News

23311 readers

3672 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Fed-up consumers are increasingly going after food companies for misleading claims (www.npr.org)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

4 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Mango Dragonfruit Starbucks Refreshers are missing mango, Strawberry Açaí Starbucks Refreshers lack açaí and Pineapple Passionfruit Starbucks Refreshers have no passion fruit.

That's what two consumers who have sued Starbucks for consumer protection law violations say about the coffee giant's fruit-based drinks. This week, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled their case could move forward.

U.S. District Judge John Cronan said in his opinion that "a significant portion of reasonable consumers could plausibly be misled into thinking" that Starbucks Refreshers include the fruit in their names.

It's the latest example of a recent legal trend that's seen fed-up consumers taking major food and beverage companies to court over what they say is fishy advertising.

Plaintiffs typically argue that companies are going beyond simple marketing hyperbole and misrepresenting their food and drinks — whether it's promising ingredients that aren't there or displaying promotion images that don't match the real-life items.

There has been a smorgasbord of accusations in recent years: Barilla pasta isn't made in Italy. Burger King's Whoppers are smaller than they appear. The "boneless wings" served at Buffalo Wild Wings aren't actually chicken wings. Subway's "100% tuna" sandwiches either partially or completely lack tuna. Taco Bell skimps on the fillings in its Mexican Pizza, Crunchwrap Supreme and more.

"In general, companies can say great things about their product and make any kind of opinion claims they want to make about it. They can even say it's the best in the world," said Louis Tompros, an intellectual property attorney at the law firm WilmerHale in Boston.

"Opinion claims about a product are called puffery, and they're perfectly fine under false advertising law. What false advertising law does not allow is a false factual claim," he said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Some of this is dumb (not all, just some). We should be going after the FDA for their contrived distinction on "natural/artificial" and shoddy labeling requirements. The companies are always going to do whatever nets the most profit within the rules, which often means using the cheapest or most minimal ingredients.

Let's take candy as an example. I mean, I don't expect lemon Starbursts to contain actual lemon. I think everyone is mostly fine with that being 'artificial' flavor.

But what is artificial, exactly? Chemists don't really make that distinction; just like the FDA, if a molecule is extracted from a living thing it's called a "natural product". But that doesn't actually tell you anything about the molecule itself or mean it's different than it would be if synthesized from components chemicals in any way whatsoever.

Pineapple and pear flavors are just one simple ester each, I've easily made them in a lab. Any lack of "real" taste is probably just a matter of sugar or acidity balance or missing texture. If a commercial product is made well, you'll never know the difference because it's the exact same compound whether it comes from a farm or an industrial vat. That one ester molecule is literally indistinguishable from either source (assuming it's been isolated / 'purified' sufficiently).

But strawberry and apple are much more complex fruits, with dozens or maybe hundreds of esters and other flavor compounds. Fake strawberry and apple might never be convincing. You can easily tell if those tastes are 'artificial' when they lack the nuance of having the right mix of many flavor chemicals.

Now, that claim about the 100% tuna sandwich... that's totally misleading and a good basis for a lawsuit IMO. Nobody is synthesizing a convincing fish protein at scale.

EDIT: Lots of clarifications. EDIT2: Can folks please explain when they downvote? I'm on topic and discussing nuances of the issue here.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Did you read Starbucks as starburst?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

No that was just an example of a food item with certain expectations on artificial flavor.