There are a lot of public policy issues that concern this type of behavior. Companies are not supposed to make unproved health claims about foods without meeting some specific FDA requirements, but they do it anyway because the (rare) punishment is light. Also, there is the handy "a picture is worth a thousand words" incidents listed above that allow people to make health assumptions, while not creating a verbal statement.

Reply

I guess when even Burger King and Taco Bell won't hire you, you've got to find SOMEthing to keep you busy.

This one kills me though:

"Smucker's Simply 100% Fruit Spread which is actually 30% strawberries and the rest is apple or pear juice"

So where did the apple and/or pear juice come from? Ground up tires? If it's 30% strawberries and 70% fruit juice, that's 100% fruit.

Reply

The words "serving suggestion" on packages seem to lift responsibility from the manufacturer. At least that's what many seem to be hiding behind.

However, if experience and label reading doesn't teach anyone not to expect huge broccoli spears in dried food mixes, or carrot pieces where it doesn't list them, more specific wording will likely not even do the trick.

Reply

Ah, it doesn't take long for everyone to adopt the food/restaurant industry's line that anyone who doesn't realize what crap these products are must deserve what they get.

Look, if the picture on the box shows a cake with shredded carrots clearly visible, and the ingredients list "carrot powder," which you could read in a quick supermarket glance with kids screaming at your feet as "dehydrated carrot," then it's misleading. How can anyone defend showing a picture of a cake that is not the cake that the mix in the box makes?

Similarly, how can someone look at a picture of pasta with pieces of broccoli (not "packed with broccoli spears") on a box and know, without opening it and looking at the mix, that there are only tiny flecks of broccoli inside?

The food and restaurant industry loves to pick on CSPI as the "food police," because they're the ones who have the temerity to actually look at what's inside processed foods. They're the ones who commission the study of Chinese restaurant foods, movie popcorn, and the like, largely because the people selling you those foods REFUSE TO TELL YOU WHAT THEY CONTAIN. If you still have room in your diet for a 1200-calorie tub of movie popcorn with 55g of fat, then that's your choice, but how can you even make that decision if you don't know the facts?

And don't give me "Oh, everyone knows that stuff is bad for you." Everyone does NOT know, which is why the studies make news and the prepared food industry goes on the attack. If the best defense you can mount of these misleading packages is, "Well, people should know these boxes are full of lies," that's not really very reassuring, is it?

When the label on the front of a jar of jelly says "Simply 100% Fruit: Strawberry," how is it NOT misleading for that jar to actually contain 30% strawberries and 70% frozen reconstituted non-strawberry juice? How is it not misleading for Gerber to call something "fruit juice snacks" when they're made primarily of HFCS and sugar? Remember, these industries are the same one that fight ALL food and nutrition labels - they'd prefer that you didn't even know they contained sugar at all.

I still may buy Smucker's 100% Fruit spread for my morning toast, but I wish I didn't have to go to CSPI or read tiny print on the labels to find out that it's only 30% strawberries. Once I know the facts, I can make the choices. I can't understand how anyone can defend pictures or names that are designed to CONCEAL the facts about the food from you.

Why would I want to buy a cake mix when its own makers think they can't sell it unless the box displays a big slice of cake that this very mix does not make? If the mix itself is so unappetizing looking, why would I want to buy it - and why doesn't Betty Crocker want me to know what the real cake looks like? If they're that ashamed of it, why would they put it on the market under Betty's name?

Reply

Calm down Matt. Are you applying for a job at the CSPI?

My problem with the CSPI is their apparent lack of anything better to do with their time than worry about what other people eat. Your problem is perspective. You're blowing things waaaaaaay out of proportion here.

Nobody who buys a box of carrot cake mix is going to be harmed (physically, mentally or emotionally) by the absence of large shreds of carrot in the mix. And nobody who buys a fruit spread marked 100% fruit is going to be harmed because 70% of said fruit was in liquid form. It's not 30% fruit and 70% rat poison. Is fruit only fruit if it's solid?

I don't deserve to have a bunch of busy-body do-gooders telling me I shouldn't have the right to eat whatever I want, whenever I want it. It's MY business if I want to eat a 1200 calorie tub of popcorn (popped in palm oil, please, and topped with half a stick of butter and salt). Not yours. Not the CSPIs, not anybody else's.

I don't CARE if you're worried about me. You wouldn't know me from Adam on the street (well...you could probably tell it was me because I'd be the one with butter dripping off my chin from the popcorn) and have absolutely NO reason to worry about my diet. So don't. Relax, man. Have some popcorn.

Reply

"The real question is whether or not people are actually misled by the pictures on the boxes into thinking that they are getting something more healthy than what they get."

Well, maybe, but the argument is somewhat circular. Perhaps people are sceptical, and therefore not misled by the inaccuracy, because they have gotten accustomed to being lied to. In that sense, this is not the real question, it merely begs the question of whether the advertising ought to be accurate.

Reply

"ooh, I supported CSPI's position. I must love them and want to marry them." Nice try. I'm a member, but I also behave as if I believe caramel is a food group.

If you want to eat a 1200-calorie tub of movie popcorn, you're damn right it's your business. CSPI just wants you to know it's a 1200-calorie tub and made them stop pretending it was a harmless snack. Why are you opposed to having accurate information about the foods you love?

Reply