431
I'm a monster
(lemmy.nz)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2026
431 points (98.0% liked)
memes
22478 readers
4162 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads/AI Slop
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live. We also consider AI slop to be spam in this community and is subject to removal.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Aren't the serving sizes intentionally small so they can get away with saying that stuff has less sugar?
Tic-tacs are 94% sugar. A serving of tic-tacs is 1 tic-tac, which is just under half a gram. The FDA considers less than half a gram of sugar in a serving to be negligible and not required to be listed.
In other words, a product that is 94% sugar is legally sugar-free.
Smaller portion = less sugar, fat, salt, calories etc... If I remember correctly a few states have addressed making unrealistic portion sizes for the label as making misleading claims.
Nutrients should always be listed in pr 100g or in percent (effectively the same).
As it is the in the EU
Its incomprehensible to me that this isn't mandatory around the world
In the EU (probably in the rest of europe too) you must have a per 100 gram (you can have bullshit "portions" too if you want to, but the "per 100 gram" must be there).
How the hell do you americans compare different brands??
I'm pretty sure they are standardized between product categories. I actually eat serving sizes, and most salty snack foods are 28g.
It seems like it's based on portions recorded for the food type 40-50 years ago.
https://foodlabelmaker.com/regulatory-hub/fda/serving-size/ https://www.fda.gov/media/102587/download
So they are going to run smaller than modern portions if people eat more now. Similar products should at least have similar serving mass, although there is room for adjustment for practical reasons like rounding to whole units. I'm not sure how new products without an early analogue are set.
Tic tacs have a serving size of less than a gram so they can claim 0g of sugar.
Only in America. Always thought that was a weird law.
They are almost always 1 oz (28g).
But, individually packaged stuff does tend to pull bullshit like “1 serving=half a bottle of soda”
Peanut butter is probably going to be fine though
I saw a wrapped item that did the opposite, which was weird. It was a pack of 3 pieces and a serving was 4.
Probably to hit some magic number:
What is this, lettuce?!
Depends on the quantity of parasites on the lettuce
As someone who, if anything, wants to gain weight, this has the inverse effect for me. Peanut butter is great because it's so dense with calories. (I try to avoid sugar though, but I don't think peanut butter has much added sugar, but I'll have to check next time I have some.)
I know I'm in the minority though. I'm a 6ft tall man who weighs ~125-130lb. I was stuck at 120 for a decade or more, and only recently have put on a couple more pounds. I don't have an eating disorder or anything, but I just struggle to put on weight, so my serving sizes personally for peanut butter are way higher than average.
Yeah well fuck you
Just FYI, I'm not sure if this is a joke or not, but it's not appreciated. I've had issues in the past, and still do some, about feeling too skinny. This was not me bragging, and I've gotten it a lot in the past that people treat it as something good, while I struggle with it. Would you say the same to an overweight person who is trying to not be overweight?
It was a joke and I’m sorry.
There are a lot of fat people who use Lemmy and they take it very personally when someone doesn't shovel as much food in their gut as they do, take it as a compliment. Skinny people live longer.
I’m in the “healthy” BMI range, thank you. I just hate having to work to maintain that. I would love to shovel as much food in my gut as I want; I spend most of the time thinking about my next meal. But I also understand that being overweight is a huge predictor of lots of other issues and like you said, an early death.
Sorry I've been dealing with other people who want to try to tell me that taking a drug to make your dick work is equivalent to lifestyle changes like taking fucking vitamins. Made me very salty, and my fiery gaze transfixed onto you. Again, I'm sorry.
Wtf peanut butter you get into that's got sugar?
Looked into it, could not find a peanut butter jar whose nutritional facts did not have sugar. Most common amount was 3g per serving.
Serving size was 2 tablespoons, or 32 grams. That doesn't actually sound that unreasonalsble for a pb&j to me.
Even walmart sells regular peanut butter https://www.walmart.com/ip/Crazy-Richard-s-Creamy-Peanut-Butter-16-oz/20683208
Ingredients: peanuts
Imagine that
10 percent sugar is pretty much, isn't it? Not that peanut butter itself is less calorie dense than sugar
No it doesn't all have sugar. Natural peanut butters just have peanuts and salt. Y'all gotta toss that fake shit.
Trader Joe's Peanut Butter Ingredients - Peanuts and Salt, No Added Sugar
The small amount of sugar listed is natural from the peanuts:
On its own, peanuts naturally contain a very small amount of sugar, less than two grams per serving. This means that pure peanut butter made only from ground peanuts will not be considered a high-sugar food.
Any excuse to put corn into everything. Otherwise US farmers might have to go back to growing diverse crops instead the environmentally destructive monocrops. Won't you think think of the investors?
Monocropping is destructive, corn is fine.
Corn is a monoculture
Literally any crop can be a monoculture - use your brain
Three sisters companion planting begs to differ. Any plant is a monoculture if you plant it alone, and isn't if you don't.
Yes. And corn is not 3 plants.
We're talking about corn. Just corn. Not 3 sisters. Not multiculture. Just corn.
I'm just trying to point out that it doesn't make sense to classify a plant as a monoculture because monoculture is a planting style that can be applied to any plant, and any plant can also be planted as part of a polyculture.