[HN Gopher] The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
___________________________________________________________________
The Gimmicks of Food Labeling
Author : fortran77
Score : 30 points
Date : 2023-09-04 21:49 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.newyorker.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.newyorker.com)
| Michelangelo11 wrote:
| Bless that guy, he's doing the Lord's work.
| kazanz wrote:
| Does anyone know where to find a list of common food labeling
| Gimmicks?
| bradbarrish wrote:
| The world needs more Spencer Sheehan's. What a hero.
| CamelCaseName wrote:
| https://archive.ph/f2CKM
| [deleted]
| edgarvaldes wrote:
| A long time ago, I used to work for a design studio in my country
| (Mexico). A client asked for the packaging design for a new
| product made from beef. When we asked him for the Nutrition Facts
| table and the ingredient list, he gave us the packaging of a
| similar product from the competition and simply told us: Just
| write the same thing. I stopped working with them around the time
| (for another reasons). I later saw the new packaging: it had the
| same information. Some months later it was updated. I dont know
| if the new labels were real this time.
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| > 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 the company eleven
| times.
|
| This is the distilled essence of parasitism. Nitpicking product
| labels to sue large companies in the hopes of winning a jackpot
| -- or at least a settlement. Producing nothing of value
| whatsoever, but leeching off otherwise productive (and necessary)
| economic activity.
|
| It's not a quiet comedy. It's a shame and a disgrace.
| more_corn wrote:
| 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.
| 14 wrote:
| "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
| dang wrote:
| " _Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents._ "
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| fbdab103 wrote:
| It is fraud. As a consumer, I want companies to be required to
| state facts, not words that inspire feelings-like a superior
| product.
| Blackthorn wrote:
| Well, yes, but it doesn't make him wrong either. We shouldn't
| allow companies to put whatever the hell they want on their
| labels when it's patently false. We benefit as a society when
| labels are truthful and not deceptive.
| majormajor wrote:
| 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
| or economic gain.
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| 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."
| lesuorac wrote:
| > "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.
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| > 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.
| nathannecro wrote:
| 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.
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| 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?
| maccam912 wrote:
| Would you be as accepting of I sold an "organic peaches"
| flavored product because it was the same flavor as organic
| peaches?
| A_D_E_P_T wrote:
| If you didn't use the word organic, sure. In food, the
| word "organic" has a specific legal meaning:
|
| > "Any product labeled as organic on the product
| description or packaging must be USDA certified"
|
| A synthetic peach flavoring would almost certainly be
| unable to attain this sort of certification.
|
| But calling a peach-flavored product "peach" is as old as
| the hills, and of course I'm okay with it.
| [deleted]
| dooglius wrote:
| 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).
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-04 23:00 UTC)