Rice: brown with tomatoes vs white with tomatoes USDA FDC 2709051 vs 2709009
Per 100 g, brown with tomatoes reports 2.4 g total fat, while white with tomatoes reports 0.3 g total fat.
The comparison uses two cited USDA records. Their complete source names, household portions, nutrient values, and FoodData Central links remain visible below.
Record A · FDC 2709051
Rice, brown, with tomatoes and/or tomato based sauce, fat added
Check this record in FoodData Central ↗Record B · FDC 2709009
Rice, white, with tomatoes and/or tomato-based sauce, no added fat
Check this record in FoodData Central ↗Highlighted difference
Total fat at the same 100-gram weight
Bar length shows the two cited values on one shared denominator. It does not rank either food or establish why they differ.
-
2.4 g -
0.3 g
Shared basis: 100 g · g
Equal-weight evidence
Nutrition per 100 grams
Both columns use the same mass, which compares nutrient concentration without allowing the two representative source amounts to change the denominator. “A +” or “B +” reports the arithmetic difference between the cited values; it is not a quality score.
On smaller screens, focus a comparison table and scroll horizontally to read every column.
| Nutrient | A · Rice, brown, with tomatoes and/or tomato… | B · Rice, white, with tomatoes and/… | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Calories | 105 kcal | 91 kcal | A +14 kcal |
| Protein | 2.1 g | 2 g | A +0.1 g |
| Total fatMaterial difference | 2.4 g | 0.3 g | A +2.1 g |
| Carbohydrate | 18.8 g | 19.8 g | B +1 g |
| Dietary fiber | 1.7 g | 0.9 g | A +0.8 g |
| Total sugars | 0.9 g | 0.9 g | Same reported value |
| Sodium | 174 mg | 201 mg | B +27 mg |
| Saturated fat | 0.4 g | 0.1 g | A +0.4 g |
| Potassium | 114 mg | 87 mg | A +27 mg |
| Calcium | 12 mg | 18 mg | B +6 mg |
| Iron | 0.6 mg | 1 mg | B +0.4 mg |
Values come from the two cited USDA FoodData Central Survey Foods records. Feast does not average records, impute missing values, or infer a nutrient from the food name.
Read the table by question
Every material primary-nutrient difference on this page is numerically higher in A (1 of 1).
These answers describe concentration per 100 grams. “More” and “less” identify the arithmetic direction only; they do not decide which record is a better match or which food is better for a person.
Which reports fewer calories?
Record B
Record B reports 91 kcal, compared with 105 kcal in the other record—a difference of 14 kcal.
Which reports more protein?
Record A
Record A reports 2.1 g, compared with 2 g in the other record—a difference of 0.1 g.
Which reports more fiber?
Record A
Record A reports 1.7 g, compared with 0.9 g in the other record—a difference of 0.8 g.
Which reports less sodium?
Record A
Record A reports 174 mg, compared with 201 mg in the other record—a difference of 27 mg.
What differs in the source descriptions
The exact names carry information the numbers cannot.
USDA assigns both records to “Rice mixed dishes,” but the topic label is broad. Record A is “Rice, brown, with tomatoes and/or tomato based sauce, fat added.” Record B is “Rice, white, with tomatoes and/or tomato-based sauce, no added fat.” Feast paired them because their contrast-neutral food identities are closely related (83% token overlap after controlled modifiers are set aside), not merely because they share a generic category.
The controlled name parser found 1 interpretable distinction. These labels organize wording already present in the names; they do not establish that a distinction caused a nutrient difference.
| Description dimension | Record A | Record B |
|---|---|---|
| Added-fat wording | added fat | no added fat |
Even a clean name contrast can carry hidden companions. A fried record may also include coating; a restaurant record can use a different recipe; a reduced-sodium description can differ in more than salt; and a source amount can reflect a different reporting convention. That is why this page reports the complete pair rather than treating one word as an intervention.
Portion context
A representative source amount is not a shared “serving.”
Record A uses USDA reference amount at 182 g. Record B uses USDA reference amount at 154 g. Those labels and gram weights come from their respective records. They are useful for scaling the chosen profile, but they are not recommendations and need not describe equal amounts.
The representative amounts do not cross Feast’s material portion-difference threshold of both 15 grams and 20%. They are still separate source measures, so the 100-gram table remains the appropriate place for an equal-weight comparison.
A cup, piece, slice, sandwich, fillet, or fluid ounce can have different gram weights across records. A matching label is not enough: check the listed grams. If accuracy matters more than convenience, weighing the food or using a current package label can be more specific than a generic survey-food measure.
Record A measures
- 1 cup243 g
- USDA reference amount182 g
Record B measures
- 1 cup206 g
- USDA reference amount154 g
One shared household label
1 cup: 243 g in A vs 206 g in B
The household label matches, but the source gram weights differ. These values scale each record by its own listed grams; they are practical portion context, not an equal-mass comparison.
| Nutrient | A · 243 g | B · 206 g |
|---|---|---|
| Calories | 255 kcal | 187 kcal |
| Protein | 5.2 g | 4.2 g |
| Dietary fiber | 4.1 g | 1.9 g |
| Sodium | 423 mg | 414 mg |
USDA source formulation evidence
The listed inputs provide another way to audit the match.
FNDDS includes input-food rows behind each standardized survey-food record. Record A’s leading listed inputs include Rice, brown, long-grain, cooked (Includes foods for USDA's Food Distribution Program), Tomatoes, red, ripe, canned, packed in tomato juice, Vegetable oil, NFS, Salt, table. Record B’s include Rice, white, long-grain, regular, enriched, cooked, Tomatoes, red, ripe, canned, packed in tomato juice, Salt, table. Ingredient-code overlap is 40%, and normalized listed-input-weight variation is 71%.
Record A · 4 coded inputs
Rice, brown, with tomatoes and/or tomato based sauce, fat…
- Rice, brown, long-grain, cooked (Includes foods for USDA's Food Distribution Program)Ingredient code 20037 · open source index69.5% of listed input weight
- Tomatoes, red, ripe, canned, packed in tomato juiceIngredient code 11531 · open source index28.5% of listed input weight
- Vegetable oil, NFSIngredient code 82101000 · open source index1.7% of listed input weight
- Salt, tableIngredient code 2047 · open source index0.4% of listed input weight
Record B · 3 coded inputs
Rice, white, with tomatoes and/or tomato-based sauce, no…
- Rice, white, long-grain, regular, enriched, cookedIngredient code 20045 · open source index66.1% of listed input weight
- Tomatoes, red, ripe, canned, packed in tomato juiceIngredient code 11531 · open source index33.5% of listed input weight
- Salt, tableIngredient code 2047 · open source index0.4% of listed input weight
2 shared coded inputs
The largest shared entries include Tomatoes, red, ripe, canned, packed in tomato juice, Salt, table. Shared codes can still carry different listed weights.
2 A-only and 1 B-only coded inputs
A-only entries include Rice, brown, long-grain, cooked (Includes foods for USDA's Food Distribution Program), Vegetable oil, NFS. B-only entries include Rice, white, long-grain, regular, enriched, cooked.
Important: repeated rows carrying the same ingredient code are combined before the shares and overlap are calculated. These weights belong to USDA’s source formulation: they are not a reconstructed plate, final cooked yield, visitor serving, ingredient declaration, or estimate of what is visible in a photo. USDA’s FNDDS documentation explains that these calculation recipes can represent multiple variants, may include retention or moisture adjustments, and are not product-label ingredient lists.
- NFS means “not further specified.” The record intentionally leaves the exact subtype, size, or preparation unresolved.
Choosing the closer record
Match context first; scale second.
- 01
Read both names literally
Compare cooking method, coating, edible skin or peel, sauce, additions, venue, source form, and food subtype. For this pair, the full A and B descriptions above are the evidence—not shortened search labels.
- 02
Use listed inputs as a check
If the name still leaves ambiguity, compare the leading and unique source inputs. They can reveal that two near names refer to meaningfully different standardized formulations, but they do not reconstruct your dish.
- 03
Choose an amount for that record
After choosing A or B, use its own named measure and gram weight. Do not transfer a cup, slice, or “typical amount” from the other record as if the measures were interchangeable.
- 04
Account for missing details
Brand, current restaurant recipe, cooking oil, drained weight, toppings, substitutions, and unfinished portions may not be captured. A label or weighed recipe can supersede a generic reference when it better matches the actual food.
Limits and responsible interpretation
This is a comparison of records, not a causal study.
The two records come from 2021–2023 FoodData Central Survey Foods data. The nutrient table faithfully compares their published values on the same weight basis. It does not measure two plates prepared at the same time, isolate one ingredient, or estimate the uncertainty around either value.
For this pair, the source names differ across 1 documented description dimension, while the listed formulations show 40% ingredient-code overlap and 71% normalized listed-weight variation. Moisture, ingredient proportions, preparation, and record construction can therefore move together. The page can describe the combined record difference; it cannot isolate the effect of one word.
A higher or lower number is not an overall verdict. Protein, fiber, sodium, energy, fat, micronutrients, preferences, allergies, budget, portion, and an individual’s goals answer different questions. Feast therefore reports directions and magnitudes without applying a universal “healthier” label.
This page is educational and does not diagnose a condition, prescribe a target, or replace advice from a qualified professional. For an allergy, medically directed diet, or strict ingredient limit, use verified ingredient information and guidance appropriate to that situation.
How this page qualified
A page is published only when the pair clears materiality and diversity gates.
Both records must occupy the same USDA survey-food topic and share a close food identity after a controlled vocabulary separates preparation, edible-part, source, claim, crust, and sauce wording. Exact contrast-neutral identities receive priority. Close ingredient or form substitutions can qualify when name overlap remains high and the numerical evidence is material.
For primary nutrients, Feast requires both an absolute and relative difference: at least 20 kcal and 12% for energy; 2 g and 18% for protein or fat; 5 g and 15% for carbohydrate; 1 g and 20% for fiber; 4 g and 20% for sugars; or 100 mg and 20% for sodium. A focused one-nutrient pair also needs a material representative-amount or formulation distinction. Rounding-only pairs are not published.
Unordered FDC IDs define a canonical pair, so reversing A and B cannot create another page. Each source record can appear twice at most, each USDA topic contributes no more than 40 pages, and closely repeated identity families are capped. Those rules produced a selective comparison library rather than every mathematical combination in the corpus.
Read the complete nutrition-page methodology for import, nutrient mapping, portion scaling, Daily Value, and uncertainty rules.
Decision support from the exact records on this page
Turn source data into a better next decision
These conclusions and reading paths are computed from 2 exact records behind Rice, brown, with tomatoes and/or tomato based sauce, fat added versus Rice, white, with tomatoes and/or tomato-based sauce, no added fat. Links are chosen by record identity, controlled contrast, formulation input, nutrient spread, or serving context—not by loose keyword similarity.
Equal-weight result
Rice, brown, with tomatoes and/or tomato based sauce, fat added is higher in total fat per 100 g
Rice, brown, with tomatoes and/or tomato based sauce, fat added reports 2.4 g versus 0.3 g for Rice, white, with tomatoes and/or tomato-based sauce, no added fat: a 2.1 g difference when both are normalized to 100 g.
Inspect the underlying evidenceThe denominator changes the answer
Rice, white, with tomatoes and/or tomato-based sauce, no added fat is denser; Rice, brown, with tomatoes and/or tomato based sauce, fat added is higher in its source amount
Rice, white, with tomatoes and/or tomato-based sauce, no added fat reports 201 mg per 100 g and 310 mg in USDA source amount (154 g). Rice, brown, with tomatoes and/or tomato based sauce, fat added reports a lower 174 mg per 100 g but a higher 317 mg in USDA source amount (182 g).
Record identity is part of the estimate
Distinguish “Rice, brown, with tomatoes and/or tomato based sauce, fat added” from “Rice, white, with tomatoes and/or tomato-based sauce, no added fat”
These are separate USDA records with separate formulations or survey descriptions. Match preparation, additions, and the named household amount before borrowing either record’s nutrients.
Inspect the underlying evidenceContextual knowledge graph
Follow the relationship that matches your question
For Rice, brown, with tomatoes and/or tomato based sauce, fat added versus Rice, white, with tomatoes and/or tomato-based sauce, no added fat, each path states why the destination belongs here, so you can distinguish a true evidentiary connection from a merely similar label.
Rice, brown, with tomatoes and/or tomato based sauce, fat added is explicitly linked in this guide, which separates direct name matches from contextual variants.
Follow this evidence path Best next guide for this exact record Rice, whiteRice, white, with tomatoes and/or tomato-based sauce, no added fat is explicitly linked in this guide, which separates direct name matches from contextual variants.
Follow this evidence path A formulation detail that separates records Rice, brown, long-grain, cooked (Includes foods for USDA's Food Distribution Program)USDA input 20037 appears in 1 of 2 context records; its summed listed input weight spans 195–195 g across those source formulations. These are source-formulation input weights, not plated or serving weights. Follow the code to inspect every represented occurrence.
Follow this evidence path A formulation detail that separates records Rice, white, long-grain, regular, enriched, cookedUSDA input 20045 appears in 1 of 2 context records; its summed listed input weight spans 158–158 g across those source formulations. These are source-formulation input weights, not plated or serving weights. Follow the code to inspect every represented occurrence.
Follow this evidence path Test a nearby record choice Rice, white, with carrots and tomatoes and/or tomato-based sauce, fat added vs Rice, white, with tomatoes and/or tomato-based sauce, no added fatRice, white, with tomatoes and/or tomato-based sauce, no added fat is held as one side of the comparison. The explicit record-description contrast is Added-fat wording: added fat versus no added fat; it is a selection cue, not evidence of cause.
Follow this evidence path 2 context records in this source topic Rice mixed dishesRice, brown, with tomatoes and/or tomato based sauce, fat added and Rice, white, with tomatoes and/or tomato-based sauce, no added fat belong to this USDA source-category collection. Its displayed ranges and complete exact-record catalog provide the peer set for a manual comparison; the destination does not preselect this page’s record.
Follow this evidence path Put the observed spread in corpus context Dietary fiber: density and serving contextIn this page’s records, dietary fiber runs from 0.9 g in Rice, white, with tomatoes and/or tomato-based sauce, no added fat to 1.7 g in Rice, brown, with tomatoes and/or tomato based sauce, fat added, all per 100 g.
Follow this evidence path