You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
The other day I bought a cookie that was 200 calories per serving, with a serving size being half a cookie lmfao
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.
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
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 gram one is required by law. And depending on where you live there are laws regarding the serving size as well and it may be required.
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.
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.
US labeling is perhaps more convenient
US labeling pretends to be more convenient. It actually isn’t, but Americans are stupid enough to defend it anyhow. Just like with imperial measurements
Is .25g a realistic serving size to you?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Ah so if I just use a table spoon then is still 0! Free oil! (Don’t tell Americans.)
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.
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
If you did it in 1/4 second bursts it might, probably longer even as fatigue in your hands will slow you down.
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.
The more interesting why is this in Metric, not in stones, oz, cups or other funny system they’re using.
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.
EU has absurd serving size measurements too, but also 100g measurements
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
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
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.
Your avocado oil is likely rancid.
https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/study-finds-82-percent-avocado-oil-rancid-or-mixed-other-oils
Assuming it’s even avocado oil and not soybean oil or something else cheap to make number go up. Just can’t trust anything made in the U.S.
This one is interesting too: https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/avocado-oil-chip-youre-eating-may-not-be-made-pure-avocado-oil
One thousand five hundred and thirty-two servings
Calories are the worst fucking unit ever. I’m a kilojoule man! I’ve always been a kilojoule man! And I’ll die a kilojoule man! Death to calorie! Death to kilocalorie!!
I think it’s pretty neat. It’s SI-derived but scaled to an actual use-case, just like Å, eV and other specialty units.
Oh it has a use case? Really? You’re measuring the amount of energy your kettle uses in calories so that you can more quickly estimate in your head how much it costs to run which won’t even be remotely correct due to loses and fluctuating energy prices? You probably don’t even use metric to measure volume and temperature! You’re a fraud! You’re a kilocalorie using fraud and I hate youuuuu!!!
Calories are based on mass, not volume. You’re the fraud!
deleted by creator
You sound like a calorie apologist. Get bent cally boy!
Can we talk about how Americans know the word “quarter” but constantly say “one fourth” like they are children relaying wheat yields in the 1700s
You forget, “quarter” also is the name of a coin here.
(And quarter is also housing for redcoats in our homes (which we refuse) and mercy in combat, and a vaguely one-fourth chunk of human when ripped apart by horses bolting in the primary directions.)
Apart from the coin that’s the same everywhere. And it’s because it’s “one fourth” of a dollar, which I mean, I’m not confused, who would be confused by that
Ok how do you say
1/3
How do you say 1/2
My point being is there is precedent, and it doesn’t make you stupid for not
You can also calls six “half a dozen”
I mean if anything
1/3 1/5 1/6 1/7 1/8 1/9 etc
There’s more situations where you express it like one fourth.
There’s way more valid things to harp on Americans about
None of 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, or 1/5 actually follow the precedent - it’s not threeth and fiveth - half and quarter are just the clearest. If anything, it’s sixth and upwards (downwards?) that don’t follow the precedent set by the start of the series.
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.
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.
