Why don’t Americans give a f*** about what they eat?

[Anonymous]

Awesome example of why we need the feds involved in nutrition standards, in spite of what the FREEDOM crowd says:

Outshine No Sugar Added Strawberry Fruit Ice Bars
https://www.outshinesnacks.com/en/products/frozen-...bars/no-sugar-added-strawberry

Third ingredient? Sorbitol. Which is another word for sugar. Not that they intend to confuse people, of course.

I'm all for people making their own food choices, but in order to do that, we need to have legit information. And we don't.

Sorbitol is a sugar alcohol, which is a separate thing and likely can't legally be listed as "sugar" on an ingredient list. Should the label include a detailed explanation of the difference between sugar and sugar alcohols? Maybe. But I don't think we are going to get dire warnings about every type of sweetener on food packaging, esp. on a snack with just a few grams of carbs.

Anyway, I don't think anyone is having serious weight and overall health issues caused by buying Outshine bars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Awesome example of why we need the feds involved in nutrition standards, in spite of what the FREEDOM crowd says:

Outshine No Sugar Added Strawberry Fruit Ice Bars
https://www.outshinesnacks.com/en/products/frozen-...bars/no-sugar-added-strawberry

Third ingredient? Sorbitol. Which is another word for sugar. Not that they intend to confuse people, of course.

I'm all for people making their own food choices, but in order to do that, we need to have legit information. And we don't.

Sorbitol is a sugar alcohol, which is a separate thing and likely can't legally be listed as "sugar" on an ingredient list. Should the label include a detailed explanation of the difference between sugar and sugar alcohols? Maybe. But I don't think we are going to get dire warnings about every type of sweetener on food packaging, esp. on a snack with just a few grams of carbs.

Anyway, I don't think anyone is having serious weight and overall health issues caused by buying Outshine bars.

Our current food system allows manufacturers to sell things as healthy, aka sugar free, because they use sorbitol or aspartame or hfcs instead. It’s fraudulent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Awesome example of why we need the feds involved in nutrition standards, in spite of what the FREEDOM crowd says:

Outshine No Sugar Added Strawberry Fruit Ice Bars
https://www.outshinesnacks.com/en/products/frozen-...bars/no-sugar-added-strawberry

Third ingredient? Sorbitol. Which is another word for sugar. Not that they intend to confuse people, of course.

I'm all for people making their own food choices, but in order to do that, we need to have legit information. And we don't.

Sorbitol is a sugar alcohol, which is a separate thing and likely can't legally be listed as "sugar" on an ingredient list. Should the label include a detailed explanation of the difference between sugar and sugar alcohols? Maybe. But I don't think we are going to get dire warnings about every type of sweetener on food packaging, esp. on a snack with just a few grams of carbs.


Anyway, I don't think anyone is having serious weight and overall health issues caused by buying Outshine bars.

Our current food system allows manufacturers to sell things as healthy, aka sugar free, because they use sorbitol or aspartame or hfcs instead. It’s fraudulent.

I don’t think HFCS counts as sugar free. Sorbitol and aspartame are sugar substitutes, but HFCS is a sugar. Consumers should learn to read labels. I read nutrition labels to see how many added sugars a product has or how much protein, etc. I don’t rely on ad claims as to whether something is healthy or not. People should educate themselves and not rely on a nanny state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Awesome example of why we need the feds involved in nutrition standards, in spite of what the FREEDOM crowd says:

Outshine No Sugar Added Strawberry Fruit Ice Bars
https://www.outshinesnacks.com/en/products/frozen-...bars/no-sugar-added-strawberry

Third ingredient? Sorbitol. Which is another word for sugar. Not that they intend to confuse people, of course.

I'm all for people making their own food choices, but in order to do that, we need to have legit information. And we don't.

Sorbitol is a sugar alcohol, which is a separate thing and likely can't legally be listed as "sugar" on an ingredient list. Should the label include a detailed explanation of the difference between sugar and sugar alcohols? Maybe. But I don't think we are going to get dire warnings about every type of sweetener on food packaging, esp. on a snack with just a few grams of carbs.


Anyway, I don't think anyone is having serious weight and overall health issues caused by buying Outshine bars.

Our current food system allows manufacturers to sell things as healthy, aka sugar free, because they use sorbitol or aspartame or hfcs instead. It’s fraudulent.

I don’t think HFCS counts as sugar free. Sorbitol and aspartame are sugar substitutes, but HFCS is a sugar. Consumers should learn to read labels. I read nutrition labels to see how many added sugars a product has or how much protein, etc. I don’t rely on ad claims as to whether something is healthy or not. People should educate themselves and not rely on a nanny state.

Yes, government should never intervene to prevent companies from selling misleading and toxic health risks to consumers.

We've already established that you support unlimited access to all tobacco products at all times, so you can just be ignored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Awesome example of why we need the feds involved in nutrition standards, in spite of what the FREEDOM crowd says:

Outshine No Sugar Added Strawberry Fruit Ice Bars
https://www.outshinesnacks.com/en/products/frozen-...bars/no-sugar-added-strawberry

Third ingredient? Sorbitol. Which is another word for sugar. Not that they intend to confuse people, of course.

I'm all for people making their own food choices, but in order to do that, we need to have legit information. And we don't.

Sorbitol is a sugar alcohol, which is a separate thing and likely can't legally be listed as "sugar" on an ingredient list. Should the label include a detailed explanation of the difference between sugar and sugar alcohols? Maybe. But I don't think we are going to get dire warnings about every type of sweetener on food packaging, esp. on a snack with just a few grams of carbs.

Anyway, I don't think anyone is having serious weight and overall health issues caused by buying Outshine bars.

Our current food system allows manufacturers to sell things as healthy, aka sugar free, because they use sorbitol or aspartame or hfcs instead. It’s fraudulent.

They listed it on the box as what it is: sugar free. I don’t find anything to be misleading and they aren’t calling it heathy. An Outshine bar is a treat and meant to be a dessert. Something sweet when you want something sweet. At 90 calories and 4 grams of sugar, no one is getting over weight from too many outshine bars after dinner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Awesome example of why we need the feds involved in nutrition standards, in spite of what the FREEDOM crowd says:

Outshine No Sugar Added Strawberry Fruit Ice Bars
https://www.outshinesnacks.com/en/products/frozen-...bars/no-sugar-added-strawberry

Third ingredient? Sorbitol. Which is another word for sugar. Not that they intend to confuse people, of course.

I'm all for people making their own food choices, but in order to do that, we need to have legit information. And we don't.

Sorbitol is a sugar alcohol, which is a separate thing and likely can't legally be listed as "sugar" on an ingredient list. Should the label include a detailed explanation of the difference between sugar and sugar alcohols? Maybe. But I don't think we are going to get dire warnings about every type of sweetener on food packaging, esp. on a snack with just a few grams of carbs.


Anyway, I don't think anyone is having serious weight and overall health issues caused by buying Outshine bars.

Our current food system allows manufacturers to sell things as healthy, aka sugar free, because they use sorbitol or aspartame or hfcs instead. It’s fraudulent.

I don’t think HFCS counts as sugar free. Sorbitol and aspartame are sugar substitutes, but HFCS is a sugar. Consumers should learn to read labels. I read nutrition labels to see how many added sugars a product has or how much protein, etc. I don’t rely on ad claims as to whether something is healthy or not. People should educate themselves and not rely on a nanny state.

.

I love how the consumer bears responsibility, but not the corporation.

So consistent!

[Anonymous]

I just wanted to say in case no one else hadn’t —


They’re not called fish crackers, op. They’re called goldfish.



Carry on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Awesome example of why we need the feds involved in nutrition standards, in spite of what the FREEDOM crowd says:

Outshine No Sugar Added Strawberry Fruit Ice Bars
https://www.outshinesnacks.com/en/products/frozen-...bars/no-sugar-added-strawberry

Third ingredient? Sorbitol. Which is another word for sugar. Not that they intend to confuse people, of course.

I'm all for people making their own food choices, but in order to do that, we need to have legit information. And we don't.

Sorbitol is a sugar alcohol, which is a separate thing and likely can't legally be listed as "sugar" on an ingredient list. Should the label include a detailed explanation of the difference between sugar and sugar alcohols? Maybe. But I don't think we are going to get dire warnings about every type of sweetener on food packaging, esp. on a snack with just a few grams of carbs.


Anyway, I don't think anyone is having serious weight and overall health issues caused by buying Outshine bars.

Our current food system allows manufacturers to sell things as healthy, aka sugar free, because they use sorbitol or aspartame or hfcs instead. It’s fraudulent.

I don’t think HFCS counts as sugar free. Sorbitol and aspartame are sugar substitutes, but HFCS is a sugar. Consumers should learn to read labels. I read nutrition labels to see how many added sugars a product has or how much protein, etc. I don’t rely on ad claims as to whether something is healthy or not. People should educate themselves and not rely on a nanny state.

Yes, government should never intervene to prevent companies from selling misleading and toxic health risks to consumers.

We've already established that you support unlimited access to all tobacco products at all times, so you can just be ignored.

I support unregulated tobacco? Where did you get that?

[Anonymous]

I’m all for more clarity in food labeling but the sugar free thing is a bad example.
Sugar free pretty much always means fake sugar and it is helpful for diabetics. Anyone not diabetic who eats that stuff is crazy or stuck in the 1970s.
I do think the “added sugar” thing is really helpful—without that, it looked like chocolate milk is worse for you than soda, because milk itself has so much natural sugar (lactose, not sucrose).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Awesome example of why we need the feds involved in nutrition standards, in spite of what the FREEDOM crowd says:

Outshine No Sugar Added Strawberry Fruit Ice Bars
https://www.outshinesnacks.com/en/products/frozen-...bars/no-sugar-added-strawberry

Third ingredient? Sorbitol. Which is another word for sugar. Not that they intend to confuse people, of course.

I'm all for people making their own food choices, but in order to do that, we need to have legit information. And we don't.

Sorbitol is a sugar alcohol, which is a separate thing and likely can't legally be listed as "sugar" on an ingredient list. Should the label include a detailed explanation of the difference between sugar and sugar alcohols? Maybe. But I don't think we are going to get dire warnings about every type of sweetener on food packaging, esp. on a snack with just a few grams of carbs.


Anyway, I don't think anyone is having serious weight and overall health issues caused by buying Outshine bars.

Our current food system allows manufacturers to sell things as healthy, aka sugar free, because they use sorbitol or aspartame or hfcs instead. It’s fraudulent.

I don’t think HFCS counts as sugar free. Sorbitol and aspartame are sugar substitutes, but HFCS is a sugar. Consumers should learn to read labels. I read nutrition labels to see how many added sugars a product has or how much protein, etc. I don’t rely on ad claims as to whether something is healthy or not. People should educate themselves and not rely on a nanny state.

.

I love how the consumer bears responsibility, but not the corporation.

So consistent!

+1

That poster is dim, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Awesome example of why we need the feds involved in nutrition standards, in spite of what the FREEDOM crowd says:

Outshine No Sugar Added Strawberry Fruit Ice Bars
https://www.outshinesnacks.com/en/products/frozen-...bars/no-sugar-added-strawberry

Third ingredient? Sorbitol. Which is another word for sugar. Not that they intend to confuse people, of course.

I'm all for people making their own food choices, but in order to do that, we need to have legit information. And we don't.

Sorbitol is a sugar alcohol, which is a separate thing and likely can't legally be listed as "sugar" on an ingredient list. Should the label include a detailed explanation of the difference between sugar and sugar alcohols? Maybe. But I don't think we are going to get dire warnings about every type of sweetener on food packaging, esp. on a snack with just a few grams of carbs.

Anyway, I don't think anyone is having serious weight and overall health issues caused by buying Outshine bars.

Our current food system allows manufacturers to sell things as healthy, aka sugar free, because they use sorbitol or aspartame or hfcs instead. It’s fraudulent.

They listed it on the box as what it is: sugar free. I don’t find anything to be misleading and they aren’t calling it heathy. An Outshine bar is a treat and meant to be a dessert. Something sweet when you want something sweet. At 90 calories and 4 grams of sugar, no one is getting over weight from too many outshine bars after dinner.

The implication being that it's just frozen pureed fruit on a stick, as opposed to artificially sweetened frozen pureed fruit. I personally would prefer to spend less of my time reading fine print on the back of packaging. European countries make it easier. But apparently that's inching toward socialism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for more clarity in food labeling but the sugar free thing is a bad example.
Sugar free pretty much always means fake sugar and it is helpful for diabetics. Anyone not diabetic who eats that stuff is crazy or stuck in the 1970s.
I do think the “added sugar” thing is really helpful—without that, it looked like chocolate milk is worse for you than soda, because milk itself has so much natural sugar (lactose, not sucrose).

But chocolate milk is on par with soda. It's packed with sugar, both natural and added
And for your endocrine system and pancreas - sugar is sugar, no matter where it came from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Awesome example of why we need the feds involved in nutrition standards, in spite of what the FREEDOM crowd says:

Outshine No Sugar Added Strawberry Fruit Ice Bars
https://www.outshinesnacks.com/en/products/frozen-...bars/no-sugar-added-strawberry

Third ingredient? Sorbitol. Which is another word for sugar. Not that they intend to confuse people, of course.

I'm all for people making their own food choices, but in order to do that, we need to have legit information. And we don't.

Sorbitol is a sugar alcohol, which is a separate thing and likely can't legally be listed as "sugar" on an ingredient list. Should the label include a detailed explanation of the difference between sugar and sugar alcohols? Maybe. But I don't think we are going to get dire warnings about every type of sweetener on food packaging, esp. on a snack with just a few grams of carbs.

Anyway, I don't think anyone is having serious weight and overall health issues caused by buying Outshine bars.

Our current food system allows manufacturers to sell things as healthy, aka sugar free, because they use sorbitol or aspartame or hfcs instead. It’s fraudulent.

They listed it on the box as what it is: sugar free. I don’t find anything to be misleading and they aren’t calling it heathy. An Outshine bar is a treat and meant to be a dessert. Something sweet when you want something sweet. At 90 calories and 4 grams of sugar, no one is getting over weight from too many outshine bars after dinner.

The implication being that it's just frozen pureed fruit on a stick, as opposed to artificially sweetened frozen pureed fruit. I personally would prefer to spend less of my time reading fine print on the back of packaging. European countries make it easier. But apparently that's inching toward socialism.

Seems like an easy solution would be to require companies to print "Contains artificial sweeteners" on the front of the box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Awesome example of why we need the feds involved in nutrition standards, in spite of what the FREEDOM crowd says:

Outshine No Sugar Added Strawberry Fruit Ice Bars
https://www.outshinesnacks.com/en/products/frozen-...bars/no-sugar-added-strawberry

Third ingredient? Sorbitol. Which is another word for sugar. Not that they intend to confuse people, of course.

I'm all for people making their own food choices, but in order to do that, we need to have legit information. And we don't.

Sorbitol is a sugar alcohol, which is a separate thing and likely can't legally be listed as "sugar" on an ingredient list. Should the label include a detailed explanation of the difference between sugar and sugar alcohols? Maybe. But I don't think we are going to get dire warnings about every type of sweetener on food packaging, esp. on a snack with just a few grams of carbs.

Anyway, I don't think anyone is having serious weight and overall health issues caused by buying Outshine bars.

Our current food system allows manufacturers to sell things as healthy, aka sugar free, because they use sorbitol or aspartame or hfcs instead. It’s fraudulent.

They listed it on the box as what it is: sugar free. I don’t find anything to be misleading and they aren’t calling it heathy. An Outshine bar is a treat and meant to be a dessert. Something sweet when you want something sweet. At 90 calories and 4 grams of sugar, no one is getting over weight from too many outshine bars after dinner.

The implication being that it's just frozen pureed fruit on a stick, as opposed to artificially sweetened frozen pureed fruit. I personally would prefer to spend less of my time reading fine print on the back of packaging. European countries make it easier. But apparently that's inching toward socialism.

Seems like an easy solution would be to require companies to print "Contains artificial sweeteners" on the front of the box.

Indeed! But manufacturers are against being required to do so.

[Anonymous]

I love how the consumer bears responsibility, but not the corporation.

Ultimately you are responsible for what you put in your body.