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
So it would take like 6.3 minutes of just holding down the button to fully empty the can ?
I don’t believe it
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
Ah so if I just use a table spoon then is still 0! Free oil! (Don’t tell Americans.)
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.
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 content
It does have a considerable amount of saturated fat by volume, but it is more loaded with polyunsaturated fat proportionally speaking.
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.
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.
Calories per serving size is even more misleading here than calories per 100g, given that they’ve chosen their “serving size” by what numbers it lets them put on the packaging instead of by what someone would actually use.
All products in the EU must indicate all nutritional values both by serving size and by 100 g. Also as a percentage of the recommended daily dose.
It’s not hard.
Did you stop reading after my first para and ignore my second? Also, please show me where I said it was difficult.
This is why I hate Lemmy sometimes. People don’t fucking read and just go off the very tops of emotional response.
It definitely makes me want to block this community if that’s all it’s gonna be.
THIS THING GOOD
THIS THING BAD
NO NUANCE ALLOW, ME NOT HAVE BRAIN TO THINK OF MORE THAN ONE THING AT A TIME
It’s not hard.
Reading apparently is. To people here, not you or just you at least.
JFC. The irony of this entire comment, but the best is…
This is why I hate Lemmy sometimes. People don’t fucking read and just go off the very tops of emotional response… *Proceeds into emotional rant about stupid users*
The lack of self-awareness here is nearly palpable.
I fucking read it all and comprehended, so fuck off.
That sure seems like another off the top emotional response. It feels like someone here might have a double standard.
Saying that 0.25g of oil has 0g of fat is legally wrong. Or should be, why are they rounding down one number and not the other?? Numbers should legally be rounded to the same decimality or whatever as the serving size unit.
If the amount of [something] per serving size is below 0.5g, they can legally claim that the food is [something]-free.
At least with fat, protein, or sugar. Although the food industry would probably lobby for this to apply to lead or cadmium, too. Or any other chemical used in UHP foods.
The difference here is that I can reasonably believe the quarter second of spray being an accurate serving, but nobody has just one tictac.
Quarter of a second of spray is vastly less reasonable as a serving size, no matter how unreasonable you consider stopping at a single tictac.
I don’t use spray, but those that use it normally do four or five sprays. Or sometimes even more.
Which tells a lot about the real value of “legally”.
Maybe, but it’s also a reflection of the true usage in these cases. Okay, say they are legally required to list it as one calorie. That basically makes zero difference to how people consume these products - barring some sort of weird edge cases.
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.
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.
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.
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
Okay, but let’s say you have 35g of sauce. It’s labeled as 2 servings that equal x calories. Easy math to figure out what you ate.
When 100g is x calories and you have to do the math it’s a bit more annoying. Even worse when you have to break out the scale.
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.
How do they tip, then.
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.
most products in Europe include the ones for serving size as well
Disagree at least in the case of Germany. It is 50/50 at best. Although almost every food item I’ve seen in France has both
I’m from the US, if I could read, I bet this post would upset me! 😅
Op said BOTH. No math needed.
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.
Going to do the math an a number that relates to 100g, as in is pretty much stated in percentage?
I’ve told people that it’s a percentage but they have a hard time understanding that and insisted on doing it from the serving size still.
the thing is that different people use different serving sizes. – written by somebody who pours lots of oil over salad.
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.
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!!
This really has nothing to do with calories as a unit. This is all about “we’ll make a serving size some arbitrary bullshit small number so we can round down and write it has zero calories”. That’s why here it’s required by law to write calorie information per 100g. You can still write per serving size in addition to that which fools some people anyway I guess.
You sound like a calorie apologist. Get bent cally boy!
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!
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.
2.21 Kcal per gram.
spraying it for a full second would be about 10 kcal, and overkill for anything less than a massive steak or making a 6 egg omelette, in other words if you’re using that much you’re either doing it terribly wrong or it’s a rounding error compared to what your actually making.
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? 🤨
Sprays have their use cases for griddles and molds that need to be lubed.
Not my daily driver for fats but I don’t see the problem.
Why not pump-based spray? I thought we were done with aerosols…
It’s not aerosol. It’s just pressurized.
I see. I stand corrected.
I mean, technically it’s an aerosol since it’s a spray, but it doesn’t use the harmful chemicals that ate the ozone layer.
Then how is OP going to get enough ozone in his diet?
He leaves all of his light switches almost flipped to release the magic smoke.
I suggest getting a reusable 2-in-1 spray/pour bottle. Saves a little money if you’re buying two things of oil. If you’re as frugal as me then you buy the oil from a discount store too.The issue I have with plastic spray nozzles and units with oil is that they get gunky even if you clean them after every use. And most heads are not supposed run through the dishwasher. Which is highly impractical for us. For a while I bought a new one every year just to replace the top part.
I also haven’t had one yet that didn’t leak everywhere…
How soon before this started happening?
My misto started doing a 50:50 spray stream after 5 years. I ran soapy water through it and it got better, does need some upkeep though. After 5 years, i might consider it worn out.
https://mistooilsprayer.com/ Mine pumps up and sprays like a can
Those clog pretty quickly
Sure, but they also clean very easily. It’s not like a clog kills them, unless you’re using a drying oil, something that turns into varnish inside the pump.
what i don’t get is who uses that little oil that they have to spray it? i just pour oil all over it.
You may not get it, that’s fine, but it is an extremely common cooking technique. What you’re saying is like saying “Why do people steam things? I don’t steam things, that’s just stupid” (I know you didn’t say it was stupid)
Pouring oil will be right in some cases, but in other cases WAY more oil and WAY less distributed than desired.
Why do people steam things?
Which is funny because I just posted about using spray oil on my egg poacher. :)
well CLEARLY that means you are FRYING not POACHING. hehehe
One example would be my 1960s egg poacher, about all I use spray for. I could use butter, and have!, but the spray ensures it hits the entire surface and the egg no stick. Yes, I could wipe it with a buttered paper towel, but that’s messy.
Having said that, I refuse to pay the ridiculous price for spray oil. Only reason I use it is that my wife stocks it for whatever reason.
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.
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
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
In Canada we also have nutrition facts per serving bullshit
It’s still oil tho, 0.25g of product of oil has 0.25g of fat, regardless of how healthy that fat is.
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
My mistake.
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?
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.
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
Edit: /s
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.
Because they are allowed to do their own testing to determine caloric quantity and there is often some flubbing in the recipe during the testing. Kinda like how VWs used to have a different engine mode for emissions tests than normal driving.
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
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
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.
Wangtooth
Thirdlings
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
So $0 per serving, I can just get it for free, right?
