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

[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.

+1
They’d get diarrhea before they had any blood sugar issues.

Guys. Everyone knows that “sugar free” on a clearly sweet thing - popsicles, juice, yogurt, etc - means “fake sugar.” That’s what it means in this country. The phrase you’ll find to indicate that no sweetener has been added is “no sugar added.” This isn’t difficult.

Except that the example cited above says “no sugar added.” So, no.

[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.

+1
They’d get diarrhea before they had any blood sugar issues.

Guys. Everyone knows that “sugar free” on a clearly sweet thing - popsicles, juice, yogurt, etc - means “fake sugar.” That’s what it means in this country. The phrase you’ll find to indicate that no sweetener has been added is “no sugar added.” This isn’t difficult.

Except that the example cited above says “no sugar added.” So, no.

I really doesn’t matter- at all. You are arguing something that does not make a bit of difference in the big picture of obesity. It isn’t a 90 calorie outshine bar that is the problem.

[Anonymous]

I think the lesson of the dieting folks has been real in the sense that if you are overweight/obese and try to LOSE weight and keep it off, the deck is stacked against you. There is evidence your body fights to regain the weight and long-term prospects for success are dim.

Therefore--the key must be to work with people to never get overweight in the first place. The emphasis we seem to have on never talking about weight with children may be detrimental. Of course no one wants to create an eating disorder or mental anxiety, but it's critical that we teach our youth that once you are fat, it's very, very difficult to return to a healthy weight and maintain it.

I really believe this has to be the key to managing the problem. Sure, we can debate sugar vs. carbs vs. calories on and on, but they absolute bottom line is that you must prevent too much weight in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the lesson of the dieting folks has been real in the sense that if you are overweight/obese and try to LOSE weight and keep it off, the deck is stacked against you. There is evidence your body fights to regain the weight and long-term prospects for success are dim.

Therefore--the key must be to work with people to never get overweight in the first place. The emphasis we seem to have on never talking about weight with children may be detrimental. Of course no one wants to create an eating disorder or mental anxiety, but it's critical that we teach our youth that once you are fat, it's very, very difficult to return to a healthy weight and maintain it.

I really believe this has to be the key to managing the problem. Sure, we can debate sugar vs. carbs vs. calories on and on, but they absolute bottom line is that you must prevent too much weight in the first place.

This is so important. The vast majority of weight problems exist because people became fat in the first place. And a LOT of that is on parents. The younger it happens, the harder it is to fight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the lesson of the dieting folks has been real in the sense that if you are overweight/obese and try to LOSE weight and keep it off, the deck is stacked against you. There is evidence your body fights to regain the weight and long-term prospects for success are dim.

Therefore--the key must be to work with people to never get overweight in the first place. The emphasis we seem to have on never talking about weight with children may be detrimental. Of course no one wants to create an eating disorder or mental anxiety, but it's critical that we teach our youth that once you are fat, it's very, very difficult to return to a healthy weight and maintain it.

I really believe this has to be the key to managing the problem. Sure, we can debate sugar vs. carbs vs. calories on and on, but they absolute bottom line is that you must prevent too much weight in the first place.

And regulating junk food would help us prevent obesity. I’ve been following this thread with interest. I’m overweight but not obese. Had my last baby almost a year ago. Now that I’m not working full time (teacher) I’ve gone back to tracking my calories and have lost about 3 pounds. I plan to really focus this summer. But my goal is my old weight, which was still overweight but about 15 pounds less overweight. That seems to be my body’s set point. BMI is between 26 and 27. If I tried to go much lower, the irrational hungry feeling would set in. Our brains are programmed to overeat. Moderation is doable but endless restriction always crashes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
They’d get diarrhea before they had any blood sugar issues.

Guys. Everyone knows that “sugar free” on a clearly sweet thing - popsicles, juice, yogurt, etc - means “fake sugar.” That’s what it means in this country. The phrase you’ll find to indicate that no sweetener has been added is “no sugar added.” This isn’t difficult.

Except that the example cited above says “no sugar added.” So, no.

I really doesn’t matter- at all. You are arguing something that does not make a bit of difference in the big picture of obesity. It isn’t a 90 calorie outshine bar that is the problem.

Except that this is one example among thousands of manufacturers making claims intended to mislead consumers, and they're allowed to. PP claimed it isn't difficult to know what you're getting, and that "everyone knows" something. Only she was wrong, so clearly it's not that simple. Pretend it's entirely about personal responsibility, but it's not. That's only part of the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
They’d get diarrhea before they had any blood sugar issues.

Guys. Everyone knows that “sugar free” on a clearly sweet thing - popsicles, juice, yogurt, etc - means “fake sugar.” That’s what it means in this country. The phrase you’ll find to indicate that no sweetener has been added is “no sugar added.” This isn’t difficult.

Except that the example cited above says “no sugar added.” So, no.

I really doesn’t matter- at all. You are arguing something that does not make a bit of difference in the big picture of obesity. It isn’t a 90 calorie outshine bar that is the problem.

Except that this is one example among thousands of manufacturers making claims intended to mislead consumers, and they're allowed to. PP claimed it isn't difficult to know what you're getting, and that "everyone knows" something. Only she was wrong, so clearly it's not that simple. Pretend it's entirely about personal responsibility, but it's not. That's only part of the issue.

I don’t find it misleading and can read the box for any additional info I need and it is printed right there. Sorry but these are excuses and have nothing to do with why so many people are obese.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the lesson of the dieting folks has been real in the sense that if you are overweight/obese and try to LOSE weight and keep it off, the deck is stacked against you. There is evidence your body fights to regain the weight and long-term prospects for success are dim.

Therefore--the key must be to work with people to never get overweight in the first place. The emphasis we seem to have on never talking about weight with children may be detrimental. Of course no one wants to create an eating disorder or mental anxiety, but it's critical that we teach our youth that once you are fat, it's very, very difficult to return to a healthy weight and maintain it.

I really believe this has to be the key to managing the problem. Sure, we can debate sugar vs. carbs vs. calories on and on, but they absolute bottom line is that you must prevent too much weight in the first place.

One thing my husband says is that it's especially hard for children because you aren't really "awake" until you are an older teen. Up until then, you are largely at the mercy of your caretakers and family. If you enter adulthood already overweight or obese, it's seriously game over without enormous effort, and possibly futile even with enormous effort. I read a lot of advice on DCUM about never talking to your kids about what they are eating or their weight, but maybe that isn't the right approach. Still, parents who can have good conversations with their kids about this stuff are probably those who haven't caused a problem in the first place. I know we've brought a lot of education into schools, for example, MCPS high schoolers are required to take a semester of Health and I understand it's a fairly rigorous class, although I haven't seen the curriculum. We've taught our kids that staying at a normal weight is one of the keys to long-term health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the lesson of the dieting folks has been real in the sense that if you are overweight/obese and try to LOSE weight and keep it off, the deck is stacked against you. There is evidence your body fights to regain the weight and long-term prospects for success are dim.

Therefore--the key must be to work with people to never get overweight in the first place. The emphasis we seem to have on never talking about weight with children may be detrimental. Of course no one wants to create an eating disorder or mental anxiety, but it's critical that we teach our youth that once you are fat, it's very, very difficult to return to a healthy weight and maintain it.

I really believe this has to be the key to managing the problem. Sure, we can debate sugar vs. carbs vs. calories on and on, but they absolute bottom line is that you must prevent too much weight in the first place.

I figured out young that it was really easy to get fat and relentlessly difficult to get un-fat. Maintaining a certain weight has always been a priority of mine, mostly through eating less. American portions are stupid. I’ve never restricted the type of food I eat, only how much.

[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.

+1
They’d get diarrhea before they had any blood sugar issues.

Guys. Everyone knows that “sugar free” on a clearly sweet thing - popsicles, juice, yogurt, etc - means “fake sugar.” That’s what it means in this country. The phrase you’ll find to indicate that no sweetener has been added is “no sugar added.” This isn’t difficult.

Except that the example cited above says “no sugar added.” So, no.

They’re popsicles! No one buys them thinking they’re healthy. No one!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
They’d get diarrhea before they had any blood sugar issues.

Guys. Everyone knows that “sugar free” on a clearly sweet thing - popsicles, juice, yogurt, etc - means “fake sugar.” That’s what it means in this country. The phrase you’ll find to indicate that no sweetener has been added is “no sugar added.” This isn’t difficult.

Except that the example cited above says “no sugar added.” So, no.

They’re popsicles! No one buys them thinking they’re healthy. No one!

Funny how they call them fruit bars instead of popsicles though, huh? It’s almost like they’re trying to make you think they’re, I dunno, healthier?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
They’d get diarrhea before they had any blood sugar issues.

Guys. Everyone knows that “sugar free” on a clearly sweet thing - popsicles, juice, yogurt, etc - means “fake sugar.” That’s what it means in this country. The phrase you’ll find to indicate that no sweetener has been added is “no sugar added.” This isn’t difficult.

Except that the example cited above says “no sugar added.” So, no.

They’re popsicles! No one buys them thinking they’re healthy. No one!

Funny how they call them fruit bars instead of popsicles though, huh? It’s almost like they’re trying to make you think they’re, I dunno, healthier?

“They” are marketers. Everyone should learn to read labels and know about basic nutrition. All that info is on the box. You have enough info to make choices appropriate for your nutritional needs. Stop blaming the marketers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
They’d get diarrhea before they had any blood sugar issues.

Guys. Everyone knows that “sugar free” on a clearly sweet thing - popsicles, juice, yogurt, etc - means “fake sugar.” That’s what it means in this country. The phrase you’ll find to indicate that no sweetener has been added is “no sugar added.” This isn’t difficult.

Except that the example cited above says “no sugar added.” So, no.

They’re popsicles! No one buys them thinking they’re healthy. No one!

Funny how they call them fruit bars instead of popsicles though, huh? It’s almost like they’re trying to make you think they’re, I dunno, healthier?

The first two ingredients are water and fruit. Seems appropriate they are called fruit bars. Popsicles typically contain no real fruit/juice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
They’d get diarrhea before they had any blood sugar issues.

Guys. Everyone knows that “sugar free” on a clearly sweet thing - popsicles, juice, yogurt, etc - means “fake sugar.” That’s what it means in this country. The phrase you’ll find to indicate that no sweetener has been added is “no sugar added.” This isn’t difficult.

Except that the example cited above says “no sugar added.” So, no.

They’re popsicles! No one buys them thinking they’re healthy. No one!

Funny how they call them fruit bars instead of popsicles though, huh? It’s almost like they’re trying to make you think they’re, I dunno, healthier?

The first two ingredients are water and fruit. Seems appropriate they are called fruit bars. Popsicles typically contain no real fruit/juice.

Fruit bar: puree the fruit, freeze into the mold. No added sugars, no extra chemicals. Literally just frozen fruit.

The fact that anyone *must* analyze nutritional labels to figure out exactly what they're eating (because it's generally not the same as advertised) is why the FDA and consumer protection entities exist. Marketers for substances meant for consumption should be an occupation regulated as closely as law and medicine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1
They’d get diarrhea before they had any blood sugar issues.

Guys. Everyone knows that “sugar free” on a clearly sweet thing - popsicles, juice, yogurt, etc - means “fake sugar.” That’s what it means in this country. The phrase you’ll find to indicate that no sweetener has been added is “no sugar added.” This isn’t difficult.

Except that the example cited above says “no sugar added.” So, no.

They’re popsicles! No one buys them thinking they’re healthy. No one!

Funny how they call them fruit bars instead of popsicles though, huh? It’s almost like they’re trying to make you think they’re, I dunno, healthier?

The first two ingredients are water and fruit. Seems appropriate they are called fruit bars. Popsicles typically contain no real fruit/juice.

Fruit bar: puree the fruit, freeze into the mold. No added sugars, no extra chemicals. Literally just frozen fruit.

The fact that anyone *must* analyze nutritional labels to figure out exactly what they're eating (because it's generally not the same as advertised) is why the FDA and consumer protection entities exist. Marketers for substances meant for consumption should be an occupation regulated as closely as law and medicine.

Omg. You have issues. It really doesn’t matter. Americans are obese because they gorge on terrible high calorie food and don’t move. It isn’t the outshine bar and it’s few grams of fake sugar. You could one every day it it wouldn’t make a dent in your weight.