3,543
edits
Line 232: | Line 232: | ||
The first step to categorise each product into each of the groups. The group that has nutritional values per 100g will left as it is, so we need to concentrate only on the two other groups. | The first step to categorise each product into each of the groups. The group that has nutritional values per 100g will left as it is, so we need to concentrate only on the two other groups. | ||
==== Volumetric serving ==== | ==== Volumetric serving group ==== | ||
The ''per volumetric serving | The ''per volumetric serving'' group is the easiest. Any product that has a US style nutritional table falls in this group. Unfortunately this is not registered, so we need to find a proxy for this table. | ||
We could use the serving size field for this: if it contains ml, it | We could use the serving size field for this: if it contains 15 ml, it is probably taken from a per serving nutritional table. I have seen exceptions however. Unfortuately the web-interface does not allow me to search on that. | ||
A better proxy is the existence of the transfat field. If there is data in that field, it is most likely a US or Canadian style nutritional table. Again this not a guarantee as other countries mark transfat as well. This results in 724 products. However some 60 products of this transfat sample have fat percentages around 100%, so we have false positives. We can add a fat limit of 94%, i.e. any product that has fat percentage less than 94%. This results in 629 products. | A better proxy is the existence of the transfat field. If there is data in that field, it is most likely a US or Canadian style nutritional table. Again this not a guarantee as other countries mark transfat as well. This results in 724 products. However some 60 products of this transfat sample have fat percentages around 100%, so we have false positives. We can add a fat limit of 94%, i.e. any product that has fat percentage less than 94%. This results in 629 products. |
edits