Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek
eatdrinkpolitics.com
Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek
1–10 of 39 posts
Re: Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek
#2Upvoted for "big mayo" reference, but this is a pretty obvious case of severe editorial slant.
> Now it’s true that FDA’s "standard of identity" (i.e., definition) for mayonnaise includes eggs; well specifically, "egg yolk-containing ingredients"
Okay. Case closed. It's not Mayo.
Re: Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek
#3Upvoted for "big mayo" reference, but this is a pretty obvious case of severe editorial slant. > Now it’s true that FDA’s "standard of identity" (i.e., definition) for mayonnaise includes eggs; well specifically, "egg yolk-containing ingredients" Okay. Case closed. It's not Mayo.
I think the point is not whether it fits the current standard but whether those standards make sense in an age of innovation.
I think consumers are smart enough to figure out whether or not the product they bought is mayonnaise. If it tastes like mayo, works like mayonnaise, smells like mayonnaise, is it not mayonnaise? Who cares if it has eggs, and why are the Feds getting involved anyway?
Re: Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek
#4Mayonnaise is oil, egg yolks, and an acid (typically vinegar or lemon juice). If you don't have these things, it's not mayonnaise.
It seems like it'd be pretty easy for them to call it "Vegan Mayo," where folks are assuming there's a major substitute for a core ingredient. "Just Mayo," on the other hand, seems to claim the opposite.
It's still pretty whiny for Hellmann's/Best Foods/Unilever/Whomever to file the lawsuit, but that doesn't mean they're wrong.
Re: Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek
#5Miracle Whip manages to sell in huge quantities without calling themselves "Mayo". If Miracle Whip can do it, so can Hampton Creek.
Re: Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek
#6So it's called "Just Mayo," mayonnaise being a food product that contains eggs by definition, and has a picture of an egg on its label. But it isn't mayonnaise and doesn't contain eggs. Maybe the hipster irony is just lost on me.
Re: Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek
#7Upvoted for "big mayo" reference, but this is a pretty obvious case of severe editorial slant. > Now it’s true that FDA’s "standard of identity" (i.e., definition) for mayonnaise includes eggs; well specifically, "egg yolk-containing ingredients" Okay. Case closed. It's not Mayo.
I think the point is not whether it fits the current standard but whether those standards make sense in an age of innovation. I think consumers are smart enough to figure out whether or not the product they bought is mayonnaise. If it tastes like mayo, works like mayonnaise, smells like mayonnaise, is it not mayonnaise? Who cares if it has eggs, and why are the Feds getting involved anyway?
Eh, I'd argue the age of innovation for foods started 25 years ago, when we figured out how to make chocolate tasting things without much chocolate, and maple-flavored corn syrup. You can't call that chocolate or maple syrup, so I don't see how mayo is any different.
Re: Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek
#8Upvoted for "big mayo" reference, but this is a pretty obvious case of severe editorial slant. > Now it’s true that FDA’s "standard of identity" (i.e., definition) for mayonnaise includes eggs; well specifically, "egg yolk-containing ingredients" Okay. Case closed. It's not Mayo.
> Okay. Case closed. It's not Mayo.
Well, that means it's not mayonnaise. But if they call themselves "mayo" (which doesn't have a standard of identity), and never "mayonnaise", I'm not so sure it's as clear that it's not Mayo.
Re: Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek
#9Upvoted for "big mayo" reference, but this is a pretty obvious case of severe editorial slant. > Now it’s true that FDA’s "standard of identity" (i.e., definition) for mayonnaise includes eggs; well specifically, "egg yolk-containing ingredients" Okay. Case closed. It's not Mayo.
I think the point is not whether it fits the current standard but whether those standards make sense in an age of innovation. I think consumers are smart enough to figure out whether or not the product they bought is mayonnaise. If it tastes like mayo, works like mayonnaise, smells like mayonnaise, is it not mayonnaise? Who cares if it has eggs, and why are the Feds getting involved anyway?
> I think the point is not whether it fits the current standard but whether those standards make sense in an age of innovation.
How does an "age of innovation" benefit from inaccurate product labeling. Its not like mayonnaise-substitutes that vary from the defining ingredients are new -- usually with branding that is evocative of mayonnaise without claiming to be mayonnaise, clearly indicating that it is: (1) something different than mayonnaise, (2) intended to fill the role of mayonnaise.
> Who cares if it has eggs, and why are the Feds getting involved anyway?
The Feds are concerned about accurate and meaningful food labeling because people being able to rely on food labels and no what they mean is important for both health and safety reasons, and for the ability of consumers to make informed decisions in the marketplace.
Misleading labeling benefits only fraudsters.
Re: Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek
#10Upvoted for "big mayo" reference, but this is a pretty obvious case of severe editorial slant. > Now it’s true that FDA’s "standard of identity" (i.e., definition) for mayonnaise includes eggs; well specifically, "egg yolk-containing ingredients" Okay. Case closed. It's not Mayo.
I believe the correct term for these products is "egg-free mayonnaise-like spread". Mayo*, if you will.
Anything can be a spread. Think that's jam? No! Fruit spread.