you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 80 points 2 months ago (22 children)

Its a weird american thing I believe, since a serving size is so small that it counts as <1 calory.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 66 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 months ago (7 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    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 β€” if any exist β€” on selecting serving sizes; this particular example feels a little fishy to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    Because it is 0g fat

    Edit: /s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 2 months ago (9 children)

    Supposedly this is why tic tacs, which are almost 100% sugar, can claim to be sugar free.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    In that case, they are using synthetic sweetener instead of sugar.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments