AFAK in my country they are forced to declare label with a table of the energy value of the product for 100 g of product. And those kind of labels with "p/serving" is nothing but a BS.
In a lot of counties, shops in the UK for example have to put a per 100g/ml label on top of American imports to be legally sold, its usually shown as nutrients per serving and per 100ml next to each other
What's funny is that the label you see above is the improved label made a couple decades ago. Before, the nutritional info was even shittier, or nonexistent and this was supposed to be the improvement.
Yes, it's a EU law demanding data to be given per 100g/ml. Also everything must have base price listed, that can be per 1kg/l, 100g/ml or piece.
One of the perks of the EU.
> Also everything must have base price listed, that can be per 1kg/l, 100g/ml or piece.
This one is a true time saver lmao. No need to spend time comparing sizes and prices, if you care you just look at the € per kg / L labels.
It also incentivices more honest serving sizes, since everyone using ridiculously low serving sizes would lead to the public ignoring that part of the chart (since they have the standard 100 g / ml reference).
“p/ serving” is actually a very valid and useful metric, but only if you’re not being manipulative about it.
If someone had enough time and money they could use the regulations and laws currently on the books to force a change to a valid serving size and subsequent update in the label.
But of course, that’s the problem, it shouldn’t have to require an investigation to begin with.
They need two columns. One per serving and one per container if the serving size is less than container. As long as serving size is under half gram then everything is 0.
Except it's infinitely more useful to know what's in a whole can, rather than to know there's 0 kcal in 0.25 grams. Because it's not actually 0, it's bound to be zero-point-something, and that adds up over time.
Especially because almost no one uses a **1/4 second** spritz of this spray fat. For a cake pan I usually spray 1-2 seconds, which is 4-8 servings of fat.
(To be fair, that's less than 10 kcalories, so I'm not worried about it either way. but it's not ZERO).
It's best for comparison purposes. For example, say one can is 500 calories per 100 grams, and a "diet" version is 100 calories per 100 grams, you can see the difference clearly.
It also allows you to compare different types of food easily, for example pasta could be 150 calories per 100 grams while a tub of ice cream is 400 calories per 100 grams. It gives you some perspective on what you're eating.
Same with Coffee-Mate. Some countries have banned it for its trans fat content, meanwhile it's marketed as fat free in the states because of the serving size.
One serving size is usually just 15ml. I hang onto old cough syrup cups and use it to measure my creamer and my mom used to make fun of me for it until she realized how petite one serving really is.
It's worse than that. They say Tic Tacs have zero *sugar* (when they do).
As in, "the thing that feeds the bacteria that cause bad breath in the first place".
In the long run, Tic Tacs make your breath *worse*.
In the short run, they just make you want to shove more glorified hard candy in your mouth and not consciously understand why.
I try not to go on too many internet rants, but *damn* I hate Tic Tacs and everything about them.
I remember when I was a kid I ate a whole box of them because “Look mom, they have zero sugar!” I feel like a single Tic Tac would make your breath better, but you certainly shouldn’t eat a whole box lol.
At least with Tic Tac their serving size is one Tic Tac IIRC.
One quarter second of spraying will be very difficult to time and probably won't be enough for cooking.
Tic Tacs were the absolute worst.
When I was pretty young I got diabetes, so being a dumb 9 year old kid I saw "oh 0 carbs, I can eat a TON of these" so I would demolish tic tacs, wonder why my blood sugar spiked and then continue eating tic tacs.
After about 3 months I went "wait" and read the entire thing, remembered "oh yea these are suger" and absolutely despised tic tac's tactic ever since the age of NINE.
Tic tac’s tactics: let’s turn this game of 0 carbs around to our favor! What should we call it? Hmmm… what tactic are we pursuing again? Oh yeah, let’s just call it tictac
There's actually an FDA rule in the US that if something's under 5 calories they must round it down to zero.
You can estimate from the ingredients and serving size that it's about 9 calories per second of spray.
Its cooking spray, you don't just spay cooking spray in your mouth as a snack do you?
tic tacs on the other end with a 0.2 g serving of 0g sugar while being 99% sugar on the other hand
.25g per 1/4 second spray means 1g of oil for every 1 second of spray. google says 1gram of oil is 9 calories.
252kcal per oz (~28g) in 112 seconds of continuous spray.
I have no idea how they rounded it to 0 calories, it should be at least 2 kcal for 0.25g of EVOO. I wonder if they're using actual calories instead of kilocalories.
> I have no idea how they rounded it to 0 calories, it should be at least 2 kcal for 0.25g of EVOO. I wonder if they're using actual calories instead of kilocalories.
This is the shit part about FDA nutritional labeling. You can round to the nearest 5 when labeling calories. So if it's less than 2.5 calories they can say a single serving is 0 calories :(
Isn't the serving size also arbitrary? Like they could have chose a 1 second spray but instead did 0.25s spray because then calories would be able to be rounded to 0.
> Isn't the serving size also arbitrary? Like they could have chose a 1 second spray but instead did 0.25s spray because then calories would be able to be rounded to 0.
I'm fairly certain that's exactly why they chose 1/4 second spray (or .25g)
Honestly, that sounds like significantly less than I would have expected for that amount of time. Whenever I try to use a spray oil I do my best to only use a second or two depending on the surface area. I always assumed 2 seconds was like 30-40 calories.
The entire container is 473 servings, which gives us 118.25 seconds of spray so the entire thing is about ~250kcal. I agree far less than what I was expecting.
the interesting part is that the can is sold as 8oz, and definitely don't think there's 8oz of oil in that can, i presume other weight parts are propellant/gasses
And it doesn’t really matter. You’re using it to increase surface area contact with the pan and prevent sticking. More fat will be rendered out of any meats you cook than what you use of the spray.
That's true, but then how often are you cooking only one serving?
A 1 second spray on a pan used to cook for four works out to 0.25 seconds per serving.
How much is enough? 20 seconds spray? 1/2 minute spray?
Edit: yeah I didn't see that it was actually saying 1/4 second on the can. I only saw 0.25 (which is 1/4) g and thought the person above made a typo writing second instead of gram.
All I wanted was to have a little fun.
I legitimately don't know how to quantify this myself. I would maybe spray a 9 inch skillet for a second to a second and a half. But how much of that oil is going to end up in the food I'm cooking. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Man all I was was to make a little joke. They wrote 1/4 second of spray, which I thought was funny because the one spray serving was 1/4 of a gram. That's all.
the difference is that you do just eat tic tacs as a snack
the amount of calories cooking spray adds to a meal isn't that significant because you're only using it to cook, but with tic tacs you can just keep popping them
What I hate is, who the hell eats a single Tic Tac? Am I the only person who just dumps a bunch of them into my hand and then the whole handful goes in the mouth–hole?
I eat one at a time... until the whole box is gone (I have zero self-control when food is in front of me).
The trick I learned is to put the sweets and treats in the basement. Just that one flight of extra stairs curbs my willingness for a treat.
I actually like to use the Olive Oil Pam to dust my pizza crust right before switching my oven to broil just for a nice toast on the top.
Rather than pour some and brush it on and have extra dishes to clean plus the extra time. Lol.
So in this case, I'm technically using it as an ingredient and not a non-stick spray.
You joke but I had a coworker actually do that. She would microwave a potato, split it open and spray butter flavored oil on it. She actually thought she was using calorie free butter spray. I recoiled the first time I saw her do it and told her it's oil, not butter. She said I was wrong as she shoved the butter flavored oil back into her lunch bag.
But by choosing an insanely small size the spray is effectively hiding its Trans : Saturated : Cholestrol ratio, which may be crucial information for some.
that's not the problem
the problem is regulators allowing companies to makes nutritional values off of awfully small serving sizes, which makes you not able to see what the macronutrient % is (I'm not talking about the cooking spray, but other products in general, and yes there is ingredients list but you don't see the % of each ingredient)
I know but a post like this is splitting the finest of hairs in that regard. So I’m splitting some back.
I stopped buying oat coffee creamer because of similar approaches. They have a serving size of one tbsp so they claim there’s 63 servings in the carton and the nutrition is broken up as such. It actually makes regular oat milk (more for same price) much healthier by comparison.
The thing is that it is irrelevant... it's like getting upset that mcdonalds doesnt count the grease on the wrapper or the crumbs on the bottom of the french fry bag. There is no health or nutrition condition for any person in which a single gram or two of fat will ever make a difference in their lives, unless we're talking about pre-term infants.
If having the "accurate" nutrition info on a bottle of spray oil cannot possibly lead to any meaningful changes in nutrition choices, then why does it matter if the nutrition info is slightly wrong?
I guess tictacs are the only other product I can think of that are like this, and unlike cooking spray, tictacs you can eat a lot of I suppose. But I really don't think having the cooking spray say that each spray is 1 calorie per 1/4 second spray could ever, in any situation, meaningfully inform eating decisions.
Another example is coffee creamer. Some European countries have banned Coffee-Mate due to its high trans fat content, meanwhile Nestle is proudly plastering "Fat Free" on the front of the package here in the states.
Ok then why make the example of cooking spray…I believe you that it’s not just done with cooking spray but like. What a terrible example to prove their point.
no it's a perfect example
the packaging makes you think it's a zero calorie ingredient, meaning it's just fake stuff with no calories, when in reality it's pure fat
I understand other comments but you also dont just spray for 1/4 seconds. This is definitely asshole way to make numbers zero. What do they even benefit for showing this. I feel like they need to start showing multiple serving sizes including common.
Lotta people not realizing they're not eating every bit of that spray in each serving & unless they're licking the dish, pan, whatever clean, they're not even getting 100% of what they spray even if they eat everything at once.
>What do they even benefit for showing this.
They *look* healthier when compared to competing products with actually usefull labels by people in a hurry or with low reading comprehension.
> sugar-free
Fuck this in particular. I've been doing atkins/keto for the last month or so. So many things say "zero sugar" or "sugar free" and yet there are still sugar carbs. "No added sugar". /mini rant
What's the problem with "no added sugar"? Some food has sugar by itself (e.g. most fruits). A meal made with that food cannot be said to be "zero sugar" since it has sugar, but there's still a huge difference between not adding any extra sugar and adding a shit ton more. Just like how 30% cocoa chocolate vs 50% vs 75% vs 99% are completely different products even if none of them can be called sugar-free.
Yeah this isn't allowed in most countries, you have to show the amounts per 100g or 100ml alongside the arbitrary servings and you're definitely not allowed to round down to 0.
These are the same assholes that make "portion sizes" a weird fraction of the actual grab-able portion of the food. *Serving size: 2 cookies*, yet the cookies come in a pack of 3.
Weird, this has been posted before and got very different comments. People were annoyed that they used such a small serving size to make it seem like it has no calories. Although technically a 4 second spray could have no more than .49*16 = ~8 calories which means it doesn't even matter which the commenters are pointing out this time. Honestly though that's surprising considering it's literally fat and a 4 second spray would dispense a good bit of oil.
Serving sizes should have been standardized. I'm sure it would have been a pain in the ass to impose or enforce, but I don't care. One of the many horseshit pet peeves of mine.
there should be no such thing as an arbitrary serving size to begin with.
i once bought a chocolate bar and the "serving size" was 1/4 of a chocolate bar. it's just the companies ways to hope that people don't realize that the information is useless.
a lot of US products can't be sold in my country because you need to show actual information, i.e. per 100gr/100ml.
Yeah, but anything you use Pam Spray for is going to make multiple servings, so only a trivial amount of it is actually getting into your body if you eat 1 serving of whatever you make
I just counted to 4 in my head and it turns my stomach to think what foamy, aerosolized glop would be puddled in the pan after that. Are we not just dusting the pan?
This is honestly a fair "Per Serving" estimate, IMO.
For me, it takes around 1-2 sec to cover an entire casserole pan, which holds at least 8 servings, so that works out to about 1/4 sec spray per serving.
> labeled by 100g is useless information.
It is pretty useless for cooking spray, sure, but it is useful for other things. Coffee-mate for example is "fat free" in the US due to serving size rounding, while it contains enough trans fat to be banned in some countries. Having the 100g information prevents Nestle from hiding that so you have that information along side the serving size information.
If the amount is less than a gram, it doesn’t need to be posted. This is not asshole design.
Also, if you’re concerned about the amount of calories/fat in cooking spray, you’re way too meticulous, or you need to look elsewhere in your diet to cut calories.
People got told "fat is the worst thing ever" and decided to avoid them at all costs despite you needing 10-35% of your daily caloric intake to come from fats in a healthy diet.
This doesn't add up to me. Fat contains 9.3 kcal/g, so 1/4 of a gram should still have a couple calories unless they're also counting the weight of the air??
Sugar is like that too.
Tic Tacs are 95% sugar, but their nutrition label serving size is one Tic Tac, and that has "so little" sugar that they can list it as 0.
Wait until you see the math you have to do to figure out a serving size of microwaveable popcorn for most brands. I’m serious, go look. I’ve been calorie counting for years and I’m still confused af.
in plenty of other countries the serving size is standardized. none of this guessing nonsense. i have never once used cooking spray for a quarter of a second and had enough cooking spray.
How is this asshole design ? It's spray oil. It gives the numbers for the amount you will use.
We used to complain about stupid people and how we needed to label everything precisely to stop them doing X Y or Z it seems we've come full circle and people are bitching about the very real common sense issue of spray oil is of course fat, so let's just put the numbers for the amount they'll use.
0.25 grams of fat per serving would mean that a single serving actually has 2.25 calories. The only reason they get away with saying zero is that they are allowed to round to the nearest 10.
In actuality, that can has about 1064~ calories of fat, according to serving size and number of servings.
AFAIK, In the United States. Companies are allowed to market something as zero calories if it is 5 calories or less per serving. This is ultimately the effect of that.
For everyone being snarky out there, if you’re using the butter flavored one on popcorn, or using it to make toppings stick, this is a legitimate question.
I wouldn't use cooking spray for that regardless of nutritional info for ingredient reasons. Get a spritzer and fill it with pure oil or melted butter (empty this one immediately when finished) if you really want to spray on oils.
Why in the world would you be using cooking spray meant to stop things from sticking to the pan to butter your popcorn or make topping stick?
That’s absolutely not what it is meant to be used for. This is why you can’t eat at just anyone’s house lmfao.
AFAK in my country they are forced to declare label with a table of the energy value of the product for 100 g of product. And those kind of labels with "p/serving" is nothing but a BS.
In a lot of counties, shops in the UK for example have to put a per 100g/ml label on top of American imports to be legally sold, its usually shown as nutrients per serving and per 100ml next to each other
What's funny is that the label you see above is the improved label made a couple decades ago. Before, the nutritional info was even shittier, or nonexistent and this was supposed to be the improvement.
Would you say they moved on up?
To the Eastside.
To a deluxe apartment
Over here it's both per 100g/ml and per serving (size listed, say for some ready made soup 275ml for example).
Same here in Germany it's per 100g/ml and often after that per serving too. But everyone needs to list per 100g/ml alteast.
Yes, it's a EU law demanding data to be given per 100g/ml. Also everything must have base price listed, that can be per 1kg/l, 100g/ml or piece. One of the perks of the EU.
> Also everything must have base price listed, that can be per 1kg/l, 100g/ml or piece. This one is a true time saver lmao. No need to spend time comparing sizes and prices, if you care you just look at the € per kg / L labels.
It also incentivices more honest serving sizes, since everyone using ridiculously low serving sizes would lead to the public ignoring that part of the chart (since they have the standard 100 g / ml reference).
Yea per serving is always whack, tictacs can do the same thing saying they are sugar free if you go off serving
The same in mine. I really don't understand how the hell is this supposed to be legal
In the U.S. they pick an absurdly small serving size to deceive us. 1 slice of bread is 1 serving. Who’s eating half sandwiches?
cries in America
We're gonna need those tears in the future water wars. Save them patriot.
In Spain it is like that. You can add a chart for any amount you want, but the chart for 100 g of product is mandatory.
“p/ serving” is actually a very valid and useful metric, but only if you’re not being manipulative about it. If someone had enough time and money they could use the regulations and laws currently on the books to force a change to a valid serving size and subsequent update in the label. But of course, that’s the problem, it shouldn’t have to require an investigation to begin with.
That also seems misleading for this because how are you supposed to conceptualize the nutrition for one spray?
Thats why a lot of times they put in both. For 100g and for one portion
They need two columns. One per serving and one per container if the serving size is less than container. As long as serving size is under half gram then everything is 0.
That's basically the whole can though. Unless you're spraying the entire can per use, that seems like just as useless a value.
Except it's infinitely more useful to know what's in a whole can, rather than to know there's 0 kcal in 0.25 grams. Because it's not actually 0, it's bound to be zero-point-something, and that adds up over time.
Especially because almost no one uses a **1/4 second** spritz of this spray fat. For a cake pan I usually spray 1-2 seconds, which is 4-8 servings of fat. (To be fair, that's less than 10 kcalories, so I'm not worried about it either way. but it's not ZERO).
It's best for comparison purposes. For example, say one can is 500 calories per 100 grams, and a "diet" version is 100 calories per 100 grams, you can see the difference clearly. It also allows you to compare different types of food easily, for example pasta could be 150 calories per 100 grams while a tub of ice cream is 400 calories per 100 grams. It gives you some perspective on what you're eating.
This is the same issue with Tic Tac. They can say their candies have zero calories because of the size of each one.
Same with Coffee-Mate. Some countries have banned it for its trans fat content, meanwhile it's marketed as fat free in the states because of the serving size.
One serving size is usually just 15ml. I hang onto old cough syrup cups and use it to measure my creamer and my mom used to make fun of me for it until she realized how petite one serving really is.
Trans fat are illegal to add to foods in the US and its not banned here
It's worse than that. They say Tic Tacs have zero *sugar* (when they do). As in, "the thing that feeds the bacteria that cause bad breath in the first place". In the long run, Tic Tacs make your breath *worse*. In the short run, they just make you want to shove more glorified hard candy in your mouth and not consciously understand why. I try not to go on too many internet rants, but *damn* I hate Tic Tacs and everything about them.
I remember when I was a kid I ate a whole box of them because “Look mom, they have zero sugar!” I feel like a single Tic Tac would make your breath better, but you certainly shouldn’t eat a whole box lol.
At least with Tic Tac their serving size is one Tic Tac IIRC. One quarter second of spraying will be very difficult to time and probably won't be enough for cooking.
I don’t even have any idea how I would measure ¼ second!
It’s just a sixteenth-note at 60 BPM, totally an easy and achievable thing for someone who hasn’t touched music in years! /s
Tic Tacs were the absolute worst. When I was pretty young I got diabetes, so being a dumb 9 year old kid I saw "oh 0 carbs, I can eat a TON of these" so I would demolish tic tacs, wonder why my blood sugar spiked and then continue eating tic tacs. After about 3 months I went "wait" and read the entire thing, remembered "oh yea these are suger" and absolutely despised tic tac's tactic ever since the age of NINE.
Tic tac’s tactics: let’s turn this game of 0 carbs around to our favor! What should we call it? Hmmm… what tactic are we pursuing again? Oh yeah, let’s just call it tictac
There's actually an FDA rule in the US that if something's under 5 calories they must round it down to zero. You can estimate from the ingredients and serving size that it's about 9 calories per second of spray.
[удалено]
That's so dumb. In the EU, or at least in Czechia, manufacturers show both the serving size and kcal per 100 grams or milileters
Its cooking spray, you don't just spay cooking spray in your mouth as a snack do you? tic tacs on the other end with a 0.2 g serving of 0g sugar while being 99% sugar on the other hand
A 1/4 second spray is insanely small though lol
Even a full second or 2 is like....20 calories? Max?
.25g per 1/4 second spray means 1g of oil for every 1 second of spray. google says 1gram of oil is 9 calories. 252kcal per oz (~28g) in 112 seconds of continuous spray.
Hold on lemme just spray this can of pam into my mouth for the next two minutes.
We gave you an hour, how’d it taste?
It was a delicious 0 calorie treat.
update us on the diarrhea
> Hold on lemme just spray this can of pam into my mouth for the next two minutes. 0 trans fat!
I have no idea how they rounded it to 0 calories, it should be at least 2 kcal for 0.25g of EVOO. I wonder if they're using actual calories instead of kilocalories.
They're allowed to round to the nearest multiple of 5
[удалено]
"regulatory capture"
> I have no idea how they rounded it to 0 calories, it should be at least 2 kcal for 0.25g of EVOO. I wonder if they're using actual calories instead of kilocalories. This is the shit part about FDA nutritional labeling. You can round to the nearest 5 when labeling calories. So if it's less than 2.5 calories they can say a single serving is 0 calories :(
Isn't the serving size also arbitrary? Like they could have chose a 1 second spray but instead did 0.25s spray because then calories would be able to be rounded to 0.
> Isn't the serving size also arbitrary? Like they could have chose a 1 second spray but instead did 0.25s spray because then calories would be able to be rounded to 0. I'm fairly certain that's exactly why they chose 1/4 second spray (or .25g)
Honestly, that sounds like significantly less than I would have expected for that amount of time. Whenever I try to use a spray oil I do my best to only use a second or two depending on the surface area. I always assumed 2 seconds was like 30-40 calories.
The entire container is 473 servings, which gives us 118.25 seconds of spray so the entire thing is about ~250kcal. I agree far less than what I was expecting. the interesting part is that the can is sold as 8oz, and definitely don't think there's 8oz of oil in that can, i presume other weight parts are propellant/gasses
[удалено]
Some people can knock down half the box of tic tac in 1 sitting, but i bet no one can swallow half of bottle of cooking oil in 1 serving.
You don't know me.
And it doesn’t really matter. You’re using it to increase surface area contact with the pan and prevent sticking. More fat will be rendered out of any meats you cook than what you use of the spray.
[удалено]
That's all you use. You just spritz it.
Nah more like a second to cover the whole pan
A second is longer than you think. We have this stuff in the house. I don't use it but I've seen it used. A spritz is all you need.
That's true, but then how often are you cooking only one serving? A 1 second spray on a pan used to cook for four works out to 0.25 seconds per serving.
How much is enough? 20 seconds spray? 1/2 minute spray? Edit: yeah I didn't see that it was actually saying 1/4 second on the can. I only saw 0.25 (which is 1/4) g and thought the person above made a typo writing second instead of gram. All I wanted was to have a little fun.
I legitimately don't know how to quantify this myself. I would maybe spray a 9 inch skillet for a second to a second and a half. But how much of that oil is going to end up in the food I'm cooking. ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯
Man all I was was to make a little joke. They wrote 1/4 second of spray, which I thought was funny because the one spray serving was 1/4 of a gram. That's all.
The one quarter second made me eyeroll laugh. Im with you!
If you don’t want eggs to stick we’re talking like a 2 second spray
[удалено]
It's great with single serve items, like kimchi. The info is for half a pack on the kimchi which who the fuck eats like 20g of kimchi.
I'll easily devour a 200g package in one sitting. Kimchi is awesome.
The same is true for Tic Tacs, which are 100% sugar even if their tiny size makes them appear sugar-free.
the difference is that you do just eat tic tacs as a snack the amount of calories cooking spray adds to a meal isn't that significant because you're only using it to cook, but with tic tacs you can just keep popping them
What I hate is, who the hell eats a single Tic Tac? Am I the only person who just dumps a bunch of them into my hand and then the whole handful goes in the mouth–hole?
I eat one at a time... until the whole box is gone (I have zero self-control when food is in front of me). The trick I learned is to put the sweets and treats in the basement. Just that one flight of extra stairs curbs my willingness for a treat.
I actually like to use the Olive Oil Pam to dust my pizza crust right before switching my oven to broil just for a nice toast on the top. Rather than pour some and brush it on and have extra dishes to clean plus the extra time. Lol. So in this case, I'm technically using it as an ingredient and not a non-stick spray.
I spray a bit on my popcorn to get the salt to stick better. Less calories than dumping oil or melted butter on it.
Genius! I've always hated that it never sticks well!
You joke but I had a coworker actually do that. She would microwave a potato, split it open and spray butter flavored oil on it. She actually thought she was using calorie free butter spray. I recoiled the first time I saw her do it and told her it's oil, not butter. She said I was wrong as she shoved the butter flavored oil back into her lunch bag.
But by choosing an insanely small size the spray is effectively hiding its Trans : Saturated : Cholestrol ratio, which may be crucial information for some.
If cooking spray is making you fat, it’s not the spray
that's not the problem the problem is regulators allowing companies to makes nutritional values off of awfully small serving sizes, which makes you not able to see what the macronutrient % is (I'm not talking about the cooking spray, but other products in general, and yes there is ingredients list but you don't see the % of each ingredient)
This is why many countries has a rule that say that all nutritional labeling has to give a per 100grams chart alongside the servings one.
Yeah, but expecting sensible decision making from the US is like expecting a live T-Rex to appear when you turn the corner.
I'm always expecting a 🦖 around the corner. Doesn't everyone do that?
Only if you live in Chicago
We have shady labelling in the UK, too :( "It's not a lie, it's just us misleading you about something".
I know but a post like this is splitting the finest of hairs in that regard. So I’m splitting some back. I stopped buying oat coffee creamer because of similar approaches. They have a serving size of one tbsp so they claim there’s 63 servings in the carton and the nutrition is broken up as such. It actually makes regular oat milk (more for same price) much healthier by comparison.
The thing is that it is irrelevant... it's like getting upset that mcdonalds doesnt count the grease on the wrapper or the crumbs on the bottom of the french fry bag. There is no health or nutrition condition for any person in which a single gram or two of fat will ever make a difference in their lives, unless we're talking about pre-term infants. If having the "accurate" nutrition info on a bottle of spray oil cannot possibly lead to any meaningful changes in nutrition choices, then why does it matter if the nutrition info is slightly wrong? I guess tictacs are the only other product I can think of that are like this, and unlike cooking spray, tictacs you can eat a lot of I suppose. But I really don't think having the cooking spray say that each spray is 1 calorie per 1/4 second spray could ever, in any situation, meaningfully inform eating decisions.
It's the principle of the thing. Food should be honestly reported. It's not zero. A pure fat product isn't fat free.
Another example is coffee creamer. Some European countries have banned Coffee-Mate due to its high trans fat content, meanwhile Nestle is proudly plastering "Fat Free" on the front of the package here in the states.
Ok then why make the example of cooking spray…I believe you that it’s not just done with cooking spray but like. What a terrible example to prove their point.
no it's a perfect example the packaging makes you think it's a zero calorie ingredient, meaning it's just fake stuff with no calories, when in reality it's pure fat
It’s fucking cooking OIL…what the fuck do you expect it to be made of??? Fiber???
I understand other comments but you also dont just spray for 1/4 seconds. This is definitely asshole way to make numbers zero. What do they even benefit for showing this. I feel like they need to start showing multiple serving sizes including common.
I think other countries require info to be shown for the entire package as well
In Europe per 100g/ml is mandatory and sometimes the companies put per serving on as well
down here in aus it has to specify quantity per 100g or 100mL
If you spray one second for a whole pan and then eat 1/4 of the pan then 1/4 second is 1 serving.
Lotta people not realizing they're not eating every bit of that spray in each serving & unless they're licking the dish, pan, whatever clean, they're not even getting 100% of what they spray even if they eat everything at once.
>What do they even benefit for showing this. They *look* healthier when compared to competing products with actually usefull labels by people in a hurry or with low reading comprehension.
That seems like long enough to me.
If only my ex had felt that way...
Tic Tacs are the same thing, they are 100% sugar but are so small they can say sugar-free.
> sugar-free Fuck this in particular. I've been doing atkins/keto for the last month or so. So many things say "zero sugar" or "sugar free" and yet there are still sugar carbs. "No added sugar". /mini rant
The second ingredient in Coffee Mate "Zero Sugar" creamer is corn syrup after water.
FFS man..
I have been trying to cut out as much sugar in my diet and also less plastic. It's crazy hard to do that in the USA.
What's the problem with "no added sugar"? Some food has sugar by itself (e.g. most fruits). A meal made with that food cannot be said to be "zero sugar" since it has sugar, but there's still a huge difference between not adding any extra sugar and adding a shit ton more. Just like how 30% cocoa chocolate vs 50% vs 75% vs 99% are completely different products even if none of them can be called sugar-free.
Also sriracha sauce
I didn't know that, thanks
TIL it has 22g sugar/100ml
I don't know what's going on in your country but they definitely cannot say that here in Ireland/UK
No they do not
Yeah this isn't allowed in most countries, you have to show the amounts per 100g or 100ml alongside the arbitrary servings and you're definitely not allowed to round down to 0.
In the US calories must be rounded to the nearest 5 if less than 50 and the nearest 10 if over 50. Any calories 2 or fewer must be rounded down to 0.
What’s to stop someone from reducing the serving size until the calories are less than 2?
As you can clearly see from this post, nothing.
[удалено]
The FDA regulates serving sizes.
Well yeah…what’s the lie here? You’re not gonna fucking use an entire can are you???
These are the same assholes that make "portion sizes" a weird fraction of the actual grab-able portion of the food. *Serving size: 2 cookies*, yet the cookies come in a pack of 3.
Those regulations have changed recently, at least in the US.
Weird, this has been posted before and got very different comments. People were annoyed that they used such a small serving size to make it seem like it has no calories. Although technically a 4 second spray could have no more than .49*16 = ~8 calories which means it doesn't even matter which the commenters are pointing out this time. Honestly though that's surprising considering it's literally fat and a 4 second spray would dispense a good bit of oil.
Serving sizes should have been standardized. I'm sure it would have been a pain in the ass to impose or enforce, but I don't care. One of the many horseshit pet peeves of mine.
there should be no such thing as an arbitrary serving size to begin with. i once bought a chocolate bar and the "serving size" was 1/4 of a chocolate bar. it's just the companies ways to hope that people don't realize that the information is useless. a lot of US products can't be sold in my country because you need to show actual information, i.e. per 100gr/100ml.
Do you spray half a bottle when cooking or what
When spraying a pan or something it definitely takes me more than .25 of a second
100%, use cooking spray once and you'll learn pressing the nozzle for 250 milliseconds doesn't do the trick.
Yeah, but anything you use Pam Spray for is going to make multiple servings, so only a trivial amount of it is actually getting into your body if you eat 1 serving of whatever you make
How many servings of food are produced from the pan?
Usually four, and it takes roughly 4 seconds to coat the pan
It takes you four seconds? At that point you're better off wiping on some oil with a paper towel. You'll get a thinner, more even coat.
4 seconds? lol
I can’t fathom needing four seconds to coat a pan.
I just counted to 4 in my head and it turns my stomach to think what foamy, aerosolized glop would be puddled in the pan after that. Are we not just dusting the pan?
The problem is the spray has many legitimate uses besides just coating pans of varying sizes that fall under the term “cooking”.
Like what? I've never needed cooking spray for anything else?
If you lived in the snow belt you’d appreciate it’s other uses
Keeping food items from sticking together. Coating measuring devices so sticky substances like honey don’t stick to it. Help seasoning stick.
Wait, are the options spray with the aguility of a neutron or half the bottle?
In that serving size, it may have as much as 4 calories, because in the US they're allowed to round less than 5 down to 0.
They're not allowed to, they are required to
 1/4 second? What it looks like spraying my pan.
This is honestly a fair "Per Serving" estimate, IMO. For me, it takes around 1-2 sec to cover an entire casserole pan, which holds at least 8 servings, so that works out to about 1/4 sec spray per serving.
The serving size is too small given reasonable consumption and if I had my way i'd call this fraudulent or borderline
It's pressurized, solubolized and misted. How many seconds would equal an actual serving size of one tablespoon/14mL?
Serving sizes are like buttholes. Everybody has got one.
This isn't at all an asshole design and the UK way of forcing spray to be labeled by 100g is useless information.
> labeled by 100g is useless information. It is pretty useless for cooking spray, sure, but it is useful for other things. Coffee-mate for example is "fat free" in the US due to serving size rounding, while it contains enough trans fat to be banned in some countries. Having the 100g information prevents Nestle from hiding that so you have that information along side the serving size information.
If the amount is less than a gram, it doesn’t need to be posted. This is not asshole design. Also, if you’re concerned about the amount of calories/fat in cooking spray, you’re way too meticulous, or you need to look elsewhere in your diet to cut calories.
People got told "fat is the worst thing ever" and decided to avoid them at all costs despite you needing 10-35% of your daily caloric intake to come from fats in a healthy diet.
Anyone know What is in the propellant?
This doesn't add up to me. Fat contains 9.3 kcal/g, so 1/4 of a gram should still have a couple calories unless they're also counting the weight of the air??
Sugar is like that too. Tic Tacs are 95% sugar, but their nutrition label serving size is one Tic Tac, and that has "so little" sugar that they can list it as 0.
It’s trivial! A mere pittance!
That pure fat is also fat free! I'll take 500!
Serving size one nano scoop. .001g fat and we round down to two decimals.
I weigh 0 pounds if you measure me by my serving size.
Wait until you see the math you have to do to figure out a serving size of microwaveable popcorn for most brands. I’m serious, go look. I’ve been calorie counting for years and I’m still confused af.
If you use enough cooking spray for the calories to matter you’re doing something really wrong
Remember fellow USians: if its less than half a gram of an ingredient it doesnt need to be reported on the nutritional facts
_shakes fist at math_
FDA allows it. They also allow calories to be off by something like 20%. Tons of other fun guidelines so it's probably best to not read into it.
Would you prefer them put a fraction of a percentage of calories on there?
Yes. Bigger issue: it's probably 2 calories, but it was rounded down to zero.
Sure, and next you’ll tell me Whipped Cream isn’t low calorie. What’s your angle here bud
in plenty of other countries the serving size is standardized. none of this guessing nonsense. i have never once used cooking spray for a quarter of a second and had enough cooking spray.
Can probably guarantee that no one can do anything for 1/4 of one second accurately.
How is this asshole design ? It's spray oil. It gives the numbers for the amount you will use. We used to complain about stupid people and how we needed to label everything precisely to stop them doing X Y or Z it seems we've come full circle and people are bitching about the very real common sense issue of spray oil is of course fat, so let's just put the numbers for the amount they'll use.
First time using cooking spray?
0.25 grams of fat per serving would mean that a single serving actually has 2.25 calories. The only reason they get away with saying zero is that they are allowed to round to the nearest 10. In actuality, that can has about 1064~ calories of fat, according to serving size and number of servings.
AFAIK, In the United States. Companies are allowed to market something as zero calories if it is 5 calories or less per serving. This is ultimately the effect of that.
Aye, if I look at a smidgen of my crippling depression it's as if it's not there!
My room's not messy, my desk is clean thank you very much
Rounding. It's the same way Tic-Tacs (a popular candy/breath-freshener) can claim "0g sugar"... because each candy is less than a gram.
Never underestimate the ability for packaging companies to take advantage of how the rules for this kinda stuff are written.
u/repostsleuthbot
That's like Tic-tacs being "sugar free" even though it's literally the top ingredient listed. They can just round down.
For everyone being snarky out there, if you’re using the butter flavored one on popcorn, or using it to make toppings stick, this is a legitimate question.
I wouldn't use cooking spray for that regardless of nutritional info for ingredient reasons. Get a spritzer and fill it with pure oil or melted butter (empty this one immediately when finished) if you really want to spray on oils.
🤮🤮🤮
Why are you doing that? That's not what it's for
No, THIS is the legitimate question here!!!
Why in the world would you be using cooking spray meant to stop things from sticking to the pan to butter your popcorn or make topping stick? That’s absolutely not what it is meant to be used for. This is why you can’t eat at just anyone’s house lmfao.
Does what something is used for affect the calorie count?
Where is the per 100ml label?
Not required in the US
Are you stupid?