Not a significant source of saturated fat, trans fat, cholesterol…
Those are the ones that are illegal, not protein 0g.
The fat parts are illegal because those are not normal content for that kind of product, trans fats are also regulated, and advertising that something is within regulation is illegal. Because it implies other products are not.
It’s funny how some people can’t even spot the problematic parts when pointed out, because they are so used to them.
The listed items are all mandatory parts of all labels. Everything inside that box is required, in that format. “Nutrition Facts” boxes are highly regulated. Remove those statements, and this label is no longer legally compliant.
You’ll note that “good” content (dietary fiber, vitamin d, calcium, iron, and potassium) are also listed, even though this product does not contain them.
Because all of these items are mandated to be present inside this box on all products, there is no implication that another product may or may not contain these items.
The content of that box is not considered “advertisement”. It’s just a simple, consistent, statement of facts.
It’s mandatory to label sweetened water as not containing Cholesterol or trans fat?
That’s outright moronic. Might as well demand labeling the amount of U35.
It’s moronic to require labeling what’s NOT in it, it ads noise and hides what’s actually in it.
I know American standards are sometimes stupid, but really?
Kind of insane that things that would make a label illegal as misleading in EU is required in USA!?
That it’s a requirement in USA, doesn’t change the fact that it’s illegal in EU, because it doesn’t add meaningful information, and is therefore detrimental for quickly seeing the actual content.
It is mandatory for the manufacturer to make an affirmative claim as to the cholesterol and trans fat content (along with several other items) of every food product sold in the US. The manufacturer is only liable for what they actually claim; this labeling standard forces them to make certain claims.
With the labeling you describe of the EU, I could look at every item in my pantry and refrigerator, and not realize that my diet is entirely missing any source of vitamin D, for example. If nothing in any of my labels even mentions vitamin D, I might not even realize it is something I should be looking for in my diet.
When every single item in my diet affirmatively claims “Not a significant source of vitamin D”, it’s a big clue that I’m not eating right.
There is a distinct difference in liability between “accidentally” forgetting to include the sodium content of a product, and affirmatively claiming it has no significant amount of sodium.
When I’m on a low sodium diet and a soy sauce manufacturer fails to list its sodium content on the label, I bear a large part of the responsibility. It is common knowledge that soy sauce is usually extremely high in salt, so I can’t reasonably claim their mislabeling was the cause of any harm I experience. But, if they were to affirmatively claim “not a significant source of sodium”, I’ll own their asses.
Mandating claims of these specific, important nutrients certainly does add meaningful information.
You can’t get sufficient vitamin D from eating a normal healthy varied diet.
So if you want to be sure, and don’t live a place where the sun gets above 45° year round, you need to take it as a supplement.
It’s ridiculous to read labels to see if you get enough of all vitamins, minerals, fatty acids and amino acids. That’s insane.
Insanity is expecting the system to work in a way other than the way it actually works.
By the way, I did discover that EU labeling does include a “% RI” for sugar, which is functionality identical to the “recommendation” you were complaining about as being illegal.
Those are the ones that are illegal, not protein 0g.
The fat parts are illegal because those are not normal content for that kind of product, trans fats are also regulated, and advertising that something is within regulation is illegal. Because it implies other products are not.
It’s funny how some people can’t even spot the problematic parts when pointed out, because they are so used to them.
The listed items are all mandatory parts of all labels. Everything inside that box is required, in that format. “Nutrition Facts” boxes are highly regulated. Remove those statements, and this label is no longer legally compliant.
You’ll note that “good” content (dietary fiber, vitamin d, calcium, iron, and potassium) are also listed, even though this product does not contain them.
Because all of these items are mandated to be present inside this box on all products, there is no implication that another product may or may not contain these items.
The content of that box is not considered “advertisement”. It’s just a simple, consistent, statement of facts.
It’s mandatory to label sweetened water as not containing Cholesterol or trans fat?
That’s outright moronic. Might as well demand labeling the amount of U35.
It’s moronic to require labeling what’s NOT in it, it ads noise and hides what’s actually in it.
I know American standards are sometimes stupid, but really?
Kind of insane that things that would make a label illegal as misleading in EU is required in USA!?
That it’s a requirement in USA, doesn’t change the fact that it’s illegal in EU, because it doesn’t add meaningful information, and is therefore detrimental for quickly seeing the actual content.
It is mandatory for the manufacturer to make an affirmative claim as to the cholesterol and trans fat content (along with several other items) of every food product sold in the US. The manufacturer is only liable for what they actually claim; this labeling standard forces them to make certain claims.
With the labeling you describe of the EU, I could look at every item in my pantry and refrigerator, and not realize that my diet is entirely missing any source of vitamin D, for example. If nothing in any of my labels even mentions vitamin D, I might not even realize it is something I should be looking for in my diet.
When every single item in my diet affirmatively claims “Not a significant source of vitamin D”, it’s a big clue that I’m not eating right.
There is a distinct difference in liability between “accidentally” forgetting to include the sodium content of a product, and affirmatively claiming it has no significant amount of sodium.
When I’m on a low sodium diet and a soy sauce manufacturer fails to list its sodium content on the label, I bear a large part of the responsibility. It is common knowledge that soy sauce is usually extremely high in salt, so I can’t reasonably claim their mislabeling was the cause of any harm I experience. But, if they were to affirmatively claim “not a significant source of sodium”, I’ll own their asses.
Mandating claims of these specific, important nutrients certainly does add meaningful information.
You can’t get sufficient vitamin D from eating a normal healthy varied diet.
So if you want to be sure, and don’t live a place where the sun gets above 45° year round, you need to take it as a supplement.
It’s ridiculous to read labels to see if you get enough of all vitamins, minerals, fatty acids and amino acids. That’s insane.
Insanity is expecting the system to work in a way other than the way it actually works.
By the way, I did discover that EU labeling does include a “% RI” for sugar, which is functionality identical to the “recommendation” you were complaining about as being illegal.