Lauren sent me this picture of pork rinds which may or may not have any carbs.
3 comments:
Anonymous
said...
Actually, this one is correctly quoted. Products that claim to have "0g Trans-fats" often still have trans-fats but have reduced the levels to low enough that the FDA allows them to print "0g trans-fats" on their package. I believe this is anywhere from .49g trans-fats and below. It's an advertising trick companies use to make it look like there are no trans-fats, when in fact they have simply reduced the size of a serving so the trans-fats fall below .49g. Really most other outlets should be putting quotes on this claim as well, but the FDA doesn't regulate punctuation I suppose.
3 comments:
Actually, this one is correctly quoted. Products that claim to have "0g Trans-fats" often still have trans-fats but have reduced the levels to low enough that the FDA allows them to print "0g trans-fats" on their package. I believe this is anywhere from .49g trans-fats and below. It's an advertising trick companies use to make it look like there are no trans-fats, when in fact they have simply reduced the size of a serving so the trans-fats fall below .49g. Really most other outlets should be putting quotes on this claim as well, but the FDA doesn't regulate punctuation I suppose.
After eating a whole bag of pork rinds, I often lay back and say "Og."
Agreeing with drudge, here. I think this is a verbalization appropriate to the slightly gross product.
Post a Comment