In Europe (or at least in France), it’s mandatory to put the nutritionnal informations per 100g. It avoids that kind of stupid things
The downside there is that if it’s, like, Marmite, you’ll never ever eat 100g in one sitting. So, you have to do a bunch of math to figure out how much salt is in the actual smear you’re using.
We do have both on packages, per 100g and per serving, but we don’t have anything wich is a nanogram per serving containing a couple billion servings in a bottle unless it’s anti matter
Its at least more accurate than the maths of trying to multiply by the purported zero on a can of avocado oil.
Yes. They should require a certain number of significant digits, as opposed to just the nearest integer. Although someone’s saying that they actually let you round down from as many as 5 to 0, which is insane if true.
Iirc they let you say something has 0 grams of trans fat if it’s less than 5 grams per serving.
Mexico does this too
Let’s be honest I’m guessing nearly every country does this
Canada, at least, follows the US convention on this one. IIRC serving sizes are set by the government, though, if that’s any different.
You, too, are 0 calories if we eat you in small enough bites.
So it would take like 6.3 minutes of just holding down the button to fully empty the can ?
I don’t believe it
The more interesting why is this in Metric, not in stones, oz, cups or other funny system they’re using.
https://chosenfoods.com/products/avocado-oil-spray-2
Wow, even on their website.
In civilized countries the nutrition facts need to be stated in both serving size and 100 grams. This makes it easier to compare products with different serving sizes and also prevents bullshit like this.
Serving size is generally speaking complete bullshit regardless. Per 100g is sufficient
The other day I bought a cookie that was 200 calories per serving, with a serving size being half a cookie lmfao
Serving size has a lot of use cases, especially when looking at things individually packaged or in separate units (cookies for example).
Per 100g has fewer use cases in my mind as I’m not a scale and have no idea how to break down most products into 100g.
If you are American it’s about 4oz, and if you want a visual with most foods that is roughly a cubic inch of food per ounce. It’s not exact but it’s close enough to understand when applied to stuff like oil and butter alongside cotton candy or dry crackers where the densities and amounts used dramatically differ.
That’s how it is stated in civilized countries. This is American bullshit. You wouldn’t get a serving size on something like oil either.
Yes, that is what they said.
Yeah, You’re right,I misread, my bad.
Wait, stop that. Now I look like a jerk.
No it’s not, oil does not have a “serving size”.
Thorry wrote both would be required, but when there is no “serving size” it would only be the 100g stated on the label.
Generally here (Denmark) we never see “serving size” because it’s bullshit, and probably considered misleading.
And misleading labeling and marketing is illegal.There is a point to having both - or at least giving an idea of how much an item typically weighs. One cookie might be 200g or 50g; people may typically reach for 1-5 cookies, for example.
A misleading serving size (eg “per 1/4 cookie”) is indeed not helpful at all, but I don’t think it’s illegal.
So many single-use packets which barely contain enough for half a meal, yet say “contains 2 servings” so they can halve all the numbers on the nutrition label. Yes, this is in america.
They had to stop doing this for drinks (at least). They now show the whole bottle contents and sometimes also servings for some sizes.
I don’t think a serving is supposed to be a meal. Pretty sure it’s talking about like, the food pyramid. It’s not a thing anymore but you gotta get a certain amount of grains and fruit and veg and dairy and you count the amounts by serving size.
Yeah but the serving sizes aren’t realistic
So according to this it has 884 calories per 100g. So 1g has 8.84 calories, and 1/4 of that has 2.2 calories.
So they can’t even pretend to have rounded down to 0 from a fraction of a calorie. Apparently it’s also loaded with saturated fats. Which tracks since it’s, ya’know, oil.
The FDA lets anything under 5 calories to be rounded down to 0. It’s a scam
What institution in your country ISN’T a piece of shit owned by Big Coconut Oil???
To be fair, caloric measurement is always an approximation. No two servings will ever have the exact same number of calories. Even if they did, different gut biomes will also feed on those macronutrients to different extents. Couple that with everyone having different metabolic rates, and 2 calories is indistinguishable from a rounding error.
And the guidance from the FDA reinforces this. The reason this panel shows 0 instead of 2 is not because anyone screwed up or is trying to mislead; it’s because any serving that provides less than 5 calories is supposed to be rounded to 0 per FDA regulation.
They have some of the best accessibility regulations in the world.
WTF. Like, sure, if you say “no decimal calories needed” it would make sense at the time, and could lead to this by accident. But that’s just silly.
I could be wrong but I believe they can round to the nearest 5 calories.
that’s how ferrero’s tic-tacs are 0 calories on the label in the u.s… serving size is one mint, calories and sugar content both get rounded down to 0.
That would do it. If that is in fact how the law works then they are technically correct, if disingenuous on the calories at least.
Yeah, unfortunately, if that’s a US label, that is how the regulations work. The FDA allows rounding to the nearest five. However, if it’s less than five, they allow you to round to 0.
(1) “Calories, total,” “Total calories,” or “Calories”: A statement of the caloric content per serving, expressed to the nearest 5-calorie increment up to and including 50 calories, and 10-calorie increment above 50 calories, except that amounts less than 5 calories may be expressed as zero. Energy content per serving may also be expressed in kilojoule units, added in parentheses immediately following the statement of the caloric contentI understand the reasoning - nobody’s going to drink oil straight out of a spray bottle - but just because the law says they can round down doesn’t mean they have to or should round down.
It does have a considerable amount of saturated fat by volume, but it is more loaded with polyunsaturated fat proportionally speaking.
Its a weird american thing I believe, since a serving size is so small that it counts as <1 calory.
Yup, the “serving size” nonsense is a US corporate lobbied loophole which basically allows them to put whatever they want on their nutrition information.
I wouldn’t have expected anything else from the US “Corporations are people too” of A.
Supposedly this is why tic tacs, which are almost 100% sugar, can claim to be sugar free.
They don’t claim to be sugar-free, at least not the ones made of sugar. Instead, they claim to have 0g of sugar per serving. That is a critical difference.
In that case, they are using synthetic sweetener instead of sugar.
If a tictac has >200 pieces in a pack, and you claim serving size is 1, then whatever it is made of has >0,5% per serving. It could be made of radioactive waste and they could put ‘a tictac cointains no radioactive waste’ on the pack. The game is rigged.
For “calories per serving”, absolutely, but nowhere on the packaging does it say Sugar Free because that’s a completely different claim that would be completely false.
If you claim a tictac is one serving you can say a tictac contains no sugar. But you’re right, it would be in a format like this image.
You can claim it contains 0g of sugar, you cannot claim it contains no sugar. A subtle, but critical difference
Legally, yes.
But ask random people and I guarantee most welcome would think it’s the same
Avocado oil should have 884 kcal per 100g, therefore one serving of 0.25g would be 2.21 kcal. Why is that allowed to be rounded to zero?
Because it is 0g fat
It’s rounded to the nearest multiple of 10; it could be up to 5 (exclusively), and could still be listed as 0. It’s why so many lower-calorie products are listed with a zero-calorie serving size in the US. I’m not sure about the specifics of regulations — if any exist — on selecting serving sizes; this particular example feels a little fishy to me.
And legally, they are right. One serving is very, very small, and therefore, one serving is considered to have no [whatever].
Just like TicTacs. They are 100% sugar to a rounding error, but as the “serving size” is one TicTac, which weighs less than half a gram, it is legally considered “sugar free”.
Which tells a lot about the real value of “legally”.
And who the fuck cares about calories in serving size?
What about a better standard like calories per 100g?
Like Europe uses?
And who the fuck cares about calories in serving size?
Calories per 100g would be highly misleading in a product like this. You might use a couple or few sprays, but you’re not going to use a significant amount.
That said, listing calories-per-standard-amount as a secondary requirement I could absolutely get behind.
The thing people need to remember about serving sizes is that they are 1) based on studies of what people actually consume, and 2) intended to be parts of a meal. You don’t eat “one serving” for a meal. You’d have a serving of several different things. It’s extremely unperfect, but at least it gives you something you can work with. I do specifically like them having to also provide “calories per container”, though - that’s a good attempt to help solve this problem.
Oh it seems I can’t add a photo in a comment.
Wanted to share one of the olive oil I have here:
Durchschnitt /100ml:
Energie 3389 kJ/824 kcal Fett 91,6g davon gesättigte Fettsäuren 14,2g Kohlehydrate 0g davon Zucker 0g Eiweiß 0g Salz 0g
(Energy, fat, saturated fats, carbohydrates, sugar, salt)
I now can easily compare different Oils with each other and also have some compassion how much energy per volume the oil has. If I need the exact values for my “serving”, I can easily and correctly calculate them.
Oh and liquids are specified in amount person 100ml, not per amount in 100g.
This is useful info. And of course when I use OIL I know what I do, the differences aren’t too large between oils, energy-wise. For snacks I do glance at that info, however.
(Oh and the label info made me less afraid of using oils - I use quite a lot of olive oil, even more than sunflower oil for cooking. I can use A LOOOT of oil in my cooking , if I just leave out that snickers bar later in the day)
Update: Btw my sunflower oil declares a serving to be 10ml, while still listing the 100ml values.
The difference here is that I can reasonably believe the quarter second of spray being an accurate serving, but nobody has just one tictac.
I don’t use spray, but those that use it normally do four or five sprays. Or sometimes even more.
You must consider, the info here isn’t random, it’s legally required by the FDA or state regulator. They have to follow the guidelines for packaging labelling requirements precisely. When the serving size is very small, the numbers are misleading. But some manufacturers also use ridiculous serving sizes to fudge the numbers.
Thats why in Australia, they are required to publish two or three columns of data. Per Serving (which can be skipped if the item is clearly just one serving), per 100g (even if the whole thing is less than 100g net, it makes figureing out percentages easier) and sometimes per whole package.
I’m not going to eat 12 seperate portions over several days from this bag of chips just because it says that many on the bag. I know this. The manufacturer knows this. The regulator knows this. We all know I’m hoovering that bag clean in 20 minutes. So the manufacturer is forced to give me a number that is easily mathable so I can’t hide the damage, even from myself.
You’re correct, but the information they presented isn’t misleading - it’s straight up bullshit.
Well, what Agent641 left out is that manufacturers in the US are allowed to “round down” to 0 if the calories/amount per serving are below a certain threshold. So by claiming 1,532 serving, they can get away with saying the calories in each serving are tiny and write 0. Tick-tack uses this to claim 0 calories even though the are mainly sugar, simply by claiming a portion is 1 tick-tack. It’s just another ridiculous US regulation no one wants to fix.
It’s cooking spray.
Maybe the amount of calories and fat is too small for typical measuring methods to register anything above 1 given the serving size. Of course, I don’t know how anyone can spray for 1/4 of a second with any close to accurate.
No, in US labeling, it’s all a rounding scheme designed to hide the facts thanks to junk food lobbyists.
“amounts less than 5 calories may be expressed as zero.” [Within whatever arbitrary(!!!) serving size the company elects to use for their junk.] So they just pick a serving size that, for instance would be 4 (k)cal, and then call it zero across the board to suit their desire to obfuscate the truth.
Not to mention, what they call a calorie is really a kilocalorie.
Same with tic-tacs claiming 0 sugar due to serving size.
This is why they are allowed to say Tic Tacs are zero calories as well. Absolute BS
lmao, that’s so shameless. Avocado oil is one of the most calorie-dense food in existence.
Say “one one-thousand two one-thousand” at normal pace
Have you ever sprayed cooking oil for that long? I haven’t, and either way that’s only 18 calories
I wouldn’t consider this terribly misleading, 0.25 second spray for 1 serving of food is very reasonable. Should it really say 2 calories? Yeah, I think it should. Does it matter that much, though?
Of course it matters. It’s oil, of course it has calories, and of course it contains fat. To claim otherwise is simply lying.
And I regularly spray cooking oil for at least two seconds when prepping a sheet tray for baked goods or to roast vegetables, prepping bowls for dough, or a whole host of other common cooking tasks. Don’t try and pretend a 1/4 second spritz is the norm, or a useful serving size for something like oil.
You’re addressing half of my point. How many servings of veggies are you making when spraying for 2 seconds?
Multiple. I still want to know how many actual calories I’m adding to those veggies though, because it’s not zero.
I have the answer! It’s, as near makes no difference, zero.
Are you this concerned over the calorie content of spices like oregano, which aren’t required to report at all, as well?
Why would I be? The calorie density of spices like oregano are incomparable to that of oil.
It’s zero calories per serving, of which there are over 1500 in that can. It’s a rounding error. If each serving has say 0.2 calories, the whole can might contain 300.
Also, “1/4 second spray”
Are you using a fucking aerosol can of avocado oil? 🤨
It’s pretty good stuff. Plant based, easy to apply, higher smoke point than olive oil.
Avocado oil isn’t the problem, but aerosol? I’ve never even seen that
Just so happens I have some myself. It is air pressure based.
Ah, I see. I didn’t realize oil could be pressurized that way.
