I noticed that the nutrition label for all porkrinds that I've seen have 8gm protein per serving, but next to it it also says "not a significant source of protein". How in the world is 8gm PER SERVING not a significant source? That would be like if someone said milk was not a significant source of protein.....?

Whats the deal here?

mods......any idea? I can't believe this hasnt come up before as common as porkrinds are to many LC diets.

Excellent question.

This is so strange but I was just eating Pork Rinds today and noticed that they list 8grms of Protein as not a significant source of protein!!! Too strange I've been eating them for years! I was like that's a big hunk of protein for me. Perhaps they are listing that as tho folks were thinking they were atual "pork rinds" not the puffed up version but even real pork rinds wouldn't have more than 8 .....it might be a typo on the amoutn of protein?? BTW....I love them with whipped cream cheese and a sprinkle of 4 seasons dressing packets. I am so happy to see them in most super markets now. 5 years ago I had to order them from the company! Someone should come up with more no carb snax that are put on the shelves next to the pork rinds?!?

Maybe US labeling requires the protein be a certain percentage before it's a good source of protein. I don't know ... just a guess.

I was wondering the same thing... My kids were eating LF Pringles the other day, so I compared the nutrition labels and guess what - the pork rinds have less fat and more protein than the pringles. One of my kids likes them, so I think that's the way to go. I also found a bargain on them at my local Job Lot - .99 a bag instead of the 1.79 to 2.29 that I had been paying so I bought a case of 12. Think I'll go back for a few more cases.

Yes, that's exactly right.

I believe that if one serving of a food provides less than 20% of the DRV (Daily Reference Value) -- which for protein would be 10 - 12g -- then the label may state that it's not a significant source.


Doreen