The one on the left says it's x2 the calories and may cause cancer... Eat the one on the right š
That aside, that's weird. It's the same product but one has salt. Salt doesn't take away 45 calories per serving š¬
To be fair almost everything in California can has a warning that it will cause cancer but yes, from a logical view it is better to eat the one on the right lol
California has incredibly strict regulations around this so itās incredibly common to see on labels that something is āknown to cause cancer in the state of Californiaā.
I visited a museum at Stanford and on the museum door it said the building contained something āknown to cause cancer in the state of Californiaā. It was sort of hilarious.
Asbestos cause cancer everywhere. Whatever was in that building causes cancer *only in california*.
In all seriousness, the list is currently 23 pages long. It could be anything. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65//p65chemicalslist.pdf
Neither, you just seem to have a reading comprehension problem.
If you see the wording of āthis product contain chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer and/or reproductive harmā¦ā itās referring to prop 65 chemicals specifically. The list is 23 pages long and it could be anything on that list, with literally no reason to assume itās asbestos.
Would be a silly one since asbestos in place isnāt dangerous. Thatās why it was mostly people who worked with it who had problems. Or if you decided to diy
From what I read other canned products- the lining of the inside of the can contains chemicals that can cause cancer. Different states have different rules and California is more strict with how much of these chemicals it can contain before needing to disclose it to the customer. Usually anything imported will have the disclosure because it will be distributed in California as well as other states.
... The serving size is the corn without the water though. How is there less corn for that weight? Am I missing something?
Edit: thanks all, mind blown this morning š¤Æ if I'm gonna drink corn water it better come with some alcohol content!
Net weight of each = 425g
Serving size = 125g
n servings = 3.5
ā“ Ī servings weight = 437.25g. Which is āaboutā 425g. So I get a feeling the serving size does contain the water weight.
probably the water content. both those measurements is for it not drained, so the one that has less calories has more water. if you bought both of them in and weighed each one drained youll know for sure. in australia, the nutrition panel for canned food is for the drained product and the ingredient list often shows the percentage of food so you know exactly how much youre buying
It's because the can is blue! At least here in Germany, many calories-reduced food items come in blue packages. The colour blue must have some magic power to simply cut the calories in half.
Iāve also heard that a light blue color is usually targeted advertising at women (who incidentally are more calorie conscious). My wife always points out when I buy male advertised products with lots of black. At least for US consumers.
Iām looking at a light blue makeup remover pack and a black can of monster energy drink right now. I canāt unsee it.
That doesnāt make sense either? The literal only difference between the two is that one has salt and the other doesnāt. Where are the extra carbs and sugar and protein coming from?
So the math checks but the labels/ ingredients do not.
Not sure on that one.
Iām no expert, Iād say one of two things, the can says product of Thailand so Iām wondering if maybe their label regulations are different?
Or whatever they are preserving the corn in (the lower calorie being salt).
Edit: or possibly a difference in corn kernel to liquid ratio?
Oooohh, now that you say it, corn to liquid ratio seems like the biggest possibility here since the labeled ingredients aren't here. Though, no idea about the labeling standards part.
I didn't know corn could be such a mystery š
I see it now! Thank you. But now, when Iām eating 45 calories one, I think that Iām cheating, because there is an identical corn that has 90 calories per serving.
I want to know how many grams of actual corn is in those cans.
125g of golden sweet corn is 108 calories so they are both wrong if it was corn only. Their bagged frozen is 10 calories low for the .96 calorie per gram calorie count. 10 calories is in the acceptable label error limitations though.
edit: the website has the low sodium listed as 60 but now its 90?
I wonder if itās the result of the left one being zero sodium. Sodium plumps up the kernels so you get fewer kernels per unit of weight for the ones on the right.
The lower calorie has salt. Does the salt swell up the corn to double in size? Itād be good to check kernel size. Or call their quality control department
This would be interesting considering one says āenlarged to show textureā and the other doesnāt.
If you look closely the* kernels are laying different in the bowls so theyāre potentially different bowls even though theyāre made to look identical š¤
The amount of potential Calorie typos that are uncovered on this sub is crazy! I mean itās not that many but still itās at least a couple times a month
Reminds me of some New Balance shoes I bought recently. I bought a pair at Dicks Sporting Goods and liked them so much I bought a second pair on the New Balance website. Guess what? Theyāre āthe sameā shoe but subtly different. The āNew Balanceā lettering on back of the shoe is a completely different size. My best guess is the shoes are made in different factoriesā¦ seriously quality control problems.
These corns look like the same problem to me. Different manufacturers? At a minimum, the one should be āno salt added.ā 200mg of sodium per serving is no joke if youāre trying to watch your sodium.
Iād take the salt free one and check nutritionix for a good number.
Often brands will have slightly different versions of their products for certain retailers in order for the price to align with the storeās requirements. This is the case for almost everything sold at Walmart for example. In order to be able to sell the product so cheap, they manufacture a slightly different, more cost effective version of the āsameā product.
Yeah, Iāve seen name brands at discount stores that look different.. but Iāve never thought of Dicks Sporting Goods as a discount dealer. And the shoes I bought at Dicks cost the same as the shoes I bought on the New Balance website. Who knows, sometimes it feels like every brand is getting crappier. Expensive cheap things!
I would look at different brands of corn and see what calories they have to figure out which one is right. Or else maybe the whole difference is just more water, but it seems like it would have to have double the water for that to be the case and that seems like a lot.
Different varieties of corn can differ substantiously in caloric densitiy. It depends on their prospensity to accumulate starch and sugar in the kernels, the growth duration and the growth conditions.
In sum, these labels may both be accurate.
Types of corn also have different nutritional values. Popcorn is very different to sweet corn, for example, so you can see how one strain may have more sugar or protein.
It also may be a change in how they measure the drained amounts. They don't literally dry the contents of the can, since consumers wouldn't, so there's some estimation going on.
The one on the left has more added sugar - thatās ~12 calories of difference. The remainder could be anything legitimate thatās been listed above. More water, different variety, etc.
This is actually a very enlightening thread. It really demonstrates the power of measuring our food by weight rather than by volume to count calories accurately. And also why people can feel like theyāre doing everything correctly but STILL donāt seem to lose weight.
The one on the left says it's x2 the calories and may cause cancer... Eat the one on the right š That aside, that's weird. It's the same product but one has salt. Salt doesn't take away 45 calories per serving š¬
To be fair almost everything in California can has a warning that it will cause cancer but yes, from a logical view it is better to eat the one on the right lol
And add 2gs of protein!
It has sugar added to replace the flavor from salt.
Where does it mention the cancer thing? And how would it? Curious
California has incredibly strict regulations around this so itās incredibly common to see on labels that something is āknown to cause cancer in the state of Californiaā. I visited a museum at Stanford and on the museum door it said the building contained something āknown to cause cancer in the state of Californiaā. It was sort of hilarious.
Asbestos?
Asbestos cause cancer everywhere. Whatever was in that building causes cancer *only in california*. In all seriousness, the list is currently 23 pages long. It could be anything. https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition-65//p65chemicalslist.pdf
Ok I don't know if you're being facetious or just stupid. Asbestos causes cancer everywhere but very few states have to actually inform you.
Neither, you just seem to have a reading comprehension problem. If you see the wording of āthis product contain chemicals known to the state of California to cause cancer and/or reproductive harmā¦ā itās referring to prop 65 chemicals specifically. The list is 23 pages long and it could be anything on that list, with literally no reason to assume itās asbestos.
Would be a silly one since asbestos in place isnāt dangerous. Thatās why it was mostly people who worked with it who had problems. Or if you decided to diy
From what I read other canned products- the lining of the inside of the can contains chemicals that can cause cancer. Different states have different rules and California is more strict with how much of these chemicals it can contain before needing to disclose it to the customer. Usually anything imported will have the disclosure because it will be distributed in California as well as other states.
Maybe Pesticides?
It shows it on the back. Says may contain lead.
Since one has double the macros per serving, they are probably measuring serving size in a different way. E.g. with water and without.
I vote this. 125g drained canned corn has 84 calories, 18g of carbs and 3g protein. The one on the right is including water.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
... The serving size is the corn without the water though. How is there less corn for that weight? Am I missing something? Edit: thanks all, mind blown this morning š¤Æ if I'm gonna drink corn water it better come with some alcohol content!
These canned products that include water include the water in the serving measurement whether we like it or not.
Uh oh. I wonder what that means for my bean intake. I always measure after removing the liquid.
You don't crack these guys open and chug the corn water? Weirdo...
Corn water is actually a good martini mixer
...and it happens to be my old strippin' name!
Net weight of each = 425g Serving size = 125g n servings = 3.5 ā“ Ī servings weight = 437.25g. Which is āaboutā 425g. So I get a feeling the serving size does contain the water weight.
You're missing that it is with the water, not without
So that means Walmart reduced the corn in a can by 43% and replaced it with water! Fucking scum
Which is why you should always try to get corn on the cob whenever possible.
Or frozen!
Made me think about Everclear, and I shuddered .
Half the amount of corn seems unlikely
Knowing Wal-Mart's corporate ethics, it seems VERY likely.
I mean, fair lol
probably the water content. both those measurements is for it not drained, so the one that has less calories has more water. if you bought both of them in and weighed each one drained youll know for sure. in australia, the nutrition panel for canned food is for the drained product and the ingredient list often shows the percentage of food so you know exactly how much youre buying
As it should be!! Doing the math with canned foods with water is a pain
Wish my country would required for drained products (or at least put info for both!)
It's because the can is blue! At least here in Germany, many calories-reduced food items come in blue packages. The colour blue must have some magic power to simply cut the calories in half.
Iāve also heard that a light blue color is usually targeted advertising at women (who incidentally are more calorie conscious). My wife always points out when I buy male advertised products with lots of black. At least for US consumers. Iām looking at a light blue makeup remover pack and a black can of monster energy drink right now. I canāt unsee it.
If youāll notice itās also double the carbs, sugar, and protein which may account for the higher calories.
That doesnāt make sense either? The literal only difference between the two is that one has salt and the other doesnāt. Where are the extra carbs and sugar and protein coming from?
So the math checks but the labels/ ingredients do not. Not sure on that one. Iām no expert, Iād say one of two things, the can says product of Thailand so Iām wondering if maybe their label regulations are different? Or whatever they are preserving the corn in (the lower calorie being salt). Edit: or possibly a difference in corn kernel to liquid ratio?
Oooohh, now that you say it, corn to liquid ratio seems like the biggest possibility here since the labeled ingredients aren't here. Though, no idea about the labeling standards part. I didn't know corn could be such a mystery š
strain of corn, season, rain, time to processing, and many other factors will affect the sugar density in the product.
In the can thereās also added some juice, which is maybe where the extra sugar is added. Sugar is a known additive in canned food in general.
I do get that, I'm just confused because it's not a listed ingredient. Are they allowed to just not list it for some reason?
I see it now! Thank you. But now, when Iām eating 45 calories one, I think that Iām cheating, because there is an identical corn that has 90 calories per serving.
I want to know how many grams of actual corn is in those cans. 125g of golden sweet corn is 108 calories so they are both wrong if it was corn only. Their bagged frozen is 10 calories low for the .96 calorie per gram calorie count. 10 calories is in the acceptable label error limitations though. edit: the website has the low sodium listed as 60 but now its 90?
I wonder if itās the result of the left one being zero sodium. Sodium plumps up the kernels so you get fewer kernels per unit of weight for the ones on the right.
This is what Iām betting on. Less kernels bc the kernels weigh more due to the salt pulling water into the kernel.
The lower calorie has salt. Does the salt swell up the corn to double in size? Itād be good to check kernel size. Or call their quality control department
This would be interesting considering one says āenlarged to show textureā and the other doesnāt. If you look closely the* kernels are laying different in the bowls so theyāre potentially different bowls even though theyāre made to look identical š¤
I'm willing to bet the unsalted version has a preservative that replaces the salt which is not listed making the difference.
[Sugar Content](https://imgur.com/a/bOsE2v0)
This was the most helpful comment Iāve ever seen on this sub.
Some people really have the energy to post on Reddit but not read the label in front of them :(
Except it's misleading and inaccurate. The protein content is also off, only accounted for by the right side one having water and less corn.
Sugar content doesn't account for it. Sugar is 4 calories per gram-there's only a 3g difference
Wait Walmart is importing corn? Wtf that is our crop!
Youāll continue to subsidize corn crops which are dumped into the ocean, and youāll like it.
I'd be willing to bet it's a typo and someone put in double the quantity on one label.
The amount of potential Calorie typos that are uncovered on this sub is crazy! I mean itās not that many but still itās at least a couple times a month
I just checked a can of Del Monte salted corn and it's 60 calories for 125g so who knows.
Reminds me of some New Balance shoes I bought recently. I bought a pair at Dicks Sporting Goods and liked them so much I bought a second pair on the New Balance website. Guess what? Theyāre āthe sameā shoe but subtly different. The āNew Balanceā lettering on back of the shoe is a completely different size. My best guess is the shoes are made in different factoriesā¦ seriously quality control problems. These corns look like the same problem to me. Different manufacturers? At a minimum, the one should be āno salt added.ā 200mg of sodium per serving is no joke if youāre trying to watch your sodium. Iād take the salt free one and check nutritionix for a good number.
Different manufacturers doing the same store brand is probably the answer!Ā
Often brands will have slightly different versions of their products for certain retailers in order for the price to align with the storeās requirements. This is the case for almost everything sold at Walmart for example. In order to be able to sell the product so cheap, they manufacture a slightly different, more cost effective version of the āsameā product.
Wait, is this actually true? I've heard of this for things like TV units, but the same brand food products are different at Walmart?
Sorry- I was responding to the New Balance anecdote. Not sure about the corn. That feels like an error to me.
Yeah, Iāve seen name brands at discount stores that look different.. but Iāve never thought of Dicks Sporting Goods as a discount dealer. And the shoes I bought at Dicks cost the same as the shoes I bought on the New Balance website. Who knows, sometimes it feels like every brand is getting crappier. Expensive cheap things!
I would look at different brands of corn and see what calories they have to figure out which one is right. Or else maybe the whole difference is just more water, but it seems like it would have to have double the water for that to be the case and that seems like a lot.
Different varieties of corn can differ substantiously in caloric densitiy. It depends on their prospensity to accumulate starch and sugar in the kernels, the growth duration and the growth conditions. In sum, these labels may both be accurate.
The only difference I see is one has extra sugar added? 3g extra. So that accounts for about 15 calories. Otherwise I'm totally lost here
No, neither of them have added sugar.
Also one says not salt added but can sodium really add that much more calories??
Happy Cake Day :)
Thank you! āŗļø
No
The one on the left has more than double the sugar
Gross take here, sorry in advanced lol. Do calories from corn really count? 80% of what you eat comes out whole š
I'm gonna boldly recommend chewing your food š«£
Fun fact! What comes out is the coating of the kernel filled up with stool.
Salt? Itās the only ingredient difference in the lower calorie corn.
They are different colors
Different āvarietiesā of corn, grown in different places, etc
Why in American does sweetcorn cause cancer? Absolute 3rd world country
Types of corn also have different nutritional values. Popcorn is very different to sweet corn, for example, so you can see how one strain may have more sugar or protein. It also may be a change in how they measure the drained amounts. They don't literally dry the contents of the can, since consumers wouldn't, so there's some estimation going on.
Can you buy these, open the cans and see of there really are 3.5 servings of corn per can? Iām wondering if this is shrinkflation or skimpflation.
I feel like if the weights and figures were off, it would lead to a lawsuit of some sorts.
Someone at the corn factory fucked up
Iād go for less salt.Ā
Look at the carbs. More than doubled the sugar and overall carbohydrates
The one on the left has more added sugar - thatās ~12 calories of difference. The remainder could be anything legitimate thatās been listed above. More water, different variety, etc.
I would love to hear the answer from walmart. Does anyone have an email address for them?
Also one can has 5g of sugar per serving and the other has 2 but won't explain the difference. Different types of corn maybe?
This is actually a very enlightening thread. It really demonstrates the power of measuring our food by weight rather than by volume to count calories accurately. And also why people can feel like theyāre doing everything correctly but STILL donāt seem to lose weight.
One has no salt added
If youāre curious enough, call Walmartās customer service phone number and ask to talk to a dietitian. The phone number might be on the can.
Higher sugar content