Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 90 posts

Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar

#11

Post by verteu »

jdpedrie wrote: post #4
tjr wrote: post #2

Do 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.

Still seems like a dark pattern that tic-tacs are manufactured to be 0.49g, just under the 0.5g limit that allows them to round down to zero on the label.

Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar

#12

Post by JohnFen »

dwallin wrote: post #8
JohnFen wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, the games played with serving sizes can be ridiculous.

But, at least in this case, if sugars are present in a food, but at less than half a gram per serving, the label can claim the food to be sugar free, but does still have to contain a disclaimer saying that sugar is present.

Welcome to bureaucracy.

Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar

#13

Post by crazygringo »

Guvante wrote: post #10

On 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...

They're breath mints, not candy.

Is 1 at a time not enough? Is it 2 or 3?

Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar

#14

Post by usea »

crazygringo wrote: post #13
Guvante wrote: post #10

On 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...

They're breath mints, not candy. Is 1 at a time not enough? Is it 2 or 3?

> They're breath mints, not candy.

Based on what? I think they're definitely candy.

Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar

#15

Post by avree »

crazygringo wrote: post #13
Guvante wrote: post #10

On 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...

They're breath mints, not candy. Is 1 at a time not enough? Is it 2 or 3?

"Hard mints are hard candies or boiled sweets flavored with mint. Examples of hard mints include starlight mints, also known as pinwheel mints, white, circular, with red or green rays emitting from the middle; candy canes; humbugs; and brand name mints such as Altoids and Ice Breakers."

Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar

#20

Post by SoftTalker »

dwallin wrote: post #8
JohnFen wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But why? This is like worrying about pennies on a thousand dollar price.

A tic-tac is zero sugar in the context of a person's normal daily intake.

Except for those who took (and paid attention in) a chemistry class, most people are woefully ignorant of precision and significant figures.

Post reply on HN