The same is true of many “fat free” foods as well as foods with “0 calories.” Many bottled and flavored waters, even ones that do not list calories- have calories. The amount is below the threshold for the minimum which must be labeled for, and the threshold is set on a number which which is, when serving sizes are followed; essentially negligible outside of a laboratory for almost all cases.
In point of fact- tic tacs and most of these “0 fat” and “0 calorie” foods don’t claim to be SUGAR FREE. They claim to have ZERO GRAMS OF SUGAR PER SERVING. It is a very important distinction and Tic Tac even has an FAQ on their website. Sugar free would mean it contains no sugar. About 94% of a tic tac is sugar. Sugar is the first ingredient on the ingredients list. The ingredients list of food in the US is labeled from most quantity of ingredient to least- so right on the package they tell you that tic tacs are mostly sugar- but consuming 1 single serving will not give you enough sugar for it to effect the nutrition of pretty much anyone- thus “0 grams of sugar per serving.”
This “loop hole” exists for a very good reason. The more precise you want to be in the analysis of a chemical or elemental product (most food is by nature, chemical or elemental, cooking is just a discipline of chemistry..) the more precise the testing must be and measurements. This represents a huge cost to businesses and consumers as well as a cost in resources and scientific power just to tell you to the nano gram what is in your food. It isn’t just the testing either- the processes to make the food would have to be extremely tight, to the tiniest variance between items to insure accuracy for those numbers to mean anything.
So since for 99.9% of people, that level of precision just doesn’t matter, their habits and physiology are such that it would be more confusing than helpful- so nutritional information is often “rounded” and averaged across product variance (not every piece of candy is identical in general...) so people can use it without themselves undergoing lab work and using precision measures at home to eat.
So since less than half a gram is considered an infinitesimal amount of sugar- you still have to list sugar and follow other laws on labeling, but you don’t have to actually measure how much and report it- and most people wouldn’t know what to do with it. If you see “sugar” as first on the ingredients and think it has no sugar.... listing the actual amount per serving won’t likely help you. You lack the intelligence in nutrition to understand a label. A label can’t help you there.
The only time that knowing a Tic Tac has on average .49g of sugar would help you would be if you were eating a large quantity of Tic Tacs at once... which the serving size instructs you not to do- so then you’d already be off the label and on your own anyway. You’d perhaps know how poor of a decision you were making, but if you were already going to make a poor decision- again.... the label can’t help you if you are going to not abide it.
valid argument. it hurts knowing companies won't enable me to make educated poor decisions. sure i'm gonna drink 4 gatorades in like half an hour. but i wanna know how much sugar is in there while i do it lol
Lol. I feel you. Like many systems it’s an imperfect one. A majority of people aren’t going to look or understand the nutrition label, those who look are usually only going to look for- my guess majority either look at calories, “scary” words from the news or their Facebook group- “transfat” or such, or for a general Marco count- protein, fats, carbs, etc. for most people who want to know more- the info is somewhere if they look for it.
But the other factor here is that many foods aren’t patented or protected beyond being “trade secrets” ie: the exact recipe and process isn’t widely available. But the more detailed you get in the information given- the less protected your snack is. Cool as it would be- it wouldn’t be very fair or good for economics if people could relatively easily copy their favorite branded foods at home.
on that last note. didn't Bon Appetit's series on "gourmet" snack foods tap into the desire of making name brand snack foods at home. (i mean apart from the sitcom elements of bon appetit's videos in general)
I’d be lying if I said I’d seen that particular video, but I don’t doubt it. There have been books and articles and such for many decades on how to make XYZ snack or such at home yourself- there is often disagreement with the claim that a recipe “tastes just like the real thing” though. Some of that is subjective- but perception plays a key as well. Various taste tests and studies- too many to list- have shown how subjective flavor can be even to the same person- it even being possible to trick a person fairly simply into believing the “real” item is an imitation or somehow “off.”
But I will see if I can watch that video, and I suppose all in all, presentation including branding certainly influences perceptions of quality not just in food- but most products for sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lD2OOTx2G9k&list=PLKtIunYVkv_RwB_yx1SZrZC-ddhxyXanh&index=45&t=0s