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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 pretends to be more convenient. It actually isn't, but Americans are stupid enough to defend it anyhow. Just like with imperial measurements
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I 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'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? 🤨
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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.
They aren't just getting away with it, it's literally required. Under FDA rules, if there are less than 5 dietary calories in a serving, the label must round down to 0, which, yes, is super misleading. Murica!
The label is true for a serving size of zero. At 0.25g, it's 0.25g of fat and 2.2 calories. The fat content is the exact same as the serving size and the calories should not round to zero. You literally can't use the label to figure out any of the numbers if you use different amounts. It's no different than not having a label at all.
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.
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.
that's why it should say "calories per 100g" instead. no way i'm gonna just use 0.25g. that's like eating a single potato chip then putting the package away.
The product pictured is an oil spray that you'd use in a pan or like baking sheet or something. If you're using more than a couple or a few sprays, you are doing it very very wrong, and you need to just use a bottle of oil.
I own this stuff, I buy it at Costco, I don’t even think I could spray it for 1/4th a second it’s not got a very precise nozzle. There’s also a huge difference, literally magnitudes, between 1/4th of a second and a few seconds over a pan. I use cooking spray pretty regularly and have a few applications like my ornate Nordic wear pans where a bottle of oil would not work well and it would be nice to know what I’m adding to my food but I chalk it up to the caloric cost of cooking
I've also seen plenty of UK products that have 2 sets of calorie/nutrition facts side-by-side, one for calories per 100g, and another for either a more typical serving size, or sometimes the whole container, which really strikes me as a fair middle ground. Have a reference quantity that makes it easy to make overall comparisons across all food, but also a reasonable "preset" for displaying the info for the product in question. It lets you eliminate stupid promotional tags like this that let you claim a food is fat-free, calorie-free, or whatever else by requiring a reference standard that doesn't permit the manufacturer to simply manipulate the serving size until whatever claim they want to make is technically true for the amount they've chosen, while also making it easy for people to track their calorie and nutrient intake. The number of canned products I see in the states that have no way to reasonable seal them again and prevent them from going off once you open them, like large cans of energy drinks like Monster, yet have multiple "servings" in the can so the nutrition facts label can claim a serving is actually somewhere around 200 calories is absolutely ridiculous when you considering most people will treat the cans as a single serving and consume double the amount indicated at a minimum.
It's spray oil to stop your real food from sticking when cooking at high temperatures. You wouldn't want to use 100 grams. You might as well chug olive oil, and not the good olive oil at that.
no, but you're not just comparing it with nothing, you might also want to compare it with other kinds of oil. The absolute number itself is barely relevant, what most people want to know is which oil products are healthier than others.
All oil/fat is about 100 calories per tablespoon. The "healthy" and "unhealthy" ones differ in their saturation (rule of thumb, refrigerate it and poke it with your thumb. The harder it is, the more saturated.) and any fat-soluble vitamins, but you pour or scoop a tablespoon, yer gettin' a hundred calories.
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.
There are lots of US standards like this. You'd be surprised how much product a railroad tank car can contain and still be called "empty". US industry has an outsized influence on the creation of standards.
basically all arosol's do that as well, same for pam and just about every other spray, and yeah it's shady as hell, it's much like tictac's are technically sugar free.. in spite of being 90% sugar, because their serving size is 1 piece.
1/4th of a second is already more than 2 calories. You're really underestimating how much oil is used at a time. No one is using less that 1/4th second sprays
Lol now I want to make a grocery store where everything is zero calories but the servings are like 1K to 100K. Like how much could this be abused before they close the loophole?
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.
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!!!!!
Yep, they've turned what was intended to be informative into a selling vehicle.
They push calories as the only thing we need to consider or track then they pull shit like this.
I weep for our future. Kids in grade school right now are graduating barely able to read anything past the poorly spelled texts on their phones, let alone parse something so "complicated" as a nutritional label. Of course plenty of adults can't manage it either, but it's getting worse, is the point.
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.
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
I'm glad that folks are in the comments factually educating others about this.
But truly sad that there's this amount of ... ignorance, particularly of the willful kind. I thought that was for the nazis, pedophiles, and their supporters.
ITT people who don’t know what serving sizes are. Although, I’m pretty sure they stopped teaching about the food pyramid so perhaps people genuinely don’t know.
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.
Well at least we agree on the foundational point then I guess. While agree that spray oil alone isn’t making or breaking anyone’s diet (and yes I have used it before) that again is beside the point. The fact that companies are even allowed to do, at all, is the entire point. It’s almost farcical that a company would, with a straight face, try to claim an oil product is 0 cal. Especially given the impractical serving sizes they’ve had to use to get that number. .25 second spraying would be enough to cover the baking paper area for one cookie at best.
245 replies
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.
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.
I'm from the US, if I could read, I bet this post would upset me! 😅
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.
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
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
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 hate to break it to you, but that's already 8 servings according to the label...
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
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.
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.
the thing is that different people use different serving sizes. -- written by somebody who pours lots of oil over salad.
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.
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
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
Legally, yes.
But ask random people and I guarantee most welcome would think it's the same
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 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.
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.
It's still oil tho, 0.25g of product of oil has 0.25g of fat, regardless of how healthy that fat is.
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?
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.
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
Reading apparently is. To people here, not you or just you at least.
JFC. The irony of this entire comment, but the best is...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
One thousand five hundred and thirty-two servings
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
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.
Ah so if I just use a table spoon then is still 0! Free oil! (Don't tell Americans.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
In Australia, we have per serving and per 100g/ml/etc both on the packaging to make it clear
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.
Definitely. It’s pretty egregious that they can get away with saying 0 kcal because their serving sizes are so incredibly small.
They aren't just getting away with it, it's literally required. Under FDA rules, if there are less than 5 dietary calories in a serving, the label must round down to 0, which, yes, is super misleading. Murica!
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.
I hope that for them, they deserve that just like everybody else. But I dont have high hopes for them tbh.
Since it's a spray, I assume that 0.25s is just a single pump of the spray head
Fun thing is, though, that 0.25g of oil is 2.2kcal and not 0.
Would it be so hard to just write it in milligrams por whatever,?
Then why not round the serving size?
The label is true for a serving size of zero. At 0.25g, it's 0.25g of fat and 2.2 calories. The fat content is the exact same as the serving size and the calories should not round to zero. You literally can't use the label to figure out any of the numbers if you use different amounts. It's no different than not having a label at all.
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.
So $0 per serving, I can just get it for free, right?
Yeah, the miracle serving sizes. Similar to how tic-tacs are advertised as "low calorie" when they're basically flavored sugar.
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.
A quarter second is about what I do for my only use case, but I'm only covering a couple of square inches.
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.
that's why it should say "calories per 100g" instead. no way i'm gonna just use 0.25g. that's like eating a single potato chip then putting the package away.
The product pictured is an oil spray that you'd use in a pan or like baking sheet or something. If you're using more than a couple or a few sprays, you are doing it very very wrong, and you need to just use a bottle of oil.
I own this stuff, I buy it at Costco, I don’t even think I could spray it for 1/4th a second it’s not got a very precise nozzle. There’s also a huge difference, literally magnitudes, between 1/4th of a second and a few seconds over a pan. I use cooking spray pretty regularly and have a few applications like my ornate Nordic wear pans where a bottle of oil would not work well and it would be nice to know what I’m adding to my food but I chalk it up to the caloric cost of cooking
more like one crumb of a potato chip
You see that in UK, a tea mix having 1000 calories doesn't help.
I've also seen plenty of UK products that have 2 sets of calorie/nutrition facts side-by-side, one for calories per 100g, and another for either a more typical serving size, or sometimes the whole container, which really strikes me as a fair middle ground. Have a reference quantity that makes it easy to make overall comparisons across all food, but also a reasonable "preset" for displaying the info for the product in question. It lets you eliminate stupid promotional tags like this that let you claim a food is fat-free, calorie-free, or whatever else by requiring a reference standard that doesn't permit the manufacturer to simply manipulate the serving size until whatever claim they want to make is technically true for the amount they've chosen, while also making it easy for people to track their calorie and nutrient intake. The number of canned products I see in the states that have no way to reasonable seal them again and prevent them from going off once you open them, like large cans of energy drinks like Monster, yet have multiple "servings" in the can so the nutrition facts label can claim a serving is actually somewhere around 200 calories is absolutely ridiculous when you considering most people will treat the cans as a single serving and consume double the amount indicated at a minimum.
It's spray oil to stop your real food from sticking when cooking at high temperatures. You wouldn't want to use 100 grams. You might as well chug olive oil, and not the good olive oil at that.
no, but you're not just comparing it with nothing, you might also want to compare it with other kinds of oil. The absolute number itself is barely relevant, what most people want to know is which oil products are healthier than others.
All oil/fat is about 100 calories per tablespoon. The "healthy" and "unhealthy" ones differ in their saturation (rule of thumb, refrigerate it and poke it with your thumb. The harder it is, the more saturated.) and any fat-soluble vitamins, but you pour or scoop a tablespoon, yer gettin' a hundred calories.
I dislike the "calories per 100g" Just tell me how many calories are in the package and I'll eat the whole thing.
haha :)
but it's also about price. do i buy the 200g package at 2,50€ or the 350g package at 4,20€?
having things broken down to "per 100g" helps me with that.
All 1,532 servings?
yes
You should be fine, 1,532 x 0 = 0 after all
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.
Same with tic-tacs claiming 0 sugar due to serving size.
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
There are lots of US standards like this. You'd be surprised how much product a railroad tank car can contain and still be called "empty". US industry has an outsized influence on the creation of standards.
I don't like that. Now I'm going to imagine that every "empty" railroad tank car has 100 gallons of dioxins sloshing around.
It came up in hazmat training when I was a volunteer firefighter. It's like handling firearms, you always assume they're loaded.
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
basically all arosol's do that as well, same for pam and just about every other spray, and yeah it's shady as hell, it's much like tictac's are technically sugar free.. in spite of being 90% sugar, because their serving size is 1 piece.
If you consume more than a calorie or two or maybe even a very few from that oil, you are doing it wrong.
1/4th of a second is already more than 2 calories. You're really underestimating how much oil is used at a time. No one is using less that 1/4th second sprays
Lol now I want to make a grocery store where everything is zero calories but the servings are like 1K to 100K. Like how much could this be abused before they close the loophole?
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!
how do you measure 1/4 of a second of spray?
my wife buys this shit from costco
does it come with a good stop watch?
This whole thread got me thinking. A quarter second, or less, sounds about how I use it, a bare touch.
You know the one-onehundred counting thing that approximates a second? Just say/think the word one, it approximates a quarter second.
Yep, they've turned what was intended to be informative into a selling vehicle.
They push calories as the only thing we need to consider or track then they pull shit like this.
I weep for our future. Kids in grade school right now are graduating barely able to read anything past the poorly spelled texts on their phones, let alone parse something so "complicated" as a nutritional label. Of course plenty of adults can't manage it either, but it's getting worse, is the point.
https://chosenfoods.com/products/avocado-oil-spray-2
Wow, even on their website.
So it doesn't burn then right?
Just like Tic Tacs have “0 sugar”
Is it advertised on the front, as well. In big letters, "0 Calories!"?
Why wouldn't it be
It's... oil
Look at the serving size.
enough to fry a singular corn kernel
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
I'm glad that folks are in the comments factually educating others about this.
But truly sad that there's this amount of ... ignorance, particularly of the willful kind. I thought that was for the nazis, pedophiles, and their supporters.
Yeah, but what does a mental condition have anything to do with that?
We're all mentally conditions on this blessed day.
ITT people who don’t know what serving sizes are. Although, I’m pretty sure they stopped teaching about the food pyramid so perhaps people genuinely don’t know.
Can you point to some comments you feel are from people who don't know what serving sizes are?
I'm struggling to find even a single comment, and you're claiming it's most of them?
The food pyramid was actually a bad way to teach nutrition. I think it's been superseded
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.
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.
The thing is that the serving size is fictional.
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.
Well at least we agree on the foundational point then I guess. While agree that spray oil alone isn’t making or breaking anyone’s diet (and yes I have used it before) that again is beside the point. The fact that companies are even allowed to do, at all, is the entire point. It’s almost farcical that a company would, with a straight face, try to claim an oil product is 0 cal. Especially given the impractical serving sizes they’ve had to use to get that number. .25 second spraying would be enough to cover the baking paper area for one cookie at best.
Reading comprehension is a skill one can acquire. Easily.