Whatever country this is from has bullshit regulation. I’ll give you one guess…
Comment on Liquid Death Quietly Adds Stevia to Tea Drinks
Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 days ago
This label is what’s called green-washing here, and is illegal unless what they are doing is a signifikant part of the price.
The labeling of what’s NOT in the drink is also under similar regulation, but I don’t recall what it’s called.
Whatever country this is from has bullshit regulation.
The thing that is ABSOLUTELY NOT a problem is the Stevia which is clearly labeled!
So the “mildly infuriating” part is completely misguided compared to the real problems of that product.
Thatoneguy@sh.itjust.works 5 days ago
Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 days ago
The only country I know of, that could have this shitty and misleading label and still be legal is USA, but I don’t know that for a fact.
I think if I saw these labels here in Denmark, I would call the police or health authorities immediately on the spot, which AFAIK are responsible for observation of declaration rules on items meant for consumption.Those labels are not merely mildly infuriating, they are attempts at scamming consumers.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 5 days ago
It’s not percent of total it’s percent of daily recommendation. I’m not defending that choice but it just isn’t the same.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 5 days ago
The labeling of what’s NOT in the drink is also under similar regulation,
For consistency, the regulations on labeling requires listing quantities of all of those specific nutrients, whether they are present or not.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Not a significant source of saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol…
Those are the ones that are illegal, not protein 0g.
The fat parts are illegal because those are not normal content for that kind of product, trans fats are also regulated, and advertising that something is within regulation is illegal. Because it implies other products are not.
The salt part is probably OK since salt is sometimes added to this type of drink.
It’s funny how some people can’t even spot the problematic parts when pointed out, because they are so used to them.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 5 days ago
The listed items are all mandatory parts of all labels. You’ll note that “good” content (dietary fiber, vitamin d, calcium, iron, and potassium) are also listed, even though this product does not contain them.
Because all of these items are mandated to be present inside this box on all products, there is no implication that another product may or may not contain these items.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 days ago
It’s mandatory to label sweetened water as not containing Cholesterol or trans fat?
That’s outright moronic. Might as well demand labeling the amount of U35.
It’s moronic to require labeling what’s NOT in it, it ads noise and hides what’s actually in it.
I know American standards are sometimes stupid, but really?
ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 days ago
It’s a US label and the percents are % of recommended daily intake. So that’s 3% of your daily recommended carbohydrate intake, 6% of your daily recommended intake of sugar, and 12% of your daily recommended intake of “added” sugar. The recommendation is something like, no more than half of your carbs should come from sugar, and no more than half of those should be added during manufacturing (i.e. most of your sugar intake should be from fresh fruit, etc.). So the numbers do line up.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 days ago
In reality there is no recommended sugar intake. We can do perfectly well with zero grams of sugar every single day for a whole life, without it causing a single health issue.
So the label remains nonsense.
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 5 days ago
You would have a point if the recommendation was a minimum daily intake. It’s not. It is a maximum. A recommended limit that you should not exceed.
The USDA recommendation is that sugar should make up no more than 10% of total caloric intake. The percentages you see are based on a 2000 (kilo)calorie daily diet.
That recommendation is perfectly consistent with your assertion that “we can do perfectly well with zero grams of sugar every single day”.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 days ago
Ah OK that makes better sense.
But that’s not the same as a “daily recommendation” which was what GBU_28 wrote, and I responded to.
Nollij@sopuli.xyz 5 days ago
This is exactly why, for many years, there was no percentage on the label. They were concerned that people would try to get it to 100%.
Fast forward a few decades, and it’s extremely rare to find Americans consuming that little sugar, so the concern was no longer valid.