Jelly Belly sued by woman claiming she didn't know jelly beans contain sugar

Fox News ^ | 5/25/17 | Fox News Staff

[NohSpinZone]

When it comes to food, it turns out you can sue over just about anything these days.

A California woman is suing the makers of Jelly Belly jelly beans, claiming she was tricked into believing one of the company's candy products was free of sugar.

The plaintiff, Jessica Gomez of San Bernadino County, first brought the case against the candy company earlier this year, blaming "fancy phrasing" for her confusion over the ingredients, according to Legal News Line.

[Trillian]

The last time I went to one, I bought a whole box of Belly Flops.

[Mariner]

Except that “evaporated cane juice” IS a different product:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/392941-white-sugar-vs-organic-evaporated-cane-juice/

It retains some of the molasses that is refined out of table sugar.

It is not deceptive to differentiate between the two substances.

[jjsheridan5]

I searched for Jelly Belly nutrition labels, and every one of them starts with "Sugar", usually followed by other sugars. Their jelly beans are clearly labeled as 70% sugar. The woman was a moron . . . and is now a fat moron.

From the article: "Gomez purchased Jelly Belly’s Sport Beans, a product marketed as an exercise supplement containing carbohydrates, electrolytes and vitamins, which lists "evaporated cane juice" on the label instead of citing sugar as an ingredient."

Given that they are probably looking at the actual label, and not a cross-section of random jelly bean labels, I think that it is much more likely that the label in question did not list sugar, and that they attempted to hide the added sugar behind a phrase that they knew would not be recognized.

In fact, your research is strong evidence that this was deceptive on the manufacturers' part. Every other jelly bean label has "sugar" as an ingredient. But this one chose to call sugar "evaporated cane juice". Why? Other than a blatant attempt to deceive, what possible explanation is there to use the esoteric phrase, rather than the universally common name "sugar", other than to deceive? There is none. They know that people are looking for added sugar, and are simply coming up with a way to hide the fact that their product has added, refined sugars. There is simply no other logical explanation.

Good find of evidence. For the plaintiff, which is clearly not what you intended. But good find, none the less.

[KarlInOhio]

It is not deceptive to differentiate between the two substances.

Then why not use the whole name of the plant: "sugarcane"? There are other cane grasses and I doubt even one has its juice evaporated for food.

And you don't have to be an idiot to be fooled by this. A PhD I worked with had some "health bars". I read the ingredients and either the first or second was evaporated cane juice. He wasn't amused when he realized he had been duped by the health claim of the bar.

[jjsheridan5]

It all depends on how it is evaporated. From research I did (going from memory), there are forms of evaporated cane juice that don't result in the same insulin spike as table sugar. However, there is no standard on what the term means. So "evaporated cane sugar" can mean anything from concentrated cane sugar juice (which is essentially a concentrated whole food), to table sugar. Which is why manufacturers, knowing that people were avoiding sugar, started using the term "evaporated cane juice". They could have just as accurately said sugar, and, in the past, would have, but started changing because research had shown that people who were avoiding added sugar did not consistently recognize phrases like this. The term is so loosely defined that it is 100% correct, and is perfect for deceiving customers.

[Pollster1]

We interpret the labels differently. The nutrition label still shows that the product is 68% sugar, even though they used a euphemism for sugar. If you're too stupid to know that "evaporated cane juice" is sugar and that 17 grams of "sugar" per package is also sugar, you're too stupid to deserve a pay out. I would still vote against her.

[Mariner]

“because research had shown that people who were avoiding added sugar did not consistently recognize phrases like this”

People who are avoiding added sugar don’t eat jelly beans.

[thulldud]

Weird Al Yankovic: I'll Sue Ya!

[IYAS9YAS]

So the 2g of sugars listed in a serving of brussel sprouts is added processed sugar? Because, according to what you just said, that means that they are adding processed sugars, even though the ingredient label does not list any ingredient other than "brussel sprouts".

You misread, or misconstrued what I said. The label calls the sugars in these jelly beans "added sugars." If the ingredient label says Brussels Sprouts, and says nothing else, then any sugars on the nutrition side of the label are natural sugars.

When the label (nutrition side, not ingredient side) says "added sugars" that means processed sugars have been added in addition to any natural sugars that may already be there. Thus, the Jelly Belly Sport Beans show 19 grams of sugars, and of those 19 grams of sugar, all 19 are "added sugars", so they're processed and added during the manufacture of the product. That's what "added sugars" means.

[jjsheridan5]

People who are avoiding added sugar don’t eat jelly beans.

I think you would be surprised at how varied dietary approaches are. There are plenty of people out there who will not consume free sugars, but will eat sweet foods, as long as the sugars are still wrapped up in cellular or fibrous material. To make a long story short, if someone came out with a jelly bean that contained only sugars that were still in their natural form, albeit concentrated, then that jelly bean would have a market. The problem for those types of people is that manufacturers are very deceptive, in how they hide "free" sugars (sugars that are no longer part of a plant's material). So no, I don't agree. People who avoid added refined sugar are quite fond of candy. Just not candy that contains refined sugar.

But all of this is tangential to the main question: what possible reason was there to use the ambiguous term "evaporated cane juice", rather than the more commonly known word "sugar", other than to deceive? There is simply no logical explanation for that decision, other than deception.

[IYAS9YAS]

It is 100% correct. And 100% deceptive.

Only to a liberal.

It's like the old analogy of the liberal balloonist and the conservative walk taker.

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below.

She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above a ground elevation of 2346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.

She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be a Conservative."

"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to do with your information, and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."

The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Liberal."

"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you're going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise that you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met but, somehow, now it's my fault."

[jjsheridan5]

I have not read the actual nutritional label in question. But the labels in this thread list "sugars", not "added sugars". Sugars in this column do not necessarily refer to added sugars. You said: "When the label (nutrition side, not ingredient side) says "added sugars" that means processed sugars have been added in addition to any natural sugars that may already be there." IN none of the labels on this thread, and there are quite a few, is there any reference to "added sugars". Just "sugars". Which can be added, or natural.

[SandRat]

That’s one Very DUMB FAT BROAD!

[Mariner]

That’s one dumb, and/or delusional PhD.

[Secret Agent Man]

So basically she is suing the company because of her own stupidity.

The lawyers who take these cases, need to be shot.

[IYAS9YAS]

I have not read the actual nutritional label in question. But the labels in this thread list "sugars", not "added sugars".

You are correct. I did not see an original label from the time period the lady claims she consumed them when I went searching, and I was using the only label I could currently find, which was direct from Jelly Belly's website. I also mentioned prior, that this may not be the same as what she saw when she was using the product, which turns out to be the case.

That has now been presented on the thread. Her claim that the label didn't show there was sugar in the product is still disingenuous. The nutrition side clearly states there are Carbs and lists the number of carbs that are "sugars." If, by reading all other information, she was still confused, the simple fact that the nutrition side lists sugars specifically, as a portion of the total carbs, should give even this most obtuse of morons the idea that there is sugar in some form within the product.

Please note, her lawsuit specifically states the label didn't say "sugar", not that it didn't distinguish between natural or processed sugars. By her own lawsuit, she shouldn't win, as the nutrition side of the label clearly shows "sugars", whether those sugars were natural or processed is not pertinent to her claim.

[jjsheridan5]

Only to a liberal.

What in the world does politics have to do with this? I have known many liberals who were quite knowledgeable about nutrition-label gotchas, and an embarrassingly large number of conservatives who were utterly clueless. This has nothing to do with politics. If you think that they chose this phrase "evaporated cane juice" for any reason other than deceiving people (conservatives, independents, and liberals alike), then you are simply wrong. This shouldn't be handled via a lawsuit (in fact, attempting to do so seems like an abuse of the judicial system), but on the other hand, there is no question that these types of practices are blatantly deceptive.

[IYAS9YAS]

I have not read the actual nutritional label in question. But the labels in this thread list "sugars", not "added sugars".

See the link in my post #14. It clearly shows that for this particular product, there are added sugars now. It is the new label, likely as a result of the 2014 recommendation by the FDA (also noted in my post 14), and not the one given when she was using the product.

I still stand by the statement that she claims sugar was not shown, when it clearly is on the nutrition side, and her lawsuit does not distinguish between natural or processed sugar, but the fact that the label didn't say the product contained sugar. The nutrition side clearly states it does.

[IYAS9YAS]

Sorry, not post 14. It's in post 26. Here's the link:

http://www.sportbeans.com/products/assorted_sport_beans.aspx

[Kipp]

I think I'll find a candy where the first ingredient is corn syrup and will sue them because I thought I was getting a serving of vegetables.

It doesn't matter if it's refined white sugar, fruit juice, honey, or agave syrup. A 12 oz glass of orange juice has as much sugar as a 12 oz can of Coke, and both will cause a sharp blood sugar spike. Having pulp in the juice will slow the sugar absorption somewhat, and eating a whole orange rather than drinking juice will slow the absorption even more. Some sugars are a little worse than others (i.e., high fructose corn syrup), but basically, sugar is sugar.