5 ms·

The ingredients list says it has less than 2% of a group of items, including strawberries. That's not misrepresentation, that's wishful thinking on the plainti

by ponow 5y ago

The ingredients list says it has less than 2% of a group of items, including strawberries. That's not misrepresentation, that's wishful thinking on the plaintiff's part.

josho 5y ago
30 point font it says 'Strawberry', the packaging has pictures of more fresh strawberries than are actually in the product. Yet in 8 point font on the backside it says strawberries don't make a substantial part of the product. Isn't that the misrepresentation? Why don't we agree to call it what it actually is 'Red Flavor Poptarts' and then the suit can be dismissed.
- Spivak 5y ago
  I mean if I make strawberry cheesecake I’m sure by weight less than 2% of the cake is strawberries. I’m not really sure how you fix the labeling requirements so that everything ever isn’t “strawberry flavored” or “red.”
  - josho 5y ago
    You are needlessly blurring the issue. Forget the cheesecake. Focus on the Strawberry topping. A homemade strawberry topping will be strawberry, sugar, and starch or gelatin. BUT, the strawberry topping from your frozen foods section will likely be 3 strawberries sliced up large enough so the consumer thinks it's just like homemade because they see the fruit, and then a 98% of industrial red flavoring. There is very little incentive not to use strawberry flavor because both products can be sold as the same. Would it really be so wrong to require more honesty in what we buy? When choosing a product wouldn't it be nice to choose between one with 98% red flavor versus one with 98% strawberry?
    - ponow 5y ago
      You don't need to require more disclosure. Those products that want to deliver the real mccoy can just state it: "10% strawberries, by volume of ingredients before cooking", or something. You can even have a youtube video showing you making it, with a celeb ooing and awing. The people who care enough to pay for it will do so. This case sounds like people wanting a free upgrade.
- stronglikedan 5y ago
  That's already been settled. Detailed ingredients labels are compulsory, because consumers wanted details. Now the onus is on the consumer to read the detailed ingredients labels that they, themselves asked for and received. It doesn't matter what the front of the box says, or in which font it says it.
  - josho 5y ago
    > It doesn't matter what the front of the box says Don't you see that is the problem? We have trademark laws to protect companies from confusing consumers. E.g. If a cola company comes even close to confusing a consumer that their product is 'coke' then it gets sued. However, when consumers are routinely confused by what's in a product or have become so accustomed that the picture on the box is not actually what is in the box then this audience seems to think that is okay. I find the difference in opinions between business protection and consumer protection astounding. We've been massively propagandized by capitalism.

by ponow 5y ago

The ingredients list says it has less than 2% of a group of items, including strawberries. That's not misrepresentation, that's wishful thinking on the plaintiff's part.

josho 5y ago

30 point font it says 'Strawberry', the packaging has pictures of more fresh strawberries than are actually in the product. Yet in 8 point font on the backside it says strawberries don't make a substantial part of the product. Isn't that the misrepresentation? Why don't we agree to call it what it actually is 'Red Flavor Poptarts' and then the suit can be dismissed.

Spivak 5y ago
I mean if I make strawberry cheesecake I’m sure by weight less than 2% of the cake is strawberries. I’m not really sure how you fix the labeling requirements so that everything ever isn’t “strawberry flavored” or “red.”
- josho 5y ago
  You are needlessly blurring the issue. Forget the cheesecake. Focus on the Strawberry topping. A homemade strawberry topping will be strawberry, sugar, and starch or gelatin. BUT, the strawberry topping from your frozen foods section will likely be 3 strawberries sliced up large enough so the consumer thinks it's just like homemade because they see the fruit, and then a 98% of industrial red flavoring. There is very little incentive not to use strawberry flavor because both products can be sold as the same. Would it really be so wrong to require more honesty in what we buy? When choosing a product wouldn't it be nice to choose between one with 98% red flavor versus one with 98% strawberry?
  - ponow 5y ago
    You don't need to require more disclosure. Those products that want to deliver the real mccoy can just state it: "10% strawberries, by volume of ingredients before cooking", or something. You can even have a youtube video showing you making it, with a celeb ooing and awing. The people who care enough to pay for it will do so. This case sounds like people wanting a free upgrade.
stronglikedan 5y ago
That's already been settled. Detailed ingredients labels are compulsory, because consumers wanted details. Now the onus is on the consumer to read the detailed ingredients labels that they, themselves asked for and received. It doesn't matter what the front of the box says, or in which font it says it.
- josho 5y ago
  > It doesn't matter what the front of the box says Don't you see that is the problem? We have trademark laws to protect companies from confusing consumers. E.g. If a cola company comes even close to confusing a consumer that their product is 'coke' then it gets sued. However, when consumers are routinely confused by what's in a product or have become so accustomed that the picture on the box is not actually what is in the box then this audience seems to think that is okay. I find the difference in opinions between business protection and consumer protection astounding. We've been massively propagandized by capitalism.