Blogs : Food Media
Food Media CHOW's roundup of food-related news from blogs, newspapers, magazines, cookbooks, and film.
Snapple Full of Crapple, Says NJ Lawsuit
Refuting Snapple’s claim that it is both “all natural” and “made from the Best Stuff on Earth,” a class-action lawsuit filed in New Jersey Superior Court this week seeks refunds for defrauded customers and an injunction forcing Cadbury Schweppes Americas Beverages to alter its labeling.
The problem, laid out by the story “A Controversy Is Brewing Over Snapple Labels” in New Jersey’s Star-Ledger (requires registration to see full story), is that Snapple drinks contain high-fructose corn syrup, a man-made substance. Food scientists disagree on whether HFCS can be considered natural, and indeed, the Food and Drug Administration hasn’t yet formally defined what natural is.
Thus Snapple isn’t breaking any laws when it calls itself “all natural.” But it’s clear that the consumer pressure brought to bear by such lawsuits and the ensuing publicity can force companies to comply voluntarily. Earlier this year Kraft dropped the words all natural from the packaging of Capri Sun juice drinks, while legal action threatened by the Center for Science in the Public Interest seemingly prompted Cadbury Schweppes to change the packaging of 7UP.
Incidentally, the Jersey suit accuses Snapple of falsely labeling its acai blackberry juice drink, which contains neither acai nor blackberry juice. Oh, is that a problem? I knew that Snapple lady wasn’t to be trusted.
Posted by
| Wednesday, July 11, 2007 at 9:10am
| 7 comments
Tagged with: snapple, beverages, lawsuit, false advertising, high fructose corn syrup, the grinder, media
« Previous Post: Coming Up Next: Bacon-Wrapped Bacon on Bacon with Bacon Next Post: Foodie Road Trip: Vermont! » |
Serves Snapple right! Their drinks are CRAP—all sugar & hardly any real juice. Their slogan should be "Made with the WORST CRAP" on earth! And that woman in the commercial is a big fat liar. I hope the lawsuit bankrupt Snapple's maker!!
Who are these Food Scientists? Who do they work for? Where are you getting that info? Could you cite a source, please?
I’m sure scientists who are employed by Archer Daniels Midland or the Corn Refiners Association will tell you that HFCS is one of the “Best things on earth” Sure it is, it pays their bills.
On the other hand, you don’t really have to be a scientist to understand the Wikipedia entry on HFCS. It clearly describes an industrial process that doesn’t sound “natural” at all.
In my opinion HFCS is a vile and disgusting substance that should never have been made available for human consumption. It’s cloying and nauseating and completely ruins anything it’s put into. And it’s put into almost EVERY mass-market food out there. Anybody who claims to like it, or can’t differentiate it from sucrose, either has defective taste buds or just really bad taste in general.
The term "all-natural" is essentially useless. There are so many products out there termed "all-natural" that are full to the brim of crap (hell, MSG can be natural, as can guar gum, xanthan gum, cochineal and other food dyes, etc), and Snapple is no exception. Reading the ingredient list on the bottles, I have yet to find a flavour that doesn't contain garbage that would likely make me sick (I have a chronic autoimmune disease that is triggered by some additives). Why anyone would pay for this overpriced garbage is beyond me.
(Looking at http://www.bevnet.com/reviews/snapple... - what is natural about "natural banana flavour"? What does that even *mean*, and how is this different from bananas?)
Those who filed suit and (those here ranting about Snapple and modern food ingredients) really ought to ge a grip. (Snapple should be bankrupted? There has to be a backstory here)
So this beverage company says its product is made from the best stuff on earth. What should they say instead. "An ordinary product not very distinguishable from other similar products"? Just like ... oh, wait a minute, no one markets their product as not particularly good. Should they?
Do you believe that companies should be prohibited from acclaiming their products as the "best"? Do you believe people are cheated if they disagree with such a claim?
What products manufactured from non-organic sources are used in making HFCS? TTBOMK, everything in it occurs naturally. Those natural products are treated in svarious ways, but not in any way that includes the addition of non-natural chemical compounds.
Were people fooled by Snapple's claims into thinking this was akin to some manna from heaven?
Is Budweiser really the King of beers? If they are not, does it hurt anything for them to claim such title? What is the difference between "the best stuff on earth" and "the King of beers"? (I have friends who will say there is no difference, but I think they mean it in a different way)
I am reminded of the pants lawsuit from Washington, wherein the plaintiff claimed that a sign stating "Satisfaction Guaranteed" meant that he could demand anything from the proprieters and if they failed to fill his demands, they had breached such guarantee.
Uh, ever heard of "false advertising?" Are you on the side of Coca-Cola & Pepsi too, who put out tap water and misled people into thinking it's real spring water? Come on, let's have some accountability! Consumers should educate themselves, but why should we let these mammoth corporations get away with plain lies? Who gives Snapple the right to suggest that chemicals are "the best stuff on earth?" OK, The King of Beers could be debatable, as bad taste is bred, not aquired. And what are YOU getting out of defending these companies?!
A month late but what does suing the big corporation do. It just makes a bunch of sheming get-rich low lifes richer. The people who are suing don't care about whether HFCS is harmful they just want money: it's disgusting. There are perfectly better ways to get the message out; abusing the court system is no way. The court should be used for legitimate purposes; no one was hurt here.