Unrealistic nutritional information

I just started using OpenFoodFacts (using the Android app from F-Droid). This is great, thanks.
I have a question about the database info: is there some sanity-checks and/or quality-checks used to highlight potentially wrong information that would deserve further investigation or review or something?

This question was triggered by Pantagruel - - 200 g which says the product has 33g of carbohydrates of which 29g of sugar and 11g of fiber. I thought sugar and fiber were mutually exclusive, so 29g of sugar and 11g of fiber would imply a minimum of 40g of carbohydrates.

Mind you, this is “correct” in the sense that it is indeed what is written on the packaging.
And of course, maybe the error is simply in my assumption that sugar and fiber are mutually exclusive.

AFAIK fibers are not carbohydrates, but the packaging on that item suggests otherwise.

There are checks done, for example sugars should be less or equal to carbohydrates, but fibers are not part of that check.

Hmm… interesting.
Here in Canada, I believe “fibers” is always listed under “Carbohydrates” in the nutritional info (occasionally (rarely) split into soluble and nonsoluble varieties), as can be seen in the photo of the nutrition facts for that chocolate tablet

[ although it’s produced in Portugal and the OFF page says it’s sold in France, this nutrition facts photo looks very Canadian, hiding the underlying Euro-version of the info :slight_smile: ]

IIUC fibers are defined as “nondigestible carbohydrates”, so I guess according to the chemical view they are “carbohydrates” but maybe from a nutritional point of view they should not be counted as such?

That’s a difference between Europe and Canada / the US: in EU, fibers are not counted in carbohydrates.
In practice, we record the info that is printed on the package.