Are Calories Labels Actually As Inaccurate As People Claim?

Quick note: this post is taken from the Vitamin. Every Thursday, I drop some knowledge bombs on your face to help you reach your goals faster while avoiding all the bullshit.

If you have even a passing interest in nutrition, I’m sure you’ve come across the claim that food labels can be off by 20%. The underlying assumption is that if food labels are this inaccurate, using that information to inform how much you eat introduces errors that can impact your progress.

So, we have to ask two questions: Are calorie labels really this inaccurate? And even if they are, would it impact the utility of tracking your nutrition?

Well, the answer to both is no.

First off, that 20% value is the error margin food agencies allow companies on nutrition labels. So, if the label claims the food contains 200 calories, it can be off by 40 calories on either side (i.e. 160 – 240 kcals) and still be within the regulations.

However, this doesn’t mean all food packaging is off by 20% all the time.

A 2013 study tested 24 popular snack food products in the U.S. (chocolate bars, ice cream, crisps or chips for my American friends, etc.) and found that, on average, food labels were only off by 4%. ¹

Of course, these are averages, and each snack food varied in its discrepancy. Some foods were off by a bit more, while others were more or less in line with what was listed on the label, but the difference isn’t going to materially impact anyone’s progress. To illustrate, the average difference between the measured and stated calorie content was 6.7 kcals. The range of this difference varied from −4.9 kcals (some foods had fewer calories than stated) to 31.9 kcals (some foods had more calories than stated).

It’s also worth noting that large food companies have standardised procedures so their food labels will be more accurate than foods you eat from, say, restaurants. I mean, the chef isn’t going to meticulously measure how much oil or butter they’re adding to your meal before serving it to you.

Speaking of restaurants––one study found popular chain restaurant foods had 18% more calories and supermarket meals had 8% more calories than listed, but most foods still complied with the 20% overage allowance for packaged foods. ²

However, this shit gets pretty wild when looking at non-chain restaurants (that don’t provide any calorie info), with some meals containing up to ~1500 kcals (!) Note: This is just for one dish, and it doesn’t include appetisers or desserts (the word you’re looking for is ‘fuckery’). ³

As such, food labels aren’t as inaccurate as some people like to claim. On average, if we use the abovementioned discrepancies (4%, 8%, 18%), you’re looking at a 10% error. But most people’s diet doesn’t only consist of snack foods, restaurant foods, and packaged meals (at least, I hope not). When you factor in single-ingredient foods, the error is likely much smaller (probably closer to ~5% or less).

Now, to address the the second question: Even if calorie labels are off, will it impact your progress to a degree that renders nutrition tracking pointless?

Also no.

Allow me to illustrate. Suppose someone needs to eat 2,000 kcals/day to lose fat, and their maintenance is 2,500 kcals. In other words, they’re in a 500 kcal deficit. We’ll stick with the 10% error for this example.

Here’s what it would look like:

In this example, this person should be losing a pound per week, but they’re actually losing 0.6 lbs/week due to the 10% discrepancy in food labelling. However, they have data to inform their decision-making. They can see they’re eating 2,000 kcals/day while losing 0.6 lbs/week, so they know they need to adjust their intake.

Here, this individual ‘thinks’ they’re eating 1,800 kcals/day while, in reality, they’re actually eating 1,980 kcals/day due to the labelling error. But it’s enough of a deficit to get weight loss back on track. Even with the error, nutrition tracking did exactly what it was supposed to: Provide data that can be used to decide on the next step.

And this is the most important point people miss.

Nutrition tracking reduces the error margin between the amount you should be eating and the amount you’re actually eating.

Bottom line

Food labels can be off, but they’re not off by that much. And unless you’re always eating out at restaurants, any small discrepancies are unlikely to impact your progress by any meaningful amount.

Even then, tracking your nutrition provides helpful data that can inform decision-making and bring awareness to your current eating habits so you can reduce the margin of error between how much you need to eat and how much you’re actually eating.

So, no. Tracking your nutrition isn’t pointless. It’s still very useful in helping you make progress, even when accounting for minor food labelling errors.

Thanks for reading. If you enjoyed this, you’d love the Vitamin

95% of my new content is only being sent to my email list. One email every Thursday, filled with actionable, evidence-based fitness advice to help you with your goals. If you enjoyed this, you’ll love my emails. You can learn more and subscribe for free here.