I've wanted someone to try: "Made with 100% vegan ingredients!".
I don't get it?
Get an animal like chicken, only feed it vegan things. End up with meat fed with vegan diet.
The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
61–70 of 74 posts
Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
#62I've wanted someone to try: "Made with 100% vegan ingredients!".
I have also considered "Beyond Vegan" as workable marketing term. Just add meat products to vegan things to make them better.
Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
TicTacs, for example, are pure sugar, but the serving size is (claimed to be, at least) a single one, which conveniently weighs 0.49g.
Note quite "pure sugar", but probably close enough: https://www.tictac.com/us/en/products/tic-tacr-mint-flavors-... I suppose it's "correct" in the sense that 0.49g rounded to the nearest gram is 0g. For reference, a sugar cube is ~4g, a can of coke has about 32g of sugar, and daily recommended intake for "free sugars" is about 30g, so their ~0.49g of sugar amounts to ~1.5% of daily intake, and amounts to about 2 cal…
Comparing to the UK version of the same webpage reveals many of the differences in regulations. The nutritional information is given per 100G, regardless of what the manufacturer calls a "serving". The ingredients list gives the name of additives, but also the function of those additives. Most tellingly, there's an age verification popup, because regulations prohibit the marketing of foods that are high in fat, salt or sugar to children.
https://www.tictac.com/uk/en/products/tic-tac-flavours-fresh...
https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/food-hfss-overview.html
Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
#64One 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 calo…
> cheap ice cream is full of air Every good ice cream is. It has to be, otherwise it would be a block of hard ice, regardless of the quality of ingredients. You are right, though, in that it could be misleading. In Europe it's generally also sold by volume, but both volume and weight is present on the label, like this: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F... .
There is aerated and there is full of air. There can be quite the difference.
Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
#65Does 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 h…
Just returned from Athens, Greece. There was an ice cream place called "Sugar Killer" that claimed to be "Sweet N Sugarless"
I was curious and asked what sweetener they were using, expecting something like Erythritol.
Turns out "sugarless" means Agave Syrup.
Edit:
Not envying the naive Diabetic that falls for this.
Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
#66Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
#67budget stores are the worst offenders like
(95% canola oil mixed with) OLIVE OIL (low grade)
Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
#68Does 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…
> 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.
Damn, that's a sneaky one I haven't heard before. Thanks for sharing!
Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
#69> He and Horvath have squared off many times, and their dynamic recalls the Looney Tunes wolf and sheepdog
Just have vague memories of this being hilarious and thought it was one episode, guess I didn't realize it was a series: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECa1toPGth4
Re: The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
#70Earlier 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?
If one were to advertise an added smokey flavor, then marketing it as "smokey" or "smoked" (assuming the product was actually smoked) is correct.
Just like how 'organic' has a specific definition, a 'smokehouse' is: "a building where meat or fish is cured by means of dense smoke" [0]. So if the product is not cured in dense smoke in a building, then it cannot be marketed as smokehouse{d}.
It's as easy as using specific terminology to market their product. The fact that food producers don't, indicates to me that they're either stupid (and unaware of what words mean) or it's done maliciously (to mislead people).