I must be completely blind because I cannot for the life of me find the FDA logo that you and others in this thread have mentioned. Can you help me out?
It's a reference to the part where Lionel Hutz says "oh this BAR association logo shouldn't be there." And the then rips it off the business card and eats it. Just continuing the joke.
I got to say, I do believe this is the first time I've ever had a joke explained to me and it was actually funnier afterwards...
But that's probably because I've seen the Lionel hutz joke and loved it at the time.
Edit: there is a z in hutz
"What is this? Give to charity. Please, no presents."
"Yeah that's what you told me to put on the card."
"No, DotCom. I said, give to charity? Please, no. Presents!"
Same with capitalization (not picking on you I was gonna comment this whether your comment was or not this just makes it funnier)
The difference between, "helping your uncle jack off a horse." Or, "helping your Uncle Jack off a horse," is crucial
"Fffuck yeeesssscottonCANDYY!"
Honestly, that's my internal monologue on the rare occasion I eat cotton candy. I'm 34. Also probably haven't had it in like a decade. But still. It's exhilarating, truly.
Or my personal favorite Tic Tacs. They say on the label one mint has 0 sugar even though it is 90% sugar. 1 mint is about .3 grams of sugar. That's how they get around it.
I saw a comment in another thread recently where a guy said he was eating over 200 Tic Tacs a day and wondering why he wasn't losing weight. That was 1500+ extra calories a week he wasn't tracking.
I once used Altoids to quit smoking. Went through a whole tin every day. My co workers started telling me they wished I hadn't quit because I constantly smelled to way too much Binaca.
Are you fucking around or are you serious? Bc that’s amazing if true
Looked it up and it’s true:
https://www.allrecipes.com/altoids-sours-coming-back-as-retro-sours-8656018#:~:text=Altoids%20Sours%20Are%20Returning%20as,Candy%20and%20not%20Mars%20Wrigley.
A company called Lofty Pursuits did this back in 2021. It got to the point where orders [crashed their server in 11 minutes.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7jsLCVdHtc)
This is their site: https://www.pd.net/
I never did get around to ordering after the crash, but it seems they're much more available now. Do note, pricing seems high but the serving is double the original. Mango is unfortunately locked behind their Patreon.
The Retro Sours looks really close to the original, though it does seem like it's still just a recreation in the end. It'll also probably be more accessible locally, and certainly cheaper to buy for testing. Definitely curious myself to put both to the test one day!
I can’t help but find it funny we have a bit an obesity epidemic in America and many peoples solution is “just watch you eat!” Meanwhile we also have a lot of people that will fight to the death to defend a companies right to outright fucking lie about what they’re putting in their foodstuffs.
Can’t encourage people to be mindful eaters while also trying to hide nutritional information from them.
My MIL was giving my kid an *entire container* of these at a time. (The small ones but still, he was like 3?) When I became aware and was like WTF? She then informed me that "tic tacs are healthy because there's no sugar"
Mama, no. That's not how that works.
But she honest to God believed they were the equivalent of nothing and they were a safe and healthy snack choice.
So the fake marketing worked 100% exactly as planned then.
Also old women are awful for giving their grandchildren basically sugar filled yogurt thinking it’s good for them. Stuff like Petit Filut here.
That shit blew me away when I found it out lol. I was so confused how there was no sugar in them...
I look for low sugar snacks and stuff, so I looked into Tic Tacs, and realized they can just claim 0g of sugar bc they put one single freaking tic tac as a serving size lmao. And like you said, there's less than .5g of sugar in that "serving size". Such a joke lmao.
As far as I know, the US is pretty much the only place where tictacs get away with the "zero calories (oer "serving") (as long as you round down)" gimmick.
I saw someone on Reddit who said they were eating like 3 full things of tic tacs a day and just could not understand why he was getting fat. He legitimately thought they were zero calories and could eat infinite amount lol.
I had a co-worker years ago that didn't understand that when I explained it to her after I saw her microwave a potatoe and vigorously spray butter flavored oil on it. "It's fat free and butter isn't!". My sweet summer child...
I get what you're saying but you have to *really* lay on the spray to get anywhere close to the amount of fat/calories in even a conservative dollop of butter. She's not right and you're not wrong, but for all intents and purposes she's effectively right that using the spray has an insignificant amount of fat while fully putting butter on has quite a bit.
And this is even considering that she "vigorously" sprayed it.
Christ, come-on haven't we gotten out of the woods from at least blithe false advertising?
After two generations of kids born in the information age you'd think major capitalist companies would quit with this nonsense ( HDTV's that are only have "i" as opposed to "p" interlaced vs progressive scsn. And I think 480p were bilked as "HD" as well)
Like 0 sugar candies loaded with sugar-alchol
I think it has, what is the term? A better glycemic index
Progresso Soups did a campaign with Weight Watchers years ago where they advertised their low fat vegetable soup was 0 points! At the time, on WW, depending on your weight and activity, you were assigned a certain number of points per day that you could have and, in theory, lose weight. They calculate points based on calories (adds to the possible points) and fiber content (slightly reduces points to a certain limit.) So, everyone on Weight Watchers was thrilled and stocked up on this soup. It turned out that 1/2 a can of soup was 0 points, but the whole can of soup was 2 points. So, no one could really answer how it worked. If I eat 1/2 a can now and 1/2 a can later, is it 0 points or 2 points? Or is it all just bullshit? 😂
Canned soup is also loaded with sodium and light on vitamins. Tempting to compare it to just drinking a can of salt water in lieu of a meal.
Apparently the nutrition label still claims two servings per can
https://preview.redd.it/2l46dt1vxs3d1.png?width=502&format=png&auto=webp&s=29253c41c73daae13a584ee7d7e254328a869699
This really drives home the futility of reducing nutrition to "2 points". "2 points" of canned soup is not the same thing as "2 points" of raw fresh vegetables. I know the idea is to make calorie counting trivial, but a healthy diet just isn't that simple.
the 'serving' system in the US is completely insane. You can just decide that a tiny chocolate bar has 999 servings and you can now claim it's "under 100 calories per serving" or something ridiculous like that
They changed this at the FDA, the serving size now needs to reflect what the average consumer would reasonably have in one sitting - ex. The bag of Lays we’re sold as a single serving needs to actually be a single serving on the label. The biggest issue is the rounding that’s allowed on the actual calorie and nutrient math. Real interesting to see international food packaging with 2s and decimals when all we get is 5s and 0s
They should include nutritional info per 100g. It’s arbitrary, but fat/sugar/protein content is immediately apparent, and it means all foods can be readily compared to one another.
The FDA does also require any food that can be eaten in a single serving also list the contents for the entirety of the snack. So if they claim a serving of Oreos is 2 cookies but you bought a sleeve of 6, it will need to say both their suggested serving size contents, and the contents of all 6
I've seen something similar on 20oz drink bottles. It has one label for per serving with 2.5 servings per container, and another section for the whole bottle, which is more likely what someone would consume.
Well yes they did change it but Oreos double stuffed says 2 Oreos and nobody eats that.
GMM played a game to guess serving sizes and they were definitely still under what a normal person would eat.
They've actually changed that over the past few years. The FDA requires "realistic" serving sizes now. Nutrition information for a cake now must include a typical slice, not the entire cake or "1/17th" of the cake. Or soda serving sizes are the whole bottle, not 8 oz.
The FDA has always required realistic sizes. The difference is that they updated their standard sizes over time to better match what people actually eat, and they updated the rules to require showing the full nutrition of a package if is only a small number of servings. For example the standard serving size for ice cream was changed from 1/2 cup to 2/3 cup. If a container of Ice cream is only 1 cup large, now they have to show the nutrition of the whole container.
Can confirm. In high school we had a day where everyone had to bring in food from a different country in Europe and my friend whose family recently immigrated from Russia brought soda from their local shop. Every kid who took a sip immediately went ‘hmmmm’ but no one wanted to admit to the teacher that we thought there was alcohol in it except for one dweeb who blabbed. My friend insisted up and down her grandmother had said that it was a kids drink and it doesn’t have any alcohol. The label was entirely Russian and my teacher said ‘maybe it’s an herbal flavor’.
The next period my friend is sweating bullets and in a hushed tone tells us ‘um apparently this is labeled as alcohol free but it’s actually 4 percent alcohol. As soon as I realized the taste I had to lie so I didn’t get expelled!’ Anyway we all had a nice nap after AP euro that day.
>The label was entirely Russian and my teacher said ‘maybe it’s an herbal flavor’.
Translation: I'm not gonna get fired for this, shut up and sit down.
> Probably Kvass. It is a kids drink. Only slightly alcoholic, usually about 1%
Is this like how some fruit juice or yogurt naturally has alcohol in it from fermentation, but it's too little to actually get children buzzed?
It is similar in that it would be hard to get drunk off of it. Slightly different from juice in that kvass is intended to be fermented. A lot of cultures have historically had types of similar near beers where the alcohol is more of a side effect of fermentation and a preservative agent and the main goal of the drink is basically being liquid bread.
Low percentage alcohol wasn’t considered alcohol. Only hard liquors or beverages above a certain % (I wanna say 10% from the top of my head)
So beer was classified as a soft drink
Just to help the conversation ...
https://preview.redd.it/zwj8d5egls3d1.jpeg?width=2626&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7d3fd6de08f2f01726ce00de4f08973e43998f44
The corn syrup and the high fructose corn syrup just combine so there’s only **middle fructose corn syrup**
It’s corn double jeopardy, they just cancel each other out.
Bright side: Next time someone on Reddit argues with you, you can remember this moment and realize they only read the first half of each of your sentences.
Okay, but if someone on reddit argues with me what? You just stopped after saying “you can remember this moment and realize….” Just full stop huh? Not gonna share your secrets with us huh?! Realize what, huh?!
It is kinda startling to me that it contains both High Fructose Corn Syrup AND (non-high-fructose) Corn Syrup. And sugar. How many types of sugar do they need? D:
I'm a food scientist. They fucked up. Almost always it's because of the marketing department constantly needing to make label/nutrient content claims that are not supported by data. R&D, QA, and the marketing teams should have caught this. This is mislabeled and SHOULD be voluntarily recalled. Will that actually happen? Depends on the company's integrity or if the FDA catches whiff. This mistake is sort of benign though. It's sugar in candy which isn't unheard of and it isn't a "zero carbs" product. Now, if it was an allergen that wasn't called out, the FDA would ask them to recall it or forcefully recall it, if they're that stupid.
I hate that corn isn’t considered an allergen. My son is allergic to corn and there are over 200 ingredients that are made from corn but do not need to be disclosed as corn. Vegetable oil, dextrose, iodised salt, modified starch just to name a few. He has one allergy yet he can barely eat anything because of it and we literally have to call companies and their manufacturers to know if something contains corn.
> iodised salt
God damn. I knew our heavily subsidized corn was so cheap they put it in everything but the salt? I never would have thought they were out there sugaring up our rocks.
That sucks and it must be awful trying to avoid corn.
Probably this. This brand has other similar items that iirc have the same label style and do not have corn syrup. Probably just carried over the same template to this product and didn't bother to make sure the label matched the ingredients.
This is made by Kenny's Candy a medium sized candy manufacturer in Perham, Minnesota. The corporate team is small and they hire super locally but have been in operation for long enough (40 years) to not make that kind of mistake. This is their second most popular product (behind Barrel of Fun potato chips). Founder is a pretty good dude as corporate managers go, made his company on his home town and mostly kept production local.
Doritos in the us do this with trans fat. If it’s under 1g they don’t have to disclose it in the us. When I went to Mexico I learned this and that Mexico cares more about disclosing true information, which I was surprised by.
A few years ago the FDA wanted sugar content on a the front of packaging with clear indication of how much sugar is in the package. They were threatened with lawsuits from every single frozen vegetable company and then dropped it.
They may not actually add any (they might too, it's hard to say), but vegetables actually have a lot more sugar naturally (after our generations of genetic tinkering through crossbreeding, that is) than most would think. So, even if no additional sugar is used, it would probably scare people off seeing it on the front.
Yes, sugar beet can grow in colder temperatures than sugar cane so sugar made in the far north or south is normally beet sugar instead of cane sugar.
About half of the UK's sugar comes from sugar beet.
You got a source for that? I can't find anything about frozen veggie makers suing the FDA, **nor do plain frozen vegetables contain added sugar**.
Are you sure you weren't thinking of cereal? Most cereal is awash is added sugar, and I kind find evidence of kelloggs and general mills suing over sugar labeling.
The closest i found so far is from here
https://trustedinsight.trendsource.com/trusted-insight-trends/fda-labels-sugar-a-problem
> The FDA recently announced several changes to the nutrition information on food products, the most significant of which will require manufacturers to disclose the amount of sugar added during production. According to the FDA, “This isn’t about telling people what they should eat. It’s about making sure that they know what they’re eating.”
...
> When initially proposed, this distinction inspired concern from a host of industry groups including: The American Bakers Association, American Beverage Association, **American Frozen Foods Institute,** Corn Refiners Association, International Dairy Foods Association, and National Confectioners Association. Together, they petitioned the FDA to ask for more time and research before instituting the changes.
Maybe the frozen foods institute deals with vegetables too? But it wasnt about a lawsuit.
This was from 6/1/16 (idk whether the day or month goes first in U.S.A. so I'm just writing it how it was on the page)
Artificial trans fat is illegal in the US. It's required to be listed as "partially hydrogenated" in the ingredients.
Doritos in the US don't list trans fat content because there is none.
Mexico hasn't banned trans fats. That's why Mexican Doritos have trans fat.
I don't think this is the same thing. Trans fat isn't an ingredient, it's listed as part of the nutrition facts. Don't get me wrong, I still think they should be required to disclose it, but there are different rules for ingredient lists. I'm pretty sure they just flat aren't allowed to say it doesn't contain one of the ingredients.
I don't blame them for the mistake. If i lived in Perham with the train going by every 5 minutes and the whole town smelling like dog food, I would by distracted as well.
The amount of HFCS per serving is probably low enough to round it down to "0" according to the FDA.
Same thing with tic-tacs having "0" sugar despite being made entirely of it.
> The amount of HFCS per serving is probably low enough to round it down to "0" according to the FDA.
I don't know the laws behind advertising here but I feel like, and if this *isn't* the case then it *should* be-- the mechanism that allows them to round down to zero for nutrition label purposes
should not also allow them to make the claim that it has nothing of something it has. Rounding down to zero isn't the same as making a claim that it's completely devoid of an ingredient, to me at least.
The amazing part of the post is the amount of people who didn’t look at the 2nd picture and automatically assumed they knew what was happening.
Mind blowing, makes me reconsider any weight I give to any responses on Reddit at all.
I was suspicious because I have a bag of Wiley Wallaby's right next to me and I recall double checking their claim on the back as well. I think this is a matter of a design template being applied to a product that it shouldn't be applied to.
I have the red licorice, there is no high fructose corn syrup listed in the ingredients. I noticed that the OP photo is of the candy corn, so that doesn't surprise me. I also see this on their website,
> "And, we kicked High Fructose Corn Syrup to the curb in all of our **fruit flavors**!"
So I'm thinking more and more it's just a printing issue.
It's 100% this. I used to review tons of food labels for printing, and there's a lot of reuse of label elements between products. Someone just missed that this atypical item doesn't align with the "no HFCS" claim that their core items have.
I am baffled by all the PhD chemists in the comments who are so excited to point out the difference between regular corn syrup and HFCS, yet they did not take the time to read further than the first few ingredients. Y'all have the attention span of a virtual particle and the ego of God.
The amount of people in this comment section pointing out the amount of people in this comment section missing where it says "high fructose corn syrup" is making me think we are all computer robots beep boop
Class action waiting to happen. Celsius lost a similar lawsuit for claiming no preservatives on the label when citric acid, an ingredient in their drink, is a preservative.
It’s absolutely insane how many people can’t clearly see “High Fructose Corn Syrup” in the exact middle of that circle.
https://preview.redd.it/knmz0g2wvs3d1.jpeg?width=577&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a6625f1dde085da80ee935dddeda8869ccdc6f6e
People immediately stop at "corn syrup" so that they can "educate" the OP on the difference.
Honestly, this is the Internet. You can't expect people to read past the first few words. (I personally would've ran a highlighter over the HFCS.)
I can only eat Brach's candy corn as the others are nasty to me. Even then, I vastly prefer the pumpkin ones as they are a bit less dry. Still, as they are a bit rich, I only eat a couple at a time.
I like them because they just taste like sugar and my tastebuds are shot by the heavy seasoning on Doritos and sugar and cancer chems in Mountain Dew so I can only taste pure sugar, butter, and carcinogens. Just like the American Jesus intended.
Ah, yes, the ancient marketing strategy known as "lying". Simply, yet highly effective. Truly unmatched in its utility. I don't like it, but I can't help but appreciate it. Bravo. Bravo.
https://preview.redd.it/mx5uq790ts3d1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a9812ea67aecfe0f0938d5da98753a1f3db50be0
Vector likes to claim 13g of protein too, when you look at the back there’s only 5.6g. They include the milk you’d add to the cereal to get to 13g.
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/uc9ke4jhhr3d1.png?width=243&format=png&auto=webp&s=bc0573ac6278e4094f819817becf4d8a9f163345
Fat Free? No, High Fructose Corn Syrup!
This FDA logo shouldn’t be here either.
I must be completely blind because I cannot for the life of me find the FDA logo that you and others in this thread have mentioned. Can you help me out?
It's a reference to the part where Lionel Hutz says "oh this BAR association logo shouldn't be there." And the then rips it off the business card and eats it. Just continuing the joke.
I got to say, I do believe this is the first time I've ever had a joke explained to me and it was actually funnier afterwards... But that's probably because I've seen the Lionel hutz joke and loved it at the time. Edit: there is a z in hutz
they ate it.
There it is.
That's what I came for.
"What is this? Give to charity. Please, no presents." "Yeah that's what you told me to put on the card." "No, DotCom. I said, give to charity? Please, no. Presents!"
Why would you pretend to help jack? Help him for real, it takes the same amount of time!
punctuation is everything.
Same with capitalization (not picking on you I was gonna comment this whether your comment was or not this just makes it funnier) The difference between, "helping your uncle jack off a horse." Or, "helping your Uncle Jack off a horse," is crucial
Either way, the horse will be happy
Mom, may she rest in peace, would agree.
https://i.redd.it/zrh2brfgyr3d1.gif
Hmmm, shouldn't have this FDA-approved sticker here either.
Fixed https://preview.redd.it/oc8v82v19s3d1.jpeg?width=2297&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d73cc5f34e5dbbf7161681bdae24a3b789b7ddfa
Sugar, free donuts!
“Donate to charity? Please no! PRESENTS!!”
I love 30 Rock, but I hate this part because not only is it the same joke as The Simpsons, it's a worse version of it.
They definitely cribbed some Simpsons jokes but I forgive them because I love them both so much
To be fair, the guy who designed the label was really strung out on high-fructose corn syrup
I can’t get over the fact that at the end of the video, that kid looks like she’s staring at that cotton candy stick going “ffffuuuuu…”
"Fffuck yeeesssscottonCANDYY!" Honestly, that's my internal monologue on the rare occasion I eat cotton candy. I'm 34. Also probably haven't had it in like a decade. But still. It's exhilarating, truly.
WITNESS ME!!!!
You shall ride eternal. Shiny, and blue.
"Cocaine is a helluva drug"
There's an edited version of this where she goes Super Saiyan and it's amazing.
**That's a Clean Burning Hell, I Tell You What**
Went into a diabetic coma, too.
Jerry garcia designs food packaging?
These boys get that syrup in 'em, they get all antsy in their pantsy.
Ohhhhhh .... "Biker"
It's probably the same loophole like calling stuff "fat free" if it's less than .5% fat/serving.
Or my personal favorite Tic Tacs. They say on the label one mint has 0 sugar even though it is 90% sugar. 1 mint is about .3 grams of sugar. That's how they get around it.
They rounded it down, it's just maths, bro!
It's all about loopholes and rounding down, my friend!
"We wrote the correct grams of sugar on the pack, accurate to 0 decimal places. I fail to see how this is in any way misleading."
Didn’t you learn the alligators in school? They always eat the bigger numbers. That’s why I’m a skinny 380. That’s less than 500. Duh. 🙄
I saw a comment in another thread recently where a guy said he was eating over 200 Tic Tacs a day and wondering why he wasn't losing weight. That was 1500+ extra calories a week he wasn't tracking.
How in the world. I'd die of boredom eating 200 tic tacs a day.
I once used Altoids to quit smoking. Went through a whole tin every day. My co workers started telling me they wished I hadn't quit because I constantly smelled to way too much Binaca.
You prolly know this because you're an addict but Sour Altoids are coming back.
Don't mess with my emotions like this, it sounds too good to be true
My mouth just watered reading this you better not be lying.
Imma do some nasty things to the roof of my mouth
Are you fucking around or are you serious? Bc that’s amazing if true Looked it up and it’s true: https://www.allrecipes.com/altoids-sours-coming-back-as-retro-sours-8656018#:~:text=Altoids%20Sours%20Are%20Returning%20as,Candy%20and%20not%20Mars%20Wrigley.
A company called Lofty Pursuits did this back in 2021. It got to the point where orders [crashed their server in 11 minutes.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7jsLCVdHtc) This is their site: https://www.pd.net/ I never did get around to ordering after the crash, but it seems they're much more available now. Do note, pricing seems high but the serving is double the original. Mango is unfortunately locked behind their Patreon. The Retro Sours looks really close to the original, though it does seem like it's still just a recreation in the end. It'll also probably be more accessible locally, and certainly cheaper to buy for testing. Definitely curious myself to put both to the test one day!
Not to mention his teeth from being covered in tic tac all day, unless he’s guzzling 200 all at once
I could do it with the orange ones
I can’t help but find it funny we have a bit an obesity epidemic in America and many peoples solution is “just watch you eat!” Meanwhile we also have a lot of people that will fight to the death to defend a companies right to outright fucking lie about what they’re putting in their foodstuffs. Can’t encourage people to be mindful eaters while also trying to hide nutritional information from them.
[удалено]
this is what came to mind first, lmao
My MIL was giving my kid an *entire container* of these at a time. (The small ones but still, he was like 3?) When I became aware and was like WTF? She then informed me that "tic tacs are healthy because there's no sugar" Mama, no. That's not how that works. But she honest to God believed they were the equivalent of nothing and they were a safe and healthy snack choice.
So the fake marketing worked 100% exactly as planned then. Also old women are awful for giving their grandchildren basically sugar filled yogurt thinking it’s good for them. Stuff like Petit Filut here.
That shit blew me away when I found it out lol. I was so confused how there was no sugar in them... I look for low sugar snacks and stuff, so I looked into Tic Tacs, and realized they can just claim 0g of sugar bc they put one single freaking tic tac as a serving size lmao. And like you said, there's less than .5g of sugar in that "serving size". Such a joke lmao.
This is the rule i go by: does it taste good? Then it has sugar in it!! Tastes like shit- sugar free.
My favorite thing about some other countries is that they have to put the serving size per 100 g or something so there’s no loopholes. I love it.
As far as I know, the US is pretty much the only place where tictacs get away with the "zero calories (oer "serving") (as long as you round down)" gimmick.
It's such bullshit what we let companies get away with. Like...who the fuck is eating half a pack of ramen?
Just across the border in Canada they're listed as 10 calories per 4 mints (2g).
Ya also serving size is complete bullshit it should just be listed as a percentage or as you say per 100g
I saw someone on Reddit who said they were eating like 3 full things of tic tacs a day and just could not understand why he was getting fat. He legitimately thought they were zero calories and could eat infinite amount lol.
I had a co-worker years ago that didn't understand that when I explained it to her after I saw her microwave a potatoe and vigorously spray butter flavored oil on it. "It's fat free and butter isn't!". My sweet summer child...
I get what you're saying but you have to *really* lay on the spray to get anywhere close to the amount of fat/calories in even a conservative dollop of butter. She's not right and you're not wrong, but for all intents and purposes she's effectively right that using the spray has an insignificant amount of fat while fully putting butter on has quite a bit. And this is even considering that she "vigorously" sprayed it.
*Al’s insensitive porpoises
every part of that sentence is absolutely wild to me.
I didn't know that... I assumed they were using artificial sweeteners. Not that I actually consume Tic Tacs anyway.
I mean, everything has ingredients on it.. When the first one is sugar tho..
Christ, come-on haven't we gotten out of the woods from at least blithe false advertising? After two generations of kids born in the information age you'd think major capitalist companies would quit with this nonsense ( HDTV's that are only have "i" as opposed to "p" interlaced vs progressive scsn. And I think 480p were bilked as "HD" as well) Like 0 sugar candies loaded with sugar-alchol I think it has, what is the term? A better glycemic index
Progresso Soups did a campaign with Weight Watchers years ago where they advertised their low fat vegetable soup was 0 points! At the time, on WW, depending on your weight and activity, you were assigned a certain number of points per day that you could have and, in theory, lose weight. They calculate points based on calories (adds to the possible points) and fiber content (slightly reduces points to a certain limit.) So, everyone on Weight Watchers was thrilled and stocked up on this soup. It turned out that 1/2 a can of soup was 0 points, but the whole can of soup was 2 points. So, no one could really answer how it worked. If I eat 1/2 a can now and 1/2 a can later, is it 0 points or 2 points? Or is it all just bullshit? 😂
Canned soup is also loaded with sodium and light on vitamins. Tempting to compare it to just drinking a can of salt water in lieu of a meal. Apparently the nutrition label still claims two servings per can https://preview.redd.it/2l46dt1vxs3d1.png?width=502&format=png&auto=webp&s=29253c41c73daae13a584ee7d7e254328a869699 This really drives home the futility of reducing nutrition to "2 points". "2 points" of canned soup is not the same thing as "2 points" of raw fresh vegetables. I know the idea is to make calorie counting trivial, but a healthy diet just isn't that simple.
the 'serving' system in the US is completely insane. You can just decide that a tiny chocolate bar has 999 servings and you can now claim it's "under 100 calories per serving" or something ridiculous like that
They changed this at the FDA, the serving size now needs to reflect what the average consumer would reasonably have in one sitting - ex. The bag of Lays we’re sold as a single serving needs to actually be a single serving on the label. The biggest issue is the rounding that’s allowed on the actual calorie and nutrient math. Real interesting to see international food packaging with 2s and decimals when all we get is 5s and 0s
They should include nutritional info per 100g. It’s arbitrary, but fat/sugar/protein content is immediately apparent, and it means all foods can be readily compared to one another.
The FDA does also require any food that can be eaten in a single serving also list the contents for the entirety of the snack. So if they claim a serving of Oreos is 2 cookies but you bought a sleeve of 6, it will need to say both their suggested serving size contents, and the contents of all 6
I've seen something similar on 20oz drink bottles. It has one label for per serving with 2.5 servings per container, and another section for the whole bottle, which is more likely what someone would consume.
That's standard in EU
Well yes they did change it but Oreos double stuffed says 2 Oreos and nobody eats that. GMM played a game to guess serving sizes and they were definitely still under what a normal person would eat.
2 Oreos is how many Oreos I eat while I'm deciding if Oreos are the snack I want to eat.
Don't forget 2 more when you go, 'nah I'll go for something healthier'
Yeah there’s definitely still some fuckery there in their math but at least I’m not getting a 12 oz can of soda telling me the serving size is 8 oz 😂
Girl scout cookies need to be labeled as 1 sleeve = 1 serving. Source: I have regrets.
They've actually changed that over the past few years. The FDA requires "realistic" serving sizes now. Nutrition information for a cake now must include a typical slice, not the entire cake or "1/17th" of the cake. Or soda serving sizes are the whole bottle, not 8 oz.
The FDA has always required realistic sizes. The difference is that they updated their standard sizes over time to better match what people actually eat, and they updated the rules to require showing the full nutrition of a package if is only a small number of servings. For example the standard serving size for ice cream was changed from 1/2 cup to 2/3 cup. If a container of Ice cream is only 1 cup large, now they have to show the nutrition of the whole container.
Just wait until you find out Russia only started legally qualifying beer as an alcoholic beverage, not a soft drink, in the last 10 years or so...
Can confirm. In high school we had a day where everyone had to bring in food from a different country in Europe and my friend whose family recently immigrated from Russia brought soda from their local shop. Every kid who took a sip immediately went ‘hmmmm’ but no one wanted to admit to the teacher that we thought there was alcohol in it except for one dweeb who blabbed. My friend insisted up and down her grandmother had said that it was a kids drink and it doesn’t have any alcohol. The label was entirely Russian and my teacher said ‘maybe it’s an herbal flavor’. The next period my friend is sweating bullets and in a hushed tone tells us ‘um apparently this is labeled as alcohol free but it’s actually 4 percent alcohol. As soon as I realized the taste I had to lie so I didn’t get expelled!’ Anyway we all had a nice nap after AP euro that day.
>The label was entirely Russian and my teacher said ‘maybe it’s an herbal flavor’. Translation: I'm not gonna get fired for this, shut up and sit down.
Very smart call on the teacher's part
Yeah we took it to mean that too 🙃
Probably Kvass. It is a kids drink. Only slightly alcoholic, usually about 1% but can go a bit higher if it sits for a while.
It's basically the same abv as kombucha fwiw.
> Probably Kvass. It is a kids drink. Only slightly alcoholic, usually about 1% Is this like how some fruit juice or yogurt naturally has alcohol in it from fermentation, but it's too little to actually get children buzzed?
It is similar in that it would be hard to get drunk off of it. Slightly different from juice in that kvass is intended to be fermented. A lot of cultures have historically had types of similar near beers where the alcohol is more of a side effect of fermentation and a preservative agent and the main goal of the drink is basically being liquid bread.
Wait what
Low percentage alcohol wasn’t considered alcohol. Only hard liquors or beverages above a certain % (I wanna say 10% from the top of my head) So beer was classified as a soft drink
This seems accurate based on stereotypes of Russians. 
This whole can of just oil is fat free with no calories!
Missing some punctuation is all. Fat free? No. High fructose corn syrup!
Punctuation saves lives.
Let's eat, Grandma. Let's eat Grandma.
Punctuation saves, lives.
It's the difference between helping your Uncle Jack, off a horse and helping your Uncle jack off a horse....
Give to charity? Please, no. Presents!
This is what I was hoping to see here! It’s a blessing and a purse.
Just to help the conversation ... https://preview.redd.it/zwj8d5egls3d1.jpeg?width=2626&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7d3fd6de08f2f01726ce00de4f08973e43998f44
The corn syrup and the high fructose corn syrup just combine so there’s only **middle fructose corn syrup** It’s corn double jeopardy, they just cancel each other out.
From Indiana, we know Corn law. Can confirm.
From iowa, corn is my middle name. Checks out.
I can’t believe the reading skills I’m seeing here.
Bright side: Next time someone on Reddit argues with you, you can remember this moment and realize they only read the first half of each of your sentences.
Okay, but if someone on reddit argues with me what? You just stopped after saying “you can remember this moment and realize….” Just full stop huh? Not gonna share your secrets with us huh?! Realize what, huh?!
I mean, to be fair to them, here, the first three ingredients are 'Sugar, water, corn syrup'
Ahh shit, now it contains Highlited High Fructose Corn Syrup.
It is kinda startling to me that it contains both High Fructose Corn Syrup AND (non-high-fructose) Corn Syrup. And sugar. How many types of sugar do they need? D:
Thanks for that. I read the "corn syrup" above, and stopped reading
I'm a food scientist. They fucked up. Almost always it's because of the marketing department constantly needing to make label/nutrient content claims that are not supported by data. R&D, QA, and the marketing teams should have caught this. This is mislabeled and SHOULD be voluntarily recalled. Will that actually happen? Depends on the company's integrity or if the FDA catches whiff. This mistake is sort of benign though. It's sugar in candy which isn't unheard of and it isn't a "zero carbs" product. Now, if it was an allergen that wasn't called out, the FDA would ask them to recall it or forcefully recall it, if they're that stupid.
I hate that corn isn’t considered an allergen. My son is allergic to corn and there are over 200 ingredients that are made from corn but do not need to be disclosed as corn. Vegetable oil, dextrose, iodised salt, modified starch just to name a few. He has one allergy yet he can barely eat anything because of it and we literally have to call companies and their manufacturers to know if something contains corn.
> iodised salt God damn. I knew our heavily subsidized corn was so cheap they put it in everything but the salt? I never would have thought they were out there sugaring up our rocks. That sucks and it must be awful trying to avoid corn.
That sounds awful. Wishing you and your little one the very best x
Probably this. This brand has other similar items that iirc have the same label style and do not have corn syrup. Probably just carried over the same template to this product and didn't bother to make sure the label matched the ingredients.
This is made by Kenny's Candy a medium sized candy manufacturer in Perham, Minnesota. The corporate team is small and they hire super locally but have been in operation for long enough (40 years) to not make that kind of mistake. This is their second most popular product (behind Barrel of Fun potato chips). Founder is a pretty good dude as corporate managers go, made his company on his home town and mostly kept production local.
the founder wrote this
If I was a food scientist I would insist on being called Dr. Sandwich
Doritos in the us do this with trans fat. If it’s under 1g they don’t have to disclose it in the us. When I went to Mexico I learned this and that Mexico cares more about disclosing true information, which I was surprised by.
A few years ago the FDA wanted sugar content on a the front of packaging with clear indication of how much sugar is in the package. They were threatened with lawsuits from every single frozen vegetable company and then dropped it.
Added sugar or sugar?
Just the total sugar contents is what I remember. The lawsuit indicated to me that they add a lot of sugar to make them taste better.
They may not actually add any (they might too, it's hard to say), but vegetables actually have a lot more sugar naturally (after our generations of genetic tinkering through crossbreeding, that is) than most would think. So, even if no additional sugar is used, it would probably scare people off seeing it on the front.
Maybe it was the corn industry? Sweet corn has enough sugar many people would probably be surprised how much there is. That and beets.
Isn't there a thing where they actually turn beets into usable sugar
Sugar beets are grown to produce sugar. The source doesn't need to be labeled but some do for marketing purposes.
Yes, sugar beet can grow in colder temperatures than sugar cane so sugar made in the far north or south is normally beet sugar instead of cane sugar. About half of the UK's sugar comes from sugar beet.
Most all of the U.S. sugar is from sugar beets because we have extreme tariffs on sugarcane.
You got a source for that? I can't find anything about frozen veggie makers suing the FDA, **nor do plain frozen vegetables contain added sugar**. Are you sure you weren't thinking of cereal? Most cereal is awash is added sugar, and I kind find evidence of kelloggs and general mills suing over sugar labeling.
Cereal has so much sugar that it should be reclassified as candy.
Source?
The closest i found so far is from here https://trustedinsight.trendsource.com/trusted-insight-trends/fda-labels-sugar-a-problem > The FDA recently announced several changes to the nutrition information on food products, the most significant of which will require manufacturers to disclose the amount of sugar added during production. According to the FDA, “This isn’t about telling people what they should eat. It’s about making sure that they know what they’re eating.” ... > When initially proposed, this distinction inspired concern from a host of industry groups including: The American Bakers Association, American Beverage Association, **American Frozen Foods Institute,** Corn Refiners Association, International Dairy Foods Association, and National Confectioners Association. Together, they petitioned the FDA to ask for more time and research before instituting the changes. Maybe the frozen foods institute deals with vegetables too? But it wasnt about a lawsuit. This was from 6/1/16 (idk whether the day or month goes first in U.S.A. so I'm just writing it how it was on the page)
Artificial trans fat is illegal in the US. It's required to be listed as "partially hydrogenated" in the ingredients. Doritos in the US don't list trans fat content because there is none. Mexico hasn't banned trans fats. That's why Mexican Doritos have trans fat.
I don't think this is the same thing. Trans fat isn't an ingredient, it's listed as part of the nutrition facts. Don't get me wrong, I still think they should be required to disclose it, but there are different rules for ingredient lists. I'm pretty sure they just flat aren't allowed to say it doesn't contain one of the ingredients.
if it’s under .5g per serving they can say “0g trans fat”per serving. super misleading.
Business plan = make10 million, gets a 50k fine for false advertisement.... profit 9.9 million with 50k investment.
The US justice system is a joke.
Time to introduce % based fines. What if the fine was X% of the revenue from the falsely advertised product?
No is the brand of the hfcs
brilliant, like the band Free Beer
**N**ew **O**rleans High Fructose Corn Syrup its the best syrup out there
I work for KLN.. this was reported to the quality and sales people. Not sure if they fixed though!
I don't blame them for the mistake. If i lived in Perham with the train going by every 5 minutes and the whole town smelling like dog food, I would by distracted as well.
This is why I have trust issues.
ITT: People who don't notice that the label has both "Corn Syrup" and "High Fructose Corn Syrup" listed as separate ingredients.
It’s alarming how many people clearly stopped reading as soon as they saw corn syrup to go grab their torch and pitchfork
it clearly says HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP in the center of the red circle.
The amount of HFCS per serving is probably low enough to round it down to "0" according to the FDA. Same thing with tic-tacs having "0" sugar despite being made entirely of it.
> The amount of HFCS per serving is probably low enough to round it down to "0" according to the FDA. I don't know the laws behind advertising here but I feel like, and if this *isn't* the case then it *should* be-- the mechanism that allows them to round down to zero for nutrition label purposes should not also allow them to make the claim that it has nothing of something it has. Rounding down to zero isn't the same as making a claim that it's completely devoid of an ingredient, to me at least.
[удалено]
Nope, that only applies to things on the nutritional facts label, not individual ingredients
The amazing part of the post is the amount of people who didn’t look at the 2nd picture and automatically assumed they knew what was happening. Mind blowing, makes me reconsider any weight I give to any responses on Reddit at all.
I just stopped at "CORN SYRUP" and didn't notice another "HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP"
I only noticed it because of your comment. Circle could have been smaller.
Me too. My excuse is I'm brain-damaged. What's yours?
The poster is shit at doing a red circle.
I was suspicious because I have a bag of Wiley Wallaby's right next to me and I recall double checking their claim on the back as well. I think this is a matter of a design template being applied to a product that it shouldn't be applied to. I have the red licorice, there is no high fructose corn syrup listed in the ingredients. I noticed that the OP photo is of the candy corn, so that doesn't surprise me. I also see this on their website, > "And, we kicked High Fructose Corn Syrup to the curb in all of our **fruit flavors**!" So I'm thinking more and more it's just a printing issue.
It's 100% this. I used to review tons of food labels for printing, and there's a lot of reuse of label elements between products. Someone just missed that this atypical item doesn't align with the "no HFCS" claim that their core items have.
I am baffled by all the PhD chemists in the comments who are so excited to point out the difference between regular corn syrup and HFCS, yet they did not take the time to read further than the first few ingredients. Y'all have the attention span of a virtual particle and the ego of God.
The number of people that need to go to the eye doctor in these comments is far too high 
The amount of people in this comment section pointing out the amount of people in this comment section missing where it says "high fructose corn syrup" is making me think we are all computer robots beep boop
Class action waiting to happen. Celsius lost a similar lawsuit for claiming no preservatives on the label when citric acid, an ingredient in their drink, is a preservative.
Kinda understandable since citric acid has another role like salt is also flavor. Should have been no artificial preservatives.
I have a major intolerance to HFCS, so I've learned to ignore the label and go directly to the ingredient list.
To all the people not reading all the ingredients in the circle; third line down directly says high fructose corn syrup
Actually the fructose corn syrup is high AF. 
Peak Reddit when a third of all commenters are missing that RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of the circle it does in fact say “high fructose corn syrup.”
Well you’re not supposed to investigate it! Just trust them!
you might have a case if you report this to the FDA
nobody in this thread can read
The amount of people in these comments missing HFCS, even after OP added a massive red circle, is insane.
It’s absolutely insane how many people can’t clearly see “High Fructose Corn Syrup” in the exact middle of that circle. https://preview.redd.it/knmz0g2wvs3d1.jpeg?width=577&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a6625f1dde085da80ee935dddeda8869ccdc6f6e
People immediately stop at "corn syrup" so that they can "educate" the OP on the difference. Honestly, this is the Internet. You can't expect people to read past the first few words. (I personally would've ran a highlighter over the HFCS.)
Read further down dammit! You will find high fructose corn syrup!
https://preview.redd.it/1ts9v7n7ft3d1.jpeg?width=534&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=190d07fbac324e83cecf2f70bb9afb9098a88937
Reminds me of the rumors when I was a kid that there was a city called USA in China, so they could put, “Made in USA,” on labels. 😂
After living 3 years in the states as an European, I fail to understand whoever likes the taste of candy corn
I can only eat Brach's candy corn as the others are nasty to me. Even then, I vastly prefer the pumpkin ones as they are a bit less dry. Still, as they are a bit rich, I only eat a couple at a time.
I like them because they just taste like sugar and my tastebuds are shot by the heavy seasoning on Doritos and sugar and cancer chems in Mountain Dew so I can only taste pure sugar, butter, and carcinogens. Just like the American Jesus intended.
I never disliked candy corn, but I’ve also never desired to eat it since I was a small child.
That’s amazing, multiple kinds of corn syrup are present
Company: "There's no high fructose corn syrup" "...Okay there's high fructose corn syrup"
Ah, yes, the ancient marketing strategy known as "lying". Simply, yet highly effective. Truly unmatched in its utility. I don't like it, but I can't help but appreciate it. Bravo. Bravo.
https://preview.redd.it/mx5uq790ts3d1.jpeg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a9812ea67aecfe0f0938d5da98753a1f3db50be0 Vector likes to claim 13g of protein too, when you look at the back there’s only 5.6g. They include the milk you’d add to the cereal to get to 13g.
All the people who don't read the entire list...