Hacker News Reader

Comment by jdpedrie | Hacker News Reader

No, they don't. His photo doesn't support his silly claim at all. He highlights that the first ingredient is sugar, and that it says zero grams, but doesn't note the asterisk, which says "less than 0.5g". The tic tacs labeled "sugar free" use artificial sweetener.

I don't think any reasonable person would read those three pieces of information and assume that regular tic tacs are sugar free.

View on HN

>The tic tacs labeled "sugar free" use artificial sweetener.

I've sort of trained myself to be careful at this point, but this is an annoyance of mine especially with clear sparkling water. I'm fine with and generally like seltzers without sweeteners added. I hate sparkling water with some artificial sweetener and the difference isn't always obvious from the big print on the label.

Look for “no sweeteners” on the label and/or check the ingredients list.

Hence "big print." You need to look carefully which I do unless it's a brand I know that only sells unsweetened seltzers.

Still seems like a dark pattern that tic-tacs are manufactured to be 0.49g, just under the 0.5g limit that allows them to round down to zero on the label.

A reasonable person would not always notice the triangle and understand what it means, and even then it's obscurantism. Why bother defending what is obviously purposefully misleading? Whether this is enabled by FDA rules doesn't change that.

Do you really think that in the country where the third-pounder lost to the quarter-pounder because people thought it was smaller that they read the asterisk text there?

Do you think that country reads the nutrition label saying 0g of sugar either?

It's the third-pounder you're thinking of. And it's not really surprising that people aren't really mentally engaged when ordering at a fast food restaurant. McDonalds is the kind of place where people order by looking at numbered pictures.

Yep, autocorrect error, fixed.

Thanks

We should add significant figures to the high school curriculum.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com