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

51–60 of 90 posts

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

#51

Post by Hamcha »

Always found the "X per serving" stupid, servings almost never match the actual consumption. Don't know if it's a Europe law or per-state, but in Italy everything has to list nutritional info per 100g(or ml if it's liquid), and tic-tacs correctly show their average of 2 calories per candy[1]. It also is a wakeup call to how heavy snacks are, a can of Pringles is almost 900 calories even though they'd prefer you use their serving size of 30g (about 13 chips)

1. https://images.openfoodfacts.org/images/products/400/840/039...

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

#52

Post by Retric »

SoftTalker wrote: post #34
lm28469 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ehh, many people are probably eating several boxes a day of tick tacks which are ~100 calories each. I used to pop them like the candy they are, and that adds up fast.

So I wouldn’t be surprised if a few thousand people are overweight due to Tick Tacks not actually being 0g of sugar.

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

#54

Post by kube-system »

croes wrote: post #45
jdpedrie wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you really think that in the country where the third-pounder lost to the quarter-pounder because people thought it was smaller that they read the asterisk text there?

It's the third-pounder you're thinking of. And it's not really surprising that people aren't really mentally engaged when ordering at a fast food restaurant. McDonalds is the kind of place where people order by looking at numbered pictures.

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

#55

Post by iknownothow »

I'm a resident of Germany and I visited the US this year. I'm quite conscious of my 5 year old's sugar intake so I almost obsessively look at the labels looking for the percentage of sugar a product contains at grocery stores.

Reading the labels in the US was __extremely aggravating__ due to the serving size bullshit and it gave me a headache after calculating the percentage of sugar in the products after like the 10th product. Here in Germany, the label states the number of grams of sugar for every 100 grams of product, so you don't even have to calculate the percentage. Comparing products in the grocery store aisles is really easy in Germany.

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

#56

Post by croes »

kube-system wrote: post #54
croes wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really think that in the country where the third-pounder lost to the quarter-pounder because people thought it was smaller that they read the asterisk text there?

It's the third-pounder you're thinking of. And it's not really surprising that people aren't really mentally engaged when ordering at a fast food restaurant. McDonalds is the kind of place where people order by looking at numbered pictures.

Yep, autocorrect error, fixed.

Thanks

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

#57

Post by kdmccormick »

SoftTalker wrote: post #34
lm28469 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In addition to Retric's point, many (most?) people are overweight due to symphony of small poor health choices. A box of tic tacs here, a candy bar there, a soda and a beer at night, driving instead of walking: each of those might add ~100 net calories a day, but together they add ~500 a day, which absolutely can cause weight gain.

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

#58

Post by kube-system »

ornornor wrote: post #28
Hamuko wrote: post #19

Earlier 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!

All packaged foods in the US are required by law to be dual labelled in metric and customary units since 1994. The package size, serving size, and nutrition facts are all labelled in metric.

It is really a myth to say that the US "doesn't use metric". (and it's also a myth to say that they use imperial units, US customary units diverge in many cases from imperial units) The US widely uses a mix of both customary and metric units.

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

#59

Post by kube-system »

knome wrote: post #53

It would be nice if manufacturers always had to provide a "whole package" calorie count on the label.

The FDA has started requiring this for some products:

> New Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules specify that the label on any food package that contains between two and three servings and that could be eaten in one sitting must provide nutrition information both for a single serving and for eating the entire contents.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/some-food-labels-now-tell-you-t...

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

#60

Post by sebazzz »

tromp wrote: post #50

Fortunately, here in the Netherlands (and most parts of Europe I suspect), ingredients are specified as amounts per 100g rather than some arbitrary serving size. This makes it very easy to compare products, for instance to see which one has the lowest percentage of sugars. In the US I had a much harder time comparing cereals for sugar content, as every one would have a different serving size.

Per 100g or 100ml is mandatory, but it is allowed to show per serving (for instance a hand of M&Ms).
Post reply on HN