Although food labels provide a significant amount of information that can help us compare the nutrient composition of different products, there is one part of these labels I pay absolutely no attention to -- and I suggest you do the same.
The "waste of space" culprit? "Calories from fat."
Not only is that figure useless, it also ends up confusing most consumers.
The only thing "calories from fat" tells you is how many of a given product's total calories per serving come from fat. Why does that matter?
This, by the way, is no secret formula. You can determine that yourself simply by multiplying the fat grams on a food label by 9 (remember, there are 9 calories in one gram of fat).
Similarly, to estimate the amount of calories from protein, multiply the grams of protein in a serving of a given product by 4.
My main issue with "calories from fat" is that it is clearly a remnant from the early 1990s "low-fat" craze.
Allow me to illustrate the inefficacy of "calories from fat."
A two-tablespoon serving of peanut butter, for example, contains 200 calories, of which 140 are from fat.
A bag of Skittles from a vending machine packs in 250 calories, of which 22.5 are from fat.
Do you see, then, how "calories from fat" is absolutely meaningless?
I say it's time to revise the food label. Drop 'calories from fat', differentiate between naturally-occurring and "added" sugars, and substitute Vitamin A (a mandatory micronutrient on food labels practically no one is deficient in) with a nutrient people should be more aware of, like potassium.