4 ms·

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

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.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  TicTacs, for example, are pure sugar, but the serving size is (claimed to be, at least) a single one, which conveniently weighs 0.49g.
  - arp242 3y ago
    Note quite "pure sugar", but probably close enough: https://www.tictac.com/us/en/products/tic-tacr-mint-flavors-freshmints/#tic-tacr-mint-flavors-freshmints https://www.tictac.com/us/en/products/tic-tacr-mint-flavors-... I suppose it's "correct" in the sense that 0.49g rounded to the nearest gram is 0g. For reference, a sugar cube is ~4g, a can of coke has about 32g of sugar, and daily recommended intake for "free sugars" is about 30g, so their ~0.49g of sugar amounts to ~1.5% of daily intake, and amounts to about 2 calories per TicTac. That's not a whole lot, but it's not the "0" claimed on the package, either.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      > That's not a whole lot... I'd wager very few people actually consider a single TicTac to be a serving. A handful at least, a whole box probably not being unusual.
      - arp242 3y ago
        I think it makes sense to list the nutrition per TicTac though; it's a logical unit and people can multiple from there. But zero times anything is of course always zero. I don't really know what a realistic life-size serving is. I mostly just wanted to contextualize these numbers a bit: what does 0.49g or 4.9g sugar actually mean?

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.

ceejayoz 3y ago
TicTacs, for example, are pure sugar, but the serving size is (claimed to be, at least) a single one, which conveniently weighs 0.49g.
- arp242 3y ago
  Note quite "pure sugar", but probably close enough: https://www.tictac.com/us/en/products/tic-tacr-mint-flavors-freshmints/#tic-tacr-mint-flavors-freshmints https://www.tictac.com/us/en/products/tic-tacr-mint-flavors-... I suppose it's "correct" in the sense that 0.49g rounded to the nearest gram is 0g. For reference, a sugar cube is ~4g, a can of coke has about 32g of sugar, and daily recommended intake for "free sugars" is about 30g, so their ~0.49g of sugar amounts to ~1.5% of daily intake, and amounts to about 2 calories per TicTac. That's not a whole lot, but it's not the "0" claimed on the package, either.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    > That's not a whole lot... I'd wager very few people actually consider a single TicTac to be a serving. A handful at least, a whole box probably not being unusual.
    - arp242 3y ago
      I think it makes sense to list the nutrition per TicTac though; it's a logical unit and people can multiple from there. But zero times anything is of course always zero. I don't really know what a realistic life-size serving is. I mostly just wanted to contextualize these numbers a bit: what does 0.49g or 4.9g sugar actually mean?