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

71–80 of 90 posts

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

#71

Post by kube-system »

ahofmann wrote: post #65
kube-system wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has started implementing an even simpler system. Any foods that are packaged in a way that could plausibly be consumed in a single serving must list the nutrition facts for the whole container. e.g. https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcseriesblog/wp-content/upl... I think this should be expanded to larger packaging sizes than it currently is. I think that currently only the shorter Pringles cans are affected by…

Listing the ingredients per 100g is better, because you can compare different products. It is the law in Europe (I think) and it's the only sensible solution.

Per 100g helps people compare similar products. But is that the problem that needs solving? I don't really think so. The issue is that people binge an entire package of food and don't realize how many calories they're actually consuming. These people are not helped by being persuaded to binge a bag of chips with 5% fewer calories.

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

#73

Post by tylerhou »

ahofmann wrote: post #65
kube-system wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has started implementing an even simpler system. Any foods that are packaged in a way that could plausibly be consumed in a single serving must list the nutrition facts for the whole container. e.g. https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcseriesblog/wp-content/upl... I think this should be expanded to larger packaging sizes than it currently is. I think that currently only the shorter Pringles cans are affected by…

Listing the ingredients per 100g is better, because you can compare different products. It is the law in Europe (I think) and it's the only sensible solution.

100g of popcorn is not the same as 100g of chips.

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

#74

Post by baal80spam »

sebazzz wrote: post #60
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).

> for instance a hand of M&Ms

An excellent example of "serving" stupidity. How big a hand? Child's hand? Adult's hand? Bodybuilder's? Woman? Man? Full? Kind of full?

I have absolutely no idea what a "serving of cheese" constitutes.

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

#75

Post by baal80spam »

iknownothow wrote: post #55

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 10…

> the label states the number of grams of sugar for every 100 grams of product

Isn't it required in the whole EU?

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

#76

Post by felurx »

bagacrap wrote: post #68
ahofmann wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Listing the ingredients per 100g is better, because you can compare different products. It is the law in Europe (I think) and it's the only sensible solution.

Per 100g doesn't make it easy to compare a bag of chips to a can of soda. Unless you carry around a food scale to measure out all your snacks, I fail to understand why 100g^-1 is useful. I would however be interested in a pie chart that displays the calories from different macros. Then tic tac would be 100% sugar and you could compare to soda, also 100% sugar, or chips, which are maybe 65% fat and 5% protein and 30%…

I don't mean to be snarky, but there's always a weight listed on stuff, I think that removes the requirement for carrying a food scale?

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

#77

Post by guyzyl »

sebazzz wrote: post #60
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).

A hand is a really bad to measure things, it's good no other arbitrarily sized body parts are used for exact measurements in the US.

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

#78

Post by MerelyMortal »

Izkata wrote: post #62
Hamcha wrote: post #51

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 t…

> servings almost never match the actual consumption My favorite serving size: 1/3 of a muffin.

I recently ran across some instructions that said to measure 1/3 of an inch... I was beside myself.

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

#79

Post by [deleted] »

ahofmann wrote: post #65
kube-system wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has started implementing an even simpler system. Any foods that are packaged in a way that could plausibly be consumed in a single serving must list the nutrition facts for the whole container. e.g. https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcseriesblog/wp-content/upl... I think this should be expanded to larger packaging sizes than it currently is. I think that currently only the shorter Pringles cans are affected by…

Listing the ingredients per 100g is better, because you can compare different products. It is the law in Europe (I think) and it's the only sensible solution.

[deleted]

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

#80

Post by Wowfunhappy »

felurx wrote: post #76
bagacrap wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per 100g doesn't make it easy to compare a bag of chips to a can of soda. Unless you carry around a food scale to measure out all your snacks, I fail to understand why 100g^-1 is useful. I would however be interested in a pie chart that displays the calories from different macros. Then tic tac would be 100% sugar and you could compare to soda, also 100% sugar, or chips, which are maybe 65% fat and 5% protein and 30%…

I don't mean to be snarky, but there's always a weight listed on stuff, I think that removes the requirement for carrying a food scale?

Sure, but now we're back to the current US system, where you have to multiply or divide by the amount in the container (either servings per container, or grams per container) to make sense of the measurement.

Standardizing to 100g doesn't actually make it easier to compare foods, because I don't know how 100g of popcorn compares to 100g of chocolate or 100g of soup. It just doesn't mean anything to me.

Just list the amount in the container.

Post reply on HN