you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 71 points 2 months ago (7 children)

And legally, they are right. One serving is very, very small, and therefore, one serving is considered to have no [whatever].

Just like TicTacs. They are 100% sugar to a rounding error, but as the "serving size" is one TicTac, which weighs less than half a gram, it is legally considered "sugar free".

Which tells a lot about the real value of "legally".

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    The difference here is that I can reasonably believe the quarter second of spray being an accurate serving, but nobody has just one tictac.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago

    Which tells a lot about the real value of “legally”.

    Maybe, but it's also a reflection of the true usage in these cases. Okay, say they are legally required to list it as one calorie. That basically makes zero difference to how people consume these products - barring some sort of weird edge cases.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    Saying that 0.25g of oil has 0g of fat is legally wrong. Or should be, why are they rounding down one number and not the other?? Numbers should legally be rounded to the same decimality or whatever as the serving size unit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    If the amount of [something] per serving size is below 0.5g, they can legally claim that the food is [something]-free.

    At least with fat, protein, or sugar. Although the food industry would probably lobby for this to apply to lead or cadmium, too. Or any other chemical used in UHP foods.

  • source
  • parent