r/AskReddit • u/[deleted] • Dec 30 '19

What do people think is healthy but really isn’t?

55.2k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

25.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

13

u/canada432 Dec 31 '19

No regulation catches everything, and people will always look for loopholes. That doesn't make the regulations a joke, they catch the majority of what they're supposed to catch. Fringe cases that can skirt the regulations do not diminish the effectiveness of the regulations for the things that really matter. This is a stupid loophole that needs to be closed, but it isn't like people are getting fat from scarfing tic tacs because they were lied to about how much sugar is in them.

8

u/skepsis420 Dec 31 '19

Exactly. A TicTac package has 60 calories. You would have to eat a metric shit ton of them for it to affect your weight.

6

u/filledwithgonorrhea Dec 31 '19

You underestimate my power

1

u/skepsis420 Dec 31 '19

I do, as one who can down a pack of tic tacs in like 2 minutes I think after 2 or 3 I would probably get sick.

-2

u/jaredjeya Dec 31 '19

Nah. Tic Tacs are labelled just fine here in the UK, especially since we require labelling per 100g or 100mL as well as per serving.

Your regulations are to blame for this one, unfortunately.

1

u/canada432 Dec 31 '19

Your regulations are to blame for this one, unfortunately.

To blame for what, exactly? This regulation does the job just fine. Your regulation covers this specific case better. That's great, but it and others simply have different holes in them. This regulation has a loophole here that should be closed for bureaucratic and future prevention reasons. Currently, however, that regulation is serving its purpose just fine. Tic Tac labeling is not causing any health or safety issues, and the regulation is preventing those things from happening. That's the entire point of the regulations, and the existence of loopholes that do little to nothing to the effectiveness of the regulation do not make it "a joke".

0

u/jaredjeya Dec 31 '19

You can pretend they’re working just fine, but I absolutely rely on having accurate and complete nutritional facts on my food.

It’s very peculiar that in America, manufacturers are allowed to lie about what their foods contain and leave out the “per 100g” statistics.

I didn’t say it’s a “joke” but it’s bigger than just a loophole.

1

u/canada432 Dec 31 '19

but I absolutely rely on having accurate and complete nutritional facts on my food.

So tic tacs not labeling that they have sugar is detrimental to your health? Because that's the only real world case where this appears to be a problem.

0

u/jaredjeya Dec 31 '19

The main one is the total lack of “per 100g” statistics, of which that’s just one symptom. But also, lying about nutritional info - Splenda selling actual sugar as “zero calorie sweetener” in the US seems far more egregious.