Comment on Liquid Death Quietly Adds Stevia to Tea Drinks
Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 days agoNot 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?
Rivalarrival@lemmy.today 4 days ago
It is mandatory for the manufacturer to make an affirmative claim as to the cholesterol and trans fat content of every food product sold in the US, along with several other items. The manufacturer is only liable for what they actually claim; this labeling standard forces them to make certain claims.
With the labeling you describe of the EU, I could look at every item in my pantry and refrigerator, and not realize that my diet is entirely missing any source of vitamin D, for example. If nothing in any of my labels even mentions vitamin D, I might not even realize it is something I should be looking for in my diet.
When every single item in my diet affirmatively claims “Not a significant source of vitamin D”, it’s a big clue that I’m not eating right.
There is a distinct difference in liability between “accidentally” forgetting to include the sodium (“salt”) content of a product, and affirmatively claiming it has no significant amount of sodium.
When I’m on a low sodium diet and a soy sauce manufacturer fails to list its sodium content on the label, I bear a large part of the responsibility. It is common knowledge that soy sauce is usually extremely high in salt, so I can’t reasonably claim their mislabeling was the cause of any harm I experience. But, if they were to affirmatively claim “not a significant source of sodium”, I’ll own their asses.
Mandating claims of these specific, important nutrients certainly does add meaningful information.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 days ago
You can’t get sufficient vitamin D from eating a normal healthy varied diet.
So if you want to be sure, and don’t live a place where the sun gets above 45° year round, you need to take it as a supplement.
It’s ridiculous to read labels to see if you get enough of all vitamins, minerals, fatty acids and amino acids. That’s insane.