One thousand five hundred and thirty-two servings
🎼 “525,600 servings - how do you measure a quarter-second spray?” 🎶 ~Rent, probably.
How about love?
If it was only 1500 then I think it would have rounded to one calorie.
The FDA let’s calories under 5 round down to 0
tsst
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.
5 calories is all but meaningless. There’s a small beetle on my window right now. Less than 5 calories.
In the calorie tracking world, there’s no difference in kcal and cal.
Same with tic-tacs claiming 0 sugar due to serving size.
Yeah, it’s rounding. Under a certain amount, it just rounds to zero. No one is actually using the recommended serving size. There should be legal requirements to always provide the information for the full amount in the package/container/bottle/whatever as well next to the other values (some countries at least sometimes do this).
deleted by creator
EU as well. (the 100gr. is mandatory).
Yeah, here in Japan as well. I think really enforcing realistic serving sizes (no one is going to accurately do 0.25s) in labeling would also help the US.
help the US
The US people? Yes The US corporations? No
Who do you think matters?
I meant help people in the US get accurate information on what they’re consuming.
deleted by creator
Fun thing is, though, that 0.25g of oil is 2.2kcal and not 0.
Its a weird american thing I believe, since a serving size is so small that it counts as <1 calory.
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?
I think you can round down and be off by a certain percentage.
What’s 20 or 50% between friends?
Because it is 0g fat
They’re multiplying by the 0.25g serving size, then rounding the 0.25g of fat down to 0g and calculating the calories from that? I can barely imagine the apoplectic rage this would have triggered in my experimental physics professor.
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.
That’s an arbitrary rounding I’ve yet to see in packagings here. A lot of calorie numbers end in other values. Yeah the comma is usually rounded but that’s it.
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.
EU has absurd serving size measurements too, but also 100g measuements
The 100g measurement is so good. Makes it extremely easy to compare foods and decide which one is healthier. Like if you see protein powder which is 31g sugar per 100g, and realise it’s literally 31% sugar, maybe don’t buy that one lol
US still has percentage of sugar/carbs/etc. So it’ll just say it’s 31% sugar.
OP’s picture shows % daily value though, not % total contents. Isn’t that based on a recommended adult daily intake or whatever? Never been to the US myself, so I don’t actually know though
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.
My mistake.
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
It’s made with reversed-chirality molecules, which do not react in the digestive tract
A statement perfectly crafted to send professors of undergrad courses into a fit of violent rage.
Why wouldn’t it be
It’s… oil
Look at the serving size.
One serving size seens to only 0.25 grams. It’s so small amount that those numbers makes perfectly sense. Don’t panic about calories. Focus more on sugars.
What doesn’t make sense is anyone pulling out a scale, accurate to that degree, to measure out 0.25g of oil. No one is realistically going to get 1532 serves out of that bottle. The serving suggestion may as well say “rubbing this on your face is 0 calories”, ok but if it’s used for salad or frying?
Most people are just going to see 0 cal, think it’s healthy and layer it into their food. As others have said, most countries having realistic servings and an easier to interpret per 100g/ml/whatever to prevent this sort of deliberate misrepresentation. Which stops companies dividing the product size by whatever number is needed to make it round to zero.
This is a spray oil though. You wouldn’t use it for salad or frying. You’d do a brief spray on a waffle iron or cookie sheet to stop stuff from sticking.
I agree 1500 servings seems like too many, but not wildly too many. I doubt I spray more than half a second of oil on a cookie sheet before dropping cookies on it. 800+ sprays seems perfectly reasonable. And at that scale, the actual amount of calories is a little immaterial.
No one is layering this into their food. Aerosol spray oil is more cooking tool than food you eat.
People wouldn’t use spray oil for frying? So you think half a second (which is double the vague 1/4 second serving size suggestion for this btw) is all you use every time, because I seriously doubt that.
800 is more reasonable? That’s almost halving the amount of servings in the bottle off the jump. I’m confused what your point is here. No one is using only .25g of this stuff or spraying it .25 of a second. You wouldn’t even be able to cover both sides of a waffle iron with .5 second spraying. This, again, obviously a way to misrepresent the nutritional information of the product.
Do you seriously look at 0g of fat for an oil product and think “oh yeah, this seems legit”? Regardless of its use it still end up on your food (especially for waffles…), more than 0.25g is going to be used in a given meal and 0cal is obviously bs. Wild to see people advocating for companies using deceptive nutritional information because “um well actually 0.25g is a really small amount” which is almost entirely beside the point.
Sure, it’s a misleading label, but lets not pretend anyone is gonna accidentally eat 100+ calories of it.
Let’s make a liberal estimate. Lest say it’s actually 3cal/serving as listed. Let’s say you spray it for 5s (way more than I’ve ever sprayed a bottle of PAM). That’s 60cal for the entire sheet pan of whatever it is you’re making. If you’re gonna eat the full sheet pan of cookies you are baking I hate to break it to you, but the 60cal of cooking spray probably isn’t moving the needle. And that’s the most liberal application I can think of.
Have you used aerosol cooking spray before? Are you using enough to make a puddle in your frying pan? Cause if so you’re using it wrong my guy.
The thing is that the serving size is fictional.
The more interesting why is this in Metric, not in stones, oz, cups or other funny system they’re using.
This is why they are allowed to say Tic Tacs are zero calories as well. Absolute BS
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
In Europe (or at least in France), it’s mandatory to put the nutritionnal informations per 100g. It avoids that kind of stupid things
Mexico does this too
Let’s be honest I’m guessing nearly every country does this
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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 just have to disagree. On a product like this, if the nutrition facts for 100g are listed, then you’re going to have to do the math re: how much you’re actually going to use. Having it measured out in a realistic serving size makes more sense to me.
There’s also pretty much no issue comparing products, as products in the same category usually all have the same serving sizes.
Cooking spray just happens to be used so sparingly that its nutritional value when used appropriately is usually negligible
Op said BOTH. No math needed.
the thing is that different people use different serving sizes. – written by somebody who pours lots of oil over salad.
Is .25g a realistic serving size to you?
Not for avocado oil.
Fentanyl though it’s probably too much.
If it’s in the form of a spray, and I’m spraying it onto the cooking surface rather than the food, then yeah. I’d probably spray for like 2 seconds and only a fraction of that would actually end up on the food.
I’d probably spray for like 2 seconds
I’d hate to break it to you, but that’s already 8 servings according to the label…
and only a fraction of that would actually end up on the food.
Further, if you’re cooking, you’re probably making more than one serving at a time. 2-4 servings in the pan, and only consuming a fraction of what was initially sprayed, 1/4-second spray per serving is about right.
Okay mister guy, with your logic and your facts. I see how it is
then you’re going to have to do the math re: how much you’re actually going to use
Sure, you’re probably going to spray a couple seconds at the most, which would be like less than 30 kcal. Basically nothing that you’d really count, unless you’re on a super-strict diet.
But the problem is that it’s misleading. Uneducated shoppers might choose that brand specifically because “I’m on a diet”, instead of buying a cheaper non-spray version. And/or proceed to put a ton on their food, without realizing avocado oil is almost 900kcal/100g.
“usually all have the same” isn’t fully true either in my experience. Are you really going to eat just 1/3 of a candy bar? It says 100 calories in big letters, surely it’d be much healthier than the avocado oil bottle that says 120 calories per serving.
“Serving size” numbers are bullshit and should be banned.
then you’re going to have to do the math
Why? It’s listed in both, so you know a spray is close to zero. If you’re using more than a couple or few sprays, you’re doing it wrong, so what’s even a few sprays? 5 calories?
Your measuring inaccuracy on other ingredients is going to be WILDLY more than the calories from the oil. Baking and spray the baking sheet? When you measured your flour, did you get it to the nearest TENTH of a gram? Because a gram of flour is like 3.5 calories, so if you were off by a single gram - or your scale doesn’t even show decigrams, then the rounding error is likely more calories than the oil you use that adds to each ‘serving’ of the thing you’re making.
So this is extremely unimportant.
Going to do the math an a number that relates to 100g, as in is pretty much stated in percentage?
Oh no! Imagine having to do extremely simple maths… It’s calculus, hardly maths at all.
The whole point is the “realistic serving size” is a myth. It’s like buying a bag of 30 sweets and having the serving size be 3 sweets. You know I’m going to eat the whole fucking bag in 1 go, so I would like to know the actual nutrition facts.
And like I said, usually both are on the packaging, but the 100 grams one is required by law.
Sorry, most people in the US can’t divide. The majority stop retaining around subtraction, and that’s giving the benefit of the doubt.
I know people who whip out the calculator for 9+13.
I’m from the US, if I could read, I bet this post would upset me! 😅
deleted by creator
It’s written on the receipts. And when it isn’t, whip out the calculator.
It’s not even that the labels are sometimes cryptic. Like sure I have 400g of cheese, but how many grams is a single slice? This information is not included on the brand I buy, nor the number of slices.
So I either have to weigh a slice of cheese or count out the number of slices. Then do the math.
In the US it simply says 1 slice is x calories.
I won’t understand this backwards sense of pride in shitty labeling.
Ideally nutritional facts would be given both per 100g and per some reasonable serving size (as well as clearly specifying the serving size), but if I can only have one give me 100g.
Note that while only the 100g figures are required by law, most products in Europe include the ones for serving size as well, so I’m not sure what shitty labeling people are supposedly prideful of.
Personally I would also like a section for figures per the entire package but that’s exceedingly rare.US labeling is perhaps more convenient more often, but it also frequently misleads/hides information from the consumer which I think is much worse.
the first time I saw a nutrition label like that was, I think, in Ireland. Absolutely blew my mind how staggeringly useful it was in comparing different foods since there’s that common quantity across all of them.
I really wish we had that in the US.
Serving size is generally speaking complete bullshit regardless. Per 100g is sufficient
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.
So to hit my macros tonight I can treat myself to 7 cubic inches of pie. Got it.
You do the other way around, you see the total weight of the thing, you guesstimate how much you are gonna eat and you do the math. Half of 500g is 250, so x2.5 whatever is on the 100g nutritional panel.
It’s not about when you would use the per 100g it’s about 100g being easy to be transformed into other units so you get an easy multiplier you can apply to the values.
I always used the 100g as percentage since the rest of the nutrients is also listed as g. So if there is 9g of protein per 100g, then i can just make an easy approximation for whatever the serving is.
Just like Tic Tacs have “0 sugar”
