[jjsheridan5]

The purpose of a nutritional label is to convey information to consumers, in a manner that consumers can make informed choices. It is not there to act as marketing information, nor is it there to show off one's cleverness. If you call "salt" "sodium chloride evaporated from sea water", then you are using the nutritional label not to convey information, but rather to conceal it. You know perfectly well that virtually 100% of people know what salt is, but that a much smaller percentage know what "sodium chloride evaporated from sea water" is. I am not saying that what you are doing is illegal (I have no idea) -- what I do know is that it would be an attempt at deception, it would be an attempt to conceal the type of information that nutritional labels are supposed to convey, and that there is no reason to choose that particular wording other than to deceive. As I said, it may or may not be illegal. But it would certainly be unethical.

Much like a liberal.

[IYAS9YAS]

As I said, it may or may not be illegal. But it would certainly be unethical.

This is where we simply have to agree to disagree. Ultimately, I think her lawsuit falls apart, as she claims the label didn't say there was sugar in the product, but the image of the very label that states "evaporated cane juice" also very clearly shows that there are most definitely sugars in the product. 17 grams of them, in fact.

How she could claim the first, without looking an inch to the right and not see the second, is beyond all reason and logic.