4 ms·

> 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,”

> 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).

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).