Same idea: 0 calories does not mean 0 calories https://youtu.be/EN6COaYLS_A
Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
21–30 of 90 posts
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#22Wait till you learn about lead free brass
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#23Do 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.
A reasonable person would not always notice the triangle and understand what it means, and even then it's obscurantism. Why bother defending what is obviously purposefully misleading? Whether this is enabled by FDA rules doesn't change that.
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#24Wait till you learn about lead free brass
What about it?
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Not if you have diabetes or if you're into a keto/low carb diet
But yes in the context of 70% of people being overweitgh/obese I guess it doesn't matter, the bar is low so we can lower it ever further
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#26Same trick used in these 0 calories flavored waters.
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#27Could you sell a bag of sugar, specifying a serving size of 0.49g, as being sugar free?
I think there are standards around serving sizes, even more so for commodities like that but I don’t know for sure and would be curious to learn more if anyone else feels like chiming in!
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#28Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#29Could you sell a bag of sugar, specifying a serving size of 0.49g, as being sugar free?
I mean, they basically are, so yes? I guess there might be some part of the process where you have to explain your serving size and that might be the hard part
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Common sense? Or if you need proof that it's not just me:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tic_Tac
"Product type: Breath mints"
Actual candies tend to be larger, like peppermints, or else you eat a bunch at once, like Nerds. Tic Tacs literally come in a tiny sturdy dispenser box because they're breath mints designed to keep with you for days/weeks. Not a cardboard box to consume in one or two sittings.