Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

One negative consequences of the "no sugars added" is that it makes it harder to see how sweet something is because now instead of sugar its all artificial sweeteners in many things that don't need them at all.


Or, like, filtered apple juice instead of sugar. Which is the same thing as sugar (well actually fructose) but with a little apple essence thrown in.


It’s not that hard to read the nutrition facts label on your food packaging.

https://www.fda.gov/food/new-nutrition-facts-label/how-under...


What about the labels that doesn't list the sugar in the facts but lists Aspartame in the ingredients? It says it has a sweetener but doesn't say how much. Funny enough Aspartame doesn't appear anywhere on the page you linked to.


What about them? What is it you would like to know and how would the information help?


From the comment you first replied to: harder to see how sweet something is

It was never about sugar content, but how sweet something is.

Overly sweet things can be unpleasant to an adult palate, or one accustomed to a culture of less sweet things. In simpler times, sugar content was a somewhat reliable metric of sweetness (of course it can be balanced by acid, tannins, salt etc.), so you could select a product without needing to taste it first.


> In simpler times, sugar content was a somewhat reliable metric of sweetness (of course it can be balanced by acid, tannins, salt etc.),

In simpler times, there were no labels to judge sugary content. The regulation in USA came in 2011. In simpler times, you bought the thing and did not cared about sugar at all. Later on, you engaged in culture war whether calories should be on labeling or whether such regulation is nanny statism.

Plus, I will go out and say that amount of people who would regularly check packages to learn how sweet it is and thus estimate taste before buying was super low. It is not a great proxy in the first place.


Carbohydrates have been shown in Ireland ever since I can remember, at least 30 years. For many things - drinks especially - carbohydrates is a straight proxy for sugars.

I still rely on it. Fruit juices touting how natural they are, but bulking out on sugar via apple or orange juice, is really common. You learn to watch out for it in various snacks for toddlers too.


You can quite confidently conclude that if it contains artificial sweeteners, it is quite sweet, and way too sweet for my taste.


Artificial sweeteners effect your health. It would be nice to know how much is in there. The information would help a person to avoid the food combinations with Aspartame that decrease the rate of metabolism. But yea I guess a person could just read the label and just believe whatever it tells them.


Are you suggesting that there is common and widespread fraud with how food is labelled, to the extent that labels no longer can be trusted?


What about just buying fresh fruit, vegetables and if meat it your thing, fresh, unprocessed meat?


I buy and eat all of those things. We're talking about Nutrition fact labels and sweeteners friend.


if artificial sweetner is calorically inert why do you care


Because calorically inert and metabolically inert are not the same thing.


I don’t think it’s a direct metabolic effect but an effect on how hunger it makes you and how it effects the sensation of other things you consume.


Because it has a very strong, unpleasant and overpowering taste in too large quantities.


Calorie is not the only metric for health


Some people like to know what they are putting in their bodies.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: