Unhealthy cookies?

Sydsvenskan reports that cookies contain more fat than noted on the package, up to 20% more fat than it says on the box.
http://sydsvenskan.se/kropp/article315351.ece



Now, in the line of critical information processing, let's look at this piece of news.

First of all, one should be careful when drawing quick conclusions based on facts given in %. The cookie contains 20% more fat than noted on the package. It can easily be perceived that the cookie contains 43% fat instead of the 23% fat that Göteborgs kex reports that Ballerina cookies contain. Which is not true. For simplicity. Say the cookie weighs 100 g. On the package it lets you now that the cookie contain 23% fat, i.e. 23 g of the cookie is fat. 20% more than that is 4.6 g more fat, so in total 27.6 % fat, not 43 % fat. I'm sure it's all obvious when thinking about it, but reporting percentages is an easy way to lure someone to think there is an extreme discrepancy in reported vs. actual fat-content.

It is also interesting that Sydsvenskan shows that Livsmedelsverket has reported the Ballerina cookies containing 20% more fat than on the package, whereas DN (http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=3130&a=759992&rss=145) shows that Livsmedelsverket has reported that Ballerina cookies contain 31% more fat than on the package. So one really has to go to the source on this one, what did Livsmedelsverket really report? Actually, Livsmedelsverket reports that the declaration on the Ballerina box is 23 g fat, and the real content is 30.2 g fat, which means 31 % more fat in product compared to noted on box. So, where did the percentage 20 % that Sydsvenskan reports come from?

Now, as important as it might be for food to have a clear declaration of contents, I don't really think this discrepancy (20 or 31 %) is of any significance to the public. If Göteborgs kex had neglected to report that they put in pig's feet, or perhaps something people might be allergic to, like nuts or lactose, then it would have had a greater significance. If they write on their cookie boxes that the cookies contain 23 % fat, instead of 27,6 % fat (or 23 instead of 30.2 %) does it reallymatter? Who eats cookies when trying to reduce fat-intake? Upon guessing how much fat there is in a Ballerina cookie before you eat it, would you be right on 27.6 % fat (or 23 %)? I could just as well have guessed 50%, and still eaten the cookie. So has anything really changed? Is Göteborgs kex at great faulty?

And also, this is a good example of source critisism, and how much you need to use it. If the discrepancy between DN and Sydsvenskan can be several %-units when reporting something they have picked up from the exact same source (i.e. Livsmedelsverket), what else do they diverge in when reporting? Isn't that perhaps what's really interesting in this story?