I guess I don't understand how you can sue someone who did not cause you any harm or any damage. The woman did buy a Kraft product instead of making it herself, what did she really expect?

Reply

In the "seems like she is at it again" department, this woman Brenda Lifsey was also responsible for suing Sears for saying their Craftsman tools are made in the USA. She needs to get a life.

Reply

I think it should be banantastic instead of bananatastic. :-p

Reply

I once bought low fat guacamole at whole foods. It looked fine, though the texture was a bit light and it didn't taste quite right. Upon futher examination of the ingredients, the bulk of it was made of pureed peas. PEAS! I should have sued them.

Reply

It may be frivolous, but I do have to agree with her. My guacamole at home tends to be 90% avocado with a few little things added for flavour. If you take out the avocado, it's not guacamole anymore. I don't know what the hell it is, but it's not guacamole.

Reply

Bob, you're correct about your second-guessing; Kraft changed the label to prevent this from happening again.

Kassie, as long as you can show responsibility (that is, that Kraft was responsible), you can file suit. It's up to a judge or jury to decide if there was harm or damage.

Reply

Anyone who is idiotic enough to buy "guacamole" from a sealed tub by Kraft, deserves to be damaged in some form.

It's no different than saying "Hey, this canned strawberry soda isn't fruity enough." You don't deserve to taste a good fruit beverage if you buy canned strawberry soda.

So, this happens to be her bandwagon: Food labeling. For others, it's cruising around looking for restaurants to sue for violations of the ADA.

There are lots of professional litigants out there.

Reply

I object! Harm was done. Food producers really need to stop calling things 'x' when it's really 'y'. Caesar salad without anchovies and eggs? (Lettuce with oil and vinegar dressing blended with parmesean) Coffee creamer? (Oily non-dairy crap) Cheese Whiz? (I still don't know wtf that is. But if it's not dairy, can you rightfully call it cheese?) I shouldn't have to deconstruct language in order to understand what I'm getting. When companies stop try to decieve people about the content and/or origin of their products, people will stop suing them. It's simply a matter of honesty and priciple, both of which companies seem to lack. If I walk into a store and buy something clearly labelled 'guacamole', I'd expect it to be mostly avocadoes; I shouldn't have to check the miniscule list of ingredients to verify this.

Reply

The FDA has lots and lots and lots of stringent rules about what words you can write on food packages. For instance, if you say you have a "chocolate bar" it must contain some largeish percentage of actual chocolate. If you say "chocolate flavored" bar, it must contain some lesser percentage of chocolate. If you say you have a "fudge bar," it's not required to contain any actual chocolate. What the bar actually tastes like is unregulated.

In this case, the FDA does not currently have rules about what ingredients must be present to label something "guacamole." Given their rules about other things, the FDA probably should write some. I will drop them a note to add my voice to say that they should, indeed, require a anything labelled "guacamole" to contain a large percentage of avocado.

They can think up a new term for this Kraft mayonaise-based green vaguely mexican-flavored dip product. (I hesitate to award it the term "food.")

This woman is probably not going to win a lot of money. She probably would not prevail in court, although who knows. What she is getting is a lot of publicity, the satisfaction of knowing she's done something good for the world, and perhaps some meager settlement from Kraft.

Reply

Actually, Kate, in the U.S. at least, strawberry soda has to be prominently labeled as to whether or not it contains actual juice versus strawberry flavoring. Similarly, creamy fillings that don't contain cream have to be called "creme," and many mass-produced items are "chocolatey" or "chocolate-flavored" rather than "chocolate." Some products that look and taste like cheese are "cheese food," due to what they do and don't contain. Before the FDA agreed to the existence of "low fat ice cream," it was "ice milk." Warning consumers about missing -- but expected -- ingredients is not new.

So it's not unreasonable to expect that guacamole would contain avocados, since it is, by definition, "an avocado-based dip."

Reply

The only thing guac-in-a-can is good for is putting up wallpaper. Of course she didn't get something good. It's like suing McDonald's because their hot coffee is hot.

To quote one of my friends, "Why do people like that live?"

Reply

Oh yes, Calamari, I'm well aware of that, particularly juice flavored products which state "contains no juice" or "contains only 2%" juice, and the "creme" vs "cream" designation, which I've pointed out to many.

My point is simply that you know going in that a sealed tub of dip isn't going to be a great guac product, anymore than stawberry flavored soda is goig to remind you of fresh strawberry aqua fresca.

Should you get avocados in guacamole? Absolutely.

But is she suing because she is truly offended by the product she bought for her own consumption and ended up not liking it? I doubt it. She just is a professional litigant who wants to affect labeling in a positive way.

It's irksome to have these things clutter up the courts, but in the end, it's a good thing to have product labeling as honest and clear as possible, and it may be the only method, if previous complaints fell on deaf ears.

I just find it amusing anyone would consider buying this product to begin with. The strongest tool we have is "not buying crap."

Reply

My, my... where's FinishedLawSchool when you need him?

Reply