Reformulations, quiet recipe revisions and data corrections, caught by re-photographing labels and comparing them against supplier data. Updated monthly with the shelf.
Current jars across the classic Bega range print 85% roasted peanuts and antioxidant 307b (a vitamin E form), while supplier data feeds still list 86% and antioxidant 320 (BHA, synthetic). The label is the newer record: a quiet recipe revision, caught by comparing the pack photograph against the feeds. We publish the label. See the product page →
The printed Mayver’s labels show a monounsaturated/polyunsaturated split of 38.4 / 4.1 g per 100 g, the signature of hi-oleic peanuts, alongside 2430 kJ energy. Retailer feeds still carry the old fat profile (24 / 15.5 g) on several lines, while a public database carried the old energy figure. Each source was half-right; the jars settled both halves. See the product page →
A supplier feed served byte-identical nutrition panels for a smooth and a crunchy own-brand 500 g jar. The printed labels differ: 2530 vs 2570 kJ per 100 g. Small numbers, but it’s exactly the kind of silent data error that spreads through every site that republishes feeds unchecked.
Four own-brand peanut butters sold only through a discount supermarket now have full verified entries, including a hi-oleic pair pressing 99% peanuts with a 5-star health rating. Their printed panels were read from high-resolution label images and cross-checked against an independent public database, matching field for field. See the product page →
The same 755 g jars appear at two chains. One chain’s supplier-provided panel image still prints the earlier declaration: 86% peanuts, antioxidant 320. The jar photographed on the other chain’s shelf reads 85%, antioxidant 307b. The nutrition numbers themselves are unchanged between print runs, and both reads agree on every one of them. Supplier imagery can trail the physical pack, which is why a marketing image never overrides a shelf photograph here. See the product page →
Across the category, 12 individual values currently disagree between the pack label and supplier data, mostly outdated fat breakdowns. Each product affected carries an “under review” marker on the exact value in question, and nothing is published for that value until it resolves. That’s the deal: no number without a status.