When you are choosing which potato chips to eat, do you have an angel on one shoulder nagging you to take the low fat bag, and a devil on the other urging you to grab the regular chips?
MrConsumer experienced such a tug, and decided to be virtuous and try the ones with 40% less fat.
They were not quite as greasy as the regular Cape Cod chips, which, of course, is why the regular ones taste so heavenly.
Upon reading and comparing the nutrition label of the 40% reduced fat chips versus the regular Cape Cod chips, MrConsumer got a shock.
*MOUSE PRINT:
He sacrificed that once-in-a-blue-moon treat of full-fat Cape Cod chips for a lousy 20 calories less? Yes, the 40% reduced fat chips were 200 calories and the regular ones were 220 — only 10% more calories. How could that be? Where’s the 40% savings?
First, a closer look at the fat reduction banner reveals that the comparison is not between regular Cape Cod and fat-reduced Cape Cod… but against the “leading brand” — presumably Lay’s. The actual fat difference between the two Cape Cod products is only a 25% reduction.
And then there is the incorrect assumption that a 40% reduction in fat translates into a 40% reduction in calories. It doesn’t. The potato itself counts for half the calories in the regular chips.
Next time MrConsumer has a chip choice, for the 20 extra calories, he may just splurge.
P.S. The Cape Cod reduced fat chips do indeed contain 40% less fat on a per ounce basis compared to Lay’s regular chips.
Maybe Mr. Consumer should read the fine print a little better. You also get 6 more chips per serving.
Might as well slap a 20% Reduced Fat label on the regular bag. That 40% claim should be illegal because there is a difference between claiming “Less Fat” versus “Reduced Fat”. They reduced 25% fat from their product not 40% as they claim. The word “Reduced” is misleading.
I consider low fat, reduced and low cal as a warning label. Do not buy!
Why are you looking at calories? It says 40% less fat.
According to the label the fat is 9/12 or a 25% reduction in fat. Granted, that’s not 40%, but it is closer to the claim.
What’s also interesting is while the “lean” chips have 20 fewer calories, they have 30 more calories from fat. That means they have 10 more calories from something else.
Many consumers still adhear to the previous “fat is bad” fad, hence the product.
Serves me right for not doing the math as I eat these all the time. I did notice the disclaimer about them being4$0% less than the “leading brand” so I did kind of have a heads up that it wasn’t going to be 40% less than regular Cape Cod potato chips. Actually, I find the full fat ones too greasy and prefer the reduced fat ones. I suppose now I’ll have to eat a few less. Speaking of Cape Cod Potato Chips, is it me or do the bag sizes keep shrinking? Now the “regular” size is only 8 ounces. It’s feeling smaller and smaller. Has it shrunk recently? When I was in the market the other day I noticed different sizes for different varieties (like sea salt was 8.5 ounces).
And that is why we shouldn’t listen MrConsumer all the time.
I agree that the fat reduction comparison between reduced fat Cape Cod and the “leading brand” is a little deceptive, although this seems to be the standard practice. But as for your assumption that a 40% reduction in fat would translate into a 40% reduction in calories…why would you even think that? “Reduced fat” means reduced fat, nothing more.
I’m a potato chip addict and I tried a lot of reduced fat chips. The taste is NOT the same as the regular chips. Lays, and Kettle low fat chips taste different so expect the same from these low fat chips. I went back to the original.
@Gregg:
6 more chips don’t make the difference. Serving size for both is one bag, and both bags have 42g. All that means is that the reduced fat ones are smaller. Sit on the bag, and you could claim you get 400 chips for the 200 calories 🙂
I think it is okay for them to say 40% LESS fat than the leading brand. Saying 40% REDUCED fat is a lie. They didn’t reduce fat by 40% because the leading brand and their brand are not the same.
Also, 40% less fat does not mean 40% fewer calories.
Re: Gregg: There are 6 more chips per serving, but the mass is the same. In the end the difference is only psychological.
This article seems strangely incomplete without a comparison of “the leading brand” of chips. I’ll take a guess here (like Edgar) and say that “the leading brand” is Lay’s. Come on, MrConsumer, show us the nutrition facts label for an equivalent size bag of Lay’s regular chips. The Cape Cod bag clearly states that the 40% fat reduction is in comparison to “the leading brand”, and yet, you neglect to include those figures in your report. What if the reduced-fat Cape Cod chips are actually 40% less fat than Lay’s? That would make the claim truthful, wouldn’t it? And it makes this report seem rather deceitful.
Edgar replies: You are absolutely correct. MrConsumer did do a comparison to Lay’s and erroneously omitted the statement from the above story that their claim is true. The picture of their label, however, was deliberately omitted because they do not have a 1.5 ounce bag to use as a direct comparison to the Cape Cod products. Their nutrition label is in terms of a one ounce serving, rather than the 1.5 ounce serving in the Cape Cod brand. The Lay’s bag says it has 10 grams of fat per serving, while the Cape Cod bag says 9 grams per serving. Huh? Since the Cape Cod reduced fat bag is 1.5 ounces, you have to reduce the numbers on its nutrition label by a third to make the serving sizes equivalent, and that brings the fat content down to 6 grams. Then, indeed one can see that 6 grams is 40% less than 10 grams. It took way too much explanation to include this, but the conclusion should have been stated.
I’ve found that “oven baked” chips are legitimately much lower in fat. The primary fat source in chips is the oil they soak up.
I also find it interesting that the sugar level went from less than 1g to =1g…so are they now adding sugars to compensate for less fat (a common ploy)? I’d rather have the fat since the body seems to have more trouble metabolizing it than sugar.
I’m a big fan of buttermilk, so I notice that *all* buttermilk from every single manufacturer I can find is “reduced fat” and claims X% less fat than regular buttermilk. Can somebody find this mythical regular buttermilk anywhere?
@BZ:
There is, no doubt, an FDA specification on the amount of fat that is required to be in ‘regular’ buttermilk so that it can be called regular buttermilk. So, if a manufacturer of buttermilk then produces buttermilk with less than than required amount, they can claim a “reduced fat” product.
Looking at this from another prospective, if a 3 oz bag contains 50 chips and a 1.5 oz contains 25 chips, can we say that the smaller bag has 50% less fat than the larger bag?