5 ms·

In fairness, this is really down to where you live. If you live in the EU you will see exactly how much sugar is in the drink by looking at the label because th

In fairness, this is really down to where you live. If you live in the EU you will see exactly how much sugar is in the drink by looking at the label because that's what the law says. It's up to regulators to hold companies to account. They certainly aren't going to print things that could possibly harm sales on their labels by themselves.

eseehausen 11y ago
In the USA it's on the label (though on the back, usually) too. They're just allowed to say that no additional sugar was added. The real push is moving from something that people in the US can't readily parse (like grams of sugar) to something they can (like teaspoons of sugar).
- gambiting 11y ago
  For a second I thought you got these backwards. Having it in grams is so much clearer. I get really annoyed when recipes tell me to add X teaspons/tablespoons/cups of something - these are not units of measure!
  - mbrameld 11y ago
    Yes they are. Just because you're not familiar with them doesn't mean they're not units of measure.
    - gambiting 11y ago
      Are they defined anywhere officially? Like is there a standard which says how much volume or weight is held by one teaspoon or one cup? Because I have teaspoons which vary widely in sizes, the same with cups. And even if you use a teaspoon to measure - is it with the contents flat? Or in a little pile? It's too ambiguous, and therefore - not a unit of measure.
      - eseehausen 11y ago
        It's obvious this is some kind of pet peeve, but a little googling would answer your own questions. It seems like the NIST is the regulatory body in the US presiding over official measurements, and they provide a brief overview here: http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/cooking.cfm http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/cooking.cfm Wikipedia has more information on exact conversions and the domestic and international agreements that set the sizes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units You're welcome to do more research to confirm Wikipedia's assertions. As for whether it's flat or a little pile, 1 tsp is flat (5ml). What you're thinking of is the commonly used cooking instruction "heaping tablespoon", because yes, when cooking you don't have to have everything down to the exact ml. EDIT: And again, more research done for you: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/59711/rounded-heaping-and-other-types-of-teaspoonfuls https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/59711/rounded-he...
        gambiting 11y ago
        Alright, I stand corrected. My apologies.
  - eseehausen 11y ago
    A teaspoon is basically 5ml, which is around 5 grams. Most Americans have experience measuring foodstuffs with teaspoons, not with scales, and even if they did, it wouldn't be in grams.
  - asavadatti 11y ago
    Exactly this. I don't understand this need for introducing additional units of measurement.
    - eseehausen 11y ago
      Again, for many Americans, using grams is introducing additional units of measurement. Obviously, the US should've moved to metric forever ago, but we didn't. When addressing a public health crisis, it's good to put things in a way the majority of the public understand.
maxerickson 11y ago
Accurate nutrition labels are also required in the US, and there are requirements that other statements be true, and there are rules banning certain types of true statements, there just aren't rules banning every stupid true statement.
bunderbunder 11y ago
I'm speaking from the USA, where food also has to be labeled. But nobody really pays attention to the back of the package, and there's very little regulation over what you're allowed to say on the front of the package. So you get sugar bombs like this prominently claiming "no sugar added", and many consumers are confused into believing that this somehow means the contents of the package are healthy: http://www.healicsu.com/art/photos/643-juicy-juice-no-sugar-400x400[1].jpg http://www.healicsu.com/art/photos/643-juicy-juice-no-sugar-...
StavrosK 11y ago
Yes, but they still manage to sidestep the issue by printing information based on "serving sizes". Yes, Doritos, I clearly meant to eat this medium-sized bag in four sittings! We should sit down and figure out a way to show nutritional information without these cheap tricks. For example, you have to show the nutritional information per unit of wrapping. That way, a bag can't be thought of as four servings, one bag = one serving.
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >That way, a bag can't be thought of as four servings, one bag = one serving. How is that any better, really? You still have to do the same basic math if you eat less than the full package. Knowing that a large bag of chips is 1200 calories is irrelevant to the serving size I'll actually be eating.
  - StavrosK 11y ago
    Because people eat the whole bag the vast majority of the time, so the people who need to do math are now the minority.
    - breischl 11y ago
      Probably untrue for any of the larger sizes of bags. I routinely buy the one pound bags of tortilla chips because they're cheaper, but I have never once consumed the whole thing in one sitting. It gets even more ridiculous for other foods. Do you eat/drink gallons of milk, whole watermelons, quarts of chicken stock or several pound bags of rice in one sitting?
      - StavrosK 11y ago
        Are you seriously arguing for arbitrary units rather than consistent ones, because "you buy larger sizes of bags"? Every piece of food has nutritional information at the back, with columns for 100 grams and one serving. You're arguing that the serving size should unrealistically small, rather than the whole bag, because it doesn't work for every case? For every coke bottle this fails, I have five cans it succeeds for. Nobody drinks a third of a can of coke.

eseehausen 11y ago

In the USA it's on the label (though on the back, usually) too. They're just allowed to say that no additional sugar was added. The real push is moving from something that people in the US can't readily parse (like grams of sugar) to something they can (like teaspoons of sugar).

gambiting 11y ago
For a second I thought you got these backwards. Having it in grams is so much clearer. I get really annoyed when recipes tell me to add X teaspons/tablespoons/cups of something - these are not units of measure!
- mbrameld 11y ago
  Yes they are. Just because you're not familiar with them doesn't mean they're not units of measure.
  - gambiting 11y ago
    Are they defined anywhere officially? Like is there a standard which says how much volume or weight is held by one teaspoon or one cup? Because I have teaspoons which vary widely in sizes, the same with cups. And even if you use a teaspoon to measure - is it with the contents flat? Or in a little pile? It's too ambiguous, and therefore - not a unit of measure.
    - eseehausen 11y ago
      It's obvious this is some kind of pet peeve, but a little googling would answer your own questions. It seems like the NIST is the regulatory body in the US presiding over official measurements, and they provide a brief overview here: http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/cooking.cfm http://www.nist.gov/pml/wmd/metric/cooking.cfm Wikipedia has more information on exact conversions and the domestic and international agreements that set the sizes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_customary_units You're welcome to do more research to confirm Wikipedia's assertions. As for whether it's flat or a little pile, 1 tsp is flat (5ml). What you're thinking of is the commonly used cooking instruction "heaping tablespoon", because yes, when cooking you don't have to have everything down to the exact ml. EDIT: And again, more research done for you: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/59711/rounded-heaping-and-other-types-of-teaspoonfuls https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/59711/rounded-he...
      - gambiting 11y ago
        Alright, I stand corrected. My apologies.
- eseehausen 11y ago
  A teaspoon is basically 5ml, which is around 5 grams. Most Americans have experience measuring foodstuffs with teaspoons, not with scales, and even if they did, it wouldn't be in grams.
- asavadatti 11y ago
  Exactly this. I don't understand this need for introducing additional units of measurement.
  - eseehausen 11y ago
    Again, for many Americans, using grams is introducing additional units of measurement. Obviously, the US should've moved to metric forever ago, but we didn't. When addressing a public health crisis, it's good to put things in a way the majority of the public understand.

maxerickson 11y ago

Accurate nutrition labels are also required in the US, and there are requirements that other statements be true, and there are rules banning certain types of true statements, there just aren't rules banning every stupid true statement.

bunderbunder 11y ago

I'm speaking from the USA, where food also has to be labeled. But nobody really pays attention to the back of the package, and there's very little regulation over what you're allowed to say on the front of the package. So you get sugar bombs like this prominently claiming "no sugar added", and many consumers are confused into believing that this somehow means the contents of the package are healthy: http://www.healicsu.com/art/photos/643-juicy-juice-no-sugar-400x400[1].jpg http://www.healicsu.com/art/photos/643-juicy-juice-no-sugar-...

StavrosK 11y ago

Yes, but they still manage to sidestep the issue by printing information based on "serving sizes". Yes, Doritos, I clearly meant to eat this medium-sized bag in four sittings! We should sit down and figure out a way to show nutritional information without these cheap tricks. For example, you have to show the nutritional information per unit of wrapping. That way, a bag can't be thought of as four servings, one bag = one serving.

forgetsusername 11y ago
>That way, a bag can't be thought of as four servings, one bag = one serving. How is that any better, really? You still have to do the same basic math if you eat less than the full package. Knowing that a large bag of chips is 1200 calories is irrelevant to the serving size I'll actually be eating.
- StavrosK 11y ago
  Because people eat the whole bag the vast majority of the time, so the people who need to do math are now the minority.
  - breischl 11y ago
    Probably untrue for any of the larger sizes of bags. I routinely buy the one pound bags of tortilla chips because they're cheaper, but I have never once consumed the whole thing in one sitting. It gets even more ridiculous for other foods. Do you eat/drink gallons of milk, whole watermelons, quarts of chicken stock or several pound bags of rice in one sitting?
    - StavrosK 11y ago
      Are you seriously arguing for arbitrary units rather than consistent ones, because "you buy larger sizes of bags"? Every piece of food has nutritional information at the back, with columns for 100 grams and one serving. You're arguing that the serving size should unrealistically small, rather than the whole bag, because it doesn't work for every case? For every coke bottle this fails, I have five cans it succeeds for. Nobody drinks a third of a can of coke.