We can't even measure calories accurately, never mind predicting how much your specific body will actually absorb. Maybe we could be more accurate with vitamins and stuff, but I dunno.

For highly processed foods, I agree.

But for relatively unprocessed foods, seems completely reasonable to me at first glance. The relative sugar content of, say, an apple, is dependent on all sorts of parameters (sun, water, soil...). The gluten content of wheat, iron content of vegetables, all of these things are variable. The more "natural" a food is, the higher the variability (as opposed to, say, artificial candy

that should be pretty uniform).

Why doesn’t the FDA require companies to put a range instead of an exact number then?

Moat likely it is either breading or fillers that means there is less chicken than you would expect.

What is the serving size?
Without knowing that, it's impossible to make a judgment about how "high" the protein is.

You'd be better off with falafel bites at that rate

hen you look and see it’s 9 grams…

Like, how do you make chicken bites have only 9 grams of protein??

It's not actual chicken, that's how.

Somehow "8 or 12" sounds a lot better than "20% variance"

Well, that's kinda besides the point right? The composition of "natural" food has huge variation. There is no "nutritional content of a banana." There's the nutritional content of this banana, of that banana, of an unripe banana, of a ripe banana, of an overripe banana...but these can be hugely different. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8266066/

Yea I love when my food rots 3 days after I purchase it.