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.
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 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.Those clog pretty quickly
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.
How soon before this started happening?
I also haven’t had one yet that didn’t leak everywhere…
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.
Yeah, the miracle serving sizes. Similar to how tic-tacs are advertised as “low calorie” when they’re basically flavored sugar.
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.
So $0 per serving, I can just get it for free, right?
Is it advertised on the front, as well. In big letters, “0 Calories!”?
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?
Your avocado oil is likely rancid.
https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/study-finds-82-percent-avocado-oil-rancid-or-mixed-other-oils
Just like Tic Tacs have “0 sugar”
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?
One thousand five hundred and thirty-two servings
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
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.
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
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.
Op said BOTH. No math needed.
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! 😅
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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,?
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.
help the US
The US people? Yes The US corporations? No
Who do you think matters?
Since it’s a spray, I assume that 0.25s is just a single pump of the spray head
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!
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.
