1. https://images.openfoodfacts.org/images/products/400/840/039...
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 this new regulation in the US.
It is the law in Europe (I think) and it's the only sensible solution.
My favorite serving size: 1/3 of a muffin.
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.
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.
Isn't it required in the whole EU?
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.
I don't think any reasonable person would read those three pieces of information and assume that regular tic tacs are sugar free.
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.
Regardless, it is indeed a deceptive practice that I believe should not be allowed, along with the "sugar-free!" labels when they have maltodextrin or other "basically-sugar" ingredients.
https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidan...
And they do list the calories to two digits (which are <5g), list sugar as the primary ingredient, and have a footnote saying that the sugar is < 0.5g.
The disadvantage of standardized labelling is that there will be edge cases, such as when the serving size is under half a gram. Some other countries standardize on 100g for size, but for tic-tacs that would be more than 3 typical containers worth. Listing all three (portion, container and 100g size) would require a fold-out label to fit, which would negatively impact a product kept in purses and pockets.
I'll wait to get out the pitchfork til they actually say "sugar-free" on the side.
They should apply it to the serving too. For a 0g serving is 0g sugar.
The problem is that USA doesn't mandate nutrition facts per container, and allows 0.49g "serving sizes".
In Tic Tac's defense, the UI design (and adveristing) for the famous "one and a half calorie breath mint" (now 1.9cal) suggests that you should be having only 1 or 2 at a time of these teeny tiny mints.
But they know that their customers can't control themselves.
> 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...
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...
Is 1 at a time not enough? Is it 2 or 3?
Based on what? I think they're definitely candy.
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.
