Don't rely on Nutritional Info from CRDB
I have been using Cronometer for a while and have never questioned the nutritional results. This morning I scanned a can of "KirklandSignature, Wild Alaskan Pink Salmon, Boneless & Skinless." It uses the CRDB for that item. I looked at the Vitamins and Minerals and it seemed like very few were present even though it says "15 listed nutrients" on Cronometer. Hardly any vitamins, and only a couple of minerals. I found this hard to believe and plugged in "Salmon, King or Chinook, raw, Alaska Native" and it comes back with 76 listed Nutrients from the NCCDB. It has tons of vitamins, minerals. I would assume the NCCDB is accurate.
I am stunned and a little angry by the difference. I never knew how much of a difference there is between the two databases. Now that I think of it, it makes sense, since, I believe the CRDB comes from users entering the info and nobody (including myself) can enter all of the Nutrients. Not knowing that, I have always trusted the total end-of-the-day nutritional information and have taken supplements to meet my vitamin and mineral targets. WOW, WOW, WOW.
Macros are probably accurate, however, when it comes to Vitamins and minerals, I will try to stay away from the CRDB items. If it is a bag of mixed frozen veggies that I scanned, I will question, nutritional content for all of the CRDB items.
This is quite disheartening, however, it is good to know.