Why This “Zero Calorie Sweetener” Isn’t Zero Calories
1–7 of 7 posts
Re: Why This “Zero Calorie Sweetener” Isn’t Zero Calories
#2But isn’t the sugar in a form that it can’t be metabolized by the body? Or is that untrue?
Re: Why This “Zero Calorie Sweetener” Isn’t Zero Calories
#3But isn’t the sugar in a form that it can’t be metabolized by the body? Or is that untrue?
[flagged]
Re: Why This “Zero Calorie Sweetener” Isn’t Zero Calories
#4But isn’t the sugar in a form that it can’t be metabolized by the body? Or is that untrue?
[flagged]
We really (really) don't need chat gpt for these kind-of questions, all thee is to know is here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_substitute
And the answer to your specific question is the 2nd source, linked in the first sentence of the article
Re: Why This “Zero Calorie Sweetener” Isn’t Zero Calories
#5The takeaway is as far as labeling is concerned, any food is zero calories if the serving size is sufficiently small.
Re: Why This “Zero Calorie Sweetener” Isn’t Zero Calories
#6https://www.tictac.com/us/en/products/tic-tacr-mint-flavors-...
Similarly, tic-tacs are labeled as having 0 grams of sugar even though they are nearly 100% sugar. That is because their chosen serving size is 1 tictac, and 1 tictac is 0.49 g, which is 0.01 g below the limit for reporting.
Re: Why This “Zero Calorie Sweetener” Isn’t Zero Calories
#7The takeaway is as far as labeling is concerned, any food is zero calories if the serving size is sufficiently small.
Which is why the US should adopt the EU labeling guidelines. Everything is listed as per 100g, so you can't hide sugar content.