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

Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek

eatdrinkpolitics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 39 posts

Re: Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek

#21

Post by [deleted] »

yebyen wrote: post #14
rayiner wrote: post #6

So 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.

It's a picture of an egg with a plant growing inside of it. I don't really know how much clearer the iconography could actually be. It's mayo, but with some plant product instead of chicken eggs. Were you really deceived, or are you playing devil's advocate? (Edit: parent edited his post, it no longer says "deceptive marketing at its best.") I agree that "mayo" is generally considered to be synonymous with "mayonnais…

[deleted]

Re: Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek

#23

Post by entee »

ginko wrote: post #15
entee wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither are a lot of Hellmann’s products. Lots of their products are called "mayonnaise dressing" instead of "mayonnaise" probably because they don’t fit the criteria either. Do you care though? You probably never noticed, and just had a really nice sandwich. The standard is actually super specific: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRS... for example you have to have at least 65% by weight oil…

If I buy something that has mayonnaise on it then I'm expecting _mayonnaise_.

Fair enough, but if you buy a lot of the mayo products in the condiments aisle, the FDA doesn't think you're getting it. Check it out next time you're in the supermarket, lots of things are dressing and not mayonnaise, but I'll bet you never noticed or cared. I live with someone who's vegan so I've been paying a lot of attention to labels lately.

I feel like this is sort of the Turing test of food, given two jars, one FDA-approved and the other not. If you can't tell one from the other, aren't they both mayo?

Re: Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek

#24

Post by waterlesscloud »

entee wrote: post #3
debacle wrote: post #2

Upvoted 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?

So no doubt the people behind Just Mayo are cool with unlabeled GMO products, right?

After all, if it tastes the same, works the same, smells the same...

Age of innovation!

Disclaimer- I'm fine with most GMO, though I see no reason not to label it as such.

Re: Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek

#25

Post by waterlesscloud »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #20
yebyen wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a picture of an egg with a plant growing inside of it. I don't really know how much clearer the iconography could actually be. It's mayo, but with some plant product instead of chicken eggs. Were you really deceived, or are you playing devil's advocate? (Edit: parent edited his post, it no longer says "deceptive marketing at its best.") I agree that "mayo" is generally considered to be synonymous with "mayonnais…

To me, that logo looks like a perfect logo for real mayonnaise: it contains the two main ingredients: an egg + a plant representing the oil.

That label is definitely misleading, and probably intentionally so.

Seriously, it features an egg, which it doesn't have.

Re: Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek

#26

Post by JoeAltmaier »

entee wrote: post #23
ginko wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I buy something that has mayonnaise on it then I'm expecting _mayonnaise_.

Fair enough, but if you buy a lot of the mayo products in the condiments aisle, the FDA doesn't think you're getting it. Check it out next time you're in the supermarket, lots of things are dressing and not mayonnaise, but I'll bet you never noticed or cared. I live with someone who's vegan so I've been paying a lot of attention to labels lately. I feel like this is sort of the Turing test of food, given two jars, on…

There's a difference between "didn't check the label" and "can't check the label because the info isn't on it".

Re: Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek

#27

Post by AceJohnny2 »

entee wrote: post #13
whafro wrote: post #4

Mayonnaise 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 lawsu…

Neither are a lot of Hellmann’s products. Lots of their products are called "mayonnaise dressing" instead of "mayonnaise" probably because they don’t fit the criteria either. Do you care though? You probably never noticed, and just had a really nice sandwich. The standard is actually super specific: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRS... for example you have to have at least 65% by weight oil…

> No need for the government to tell me what is and isn’t mayonnaise.

If I need "mayonnaise" for a recipe that depends on the specific chemical properties of the stuff (as a metaphor, see chocolate), I want to be sure that the stuff I'm buying at the store is actually oil+acid+egg that won't break down unexpectedly in my cooking. So by all means, I want regulation that ensures that "mayonnaise" is reasonably close to the actual stuff, and not some recreation that just happens to mimic the original.

Which, of course, goes against Hampton Creek's marketing.

Re: Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek

#28

Post by smackfu »

abandonliberty wrote: post #19
whafro wrote: post #4

Mayonnaise 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 lawsu…

Whiny? >Unilever is asking the court not only to make Hampton Creek stop using the Just Mayo name (and remove all current product from store shelves), but also to pay Unilever the amount obtained from profits, plus triple damages. I do not understand how our legal system entitles Unilever to anything.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125 and http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1117

First section says that someone using a misleading word or term "shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act." Second section says a winning plaintiff is entitled to profits, and up to treble damages.

Re: Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek

#29

Post by delinka »

entee wrote: post #23
ginko wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I buy something that has mayonnaise on it then I'm expecting _mayonnaise_.

Fair enough, but if you buy a lot of the mayo products in the condiments aisle, the FDA doesn't think you're getting it. Check it out next time you're in the supermarket, lots of things are dressing and not mayonnaise, but I'll bet you never noticed or cared. I live with someone who's vegan so I've been paying a lot of attention to labels lately. I feel like this is sort of the Turing test of food, given two jars, on…

In the extreme case, the answer is "no" - just because the flavor and texture are 'correct' doesn't mean the product is even safe. Back off from the extreme case of unsafe ingredients, and you're still not necessarily getting what was advertised. I think the question becomes "at what point should a particular formulation of a food product does it cease to be the original and start being something different."

Re: Big Mayo Files Lawsuit Against Food-Tech Startup Hampton Creek

#30

Post by smackfu »

I think the biggest weakness in the complaint is that they have to argue that the shorthand "mayo" is the same as the protected term "mayonnaise," and is controlled by the same rules. The fact that they use dictionary definitions to make that case, rather than federal code, is rather telling.

Consider that "chocolaty" is considered a valid workaround for "chocolate", but the dictionary for "chocolaty" says "made of or like chocolate."

Post reply on HN