Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Gimmicks of Food Labeling

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 74 posts

Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling

#11

Post by nathannecro »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #4

> 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 t…

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.

Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling

#12

Post by [deleted] »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #4

> 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 t…

[deleted]

Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling

#13

Post by dooglius »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #4

> 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 t…

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).

Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling

#14

Post by A_D_E_P_T »

majormajor wrote: post #9
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #4

> 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 t…

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…

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."

Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling

#15

Post by 14 »

more_corn wrote: post #5
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #4

> 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 t…

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.

“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

Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling

#16

Post by lesuorac »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #14
majormajor wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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."

> "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.

Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling

#17

Post by A_D_E_P_T »

nathannecro wrote: post #11
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #4

> 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 t…

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.

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?

Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling

#18

Post by A_D_E_P_T »

lesuorac wrote: post #16
A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

> "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…

> 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.

Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling

#20

Post by maccam912 »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #17
nathannecro wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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?

Would you be as accepting of I sold an "organic peaches" flavored product because it was the same flavor as organic peaches?
Post reply on HN