Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
1–10 of 90 posts
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#2Do they really say "sugar free" on the label? I think the claim is that one serving (one tic-tac) has 0g of sugar, which, assuming rounding to the nearest whole number, is probably true.
Unfortunately, that might lead someone to say, well, there are 60 tic-tacs in a box, and 60 * 0 is still 0, so I can eat all 60 for 0g of sugar, which of course is not true.
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#3Do they really say "sugar free" on the label? I think the claim is that one serving (one tic-tac) has 0g of sugar, which, assuming rounding to the nearest whole number, is probably true. Unfortunately, that might lead someone to say, well, there are 60 tic-tacs in a box, and 60 * 0 is still 0, so I can eat all 60 for 0g of sugar, which of course is not true.
According to the US FDA's labelling requirements, if something contains less than 0.5g of sugar per serving, it can be labelled "sugar free".
https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidan...
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#4Do they really say "sugar free" on the label? I think the claim is that one serving (one tic-tac) has 0g of sugar, which, assuming rounding to the nearest whole number, is probably true. Unfortunately, that might lead someone to say, well, there are 60 tic-tacs in a box, and 60 * 0 is still 0, so I can eat all 60 for 0g of sugar, which of course is not true.
No, they don't. His photo doesn't support his silly claim at all. He highlights that the first ingredient is sugar, and that it says zero grams, but doesn't note the asterisk, which says "less than 0.5g". The tic tacs labeled "sugar free" use artificial sweetener.
I don't think any reasonable person would read those three pieces of information and assume that regular tic tacs are sugar free.
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#5Do they really say "sugar free" on the label? I think the claim is that one serving (one tic-tac) has 0g of sugar, which, assuming rounding to the nearest whole number, is probably true. Unfortunately, that might lead someone to say, well, there are 60 tic-tacs in a box, and 60 * 0 is still 0, so I can eat all 60 for 0g of sugar, which of course is not true.
I imagine the critique is based on the nutrition label alone; I'm not aware of and cannot find any labeling where the brand suggests the product is "sugar-free" outside the nutrition label.
Regardless, it is indeed a deceptive practice that I believe should not be allowed, along with the "sugar-free!" labels when they have maltodextrin or other "basically-sugar" ingredients.
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#6Do they really say "sugar free" on the label? I think the claim is that one serving (one tic-tac) has 0g of sugar, which, assuming rounding to the nearest whole number, is probably true. Unfortunately, that might lead someone to say, well, there are 60 tic-tacs in a box, and 60 * 0 is still 0, so I can eat all 60 for 0g of sugar, which of course is not true.
According to the US FDA's labelling requirements, if something contains less than 0.5g of sugar per serving, it can be labelled "sugar free". https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidan...
[deleted]
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#7This is an ancient factoid but people love to bring it around again.
The problem is that USA doesn't mandate nutrition facts per container, and allows 0.49g "serving sizes".
In Tic Tac's defense, the UI design (and adveristing) for the famous "one and a half calorie breath mint" (now 1.9cal) suggests that you should be having only 1 or 2 at a time of these teeny tiny mints.
But they know that their customers can't control themselves.
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#8Do they really say "sugar free" on the label? I think the claim is that one serving (one tic-tac) has 0g of sugar, which, assuming rounding to the nearest whole number, is probably true. Unfortunately, that might lead someone to say, well, there are 60 tic-tacs in a box, and 60 * 0 is still 0, so I can eat all 60 for 0g of sugar, which of course is not true.
According to the US FDA's labelling requirements, if something contains less than 0.5g of sugar per serving, it can be labelled "sugar free". https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidan...
Serving size is an often arbitrary and gameable number. This is a case where the fda need to improve their definitions. Eg. zeroing-out amounts could take serving size into account.
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#9So are we still calling this website twitter?
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#10On the one hand it does have an asterisk and says On the other hand changing the serving size to ~1g would clear this up so there is a lot of rules lawyering going on here.
Especially since none of their consumers eats 1 of these things in a serving...