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.
Its a weird american thing I believe, since a serving size is so small that it counts as <1 calory.
Yup, the “serving size” nonsense is a US corporate lobbied loophole which basically allows them to put whatever they want on their nutrition information.
I wouldn’t have expected anything else from the US “Corporations are people too” of A.
EU has absurd serving size measurements too, but also 100g measurements
The 100g measurement is so good. Makes it extremely easy to compare foods and decide which one is healthier. Like if you see protein powder which is 31g sugar per 100g, and realise it’s literally 31% sugar, maybe don’t buy that one lol
US still has percentage of sugar/carbs/etc. So it’ll just say it’s 31% sugar.
OP’s picture shows % daily value though, not % total contents. Isn’t that based on a recommended adult daily intake or whatever? Never been to the US myself, so I don’t actually know though
In Canada we also have nutrition facts per serving bullshit
It’s still oil tho, 0.25g of product of oil has 0.25g of fat, regardless of how healthy that fat is.
Supposedly this is why tic tacs, which are almost 100% sugar, can claim to be sugar free.
They don’t claim to be sugar-free, at least not the ones made of sugar. Instead, they claim to have 0g of sugar per serving. That is a critical difference.
My mistake.
In that case, they are using synthetic sweetener instead of sugar.
If a tictac has >200 pieces in a pack, and you claim serving size is 1, then whatever it is made of has >0,5% per serving. It could be made of radioactive waste and they could put ‘a tictac cointains no radioactive waste’ on the pack. The game is rigged.
For “calories per serving”, absolutely, but nowhere on the packaging does it say Sugar Free because that’s a completely different claim that would be completely false.
If you claim a tictac is one serving you can say a tictac contains no sugar. But you’re right, it would be in a format like this image.
You can claim it contains 0g of sugar, you cannot claim it contains no sugar. A subtle, but critical difference
My mistake.
Avocado oil should have 884 kcal per 100g, therefore one serving of 0.25g would be 2.21 kcal. Why is that allowed to be rounded to zero?
It’s rounded to the nearest multiple of 10; it could be up to 5 (exclusively), and could still be listed as 0. It’s why so many lower-calorie products are listed with a zero-calorie serving size in the US. I’m not sure about the specifics of regulations — if any exist — on selecting serving sizes; this particular example feels a little fishy to me.
That’s an arbitrary rounding I’ve yet to see in packagings here. A lot of calorie numbers end in other values. Yeah the comma is usually rounded but that’s it.
I think you can round down and be off by a certain percentage.
What’s 20 or 50% between friends?
Because 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.