“The food company is using a patented technique to turn the white pulp that covers cocoa beans into a powder that naturally contains sugar.”
They’re not adding any processed sugar, so they can make the “no added sugar” claim. They’re still adding sugar via another method.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/the-uncured-ba...
To me the "no added sugar" pretty clearly encapsulates and is understood to be in-line with what is going on here. The most common place I can think of seeing that phrase in on packaging for fruit juice drinks, and I think it's pretty clearly understood that they still have plenty of sugar, and the only thing it really denotes is whether the product is more "natural" (in a marketing sense).
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/business/worldbusiness/09...
Just replace "cocoa beans" with "sugar cane" and read it again.
processed sugar has a different colloquial meaning that has nothing to do with whether you found it like that on your farm
I think "natural" is the best most relatable term here
This sugar is very much processed. The difference is that they changed the recipe to stop removing this sugar.
I wouldn't call it 'added sugar'; it's like using whole milk directly instead of reducing it to 1% milk.
FTA:"... finding a way to alter the structure of sugar to boost its sweetening power" and then go on to say since it's sweeter they can use 40% less.