We Asked Starbucks Why Their 'Sugar-Free' Drinks Have Sugar

mlhpdx

I’m trying to visualize the argument made that this was okay. I can’t.

helsinkiandrew

TLDR: Starbucks are using the term "Sugar-Free" when they mean “no added sugar” although there's sugar naturally in the ingredients. I'm not sure how anyone can argue that isn't clearly breaking FDA guidance of containing less than 0.5g of sugar: https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidan...

Ekaros

Also I question how can you have sugar-free caramel? Caramel is browned sugar so I would expect it to have sugar. Maybe in this too should terms like "caramel like flavour" be mandated...

bob1029

If you want to see what end game Starbucks looks like, Dunkin' Donuts is probably a good place to start. They're on the border of selling products with 200g of sugar in a single cup. Getting close to half a pound . We measure our cheese burgers in units like this. Maybe it's time to start measuring coffee this way too.

nephihaha

Because artificial sweeteners taste vile.

yourusername

Next: Gluten free bread made of 100% wheat flour. Well of course there's naturally occuring gluten, but we didn't add it as a seperate ingredient.

metalman

The way the label 'law' (fuck me!, law) is written, you could sell sugar as no added sugar, and possibly then sugar free as it is bieng 'interpreted' , legaly interpreted that is. The way the law for bieng labeled 100% organic is written, explicitly states it can be only 95% , and every investigation reveals that almost nothing bieng sold as organic passes the tests. At one point a few years ago I did a very deap dive into 'ingredients', trying to understand what they were, where they came from, how they were bieng used, and what there phisological properties are, and a huge number of them have essentialy no information, just a # listing in an international data base, and after that you have to be chemist, or they will say 'dough conditioner', foaming agent, anti foaming agent,modified foaming agent, in any case I researched hundreds of ingredients and one thing became clear, that not one of these things was mentioned anywhere as ' HOLLY FUCK this stuff is awsome, it's so good for you , you wouldn't BELIEV how great it is', not one, 100% mumble mumble mumble. After that I invented the 'Food Diet', I still eat some packaged foods, but I am hair trigger on chucking the stuff that isn't quite right, but the bulk of what I get is localy grown and proccesed and luckily I live in rural farm country and can buy direct, and forage, hunt or fish or trap. I continue to dig down into the local markets for everything, and also home in on ethnic markets as they often are sourcing products they are proud of from there countrys of origin. If I want toilet bowl cleaner or light bulbs, I go to whichever big brand outfit is most convienient, or an industrial supply outfit, and I am here to tell you, thats also where YOUR 'food', is also comming from. same fucking vats too.lots of it rehabilitated from it's former label of 'byproduct' the bottom line here is that the management at starbucks is rightfully astonished that considering what else the public has turned a blind eye to, that THEY should be held accountable, and are in fact the agreaved party by bieng forced to deal with the systematic contradictions built into everything associated with business and money, and this in fact is what the courts will be weighing.

b0rtb0rt

added sugar actually is totally different than naturally occurring sugar though i’m on a no (added) sugar diet most of the time, so the effects of sugar are very noticeable when i do have it. when i have stuff with added sugar, at first it seems gross and too much and then i mysteriously have cravings for more sugar. things like milk with naturally occurring sugar don’t have that effect