andrea@hp-sdd.UUCP (andrea) (01/14/85)
> >/***** hp-sdd:net.consumers / orca!andrew / 8:49 pm Jan 9, 1985*/ >I have in front of me a jar of "unsweetened Nestea (r) lemon tea mix". > >On the back, in fine print, the list of ingredients begins with >"corn syrup solids". Instant tea follows in second place, followed by >citric acid, gum arabic, and "natural lemon flavor". > >So I was stupid enough to buy a jar of an "unsweetened" product whose >primary ingredient is a sweetener. But I'm curious ... how is it that >they can get away with that? > Thanks to the current administration's dedication to "keeping government off our backs", neither the FDA nor the FCC have enough funds to investigate, much less fine/chastise/control such abuse. They seem to be concentrating what funds they have to controlling things which are "actively" harmful, and looking the other way on this type of deception. Of course, the FDA has long been known to stand for "foot dragging artists". (;->) A good watchdog/lobbying group for the food industry is the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) which publishes Nutrition Action. They have gone after the coffee industry for their bizarre tv ads claiming that coffee calmed you down (!), and are working on Del Monte's current series claiming that their canned vegetables are as nutritious as fresh (only true if you let the fresh vegetables sit in your fridge for two weeks before eating!). Nutrition Action provides helpful consumer guidelines, recipes, nutrition articles, etc. in addition to updates on food advertising, labelling, and food education issues. The current best advice is to ignore any and all advertising claims, including that on the labels, and *ALWAYS* read the ingredients list. I have discovered that I am allergic to corn in all of its forms, and practically everything processed - including things claiming to be "natural", "organic", and "unsweetened" - have some corn in them. Of course, not all foods have to be labelled by law! CSPI has been working on that, too, and personally I feel that providing complete and accurate ingredient information is *the* most important issue - it may be inconvenient to have to wade through ingredients lists, but I am willing to do so. One can't make intelligent decisions without intelligent information, though! Andrea Frankel, Hewlett-Packard (San Diego Division) (619) 487-4100 x4664 net: {allegra|ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax}!hplabs!hp-sdd!andrea ...searchlights casting for faults in the clouds of delusion
jaffe@topaz.ARPA (Saul) (01/20/85)
> Of course, not all foods have to be labelled by law!
Not true! There is a federal law that requires ALL manufactured
products to have an ingredient list on the package. The only
exception is "natural products" like fruits, nuts, vegetables etc.
There is also a new law by the way that requires restaurants to
list all ingredients used in their foods. This was done because
many people were filing suits against restaurants because they got
sick on the food and it was found that they were allergic to
certain ingredients. The restaurant certainly has the obligation
to tell you if any of the ingredients they use might be harmful to
you and the only real way to do this is to force them to list their
ingredients. Unfortunately, although the law exists, there is no
enforcement of it. Typical. Probably the only way to get it
enforced is to have someone actually die from eating food made with
ingredients they were allergic to and have the estate sue the
restaurant for manslaughter.
There is a program in syndication called "Fight Back! With David
Horowitz" in which you can find out lots of interesting facts.
They also do commercial challenges to show whether a particular
product actually does what the commercial claims. It usually
doesn't.
--
Saul Jaffe
Systems Programmer
Rutgers University
ARPA: Jaffe@Rutgers
UUCP: Jaffe@Topazroy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (01/22/85)
I don't have any specific products to cite, but I have always been mystified
by baked goods which say in bold print on the box "100% butter". If the
product it 100% butter, then it should be labeled "butter" and put in the
dairy case next to the oleo.
What they really mean is that 100% of the shortening/fat/whatever is butter,
and that they didn't use lard, vegetable shortening, etc. Not exactly
mis-leading or deceptive, but odd none-the-less.
--
{allegra,seismo}!vax135!timeinc\
cmcl2!rocky2!cubsvax>!phri!roy (Roy Smith)
ihnp4!timeinc/
The opinions expressed herein are mine, and do not necessarily
reflect the views of The Public Health Research Institute.gh@utai.UUCP (Graeme Hirst) (01/25/85)
Another cute trick that I've seen in several different instances is the expression "99% sugar-free" (or caffeine-free, or fat-free, etc.), suggesting that the product contains only 1% as much sugar (caffeine, fat, etc.) as its competitors. Examining the label carefully ofen reveals that the product is actually 1% sugar (or whatever) and 99% other things, which may be a perfectly ordinary composition for the item -- in fact, in the case of caffeine, it may be a *high* proportion of caffeine. For example, milk is normally about 4% fat. Milk with 1% fat might be described as 99% fat-free, but only 75% of the fat has been removed. -- \\\\ Graeme Hirst University of Toronto Computer Science Department //// utcsrgv!utai!gh / gh.toronto@csnet-relay / 416-978-8747
eagan@druxp.UUCP (EaganMS) (01/25/85)
Of course, there are even more misleading labels that I hate... the ones that say "NO ADDITIVES"---on, for example, a can of tomatoe sauce. However, if you read the ingredients, you will see among other things....salt, corn syrup, .... if those aren't additives, then I don't know what is.
gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon) (01/27/85)
In article <153@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes: >I don't have any specific products to cite, but I have always been mystified >by baked goods which say in bold print on the box "100% butter". If the >product it 100% butter, then it should be labeled "butter" and put in the >dairy case next to the oleo. > >What they really mean is that 100% of the shortening/fat/whatever is butter, >and that they didn't use lard, vegetable shortening, etc. Not exactly >mis-leading or deceptive, but odd none-the-less. The one I noticed was a brand-name soft drink declaring, in large type, "100% Nutrasweet". As far as I could tell, it is less than 0.5% Nutrasweet :-) FROM: Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems USENET: {ucbvax, ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amd!cae780!gordon {nsc, resonex, qubix, hplabs}!cae780!gordon USNAIL: 1333 Bordeaux Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94089 AT&T: (408)745-1440
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (01/28/85)
> They have gone after the coffee industry for their bizarre tv ads claiming > that coffee calmed you down (!) Sure, just see how calm I am if you start bothering me before I've had my coffee in the morning. -Ron
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (01/28/85)
> The one I noticed was a brand-name soft drink declaring, in large type, > "100% Nutrasweet". As far as I could tell, it is less than 0.5% > Nutrasweet :-) Actually my can has the words "Sweetened with" preceeding it.