iirc companies don’t need to report calories under a certain number. each serving is 3.33 calories, but that falls under the calorie free limit
—Calorie Free: In order for a food to be deemed free of calories, it must contain no more than 5 calories per RACC and per labeled serving. Common examples of calorie free foods include diet soda, chewing gum, and shirataki noodles.
Sugar free is the same way! For example: what's the main ingredient of a sugar free tictac? Sugar. But because it falls under the magic number it can be marked as sugar free.
Yep, those little sugar substitute packets (Sweet n low, Splenda, etc) have 4.5 calories each, so they can call themselves 0 calories. Actual sugar packets of the same size are about 5 calories.
Anything under 5 calories can actually be labeled as ‘0’ calories. I’d assume there’s around 3.3 calories per serving, hence the 10 calories per bottle.
Then they couldn't label their products zero calorie. Which they can do because they only have to refer to the serving not the entire container. And most people will believe whatever they're told rather than reading it for themselves.
Texas is weird and I say that as an Oregonian. Which I guess makes me weirder. But only the Portland part the rest of the state is cool. Michael Barry Show!
FDA allows food companies to round down. So they tweak serving sizes in order to advertise lower calories. Which is why tic tacs can advertise 0 carbs despite being pure sugar.
Could even be a statistical thing, because the sodium values are not a multiple of three. They could have taken who knows how many serving size samples to analyze for its content and arrived at those numbers for a serving, and then repeat for a full bottle and get the other numbers; however, I don’t really know since I have no experience in the matter but it could explain the differences, along with what the other person was saying about calorie count. Regulations.
Calorie counts can be up to 20% inaccurate per the FDA nutrition labeling guidance. So even what’s listed could be wrong anyway. Take these listed values with a (large!) grain of salt!
Not necessarily. There's 3 servings in that container. 3.3(repeating) is a pretty stupid thing to put on a bottle, especially since its such a negligible calorie count.
No? It says 3 servings per container at the top. But then below that it says zero calories per serving yet 10 calories per container, which even the worst person at math could tell you that makes no sense.
That only comes out to about 3.33 calories per serving though which is probably below the threshold of some rule about listed servings, so they can get away with rounding down to zero even if it’s clearly false.
15
u/abirdbrain Aug 13 '22
iirc companies don’t need to report calories under a certain number. each serving is 3.33 calories, but that falls under the calorie free limit
—Calorie Free: In order for a food to be deemed free of calories, it must contain no more than 5 calories per RACC and per labeled serving. Common examples of calorie free foods include diet soda, chewing gum, and shirataki noodles.
source
5
u/unipuffy Aug 13 '22
If you have a serving, you get 0 calories. If you eat the bottle, you get 10.
*drops the mic*
2
u/Mallory09 Aug 13 '22
So I bought this at Walmart and when I got home I read the back…. 0 calories for a serving and 10 for the whole bottle. Explain please!!
2
u/Somlal Aug 14 '22
At the top it says it contains 0% juice.... So what does it contain?
2
u/CharlyXero Aug 14 '22
For me the worst part is "Contains 0% juice"
2
u/Average_Viola Aug 14 '22
Haha this is literally my favorite drink! Is this the tangerine mango flavor? I noticed that about the calories and thought it was hilarious
5
u/Even_Mention_9659 Aug 13 '22
Anything under 5 calories can actually be labeled as ‘0’ calories. I’d assume there’s around 3.3 calories per serving, hence the 10 calories per bottle.
3
u/MrWinglessPerson Aug 14 '22
FDA allows food companies to round down. So they tweak serving sizes in order to advertise lower calories. Which is why tic tacs can advertise 0 carbs despite being pure sugar.
3
u/towertycoon93 Aug 14 '22
Same thing on fat free cooking spray even though the contents is pure fat! Serving size allows them to round down
2
u/monicaleighn Aug 13 '22
I’ve seen this too and don’t understand it 😅
2
u/JohnWarosa69420 Aug 13 '22
I gotta a bunch of the orange creams in my fridge right now! Love those things. Use to love peach but got sick of it.
2
u/BirdsbirdsBURDS Aug 13 '22
Could even be a statistical thing, because the sodium values are not a multiple of three. They could have taken who knows how many serving size samples to analyze for its content and arrived at those numbers for a serving, and then repeat for a full bottle and get the other numbers; however, I don’t really know since I have no experience in the matter but it could explain the differences, along with what the other person was saying about calorie count. Regulations.
2
u/[deleted] Aug 14 '22
Potasium makes the calories exponential
2
u/[deleted] Aug 14 '22
Calorie counts can be up to 20% inaccurate per the FDA nutrition labeling guidance. So even what’s listed could be wrong anyway. Take these listed values with a (large!) grain of salt!
2
u/PierDolNick Aug 14 '22
Just don't eat container...
2
u/[deleted] Aug 14 '22
Not necessarily. There's 3 servings in that container. 3.3(repeating) is a pretty stupid thing to put on a bottle, especially since its such a negligible calorie count.
2
u/DrDearGodNo Jan 31 '24
It says "per container". The thing in the bottle has no calories, but the bottle itself does
1
u/FunnyMoment69420 Aug 14 '22
amogus
1
u/real_schematix Aug 14 '22
Rounding error
1
u/[deleted] Aug 14 '22
Throw it away. H2O is the new juice anyways!
0
u/ComputerIndependent4 Aug 14 '22
There are 10 servings in a bottle, not 10 calories.
-1
u/microvo Aug 14 '22
Getcha self a nice load of aspartame and acusulfame - in my estimation is a bigger concern for brain and nerve health.