      1/2                           Negligible

What is the difference between a whole egg at one net carb and a fresh white egg at 1/2 net carb?

It makes sense that a jumbo egg might have more carbs than a large, and a large more than a medium... are there any difference between the carb count in a brown egg and a white egg of the same size?

[mouseissue]

... What is the difference between a whole egg at one net carb and a fresh white egg at 1/2 net carb?

It makes sense that a jumbo egg might have more carbs than a large, and a large more than a medium... are there any difference between the carb count in a brown egg and a white egg of the same size?

Hi, Mark!

Other than color, no!
Count either the same way.

Tony