The more interesting why is this in Metric, not in stones, oz, cups or other funny system they’re using.
You, too, are 0 calories if we eat you in small enough bites.
So it would take like 6.3 minutes of just holding down the button to fully empty the can ?
I don’t believe it
In Europe (or at least in France), it’s mandatory to put the nutritionnal informations per 100g. It avoids that kind of stupid things
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.
Mexico does this too
Let’s be honest I’m guessing nearly every country does this
https://chosenfoods.com/products/avocado-oil-spray-2
Wow, even on their website.
Why wouldn’t it be
It’s… oil
Look at the serving size.
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!!!
So according to this it has 884 calories per 100g. So 1g has 8.84 calories, and 1/4 of that has 2.2 calories.
So they can’t even pretend to have rounded down to 0 from a fraction of a calorie. Apparently it’s also loaded with saturated fats. Which tracks since it’s, ya’know, oil.
The FDA lets anything under 5 calories to be rounded down to 0. It’s a scam
WTF. Like, sure, if you say “no decimal calories needed” it would make sense at the time, and could lead to this by accident. But that’s just silly.
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.
It does have a considerable amount of saturated fat by volume, but it is more loaded with polyunsaturated fat proportionally speaking.
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
Reading comprehension is a skill one can acquire. Easily.
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 per 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.
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?
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.
So it doesn’t burn then right?
Can we talk about how Americans know the word “quarter” but constantly say “one fourth” like they are children relaying wheat yields in the 1700s
You forget, “quarter” also is the name of a coin here.
(And quarter is also housing for redcoats in our homes (which we refuse) and mercy in combat, and a vaguely one-fourth chunk of human when ripped apart by horses bolting in the primary directions.)
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
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?
