Actually, in the US/Canada they are required to, by law(I haven’t dealt with any food packaging/labeling laws in other countries) There are really specific parameters for how the items are listed.
Incidentally, they list sugar as the first ingredient and while they list sugar as 0g they note that there is less than .5g with an arrow. And they don’t say sugar free, they say less than 2 calories per mint.
Oh definitely there are legal requirements on listing nutrition on packaging in Australia
Which is why it’s such a shock tic tacs don’t have them because it’s far too small
Not even an ingredient list
I have taken enough Flinstone Vitamin Gummies to kill your notion of God. I stared into the abyss and didn't see it blink, for it had already turned tail and ran.
You must’ve smarter than the thing you are reading. As others have said- tic tacs aren’t “0 sugar”, they are “0 calorie.” This is because a “single serving” is less than 1/2 a calorie. Most chewing gums and many other things use this. Many sauces or condiments for example, flavored waters, etc. but that should be pretty obvious since if you stop and think about it- the only thing you could actually “eat” that would have no calories- is something which your body can’t break down and process for energy. If it is “food” then it has calories for some amount.
Tic tacs can be labeled “sugar free” because each serving is less than half a gram of sugar. That is a negligible amount of sugar- and testing foods to report accurately down to the minute trace levels of content is prohibitive and would also likely make consumers confused.
This is something informally refereed to as “information overload.” Sometimes, companies and others use this to their advantage. Many TOS or contracts- the specific language of contracts or finance is used to overwhelm people. A majority of people do not read TOS or other “simple contracts” because it is a boring and confusing mess. To avoid that with nutrition labels they walk a line between simplicity and comprehensiveness. If you know trans fats are “bad” it is probably only because the news told you. Can you explain why at a chemical level? If you see a nutritional label with chemical compounds can you identify all the possible ways there are to label something which is a “trans fat” or an “artificial preservative”? Unless you studied chemistry and nutrition you probably can’t.
Do you know what sodium benzoate or sulfur dioxide are? They are some of the things used when a good lists “artificial preservatives.” If you are looking for food without “artificial preservatives,” what is more useful to you? Reading through a list to look for terms like “sodium benzoate” or seeing “contains artificial preservatives”? But... of course just because it SAYS none are used doesn’t mean there isn’t any sodium benzoate- it just means it wasn’t used as a preservative but can be claimed to be used for flavor or other reasons...
Yeah. Now this is just a SMALL slice of nutrition and food chemistry. Imagine if you had to know this ALL, and read it ALL every time you wanted to know what was in your food? For most Americans the nutrition label is like the TOS- people don’t bother reading because it’s already too boring and complex. At most people glance for the buzz words they know or things they care about- maybe calories, or fiber, or “organic” etc. but you have to just apply common sense.
Incidentally, they list sugar as the first ingredient and while they list sugar as 0g they note that there is less than .5g with an arrow. And they don’t say sugar free, they say less than 2 calories per mint.
Which is why it’s such a shock tic tacs don’t have them because it’s far too small
Not even an ingredient list
I bet you are two inches from overdosing on your flintstone vitamin gummies