This post not CC'd by email
On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 16:49:39 -0500, Priscilla Ballou
<vze23t8n@verizon.net> wrote:
>Lots of places outside the US list fiber carbs separately from total
>carbs, so you can get a fiber amount greater than a carbs amount for
>very fibrous items. In those cases the carbs is carbs not counting
>fiber. Add carbs and fiber to get total carbs.
>
>Priscilla
G'day G'day Priscilla,
Thank you. You have provided a very simple explanation that fits
the particular situation. The artichoke hearts are imported from
Peru. Peru apparently follows the common pattern of recording
digestible carbohydrate and fibre separately.
To a purchaser in the US used to the US system of including fibre in
the total carbohydrate it can look very, very weird as it does in this
case.
"Hey, wait a minute, what is going on here" is a very normal response.
Is it flagrant mislabeling? No.
There is nothing to be gained by claiming more fibre than the total
carbohydrate. If anything it would be off putting and lose sales.
IMHO there is a lot to be learnt from such situations.
When things look weird there is probably a simple explanation such as
the misunderstandings that occur when two people use the same words
but are speaking different languages.
Firstly, looking for the least emotive explanation will often arrive
at the correct solution most quickly. Wes has on occasions posted a
delightful little dictum that clearly expresses the point I'm trying
to make.
Secondly, it illustrates one of the great virtues of ASD. With few
exceptions people are more interested in contributing to a collective
answer rather than in being the person with the correct answer.
After a half dozen or so people have posted on a particular thread
enough information has been collected to make the correct answer easy
for all to see.
Best wishes,
--
Quentin Grady ^ ^ /
New Zealand, >#,#< [
/ \ /\
"... and the blind dog was leading."
http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/quentin 
So I'm entering nutrition for artichoke hearts from TJs. 
Linear Mode
