I saw it before I bought it, but still.. kinda misleading, no? When the product is reasonably expected to be 1 portion worth of food, the printed calories of the serving size should be for the whole thing. No ones shaving off 4g from this snack bar.

Seriously.

by sw4ffles

8 Comments

  1. Yes its misleading of them but that whole bar is only 120 calories? Maybe im wrong but thats super low for what you get

  2. DasHexxchen

    Everything so the <100kcal snack people are still getting your product.

  3. Honestfellow2449

    you know what pissed me off along the same lines, gourmet cookies.

    Something like Crumbl advertises a cookie at 200 cal per serving, you think well that’s a bigger cookie so that at lease 2 servings right? wrong…it’s 4 servings.

  4. DataOver544

    Evil bastards. High sugar/calorie foods should just exist silently and humbly. Don’t try to be something you’re not. I remember the old Snickers commercials advertising the candy bar as a wholesome, in-between meal hunger zapper. Because peanuts.

  5. Ok ignoring that, let’s get to the important part. Is that butterscotch? I’ve never seen that before! I need it

  6. SherbetCandid859

    I’m so sorry, is this a butterscotch flavored chocolate bar? My mouth is watering.

    But yeah. Serving sizes are such such a scam. It makes me so bad! Who the fuck is going to eat almost all of a delicious butterscotch, flavored candy bar? Everything except the last bite? The last bite is the best part you fuck! I’m sorry for swearing so much. I get very passionate about serving sizes. And butterscotch.

Write A Comment