3 ms·

Note quite "pure sugar", but probably close enough: https://www.tictac.com/us/en/products/tic-tacr-mint-flavors-freshmints/#tic-tacr-mint-flavors-freshmints htt

by arp242 3y ago

Note quite "pure sugar", but probably close enough: https://www.tictac.com/us/en/products/tic-tacr-mint-flavors-freshmints/#tic-tacr-mint-flavors-freshmints https://www.tictac.com/us/en/products/tic-tacr-mint-flavors-... I suppose it's "correct" in the sense that 0.49g rounded to the nearest gram is 0g. For reference, a sugar cube is ~4g, a can of coke has about 32g of sugar, and daily recommended intake for "free sugars" is about 30g, so their ~0.49g of sugar amounts to ~1.5% of daily intake, and amounts to about 2 calories per TicTac. That's not a whole lot, but it's not the "0" claimed on the package, either.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 3y ago
> That's not a whole lot... I'd wager very few people actually consider a single TicTac to be a serving. A handful at least, a whole box probably not being unusual.
- arp242 3y ago
  I think it makes sense to list the nutrition per TicTac though; it's a logical unit and people can multiple from there. But zero times anything is of course always zero. I don't really know what a realistic life-size serving is. I mostly just wanted to contextualize these numbers a bit: what does 0.49g or 4.9g sugar actually mean?
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > I think it makes sense to list the nutrition per TicTac though... Would you similarly list nutrition facts per grain of rice, or per french fry? It's deliberately misleading, and a serving is supposed to reflect real-life portion sizes that'd typically be consumed. Eat the box, and you've consumed nearly as much sugar as an 8oz bottle of Coke.
    - arp242 3y ago
      No one eats a single grain of rice or a single chip, or can count how many they do eat (certainly in the case of rice). It's a rather silly comparison. A single tic-tac is not that far-fetched, and perhaps more realistic than you might think. In the end, "serving size" is a rather personal thing. And it's misleading, yes, but only by rounding everything down to 0.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        > No one eats a single grain of rice or a single chip... Nor a single TicTac, for the most part. I'm sure there's someone out there who does, but it's certainly not standard practice. A box that's full of a food item that's 95% sugar simply shouldn't be able to list itself as zero sugar.
        arp242 3y ago
        > A box that's full of a food item that's 95% sugar simply shouldn't be able to list itself as zero sugar. Obviously; we already agreed on that from the start. All that remains is the (IMHO very minor) disagreement whether the information should be listed "per capsule", "per n capsules", or "per n weight unit(s)", or "per box". It seems to me that "per capsule" is by far the easiest for consumers as that's the easiest, but it's really a minor detail.
        lunaticlabs 3y ago
        As an American who know lives in Europe, where nutrition facts are labeled per 100g, I disagree. It is far easier for me to compare products and their nutritional value when there's a standardized size (and prices also have to be listed per 100g, so I can compare!). I now find US nutritional (and price) guidelines entirely useless. I just wanted to pass on my own experience, as someone who used to think that it was reasonably done, but sometimes you don't know what you are missing until you experience the alternative.
jdietrich 3y ago
Comparing to the UK version of the same webpage reveals many of the differences in regulations. The nutritional information is given per 100G, regardless of what the manufacturer calls a "serving". The ingredients list gives the name of additives, but also the function of those additives. Most tellingly, there's an age verification popup, because regulations prohibit the marketing of foods that are high in fat, salt or sugar to children. https://www.tictac.com/uk/en/products/tic-tac-flavours-fresh-mint/#tic-tac-flavours-fresh-mint https://www.tictac.com/uk/en/products/tic-tac-flavours-fresh... https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/food-hfss-overview.html https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/food-hfss-overview.html

by arp242 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ceejayoz 3y ago

> That's not a whole lot... I'd wager very few people actually consider a single TicTac to be a serving. A handful at least, a whole box probably not being unusual.

arp242 3y ago
I think it makes sense to list the nutrition per TicTac though; it's a logical unit and people can multiple from there. But zero times anything is of course always zero. I don't really know what a realistic life-size serving is. I mostly just wanted to contextualize these numbers a bit: what does 0.49g or 4.9g sugar actually mean?
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > I think it makes sense to list the nutrition per TicTac though... Would you similarly list nutrition facts per grain of rice, or per french fry? It's deliberately misleading, and a serving is supposed to reflect real-life portion sizes that'd typically be consumed. Eat the box, and you've consumed nearly as much sugar as an 8oz bottle of Coke.
  - arp242 3y ago
    No one eats a single grain of rice or a single chip, or can count how many they do eat (certainly in the case of rice). It's a rather silly comparison. A single tic-tac is not that far-fetched, and perhaps more realistic than you might think. In the end, "serving size" is a rather personal thing. And it's misleading, yes, but only by rounding everything down to 0.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      > No one eats a single grain of rice or a single chip... Nor a single TicTac, for the most part. I'm sure there's someone out there who does, but it's certainly not standard practice. A box that's full of a food item that's 95% sugar simply shouldn't be able to list itself as zero sugar.
      - arp242 3y ago
        > A box that's full of a food item that's 95% sugar simply shouldn't be able to list itself as zero sugar. Obviously; we already agreed on that from the start. All that remains is the (IMHO very minor) disagreement whether the information should be listed "per capsule", "per n capsules", or "per n weight unit(s)", or "per box". It seems to me that "per capsule" is by far the easiest for consumers as that's the easiest, but it's really a minor detail.
        lunaticlabs 3y ago
        As an American who know lives in Europe, where nutrition facts are labeled per 100g, I disagree. It is far easier for me to compare products and their nutritional value when there's a standardized size (and prices also have to be listed per 100g, so I can compare!). I now find US nutritional (and price) guidelines entirely useless. I just wanted to pass on my own experience, as someone who used to think that it was reasonably done, but sometimes you don't know what you are missing until you experience the alternative.

jdietrich 3y ago

Comparing to the UK version of the same webpage reveals many of the differences in regulations. The nutritional information is given per 100G, regardless of what the manufacturer calls a "serving". The ingredients list gives the name of additives, but also the function of those additives. Most tellingly, there's an age verification popup, because regulations prohibit the marketing of foods that are high in fat, salt or sugar to children. https://www.tictac.com/uk/en/products/tic-tac-flavours-fresh-mint/#tic-tac-flavours-fresh-mint https://www.tictac.com/uk/en/products/tic-tac-flavours-fresh... https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/food-hfss-overview.html https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/food-hfss-overview.html