4 ms·

Why the $100K fine then?

• jowday 5y ago
  Because they advertised it as "100% cheese". It's a fine for misleading advertising, not for putting wood pulp in the cheese.
  • lolinder 5y ago
    Edit: as pointed out below, I misunderstood. It was not actually parmesan, but it did have cheese. From the Bloomberg article: > Instead, there was a mixture of Swiss, mozzarella, white cheddar and cellulose, according to the FDA. My original comment preserved for history: > It's worse than that: that company advertised it as 100% cheese and it was actually 0% cheese. Not just that it had additives, it wasn't cheese at all.
    • pitaj 5y ago
      It's not that it wasn't cheese, it's that it was entirely cheese that wasn't parmesan.
      • deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
• crazygringo 5y ago
  The article linked within explains it's not about the cellulose, but about the fact that in one particular case, cheese being labeled "parmesan" was actually other cheeses, with 0% parmesan: > According to the FDA’s report on Castle, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, “no parmesan cheese was used to manufacture” the Market Pantry brand 100% grated Parmesan Cheese, sold at Target Corp. stores, and Always Save Grated Parmesan Cheese and Best Choice 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese, sold by Associated Wholesale Grocers Inc., which along with its subsidiaries supplies 3,400 retail stores in 30 states. Instead, there was a mixture of Swiss, mozzarella, white cheddar and cellulose, according to the FDA. That's genuine mislabeling. But it shouldn't be confused with the normal practice of adding cellulose for anti-clumping -- which is what the headline is implying is the scandal.
  • swiley 5y ago
    I wonder if this is why I stopped liking "parmesan" a few years ago.
    • lolinder 5y ago
      Powdered cheeses have had anti-caking agents for as long as there have been powdered cheeses. It's possible some brands have started increasing the amount of the agent, but it's not a new practice.