How about love?

The FDA let's calories under 5 round down to 0

What institution in your country ISN'T a piece of shit owned by Big Coconut Oil????

Ah so if I just use a table spoon then is still 0! Free oil! (Don't tell Americans.)

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.

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.

EU has absurd serving size measurements too, but also 100g measurements

In Canada we also have nutrition facts per serving bullshit

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.

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 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.

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

Quarter of a second of spray is vastly less reasonable as a serving size, no matter how unreasonable you consider stopping at a single tictac.

I don't use spray, but those that use it normally do four or five sprays. Or sometimes even more.

If the amount of [something] per serving size is below 0.5g, they can legally claim that the food is [something]-free.

At least with fat, protein, or sugar. Although the food industry would probably lobby for this to apply to lead or cadmium, too. Or any other chemical used in UHP foods.

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.

Let's be honest I'm guessing nearly every country does this

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 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.

Why not pump-based spray? I thought we were done with aerosols...

Avocado oil isn't the problem, but aerosol? I've never even seen that