This label part about plastics is what’s called green-washing here, and is illegal unless what they are doing is a very signifikant part of the price of the product.
The labeling of what’s NOT in the drink is also under similar regulation, but I don’t recall what it’s called. But the fact that a “sugar” drink doesn’t contain fat is irrelevant and misleading.
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.
Edit:
Just noticed, Carbs 3%, sugar 6% incl. added sugar 12%.
That’s impossible! You can’t have less carbs than sugar, since sugar is a carb. So these labels are probably illegal in EU on no less than 3 counts!!
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.
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.
There is a recommended intake of vegetables and fruit, but not for sugar. Not by any factual based health measure.
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”.
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 are responsible for enforcing declaration rules on items meant for consumption.
Those labels are not merely mildly infuriating, they are attempts at scamming consumers.
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.
It’s funny how some people can’t even spot the problematic parts when pointed out, because they are so used to them.
The listed items are all mandatory parts of all labels. Everything inside that box is required, in that format. “Nutrition Facts” boxes are highly regulated. Remove those statements, and this label is no longer legally compliant.
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.
The content of that box is not considered “advertisement”. It’s just a simple, consistent, statement of facts.
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?
Kind of insane that things that would make a label illegal as misleading in EU is required in USA!?
That it’s a requirement in USA, doesn’t change the fact that it’s illegal in EU, because it doesn’t add meaningful information, and is therefore detrimental for quickly seeing the actual content.
It is mandatory for the manufacturer to make an affirmative claim as to the cholesterol and trans fat content (along with several other items) of every food product sold in the US. 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 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.
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.
Insanity is expecting the system to work in a way other than the way it actually works.
By the way, I did discover that EU labeling does include a “% RI” for sugar, which is functionality identical to the “recommendation” you were complaining about as being illegal.
This label part about plastics is what’s called green-washing here, and is illegal unless what they are doing is a very signifikant part of the price of the product.
The labeling of what’s NOT in the drink is also under similar regulation, but I don’t recall what it’s called. But the fact that a “sugar” drink doesn’t contain fat is irrelevant and misleading.
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.
Edit:
Just noticed, Carbs 3%, sugar 6% incl. added sugar 12%.
That’s impossible! You can’t have less carbs than sugar, since sugar is a carb. So these labels are probably illegal in EU on no less than 3 counts!!
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.
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.
There is a recommended intake of vegetables and fruit, but not for sugar. Not by any factual based health measure.
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”.
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.
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.
I’ll give you one guess…
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 are responsible for enforcing declaration rules on items meant for consumption.
Those labels are not merely mildly infuriating, they are attempts at scamming consumers.
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.
For consistency, the regulations on labeling requires listing quantities of all of those specific nutrients, whether they are present or not.
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.
It’s funny how some people can’t even spot the problematic parts when pointed out, because they are so used to them.
The listed items are all mandatory parts of all labels. Everything inside that box is required, in that format. “Nutrition Facts” boxes are highly regulated. Remove those statements, and this label is no longer legally compliant.
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.
The content of that box is not considered “advertisement”. It’s just a simple, consistent, statement of facts.
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?
Kind of insane that things that would make a label illegal as misleading in EU is required in USA!?
That it’s a requirement in USA, doesn’t change the fact that it’s illegal in EU, because it doesn’t add meaningful information, and is therefore detrimental for quickly seeing the actual content.
It is mandatory for the manufacturer to make an affirmative claim as to the cholesterol and trans fat content (along with several other items) of every food product sold in the US. 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 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.
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.
Insanity is expecting the system to work in a way other than the way it actually works.
By the way, I did discover that EU labeling does include a “% RI” for sugar, which is functionality identical to the “recommendation” you were complaining about as being illegal.