5 ms·

The Gimmicks of Food Labeling

96 points by fortran77 3y ago

CamelCaseName 3y ago
https://archive.ph/f2CKM https://archive.ph/f2CKM
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
> To the outside observer, some of the quiet comedy of Sheehan’s work comes from the fact that we don’t necessarily consider snack-food flavoring to be “real,” and from the startling idea that anyone would. For Sheehan, though, the farce is the deception itself. “ ‘Smokehouse’ almonds,” he muttered. “These almonds have never seen a smokehouse in their— and Blue Diamond never owned a smokehouse, either.” He has sued the company eleven times. This is the distilled essence of parasitism. Nitpicking product labels to sue large companies in the hopes of winning a jackpot -- or at least a settlement. Producing nothing of value whatsoever, but leeching off otherwise productive (and necessary) economic activity. It's not a quiet comedy. It's a shame and a disgrace.
- Blackthorn 3y ago
  Well, yes, but it doesn't make him wrong either. We shouldn't allow companies to put whatever the hell they want on their labels when it's patently false. We benefit as a society when labels are truthful and not deceptive.
- more_corn 3y ago
  Suing people for false claims isn’t parasitic. How about don’t lie then you won’t piss off people who get enraged about lies.
  - 14 3y ago
    “Cigarettes are now good for you! Cures sore throats and can make your lung function improve 20%” Imagine having that on the label of a pack of smokes
- dang 3y ago
  "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- fbdab103 3y ago
  It is fraud. As a consumer, I want companies to be required to state facts, not words that inspire feelings-like a superior product.
- majormajor 3y ago
  How is tolerating misleading labeling, "puffery," and other forms of untrue advertising, anything more than tolerating parasites who want to make money by tricking people? "If we lie enough, and everyone else does it to, nobody will have the time to check us on our bullshit" seems like a perfect example of non-productive economic activity that just adds additional costs to every transaction at no net positive social or economic gain.
  - A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
    The article describes cases that are, at their very worst, puffery. In many instances, the confusion can be attributed to the "victim" not reading the nutrition label. "Oh no, I was tricked by this picture of an olive on the packaging! It's not entirely olive oil based after all! This calls for a major class action lawsuit."
    - lesuorac 3y ago
      > "Oh no, I was tricked by this picture of an olive on the packaging! It's not entirely olive oil based after all! This calls for a major class action lawsuit." How about you quote from either the article or the court case. Its entirely reasonable to assume that a product that contains in its name "with Olive Oil" contains Olive Oil. The fact that it doesn't to me is _Fraud_; the company is attempting to get revenue (additional sales) by deceiving a consumer about the product.
      - A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
        > What he saw was Country Crock Plant Butter Made with Olive Oil, a product with a green lid and a label showing a leafy olive branch floating above a buttered slice of toast, with the words “New!” and “Dairy Free” in delighted-looking cursive. “Most margarines, they don’t put pictures of the ingredients,” Clemmons went on. > Reading, he made a startling discovery: the spread wasn’t made of olive oil, or even mostly made of olive oil. The primary ingredient was a processed blend of palm and canola oils. “I’d been drawn in because of the picture,” Clemmons told me. “And they knew that. I’m sure they knew that. Why wouldn’t people be attracted to things that are natural?” But it did contain olive oil -- it just wasn't the sole oil source. I don't think that's fraud, and, again, anybody can read the label and make up their own mind. A lawsuit over this is a joke. Also, implying that canola oil and palm oil aren't natural is pretty funny.
- nathannecro 3y ago
  I've had to deal with my fair share of frivolous lawsuits (the ADA is a well meaning, poorly implemented set of rules). However, in this case, I wouldn't classify Sheehan's work as being parasitic. Companies are obviously being misleading and deceitful in order to sell more of their product. It makes sense to me that someone is out there holding their feet to the fire and forces them accurately market what they make.
  - A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
    I don't think it's obvious at all. "Smokehouse" can simply refer to an added smokey flavor. I don't think it's _necessarily_ implied that their product _has_ to be smoked according to any particular method, or it's falsely advertised. 11 lawsuits for that?
    - maccam912 3y ago
      Would you be as accepting of I sold an "organic peaches" flavored product because it was the same flavor as organic peaches?
      - A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
        If you didn't use the word organic, sure. In food, the word "organic" has a specific legal meaning: > "Any product labeled as organic on the product description or packaging must be USDA certified" A synthetic peach flavoring would almost certainly be unable to attain this sort of certification. But calling a peach-flavored product "peach" is as old as the hills, and of course I'm okay with it.
    - nathannecro 3y ago
      If one were to advertise an added smokey flavor, then marketing it as "smokey" or "smoked" (assuming the product was actually smoked) is correct. Just like how 'organic' has a specific definition, a 'smokehouse' is: "a building where meat or fish is cured by means of dense smoke" [0]. So if the product is not cured in dense smoke in a building, then it cannot be marketed as smokehouse{d}. It's as easy as using specific terminology to market their product. The fact that food producers don't, indicates to me that they're either stupid (and unaware of what words mean) or it's done maliciously (to mislead people). 0: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smokehouse https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smokehouse
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dooglius 3y ago
  If it forces Blue Diamond to either use a smokehouse as they claim, or stop lying (and perhaps be disrupted by a competitor that can make a bona fide claim to using a smokehouse), then this would produce value (assuming smokehouse almonds are better to some people).
Michelangelo11 3y ago
Bless that guy, he's doing the Lord's work.
kazanz 3y ago
Does anyone know where to find a list of common food labeling Gimmicks?
- rootw0rm 3y ago
  Not a very comprehensive list, but Mr. Sheehan's website has some information. a quote from [1] : 'Food fraud can take place in many forms. A company might substitute one product for another, use additives or enhancements that are not approved or misrepresent the country of origin of the product. Stolen food shipments or intentional contamination of the product is also considered food fraud. Food fraud is a continuum of deception. At one end of spectrum, there is the deliberate substitution of inferior and potentially harmful ingredients. At the other end is the mislabeling of common products by the largest food companies. The largest food companies will not engage in outright food fraud intentionally by using different ingredients that could be harmful. Instead, they typically would engage in a more subtle deception – all natural claims, no preservatives, healthy, yet containing lots of chemicals, etc.' [1] https://spencersheehan.com/other-areas/#food https://spencersheehan.com/other-areas/#food
- ReactiveJelly 3y ago
  No but my top pet peeves are 1. Non-dairy coffee creamer usually contains milk products, so even though it's "non-dairy" it's not vegan 2. Ingredients are listed by percent, and nobody wants "sugar" as their top ingredient, so lots of products will sink it down the list by having sugar, and syrup, and honey. 3 small ingredients instead of 1 big ingredient, but you're still just eating sugar. 3. They aren't required to say which coloring / flavorings come from beaver ass or bug shells, which is completely sanitary I'm sure, but also just disgusting. 4. Gelatin isn't vegetarian. This is more non-labeling than mis-labeling. It's just weird to think candies like marshmallows and gummy bears typically have meat in them.
  - ac29 3y ago
    > 1. Non-dairy coffee creamer usually contains milk products, so even though it's "non-dairy" it's not vegan I went to look this up and the first "non-dairy" creamer I came across literally says "CONTAINS: MILK" on the back. Its a small amount, but still seems pretty blatantly deceptive.
bradbarrish 3y ago
The world needs more Spencer Sheehan's. What a hero.
edgarvaldes 3y ago
A long time ago, I used to work for a design studio in my country (Mexico). A client asked for the packaging design for a new product made from beef. When we asked him for the Nutrition Facts table and the ingredient list, he gave us the packaging of a similar product from the competition and simply told us: Just write the same thing. I stopped working with them around the time (for another reasons). I later saw the new packaging: it had the same information. Some months later it was updated. I dont know if the new labels were real this time.
jdietrich 3y ago
On the one hand, it's hugely impressive that someone would take it upon themselves to demand honest marketing. On the other, it seems like a dreadful failure of regulation.
- ncallaway 3y ago
  This is what I think of whenever companies talk of the harms and overuse of class action lawsuits. We’ve decided on the approach of replacing real regulation with class action lawsuits. And if that’s the case, I’m damn glad there are people holding the manufacturers feet to the fire (or the lack of fire, in the case of Bkue Diamond). I’d be happy to replace this whole system with some real, effective regulation. But until that day, I’m very skeptical of anyone who wants to get rid of class action lawsuits.
  - ReactiveJelly 3y ago
    I'm reminded of the woman who got her labia melted from McDonald's coffee being unsafely hot, hotter than anyone would reasonably serve coffee, and who was mocked for years and years as "ooh coffee is hot what else is new". Maybe McDonald's didn't sponsor the mockery but it's one of my favorite conspiracy theories cause I'm sure them and their related companies benefited from the mockery.
    - ncallaway 3y ago
      I don’t think they sponsored the direct mockery, but they _certainly_ pushed the narrative that the hot coffee lawsuit was an example of frivolous litigation being used to harass companies. The PR narrative around it was _certainly_ deliberate on the part of McDonald’s PR. I suspect the mockery was not a planned outcome, but I suspect the McDonald’s suits didn’t mind it either. I actually learned the true details of the case for the first time when I had jury duty, and the lawyer brought it up and asked questions about it during voir dire.
- glandium 3y ago
  Regulations, when they exist, are also deceiving. See how, for example, you're allowed to claim your stuff contains zero calories when it has below a certain amount of calories per some amount of content.
jheriko 3y ago
[flagged]
elliotto 3y ago
Great article. In Australia we have the ACCC as our consumer protection body, which does great work in this space. When I travel overseas I'm marveled by the lack of standardisation of ingredient and nutritional information presented in other countries. It sounds like in lieu of a strong consumer protection body the US falls to random lawyers like this to keep industry players in line. This mechanism doesn't seem to work at all.
krispyfi 3y ago
This Sheehan guy sounds like he's doing valuable work, but he's no 師範. Maybe I should sue.
patrickthebold 3y ago
I've wanted someone to try: "Made with 100% vegan ingredients!".
- ReactiveJelly 3y ago
  I don't get it?
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Get an animal like chicken, only feed it vegan things. End up with meat fed with vegan diet.
  - patrickthebold 3y ago
    You often see "made with 100% juice" which means at least one ingredient is all juice, but there's other stuff in the product as well.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  I have also considered "Beyond Vegan" as workable marketing term. Just add meat products to vegan things to make them better.
Fricken 3y ago
One pet peeve of mine is ice cream being measured by volume. Similar dairy products, such as yogurt, sour cream, and cottage cheese all go by weight. The problem is that cheap ice cream is full of air. The volume is irrelevant unless you know what percentage of that volume is air. Another is food packaging listing the calories by serving size, which is a completely arbitrary amount. So if I want to know how many calories I just consumed, I first have to do arithmetic to figure out how many calories are in the full package, and then do another calculation based on how much I ate. Neither of these things are illegal, however. They are cheap tricks intended to make it harder to figure out wtf it is you're actually buying and eating.
- anon____ 3y ago
  > cheap ice cream is full of air Every good ice cream is. It has to be, otherwise it would be a block of hard ice, regardless of the quality of ingredients. You are right, though, in that it could be misleading. In Europe it's generally also sold by volume, but both volume and weight is present on the label, like this: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thescottishsun.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F2%2F2018%2F09%2FNINTCHDBPICT000435777101.jpg%3Fstrip%3Dall%26quality%3D100%26w%3D956%26h%3D800%26crop%3D1&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=320ad31e09a1a342b73bea3a71287b61adaca0b7f8faf61ae4e645fbe88649b8&ipo=images https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F....
  - hoseja 3y ago
    There is aerated and there is full of air. There can be quite the difference.
- munchler 3y ago
  How would you propose to list calories, if not by serving size?
anon84873628 3y ago
The one that really gets me is "uncured" meat products. No nitrates added! *Except those naturally occurring in celery juice. Well why are you bringing celery juice anywhere near my salami? Is it because of the nitrates, hmm? It's silly that regulations apparently allow producers to market differently according to the source of the nitrates (mineral vs plant). And now producers are locked in a dilemma where they must appeal to ignorant consumers who think "uncured" is somehow healthier. Sorry people, when it comes to colon cancer you can't have your bacon and eat it too.
- 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
  I think my favorite is when canned food has "no preservatives", merely enough salt to flavor an entire side of beef.
  - supertrope 3y ago
    It depends if "preservatives" means butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). Some may not consider salt a "preservative."
    - anjel 3y ago
      "Some may not consider salt a "preservative." Said the pickle to the cucumber.
appleflaxen 3y ago
> But I can proudly and honestly say I’ve never been sanctioned by a court for filing anything frivolous.” What a noble man
calvinmorrison 3y ago
budget stores are the worst offenders like (95% canola oil mixed with) OLIVE OIL (low grade)
jareklupinski 3y ago
> He and Horvath have squared off many times, and their dynamic recalls the Looney Tunes wolf and sheepdog Just have vague memories of this being hilarious and thought it was one episode, guess I didn't realize it was a series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECa1toPGth4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECa1toPGth4
more_corn 3y ago
Deliberate deception is a lie. Feel free to call it as it is.

96 points by fortran77 3y ago

CamelCaseName 3y ago

https://archive.ph/f2CKM https://archive.ph/f2CKM

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

A_D_E_P_T 3y ago

> To the outside observer, some of the quiet comedy of Sheehan’s work comes from the fact that we don’t necessarily consider snack-food flavoring to be “real,” and from the startling idea that anyone would. For Sheehan, though, the farce is the deception itself. “ ‘Smokehouse’ almonds,” he muttered. “These almonds have never seen a smokehouse in their— and Blue Diamond never owned a smokehouse, either.” He has sued the company eleven times. This is the distilled essence of parasitism. Nitpicking product labels to sue large companies in the hopes of winning a jackpot -- or at least a settlement. Producing nothing of value whatsoever, but leeching off otherwise productive (and necessary) economic activity. It's not a quiet comedy. It's a shame and a disgrace.

Blackthorn 3y ago
Well, yes, but it doesn't make him wrong either. We shouldn't allow companies to put whatever the hell they want on their labels when it's patently false. We benefit as a society when labels are truthful and not deceptive.
more_corn 3y ago
Suing people for false claims isn’t parasitic. How about don’t lie then you won’t piss off people who get enraged about lies.
- 14 3y ago
  “Cigarettes are now good for you! Cures sore throats and can make your lung function improve 20%” Imagine having that on the label of a pack of smokes
dang 3y ago
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
fbdab103 3y ago
It is fraud. As a consumer, I want companies to be required to state facts, not words that inspire feelings-like a superior product.
majormajor 3y ago
How is tolerating misleading labeling, "puffery," and other forms of untrue advertising, anything more than tolerating parasites who want to make money by tricking people? "If we lie enough, and everyone else does it to, nobody will have the time to check us on our bullshit" seems like a perfect example of non-productive economic activity that just adds additional costs to every transaction at no net positive social or economic gain.
- A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
  The article describes cases that are, at their very worst, puffery. In many instances, the confusion can be attributed to the "victim" not reading the nutrition label. "Oh no, I was tricked by this picture of an olive on the packaging! It's not entirely olive oil based after all! This calls for a major class action lawsuit."
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    > "Oh no, I was tricked by this picture of an olive on the packaging! It's not entirely olive oil based after all! This calls for a major class action lawsuit." How about you quote from either the article or the court case. Its entirely reasonable to assume that a product that contains in its name "with Olive Oil" contains Olive Oil. The fact that it doesn't to me is _Fraud_; the company is attempting to get revenue (additional sales) by deceiving a consumer about the product.
    - A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
      > What he saw was Country Crock Plant Butter Made with Olive Oil, a product with a green lid and a label showing a leafy olive branch floating above a buttered slice of toast, with the words “New!” and “Dairy Free” in delighted-looking cursive. “Most margarines, they don’t put pictures of the ingredients,” Clemmons went on. > Reading, he made a startling discovery: the spread wasn’t made of olive oil, or even mostly made of olive oil. The primary ingredient was a processed blend of palm and canola oils. “I’d been drawn in because of the picture,” Clemmons told me. “And they knew that. I’m sure they knew that. Why wouldn’t people be attracted to things that are natural?” But it did contain olive oil -- it just wasn't the sole oil source. I don't think that's fraud, and, again, anybody can read the label and make up their own mind. A lawsuit over this is a joke. Also, implying that canola oil and palm oil aren't natural is pretty funny.
nathannecro 3y ago
I've had to deal with my fair share of frivolous lawsuits (the ADA is a well meaning, poorly implemented set of rules). However, in this case, I wouldn't classify Sheehan's work as being parasitic. Companies are obviously being misleading and deceitful in order to sell more of their product. It makes sense to me that someone is out there holding their feet to the fire and forces them accurately market what they make.
- A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
  I don't think it's obvious at all. "Smokehouse" can simply refer to an added smokey flavor. I don't think it's _necessarily_ implied that their product _has_ to be smoked according to any particular method, or it's falsely advertised. 11 lawsuits for that?
  - maccam912 3y ago
    Would you be as accepting of I sold an "organic peaches" flavored product because it was the same flavor as organic peaches?
    - A_D_E_P_T 3y ago
      If you didn't use the word organic, sure. In food, the word "organic" has a specific legal meaning: > "Any product labeled as organic on the product description or packaging must be USDA certified" A synthetic peach flavoring would almost certainly be unable to attain this sort of certification. But calling a peach-flavored product "peach" is as old as the hills, and of course I'm okay with it.
  - nathannecro 3y ago
    If one were to advertise an added smokey flavor, then marketing it as "smokey" or "smoked" (assuming the product was actually smoked) is correct. Just like how 'organic' has a specific definition, a 'smokehouse' is: "a building where meat or fish is cured by means of dense smoke" [0]. So if the product is not cured in dense smoke in a building, then it cannot be marketed as smokehouse{d}. It's as easy as using specific terminology to market their product. The fact that food producers don't, indicates to me that they're either stupid (and unaware of what words mean) or it's done maliciously (to mislead people). 0: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smokehouse https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/smokehouse
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dooglius 3y ago
If it forces Blue Diamond to either use a smokehouse as they claim, or stop lying (and perhaps be disrupted by a competitor that can make a bona fide claim to using a smokehouse), then this would produce value (assuming smokehouse almonds are better to some people).

Michelangelo11 3y ago

Bless that guy, he's doing the Lord's work.

kazanz 3y ago

Does anyone know where to find a list of common food labeling Gimmicks?

rootw0rm 3y ago
Not a very comprehensive list, but Mr. Sheehan's website has some information. a quote from [1] : 'Food fraud can take place in many forms. A company might substitute one product for another, use additives or enhancements that are not approved or misrepresent the country of origin of the product. Stolen food shipments or intentional contamination of the product is also considered food fraud. Food fraud is a continuum of deception. At one end of spectrum, there is the deliberate substitution of inferior and potentially harmful ingredients. At the other end is the mislabeling of common products by the largest food companies. The largest food companies will not engage in outright food fraud intentionally by using different ingredients that could be harmful. Instead, they typically would engage in a more subtle deception – all natural claims, no preservatives, healthy, yet containing lots of chemicals, etc.' [1] https://spencersheehan.com/other-areas/#food https://spencersheehan.com/other-areas/#food
ReactiveJelly 3y ago
No but my top pet peeves are 1. Non-dairy coffee creamer usually contains milk products, so even though it's "non-dairy" it's not vegan 2. Ingredients are listed by percent, and nobody wants "sugar" as their top ingredient, so lots of products will sink it down the list by having sugar, and syrup, and honey. 3 small ingredients instead of 1 big ingredient, but you're still just eating sugar. 3. They aren't required to say which coloring / flavorings come from beaver ass or bug shells, which is completely sanitary I'm sure, but also just disgusting. 4. Gelatin isn't vegetarian. This is more non-labeling than mis-labeling. It's just weird to think candies like marshmallows and gummy bears typically have meat in them.
- ac29 3y ago
  > 1. Non-dairy coffee creamer usually contains milk products, so even though it's "non-dairy" it's not vegan I went to look this up and the first "non-dairy" creamer I came across literally says "CONTAINS: MILK" on the back. Its a small amount, but still seems pretty blatantly deceptive.

bradbarrish 3y ago

The world needs more Spencer Sheehan's. What a hero.

edgarvaldes 3y ago

A long time ago, I used to work for a design studio in my country (Mexico). A client asked for the packaging design for a new product made from beef. When we asked him for the Nutrition Facts table and the ingredient list, he gave us the packaging of a similar product from the competition and simply told us: Just write the same thing. I stopped working with them around the time (for another reasons). I later saw the new packaging: it had the same information. Some months later it was updated. I dont know if the new labels were real this time.

jdietrich 3y ago

On the one hand, it's hugely impressive that someone would take it upon themselves to demand honest marketing. On the other, it seems like a dreadful failure of regulation.

ncallaway 3y ago
This is what I think of whenever companies talk of the harms and overuse of class action lawsuits. We’ve decided on the approach of replacing real regulation with class action lawsuits. And if that’s the case, I’m damn glad there are people holding the manufacturers feet to the fire (or the lack of fire, in the case of Bkue Diamond). I’d be happy to replace this whole system with some real, effective regulation. But until that day, I’m very skeptical of anyone who wants to get rid of class action lawsuits.
- ReactiveJelly 3y ago
  I'm reminded of the woman who got her labia melted from McDonald's coffee being unsafely hot, hotter than anyone would reasonably serve coffee, and who was mocked for years and years as "ooh coffee is hot what else is new". Maybe McDonald's didn't sponsor the mockery but it's one of my favorite conspiracy theories cause I'm sure them and their related companies benefited from the mockery.
  - ncallaway 3y ago
    I don’t think they sponsored the direct mockery, but they _certainly_ pushed the narrative that the hot coffee lawsuit was an example of frivolous litigation being used to harass companies. The PR narrative around it was _certainly_ deliberate on the part of McDonald’s PR. I suspect the mockery was not a planned outcome, but I suspect the McDonald’s suits didn’t mind it either. I actually learned the true details of the case for the first time when I had jury duty, and the lawyer brought it up and asked questions about it during voir dire.
glandium 3y ago
Regulations, when they exist, are also deceiving. See how, for example, you're allowed to claim your stuff contains zero calories when it has below a certain amount of calories per some amount of content.

jheriko 3y ago

[flagged]

elliotto 3y ago

Great article. In Australia we have the ACCC as our consumer protection body, which does great work in this space. When I travel overseas I'm marveled by the lack of standardisation of ingredient and nutritional information presented in other countries. It sounds like in lieu of a strong consumer protection body the US falls to random lawyers like this to keep industry players in line. This mechanism doesn't seem to work at all.

krispyfi 3y ago

This Sheehan guy sounds like he's doing valuable work, but he's no 師範. Maybe I should sue.

patrickthebold 3y ago

I've wanted someone to try: "Made with 100% vegan ingredients!".

ReactiveJelly 3y ago
I don't get it?
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Get an animal like chicken, only feed it vegan things. End up with meat fed with vegan diet.
- patrickthebold 3y ago
  You often see "made with 100% juice" which means at least one ingredient is all juice, but there's other stuff in the product as well.
Ekaros 3y ago
I have also considered "Beyond Vegan" as workable marketing term. Just add meat products to vegan things to make them better.

Fricken 3y ago

One pet peeve of mine is ice cream being measured by volume. Similar dairy products, such as yogurt, sour cream, and cottage cheese all go by weight. The problem is that cheap ice cream is full of air. The volume is irrelevant unless you know what percentage of that volume is air. Another is food packaging listing the calories by serving size, which is a completely arbitrary amount. So if I want to know how many calories I just consumed, I first have to do arithmetic to figure out how many calories are in the full package, and then do another calculation based on how much I ate. Neither of these things are illegal, however. They are cheap tricks intended to make it harder to figure out wtf it is you're actually buying and eating.

anon____ 3y ago
> cheap ice cream is full of air Every good ice cream is. It has to be, otherwise it would be a block of hard ice, regardless of the quality of ingredients. You are right, though, in that it could be misleading. In Europe it's generally also sold by volume, but both volume and weight is present on the label, like this: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thescottishsun.co.uk%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fsites%2F2%2F2018%2F09%2FNINTCHDBPICT000435777101.jpg%3Fstrip%3Dall%26quality%3D100%26w%3D956%26h%3D800%26crop%3D1&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=320ad31e09a1a342b73bea3a71287b61adaca0b7f8faf61ae4e645fbe88649b8&ipo=images https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F....
- hoseja 3y ago
  There is aerated and there is full of air. There can be quite the difference.
munchler 3y ago
How would you propose to list calories, if not by serving size?

anon84873628 3y ago

The one that really gets me is "uncured" meat products. No nitrates added! *Except those naturally occurring in celery juice. Well why are you bringing celery juice anywhere near my salami? Is it because of the nitrates, hmm? It's silly that regulations apparently allow producers to market differently according to the source of the nitrates (mineral vs plant). And now producers are locked in a dilemma where they must appeal to ignorant consumers who think "uncured" is somehow healthier. Sorry people, when it comes to colon cancer you can't have your bacon and eat it too.

0xcde4c3db 3y ago
I think my favorite is when canned food has "no preservatives", merely enough salt to flavor an entire side of beef.
- supertrope 3y ago
  It depends if "preservatives" means butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). Some may not consider salt a "preservative."
  - anjel 3y ago
    "Some may not consider salt a "preservative." Said the pickle to the cucumber.

appleflaxen 3y ago

> But I can proudly and honestly say I’ve never been sanctioned by a court for filing anything frivolous.” What a noble man

calvinmorrison 3y ago

budget stores are the worst offenders like (95% canola oil mixed with) OLIVE OIL (low grade)

jareklupinski 3y ago

> He and Horvath have squared off many times, and their dynamic recalls the Looney Tunes wolf and sheepdog Just have vague memories of this being hilarious and thought it was one episode, guess I didn't realize it was a series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECa1toPGth4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECa1toPGth4

more_corn 3y ago

Deliberate deception is a lie. Feel free to call it as it is.