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

31–40 of 74 posts

Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling

#31

Post by OnlineGladiator »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #27
p1necone wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I write an application in 20,000 lines of PHP, and there's 200 lines of JavaScript in some service is it sensible to say "written in JavaScript" on the product page without mentioning PHP at all? If I host the backend for that application on a bunch of Windows servers, but there's one server running that JavaScript service that's hosted on FreeBSD, and I advertise the product as "hosted on FreeBSD", is that sensib…

You neglect to consider the fact that all food products have nutrition labels, which are written according to certain standards and legal conventions. Could be that this company added some olive oil to their "plant spread" and wanted to visually distinguish this type from their alternative olive-free version. In any case, all nutrition facts are on the label -- the label clearly shows that the product is made of an o…

You realize most people don't read the ingredients or are even aware of laws about protected terms such as organic? If you genuinely don't understand how that's misleading marketing, then you have no idea what most people are like.

Could the average consumer be more educated? Sure. Could companies be less shitty about marketing their products in a misleading way? Yep.

Let me give you my favorite example of a legally acceptable (and actually used) marketing gimmick: a good source of calcium with milk! I've seen this on products with literally 0% calcium, because everything is a good course of calcium with milk. This comment is a good source of calcium with milk.

As to your example the issue isn't that it contains olive oil, but that it's not the primary oil used in the product when the labeling clearly implies that. It's a shitty marketing practice that misleads uninformed consumers into buying their product. Quit victim blaming and maybe we should just have marketing that isn't purposefully deceitful?

Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling

#32

Post by ncallaway »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #27
p1necone wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I write an application in 20,000 lines of PHP, and there's 200 lines of JavaScript in some service is it sensible to say "written in JavaScript" on the product page without mentioning PHP at all? If I host the backend for that application on a bunch of Windows servers, but there's one server running that JavaScript service that's hosted on FreeBSD, and I advertise the product as "hosted on FreeBSD", is that sensib…

You neglect to consider the fact that all food products have nutrition labels, which are written according to certain standards and legal conventions. Could be that this company added some olive oil to their "plant spread" and wanted to visually distinguish this type from their alternative olive-free version. In any case, all nutrition facts are on the label -- the label clearly shows that the product is made of an o…

If you lie in big letters in a TV ad, and tell the truth in the fine print somewhere, we have a name for that: false advertising.

If the front tells a lie in 45 point font, and the only place the truth is discovered is in 9pt font on the back, it’s a fraud. Sorry, that’s just how it works.

You don’t have to list every ingredient on the front, but you can’t lie (or deliberately mislead) on the front, and get away with it because you told the truth on the back.

Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling

#35

Post by glandium »

jdietrich wrote: post #25

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.

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.

Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling

#36

Post by ceejayoz »

glandium wrote: post #35
jdietrich wrote: post #25

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.

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.

Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling

#37

Post by ReactiveJelly »

ncallaway wrote: post #30
jdietrich wrote: post #25

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.

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.

Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling

#39

Post by Fricken »

One pet peeve of mine is ice cream being measured by volume. Similar dairy products, such as yogurt, sour cream, and cottage cheese all go by weight. The problem is that cheap ice cream is full of air. The volume is irrelevant unless you know what percentage of that volume is air.

Another is food packaging listing the calories by serving size, which is a completely arbitrary amount. So if I want to know how many calories I just consumed, I first have to do arithmetic to figure out how many calories are in the full package, and then do another calculation based on how much I ate.

Neither of these things are illegal, however. They are cheap tricks intended to make it harder to figure out wtf it is you're actually buying and eating.

Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling

#40

Post by ReactiveJelly »

kazanz wrote: post #19

Does 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 to say which coloring / flavorings come from beaver ass or bug shells, which is completely sanitary I'm sure, but also just disgusting.

4. Gelatin isn't vegetarian. This is more non-labeling than mis-labeling. It's just weird to think candies like marshmallows and gummy bears typically have meat in them.

Post reply on HN