Replies

The nutrition side clearly states there are Carbs and lists the number of carbs that are "sugars."

You cannot determine added sugars from the nutritional label alone. The only way to determine added sugars is to use the nutritional label in conjunction with the ingredient list. But, in this case, the ingredient list contains a phrase that is clearly intended to deceive.

As far as the lawsuit (which is a ridiculous one): most people when they avoid "sugars" are avoiding added sugars. Natural sugars are not nearly as damaging to people who are diabetic, worried about diabetes, or attempting to lose weight (which is why fruits and safe starches are generally acceptable in many common dietary approaches). The problem is two-fold: nutritional labels are incomplete, in that they fail to differentiate natural and free sugars. Secondly, manufacturers have become quite creative in terms of hiding free sugars behind innocuous-sounding phrases. Take, for example, one of the labels above. It has a laundry list of ingredients including things like "mango juice concentrate". What in the world is that, exactly? Is that table sugar, derived from evaporated mango juice, or is it plain concentrate? What additional steps were taken to this evaporated mango juice? Is it just a deceptive way of saying "(free) sugar"? What about "mango puree"? Is it the same thing as what I would get if I took a mango and threw it in a food processor, or is it essentially table sugar that has been derived from mangos? I have no idea, and neither do you. And there is no way to tell from the nutrition label.

In the past, sugar would have been listed as "sugar", regardless of source. Now, manufacturers are very deceptive.

Now, manufacturers are very deceptive.

Actually, I'd say "sugar" is more deceptive than sucrose, fructose, lactose, or any of the other natural or refined versions. Sugar could be any of them. Evaporated cane juice tells me it's not from beets or fruit. If I want to know more, I can look it up.