PYX Resources: Achieving volume and diversification milestones. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Post 1 – FDA Nutritional Label Changes to Include Added Sugars
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced added sugar labeling on the Nutrition Facts Label to help consumers make informed choices about the foods they eat. The first Nutrition Facts label debuted in 19941. However, the specific inclusion of added sugars became more prominent in recent years.
Here are the key points about added sugars on the Nutrition Facts Label:
1. Total Sugars include both naturally occurring sugars (such as those found in milk and fruits) and any added sugars present in the product. There is no specific Daily Value for total sugars because no recommendation has been made for the total amount to consume in a day.
2. Added Sugars specifically refer to sugars that are added during food processing, packaged as sweeteners (like table sugar), derived from syrups, honey, or concentrated fruit/vegetable juices. Naturally occurring sugars in milk, fruits, and vegetables are not considered added sugars.
3. The Daily Value for added sugars is 50 grams per day based on a 2,000 calorie daily diet. For most Americans, the primary sources of added sugars are sugar-sweetened beverages, baked goods, desserts, and sweets.
4. On the Nutrition Facts label, added sugars are listed separately, along with the percent Daily Value (%DV). The word “includes” before added sugars indicates that they are part of the total sugar content. For example, a yogurt container might list: “Total Sugars: 15g (Includes 7g of Added Sugars, representing 14% DV)”.
Remember, the goal is to limit calories from added sugars to less than 10% of total calories per day. For a 2,000 calorie diet, this translates to 200 calories or 50 grams of added sugars2.
Manufacturers were required to comply with added sugar labeling on the Nutrition Facts Label based on their annual sales:
• Manufacturers with $10 million or more in annual sales were required to update their labels by January 1, 2020.
• Manufacturers with less than $10 million in annual food sales had to comply by January 1, 202112.
This labelling requirement aims to provide consumers with clearer information about the amount of added sugars in food products. It’s a step toward making informed choices about our diets!
The FDA’s decision to include “added sugars” on the Nutrition Facts labels of packaged foods was met with some political debate. While big candy companies like Mars and Nestle eventually signed onto it, the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a significant food lobbying group, also supported the change. However, there were holdouts:
1. Sugar Industry: Represented by the Sugar Association, they opposed the FDA’s dietary guidance, calling it “Agenda based, Not Science Based.”
2. Soft Drink Makers: They were also against the added sugar labeling.
Members of these associations include the ASR Group. American Sugar Cane
It has been a marathon journey for LTH’s following the sweetbiotix gold trail, but we appear to have entered the stadium at last for the final lap. The posts that follow will illustrate how the more hurried approach taken by others to try and achieve FDA “healthy” fibre sweetener status has seen them end up crossing their eyes and dotting their t’s, whilst SOH’s Scientific and more measured approach, dotting the i’s and crossing the t’s as he has gone along, should ensure there are no such slip ups with sweetbiotix product submissions to the FDA.
Perhaps you will have to ask Alex for an increase in your pocket money. ;) I hope you have more luck in that regard than me. :(
Thanks. That looks like sweetbiotix is available to purchase?
For anyone new
https://www.knowde.com/stores/optibiotix-health-plc
mol
PG,
Indeed, I am close. Alex is proving to be persuasive.
In case you missed it. Alex has added an addendum to his "added sugar labelling" after a conversation with SOH. It adds important context to what appears to be a SweetBiotix purchase portal.
https://lemminginvestor.substack.com/p/optibiotix-health-plc-0bd
Skid, what have you contributed , apart from insults .
Elrico, the investing equivalent (and similar intellect) of Liz Truss
Excellent sweet piece. Surely elrico you must close to buying back in now?
Thanks also to aqua for his part in the update.
I love Alex's writing, he is so descriptive.
Thanks Elrico, very informative.
Nice finds on the Prairie Naturals Slimbiome Cardio mol. Canada is known as a idea woke Country so made a smile to see Prairie promoting itself as Woman owned by a Ms Tran, could not make it up :)
With much gratitude from Aquae.
https://lemminginvestor.substack.com
Aqua, when can we expect you sharing your findings?
tia
Mol, I have not contacted SOH directly myself, except for questions posed on Investor Meets, but have received responses via both TW and Lemmings in the past. The latest teaser, which I stress is not something that should be in a RNS, is none-the-less illuminating for all LTHs and helps to illustrate the difference between sweetbiotix and alternatives that generate excitement but are inferior.
Appreciate your contributions greatly mol.
What else would you expect him to do?
jees - anyone here already knows there are a number of fibre alternatives out there - in fact a number on sale - as opposed unfortunately to sweetbiotix which to date still awaits its launch
though after all these years i think we may get a product launch/es at some point this year
i also thought aquae would have contacted soh himself as i was of the opinion he had done so on a number of occasions in the past - but i may be wrong there - i'll let him confirm or deny himself should he wish
mol
LOL. I had a very interesting indeed encouraging, email exchange with SOH after Aquae sent me some very interesting research on another sweet-ish fibre rival to SweetBiotix. Initially, it could have negative connotations for SweetBiotix. However, the SOH response supported faith in SweetBiotix.
Watch this space over the weekend.
Also here
https://www.vitamart.ca/products/prairie-naturals-slimbiome-cardio-clear-multi-action-fibre-90g
and here
https://vitashop.ca/en/cholesterol-/slimbiome-cardio-clear-multi-action-fibre-90-g-pp-prr00532.html
in addition to as noted
https://www.yeswellness.com/products/prairie-naturals-slimbiome-cardio-clear-90g-powder?variant=47245911228718
mol
As noted by company in half year report 27 Sep 23
https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/569353577909473530/
interestingly though i'm having a bit of trouble finding same on prairie naturals website
https://www.prairienaturals.ca/
anyway wouldn't be opti without a bit of extra digging needed - lol
mol
FS, à lol from me too!
Pglancy
I challenge Elrico re some opinions and dislike his belittling of alternative views but do not hate him far from it
So Elrico holds zero shares
Thank you
PGlancy - I'm not "attacking" or "trolling" elrico. There's no "hate or contempt" as you put it. As far as I'm concerned, it's a free country and people can say what they like (providing it's within the law & preferably retains a degree of dignity & respect for others).
If anything, I'm more criticising the Boards (especially Aim companies), some of which seem to like singling out individual private investors to use as their mouthpiece. To me, this is unprofessional, potentially also creating a conflict of interest. If a company RNSs something, it's out there in the public domain for anyone interested to access.
At times, an RNS may contain market-sensitive information. So it makes sense that a company uses an official channel like this, where it can control timing of the release (for example: pre-market opening / post-market close). Once you start using random individuals to communicate, you lose control over the timing. You also introduce an element of doubt & third party hearsay (unlike an RNS, which is down there in black & white for all to see and which could be used to hold a company to account if it published inaccurate information).
I simply don't understand why you find my reservations so puzzling, but each to their own.
Lol, nice one Friedman.