> But I can proudly and honestly say I’ve never been sanctioned by a court for filing anything frivolous.”
What a noble man
The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
51–60 of 74 posts
Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
#52Does anyone know where to find a list of common food labeling Gimmicks?
Non-GMO. This just means it doesn't have corn or soybeans.
Gluten free. No wheat.
All natural. This means nothing at all. The makers of 7-Up claim soda is natural because the enzymes used to make high fructose corn syrup are natural.
Fat Free. Probably lots of sugar.
No High Fructose Corn Syrup. Uses sugar instead of HFCS.
No MSG. MSG isn't harmful.
No nitrates. Often they just use "celery juice" which is naturally high in nitrates.
I once saw "dehydrated cane juice" listed instead of sugar. Come on!
Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
#53The 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…
I think my favorite is when canned food has "no preservatives", merely enough salt to flavor an entire side of beef.
It depends if "preservatives" means butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). Some may not consider salt a "preservative."
Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> I think it makes sense to list the nutrition per TicTac though... Would you similarly list nutrition facts per grain of rice, or per french fry? It's deliberately misleading, and a serving is supposed to reflect real-life portion sizes that'd typically be consumed. Eat the box, and you've consumed nearly as much sugar as an 8oz bottle of Coke.
No one eats a single grain of rice or a single chip, or can count how many they do eat (certainly in the case of rice). It's a rather silly comparison. A single tic-tac is not that far-fetched, and perhaps more realistic than you might think. In the end, "serving size" is a rather personal thing.
And it's misleading, yes, but only by rounding everything down to 0.
Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think it makes sense to list the nutrition per TicTac though... Would you similarly list nutrition facts per grain of rice, or per french fry? It's deliberately misleading, and a serving is supposed to reflect real-life portion sizes that'd typically be consumed. Eat the box, and you've consumed nearly as much sugar as an 8oz bottle of Coke.
No one eats a single grain of rice or a single chip, or can count how many they do eat (certainly in the case of rice). It's a rather silly comparison. A single tic-tac is not that far-fetched, and perhaps more realistic than you might think. In the end, "serving size" is a rather personal thing. And it's misleading, yes, but only by rounding everything down to 0.
> No one eats a single grain of rice or a single chip...
Nor a single TicTac, for the most part. I'm sure there's someone out there who does, but it's certainly not standard practice.
A box that's full of a food item that's 95% sugar simply shouldn't be able to list itself as zero sugar.
Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
TicTacs, for example, are pure sugar, but the serving size is (claimed to be, at least) a single one, which conveniently weighs 0.49g.
We could also talk about how ridiculously and unrealistically small the labelled serving sizes are.
Also, I don't know how it is in the US, but here in Japan, it happens more often than I'd like that there's some nutrition info for some amount of stuff (usually 100g), but nowhere you can tell how much stuff there is. You actually have to buy and weigh it to know. In some cases, it is written, but then you have to do the math yourself.
Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
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.
Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
#58Does anyone know where to find a list of common food labeling Gimmicks?
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 t…
> 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.
Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
#59On 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.
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.
Nutrition labels in Europe specify amounts per 100 grams as well as amounts for a typical serving.
Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think my favorite is when canned food has "no preservatives", merely enough salt to flavor an entire side of beef.
It depends if "preservatives" means butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT). Some may not consider salt a "preservative."
"Some may not consider salt a "preservative."
Said the pickle to the cucumber.