3 ms·

I agree that the basic "authenticity" part of this situation (where the product in fact claims to be entirely avocado oil and isn't) is already covered by exist

I agree that the basic "authenticity" part of this situation (where the product in fact claims to be entirely avocado oil and isn't) is already covered by existing authorities, and is basically a different problem. As for the rest of your post, well for one, "pomegranate juice," a product you buy that's 100% pomegranate juice and nothing else, isn't exactly uncommon: Pom Wonderful sells it all over the place. My grocery store store brand will also sell you something like "No Sugar Added 100% Juice Cranberry Pomegranate" followed by very small letters reading "flavored blend of 5 fruit juices with added ingredients"... Welch's settled a lawsuit several years for doing this very thing with a product that at least was being even a little more up-front about being primarily white grape juice. As for there being no reason for people to think that something is what it claims to be, well I suppose that is a widely held belief that accounts for much of what we see in food labeling. I happen to think if you sell something that's 99% soybean oil and 1% avocado oil you shouldn't be able to call it "avocado oil" even if you are correctly listing the soybean oil first on the ingredients list. Or if it's 50/50 or 49/51 (and you can therefore list the avocado oil first) for that matter. Ultimately names do matter. There's a reason the manufacturers care at all about what they're able to call their products, because it does actually affect how consumers act. Feel free to sell an otherwise accurately labeled 50/50 blend, just actually call it a blend. I really don't think it's unreasonable that if you give something an unqualified name of something that is a single ingredient that consumers should expect it to in fact be that thing.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
> well for one, "pomegranate juice," a product you buy that's 100% pomegranate juice and nothing else, isn't exactly uncommon: Pom Wonderful sells it all over the place. You're saying it's widely available. I'm saying it's not widely consumed. And I stand by my opinion that naming a blended product after its most prominent flavor is both normal and desirable. But I see no issue with requiring blends to be labeled as blends. The regulation described sidethread here ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30106290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30106290 ) seems pretty reasonable to me. > 1. The indication of the quantity of an ingredient or category of ingredients used in the manufacture or preparation of a food shall be required where the ingredient or category of ingredients concerned: > (a) appears in the name of the food or is usually associated with that name by the consumer; > (b) is emphasised on the labelling in words, pictures or graphics; or [another clause] But even in that case, you're free to sell something as "avocado oil" when it's 50% avocado-derived or even 20% avocado-derived [consider something like "garlic olive oil"]; you just need to disclose the amount.
- zerocrates 5y ago
  I'd say "garlic olive oil" is a different category where its name already implies a mixture of these two things, and from that name you'd expect the resulting product to contain both garlic and olive oil, and be mostly olive oil (and would be mislabeled if it's actually artificial garlic flavor, or actually canola). It's the unqualified naming that I'm objecting to, in general. Anyway, I think the EU regulation quoted sounds pretty reasonable also, assuming something about how reasonably prominent such information would need to be.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > I'd say "garlic olive oil" is a different category where its name already implies a mixture of these two things, and from that name you'd expect the resulting product to contain both garlic and olive oil OK, granted, but that isn't true of "chili oil". It could refer to oil pressed from chili, but it doesn't.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

> well for one, "pomegranate juice," a product you buy that's 100% pomegranate juice and nothing else, isn't exactly uncommon: Pom Wonderful sells it all over the place. You're saying it's widely available. I'm saying it's not widely consumed. And I stand by my opinion that naming a blended product after its most prominent flavor is both normal and desirable. But I see no issue with requiring blends to be labeled as blends. The regulation described sidethread here ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30106290 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30106290 ) seems pretty reasonable to me. > 1. The indication of the quantity of an ingredient or category of ingredients used in the manufacture or preparation of a food shall be required where the ingredient or category of ingredients concerned: > (a) appears in the name of the food or is usually associated with that name by the consumer; > (b) is emphasised on the labelling in words, pictures or graphics; or [another clause] But even in that case, you're free to sell something as "avocado oil" when it's 50% avocado-derived or even 20% avocado-derived [consider something like "garlic olive oil"]; you just need to disclose the amount.

zerocrates 5y ago
I'd say "garlic olive oil" is a different category where its name already implies a mixture of these two things, and from that name you'd expect the resulting product to contain both garlic and olive oil, and be mostly olive oil (and would be mislabeled if it's actually artificial garlic flavor, or actually canola). It's the unqualified naming that I'm objecting to, in general. Anyway, I think the EU regulation quoted sounds pretty reasonable also, assuming something about how reasonably prominent such information would need to be.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > I'd say "garlic olive oil" is a different category where its name already implies a mixture of these two things, and from that name you'd expect the resulting product to contain both garlic and olive oil OK, granted, but that isn't true of "chili oil". It could refer to oil pressed from chili, but it doesn't.