related fun fact: splenda has more calories than sugar. it can say 0 calories because it has less than 5 per serving (packet)
Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
31–40 of 90 posts
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#32Why do they bother listing amounts, in grams, of the constituents of a 0.49g serving, and round any amount less than 0.5g down to 0? Nothing can be non zero in that case!
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#33Earlier 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.
No need to muck about with limits based on serving size. Just mandate a consistent portion size for labeling and allow manufacturers to also label with an additional serving size of their choosing. So everything, tic-tacs included, would be labeled with nutrition facts for say 3 oz (or even a flat 100g to be consistent with EU), and then tic-tacs could also include labeling for per piece.
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Nobody is overweight due to eating too many tic-tacs.
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#35Why do they bother listing amounts, in grams, of the constituents of a 0.49g serving, and round any amount less than 0.5g down to 0? Nothing can be non zero in that case!
Isn’t that the entire point?
They should apply it to the serving too. For a 0g serving is 0g sugar.
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#36On 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?
It is 2 or 3 from my experience since the tiny size means they don't have enough of an impact if you have only one.
Also they sell non-mint ones...
My point is a serving size of 2 would avoid this skullduggery and be representative of how much people eat anyway.
Just be honest and say there is 1g of sugar in 1g of tic tacs.
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#37[deleted]
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#38Do 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.
>The tic tacs labeled "sugar free" use artificial sweetener.
I've sort of trained myself to be careful at this point, but this is an annoyance of mine especially with clear sparkling water. I'm fine with and generally like seltzers without sweeteners added. I hate sparkling water with some artificial sweetener and the difference isn't always obvious from the big print on the label.
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't all nutritional labels in the US in metric?
Wait really? You buy quantities in imperial but the nutritional labels are in metric? Good luck with that!
Why would I need to be lucky? When would I care how many ounces of protein are in my sandwich?
Re: Tic Tacs claim to have 0 sugar but are almost entirely sugar
#40Do 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.
We should add significant figures to the high school curriculum.