Replies

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.

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.

The nutrition side clearly states there are Carbs and lists the number of carbs that are "sugars."

You cannot determine added sugars from the nutritional label alone. The only way to determine added sugars is to use the nutritional label in conjunction with the ingredient list. But, in this case, the ingredient list contains a phrase that is clearly intended to deceive.

As far as the lawsuit (which is a ridiculous one): most people when they avoid "sugars" are avoiding added sugars. Natural sugars are not nearly as damaging to people who are diabetic, worried about diabetes, or attempting to lose weight (which is why fruits and safe starches are generally acceptable in many common dietary approaches). The problem is two-fold: nutritional labels are incomplete, in that they fail to differentiate natural and free sugars. Secondly, manufacturers have become quite creative in terms of hiding free sugars behind innocuous-sounding phrases. Take, for example, one of the labels above. It has a laundry list of ingredients including things like "mango juice concentrate". What in the world is that, exactly? Is that table sugar, derived from evaporated mango juice, or is it plain concentrate? What additional steps were taken to this evaporated mango juice? Is it just a deceptive way of saying "(free) sugar"? What about "mango puree"? Is it the same thing as what I would get if I took a mango and threw it in a food processor, or is it essentially table sugar that has been derived from mangos? I have no idea, and neither do you. And there is no way to tell from the nutrition label.

In the past, sugar would have been listed as "sugar", regardless of source. Now, manufacturers are very deceptive.