Just means it’s has less than 1 gram of sugar per serving so they can round down
AntiqueMemeDreams
I think if something is a small enough amount they’re allowed to mark it was 0g per serving because that little amount will have almost none in it.
bigdaddy2292
Same reason a tic tac that is 95% made of sugar is 0 calories. It gets the close enough sticker
Unlucky_Quote6394
The relaxed labeling laws of the US strike again!
Manufacturers are allowed to label products with whatever serving size they like and, if that serving size contains a fraction of a gram of sugar, they can just round it down to 0g. Take the same product with a label showing 100g and it would likely have a tonne of sugar listed 😵💫
This is why in the EU (where I live) products must be labelled using a standard unit of measurement: per 100g. They also don’t allow rounding down, so if something contains 0.4g of sugar… it contains 0.4g of sugar
WystanH
They’re exploiting a labeling loophole. Look at the serving size, 5g. Anything less that 0,5g they can round down, so guess what? Also 0 calories… per serving.
Honestly, even with the rounding down, they’re cheating. Rather bold.
Yellow birds is fine. It’s a nominal amount given how much you will use and it’s not going to have a impact unless you eat a ton of it all in one go which? If that’s your thing then good luck and godspeed
tretizon
Only in NA
Myte342
It’s the same thing as Tic Tacs being listed as 0g of sugar because each ‘serving’ has less than 1 gram so they can legally say 0 grams… even though a single tick tac is 99% sugar.
Serving sizes aren’t really regulated, so a company can choose something silly like saying 5 chips is a serving in a giant bag of chips just to keep the numbers on the label smaller.
LeftArmFunk
A serving is a teaspoon and it’s and the end of the list of ingredients. Doesn’t seem fair to not list the calories for the bottle,
11 Comments
Just means it’s has less than 1 gram of sugar per serving so they can round down
I think if something is a small enough amount they’re allowed to mark it was 0g per serving because that little amount will have almost none in it.
Same reason a tic tac that is 95% made of sugar is 0 calories. It gets the close enough sticker
The relaxed labeling laws of the US strike again!
Manufacturers are allowed to label products with whatever serving size they like and, if that serving size contains a fraction of a gram of sugar, they can just round it down to 0g. Take the same product with a label showing 100g and it would likely have a tonne of sugar listed 😵💫
This is why in the EU (where I live) products must be labelled using a standard unit of measurement: per 100g. They also don’t allow rounding down, so if something contains 0.4g of sugar… it contains 0.4g of sugar
They’re exploiting a labeling loophole. Look at the serving size, 5g. Anything less that 0,5g they can round down, so guess what? Also 0 calories… per serving.
Honestly, even with the rounding down, they’re cheating. Rather bold.
EDIT: Found the rules, even more convoluted than expected. They could be legal… [https://foodlabelmaker.com/regulatory-hub/fda/rounding-rules/](https://foodlabelmaker.com/regulatory-hub/fda/rounding-rules/)
That sauce slaps though ngl
Yellow birds is fine. It’s a nominal amount given how much you will use and it’s not going to have a impact unless you eat a ton of it all in one go which? If that’s your thing then good luck and godspeed
Only in NA
It’s the same thing as Tic Tacs being listed as 0g of sugar because each ‘serving’ has less than 1 gram so they can legally say 0 grams… even though a single tick tac is 99% sugar.
Serving sizes aren’t really regulated, so a company can choose something silly like saying 5 chips is a serving in a giant bag of chips just to keep the numbers on the label smaller.
A serving is a teaspoon and it’s and the end of the list of ingredients. Doesn’t seem fair to not list the calories for the bottle,
That’s just wrong.