Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jjsheridan5
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.

89 posted on 05/25/2017 12:59:16 PM PDT by IYAS9YAS (An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees! - Kipling)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]


To: IYAS9YAS

I agree, and when you see “17 grams of sugar”, it is a good bet that added sugars are involved. But the purpose of nutritional labels is to convey information in the clearest possible manner. It’s purpose is not to kill off stupid people. There is absolutely no good reason to use the term “evaporated cane juice” rather than “sugar”.

As far as the actual lawsuit goes, I know that a similar lawsuit failed, but the fact that the FDA has recommended the term not be used may change the outcome in this case. She may be stupid. This may be a frivolous lawsuit. But none of that negates the underlying unethical acts taken by this company. It really is as bad as the ones who use “celery juice” instead of nitrates (IIRC, some even went so far as to say “no added nitrates”!). It is just blatantly unethical.


91 posted on 05/25/2017 1:08:08 PM PDT by jjsheridan5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson