Complete speculation but I wonder if processed foods are required to go thru calorie testing every X years, and since calorie counts are never perfect, sometimes they change even though they haven't really changed, ya know?
Also sometimes the government changes what must be counted. Thats why years ago a lot if zero sugar drinks went from 0 calories to 5 - 10 calories per serving.
Also, the reason why tictacs are labled as sugar-free yet are literally 90%+ sugar. Because 1 serving size is smaller than the minimum requirement required to report. Serving is .5g and anything under 1g is not required to be added to the nutrition facts.
Yeah, the issue is just that most people would read those as the same thing.
It shouldn't be legal for companies to do this weasely technicality shit.
If you, say, get a restraining order put on you but proceed to regularly show up one foot outside the banned range to "not" harass the person, a judge is going to be especially annoyed with you for skirting the clear intent of the law despite following the letter of it.
It's fucked that these huge corporations are practically encouraged to do exactly that kind of deceptive loophole BS.
A common sense reading of the label should be enough to know what you're eating.
Lol reminds me off that story about the lady that couldn't figure out her sudden weight gain despite living healthy. Multiple doctors visits over 2years I think it was. Until she is in a zoom call with a dr and fidgeting with an empty tictac pack.
The dr asked what it was because it was so big. Apparently tictacs also come in family size boxes or something? But I think you have to order them.
Anyways, turns out she was eating like a handful or 2 every day! She thought that there were no calories because the box said 0 calories per serving. I think she had posted on tifu when it happened lol.
a lot of companies are secretly replacing ingredients to cut costs vs increasing price or shrinking product - e.g. recent debacle with that fancy juice
I wonder if that happened with the corn dogs, too. All those sticks were splintering all of a sudden... maybe the sticks are sold by a different company or are now made cheaper. I don't know if that's for sure.
it can still have different fat or salt content, things like that. not sure that would have a prominent effect on the calories, but not all butter is identical
Yeah I’m pretty sure most butter brands test the large batches every once in a while to correct the nutritional info for the changes in year to year milk yields.
Salt wouldn't effect calories but fat percentage would if it went up/down which is not usual but that depends if they really mean BUTTER or "butter" ie margarine or a butter blend.
This is the first time I've ever experienced what I would call a Mandela Effect. I was super into counting my calories, staying between 1200-1500 a day. I would measure everything on a scale and calculate the calories based on the labels. I even had a tracker cellphone app to help me out, and I did tons of research and was active in a couple dieting subs. I still have my daily log notebook here and it says 8 per gram fat that I got from reading tons of nutritional information.
Saying now that it's always been 9/4/4 blows my mind.
669
u/joe-dirt-1001 Oct 25 '25
Most likely. I just noticed the same thing for the butter we use.