A reader named Jerrod Savage sends in a couple images that seem to show a rather clever marketing strategy. Turns out that when you reduce the size of a container of Nesquik chocolate syrup, you also reduce the sugar content! It’s possible the actual syrup has less actual sugar — but, judging from the label, it’s also possible that it doesn’t.
Photo: Jerrod Savage The Original
Photo: Jerrod Savage The Low-Sugar (Smaller!) Alternative
and 
. You can also watch it on 
Unfortunately, we can’t see the nutrition panel typically found on the back of the container. I’m not familiar with this product, so I can’t speak to the veracity of the claim. Only seeing a small tightly cropped photo, how do we know this isn’t a case of selective editing? All we know is that the size of the container is smaller (700 v. 510) and the portion size (of the chocolate) is smaller. But are they using a more powerful sweetener that cuts down on the volume required?
Can someone provide more background, please? Possibly a shot of the nutrition panel/ingredient list? Data?
There are a lot of ways to manipulate flavour, mouthfeel, and all the other things that make a food experience.
FREAK SHOTS: THE WAY FOR A COMPANY
TO MAKE MORE $$$…
Remember when a pound can of coffee contained a pound of coffee?
Now, using the same size can, you will get either 13 oz., 11.5 oz. or less.
As you have demonstrated, this is a practice which many companies use to increase the bottom line because they know that most potential customers are don’t realize what is going on..
GREED!
It’s in the same deceptive area as the Subway and McDonald’s ads in which the sandwiches bear no resemblance to what you actually get in their restaurants.
http://mtcave.blogspot.com/2008/06/fast-food-ad-pictures-vs-actual-product.html
@SkepMod: The serving size has been reduced from 20ml to 14ml. That entirely accounts for the reduced amount of sugar.
Personally, I agree with Michael Pollan: Never eat anything that makes a health claim. It means that you are paying for marketing instead of food.
@SkepMod: This is not bogus. I checked the website. Look at the nutrition label for both products.
14 ml contains 10g of sugar in the “lower sugar” product – sugar per ml = 10/14 = 0.714 g/ml
20 ml contains 14g of sugar in the “higher sugar” product – sugar per ml = 14/20 = 0.7 g/ml
If the numbers above are exact, the sugar content in the “lower sugar” product are actually higher per ml!!!
But I guess they have approximated the numbers and they both have the same sugar content ratio.
The difference is where they say that you have to use different amounts of the syrup (20 ml vs 14 ml) into 250 ml of a drink for example, mix the syrup with 250 ml of milk.
@SkepMod: You are wrong. The amount of sugar per serving has gone down, but that’s only because the serving size has gone down in equal proportion. Kris discussed this above.
I would like to add this point: If you go to the company’s website and look at the ingredient lists, you will find that the two products are identical in that respect as well. This appears to be the exact same product in a new package.
It has been my experience that it is rare for parents or children to actually measure out syrup when mixing chocolate milk — the servings aren’t pre-measured out for you like soda cans — so I think there will be no actual change in consumption habits. You can sometimes find “100 calorie” coke cans and the like, which rely entirely on reducing the serving size, but because the can itself is smaller there is more reason to think that people will actually drink less soda in any given sitting, and thus might benefit from the gimmick. But not here.
Finally, I think the wording on the label is downright misleading. It says “33% less sugar than our original.” Without qualifying the statement to read something like 33% less sugar *per serving* than our original,’ the reasonable consumer would understand their statement to mean that the product was 33% less sugar-dense per unit volume (or perhaps per unit weight). With my proposed qualification, I would consider this merely excessively clever and sneaky. Without my proposed qualification (i.e. as it stands now) I consider this fraudulent and hopefully illegal under the laws of Canada.
For those of you who went to the website link, note it is for Nestle Canada. Here is the US is is illegal to change the serving size to change the nutrition facts. At the US site http://www.nesquik.com/adults/products/nesquiksyrup/chocolate22oz.aspx# you can see that there is no “low sugar” version sold in the US. But the stuff we get here has 12g sugar in 1 serving of 1 tablespoon, which is lower sugar per tablespoon of the two Canadian products. Obviously, the free market gets you more choice in Canada. Or, more opportunity to be duped. Buyer beware.
Obama should hire the guy who thought this up. If he could proclaim that he cut gov’t by 33%, without actually cutting any programs, both Democrats & Republicans will be happy. In fact he could even win over Tea Party’ers.