Hard candies
ALTOIDS Curiously Strong Mints Peppermint
1.76 oz (50 g)
Score
- Ultra-processed
- High in sugar
- Contains added sugars
Why it scores 39
ALTOIDS Curiously Strong Mints Peppermint scores 39 out of 100 (Poor) under GoodSwap’s published rules. What moved the score most:
- minus 20 points Sugar: An added sugar. Strong
- minus 18 points Ultra-processed (NOVA 4): Classified NOVA 4: made with industrial ingredients and additives. Strong
- minus 14 points Sugars 100 g / 100 g: Very high in sugar. Strong
Every line of the math is on The Receipt below, with its evidence tier and sources.
Better hard candy and mints
-
Peppermint sugarfree mints, peppermint Altoids · 10.5 g Less sugar · No added sugars Score 64 out of 100 , 25 points higher -
Mints Peppermint Epic Less sugar · No added sugars Score 70 out of 100 , 31 points higher -
Altoids Arctic Wintergreen Mints Mars · 1.2 oz (34 g) Less sugar · No added sugars Score 58 out of 100 , 19 points higher -
Penguin peppermints Ifive Brands · 50 g Less sugar · No added sugars Score 69 out of 100 , 30 points higher -
Smalls peppermint breath mints ounce tin Altoids · 3.33 oz/94.5 g Not ultra-processed · Less sugar Score 64 out of 100 , 25 points higher
The same kind of product, at least 10 points higher, sold in the US. Never paid placements.
The Receipt
ALTOIDS Curiously Strong Mints Peppermint
Ingredients
- Sugar minus 20 points
- Vegetable gums (unspecified) minus 2.5 points
- Natural flavors minus 2.5 points
Processing
- Ultra-processed (NOVA 4) minus 18 points
- 2 kinds of ultra-processing markers minus 1.5 points
Nutrition per 100 g
- Sugars 100 g / 100 g minus 14 points
- Energy 500 kcal / 100 g minus 3 points
100 − 61.5 = 38.5 → 39
Can’t score above 79. Contains sugar, an ingredient of high concern. [1][2][3]
Can’t score above 79. High in sugars (above the front-of-pack "high" level). [6]
Nutrition per 100 g
| Energy | 500 kcal |
|---|---|
| Fat | 0 g |
| Carbohydrates | 100 g |
| Sugars | 100 g |
| Protein | 0 g |
| Salt | 0 g |
Serving: 3 pieces (2 g)
Ingredients
- MADE OF: SUGAR (high concern)
- GUM
- ARABIC (not recognized)
- NATURAL FLAVORS (INCLUDING OIL OF PEPPERMINT)
- GELATIN
Label text, as published
MADE OF: SUGAR, GUM, ARABIC, NATURAL FLAVORS (INCLUDING OIL OF PEPPERMINT), GELATIN.
Allergens and diets
- Not vegan
- Not vegetarian
- Palm-oil-free
Always check the package: recipes change.
Packaging
Aluminium
Context only: no points in v1.
More hard candies on GoodSwap
-
Duo Fruit + Cool Strawberry Ice Breakers · 1.3 oz (36 g) Dye with an EU warning labelContains synthetic dyesUltra-processedContains non-nutritive sweeteners Score 22 out of 100 Poor -
Clean Breath sugar free Mentos · 150 pieces Contains synthetic dyesUltra-processedContains non-nutritive sweetenersContains sugar alcohols Score 37 out of 100 Poor -
Jolly Rancher Hard candy Jolly Rancher · 14 oz Dye with an EU warning labelContains synthetic dyesUltra-processedHigh in sugar Score 12 out of 100 Bad -
SweetTarts Original Sweet Tarts · 36 / 1.8 oz (51 g) Dye with an EU warning labelContains synthetic dyesUltra-processedHigh in sugar Score 12 out of 100 Bad
More from Altoids
Sources
-
Guideline: sugars intake for adults and children
“In both adults and children, WHO recommends reducing the intake of free sugars to less than 10% of total energy intake”
who.int
-
Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2025–2030
“Limit foods and beverages that include artificial flavors, petroleum-based dyes, artificial preservatives, and low-calorie non-nutritive sweeteners.”
cdn.realfood.gov
-
Added and free sugars should be as low as possible
“Sugar consumption is a known cause of dental caries.”
efsa.europa.eu
-
21 CFR 101.22 Foods; labeling of spices, flavorings, colorings and chemical preservatives
“whose significant function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional.”
ecfr.gov
-
“Table 3: Criteria for drinks (per 100ml)”
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk
-
“Greater exposure to ultra-processed food was associated with a higher risk of adverse health outcomes, especially cardiometabolic, common mental disorder, and mortality outcomes.”
doi.org