previously defended his labeling lawsuits as reasonable

August 17, 2023 3:16 PM

Lawyer behind hundreds of food lawsuits faces sanctions in Starbucks, Walmart cases [Reuters, July 2023]

His Pop-Tarts lawsuit failed. But this lawyer keeps suing over snack food ingredients [CBC, June 2022]

Previously on MetaFilter: E-Z Cheeze Money

posted by readinghippo (44 comments total)

I'm pretty sure people know Pop Tarts aren't food.

As Jessie Pinkman said, "We make poison for people who don't care anymore."
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 3:20 PM on August 17, 2023 [5 favorites]

I don’t know, I’m on Team Lawyer here. I think that these companies know very well they would make less money if they had to label their products “strawberry-flavored-goo” or “vanilla flavored ice cream” or “98% coffee”. That’s why they don’t already label their products these things, because they know they would make less money if they did.

The judge knows this lawyer won’t prevail against Starbucks most likely because Starbucks can hire an army of lawyers, not because he’s not correct.
posted by corb at 4:13 PM on August 17, 2023 [11 favorites]

The problem, at its base, is capitalism. In a world in which something other than money were paramount, taking these kinds of shortcuts would be unthinkable because that's not how you treat fellow human beings. But under capitalism, you do anything you can including duping your customers if it means you make more money.
posted by hippybear at 4:16 PM on August 17, 2023 [17 favorites]

Among his cases, he has claimed Kellogg's Fudge Mint cookies, frosted chocolate fudge and strawberry Pop Tarts misstate their true ingredients, Apple's iPhone water resistance claims are misleading, and mayonnaise sold by Walmart Inc contained too little olive oil.

He is also behind the class action suits "Bears v. Woods" and "Pope v. Catholics"
posted by chavenet at 4:16 PM on August 17, 2023 [3 favorites]

It’s amazing to me that ostensibly progressive people will jokingly carry water for our class enemies that are literally poisoning us, but go off I guess
posted by rhymedirective at 4:26 PM on August 17, 2023 [36 favorites]

Remember that the alternatives to private consumer protection litigation are either (a) effective government regulation or (b) being at the corporations' mercy. For some reason there are constantly calls to abolish either consumer protection litigation or (a) any time there's the slightest problem, but (b) continues as an option regardless of how much misconduct we see.
posted by praemunire at 4:28 PM on August 17, 2023 [31 favorites]

The actual court order for the Starbucks case can be read here, and I (as a person whose entire legal education has included reading recent Trump indictments) found it interesting. From reading this and also the past NPR article linked in one of the FPP articles, I get the strong sense that he's found a great business model of filing a large number of suits and counting on a certain number to get voluntarily settled. Having most thrown out of court is just part of the model.

But at the same time, I suspect that a lot of his suits are correctly identifying mildly deceptive practices, whether or not it rises to the level of a successful class action claim. Perhaps a business model focused more on quality rather than quantity might leave him less exposed to sanctions.
posted by Dip Flash at 4:50 PM on August 17, 2023 [2 favorites]

I don’t think the poison is getting removed from fudge Poptarts (fudge poptarts for god sake!) if they slightly change packaging, or settle with him out of court which is his actual aim. I’d respect him fighting the good fight if he went after Walmart and Starbucks et al for labor violations and monopolization.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 5:13 PM on August 17, 2023 [3 favorites]

From what I can glean from the Starbucks complaint, it hinges on a vague assertion that the ground coffee has too much potassium, and its inclusion is "likely intentional" without any supporting data. I can see how judges would not like that.

"That is a baseless charge…. I've been to the courts. And when I've been there, I've noticed that they're quite empty. So I've not really seen any courts that are clogged up based on these cases. If, in fact, these are nuisance lawsuits, then there are mechanisms in place for courts and parties to seek substantial penalties against attorneys and the plaintiffs that filed that."

Sounds like an un-serious person to me.
posted by credulous at 5:16 PM on August 17, 2023 [3 favorites]

Mod note: Please practice mindfulness when commenting jokingly, sarcastically, etc. It's important to keep comments productive and insightful. Let's not derail any further.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 5:17 PM on August 17, 2023

The judge knows this lawyer won’t prevail against Starbucks most likely because Starbucks can hire an army of lawyers, not because he’s not correct.

Well, he didn’t “prevail” against any of the non-Starbucks companies either.

I don’t know, I’m on Team Lawyer here

Guess you like losing. I’d pick a different team.
posted by Back At It Again At Krispy Kreme at 7:03 PM on August 17, 2023

He doesn't need to win, he just needs enough of them to settle out of court. The ruling in the Starbucks case is basically saying that his approach is a misuse of the court. I'm no expert so I don't know who is right, but regardless, he definitely does not have a business model based on winning anything.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:13 PM on August 17, 2023 [1 favorite]

I'm reminded of Subway trying to claim a tax break for bread in Ireland and having to pay MORE because the "bread" had too much sugar and was thus confectionary.
posted by Slackermagee at 7:29 PM on August 17, 2023 [2 favorites]

There's no conflict between thinking consumer protection litigation is extremely important and broadly a good force in society and thinking that what this guy does is basically extortion and a complete abuse of the legal system.

Take the Walmart mayonnaise lawsuit. The label on the jar says "Mayo with Olive Oil." However, as anyone who reads the back of the jar can easily learn, the mayo contains more soybean oil than olive oil. That's the basis of the lawsuit. The question is whether the label is deceptive because olive oil is not the predominant oil. If the mayo did not contain olive oil, that would clearly be deceptive. If the mayo was labeled "Mayo with 100% Olive Oil" and wasn't, that would be deceptive. But here the theory is that consumers read "Mayo with Olive Oil" and reasonably expect some particular amount of olive oil. I'm sure there are some people out there with that expectation, but it's commonly known that the fact that an ingredient is in the name of a product doesn't mean that ingredient is the predominant ingredient. Product names frequently represent the flavor.

That's this guy's whole deal: he argues that the names of products imply that certain ingredients or a certain amount of a certain ingredient will be in the product. He finds one plaintiff who will claim, oh yeah, when I bought a Fudge Pop-Tart, I believed there would be butter and milk in it because the name included the word "fudge" (a real lawsuit filed by this joker). That person of course only has $5 in damages, but he argues that every person who bought the product was deceived by the name and that the lawsuit should be certified as a class action where he can represent every person who bought a common product like Fudge Pop-Tarts, which have many millions of dollars in sales. If he can get a class certified, he gets a huge payout. The amount at stake would be so high that almost any defendant would settle. Even just fighting class certification is hugely expensive. That's this person's business model - trying to force people to pay him to go away by forcing them to choose between paying him and paying their attorneys to fight him.

The funny part is that now that he's a known quantity and there are numerous opinions out there rejecting his pet theory, everybody fights him and he constantly loses. The real impact that he has in the world is that it wastes a bunch of people's time and corporations have to pay more money to their own lawyers. This guy is absolutely not any kind of people's champion.
posted by vathek at 7:31 PM on August 17, 2023 [12 favorites]

I don't think draining corporate coffers in even pointless legal pursuits is not at least a tiny bit of being a people's champion. Every dollar they spend on lawyers is a dollar they have to put in the loss column in their next quarterly report.

If they weren't doing all these deceptive things, no matter how tiny the deception, they wouldn't be open to these lawsuits. But they instead have this tiny hole in their monetary bucket, draining out dollars drip by drip.
posted by hippybear at 7:35 PM on August 17, 2023 [5 favorites]

But there is no deception. I would be surprised if there were even one person who knows what a Pop-Tart is who sincerely thinks the name Fudge Pop-Tarts is an implied guarantee that there will be butter and milk in them. They're open to the lawsuits because you can sue anyone over anything, no matter how contrived and preposterous.

This guy's antics take money from corporations and give it to law firms. It ain't Robin Hood.
posted by vathek at 7:50 PM on August 17, 2023 [6 favorites]

If the mayo was labeled "Mayo with 100% Olive Oil" and wasn't, that would be deceptive. But here the theory is that consumers read "Mayo with Olive Oil" and reasonably expect some particular amount of olive oil.

This might be true in principle but I’m with him in spirit - this is exactly the sort of technically non-deceptive labeling that clearly is meant to deceive. Olive oil has a positive reputation that soybean oil does not. They don’t say “with olive and soybean oil” on the front because they know that its olive that imparts an aura of quality and healthfulness. Many consumers understand these tricks, but they are still inherently dodgy.

I don’t get the coffee one, though. Is there a nefarious intent or meaningful deviation from consumer expectations in adding potassium?
posted by atoxyl at 8:09 PM on August 17, 2023 [4 favorites]

But here the theory is that consumers read "Mayo with Olive Oil" and reasonably expect some particular amount of olive oil.

I think the assumption that Mayo with Olive Oil is at least 50% olive oil is a very reasonable one. The only reason we don't think so is because we've trained ourselves to not trust these kinds of labels which are absolutely designed to mislead us. That seems like a bad state of affairs. If a company wants to make a soybean mayonnaise with a bit of olive oil, they are perfectly capable of labelling it as Mayo with Soybean and Olive Oil. Why wouldn't we want honest labelling?

At the same time, this private litigation approach doesn't seem great either.
posted by ssg at 8:15 PM on August 17, 2023 [6 favorites]

I don't think draining corporate coffers in even pointless legal pursuits is not at least a tiny bit of being a people's champion. Every dollar they spend on lawyers is a dollar they have to put in the loss column in their next quarterly report.

I don't see how pointless and arbitrary harassment via the judicial system is in any way being "the people's champion." Every dollar spent on lawyers is a dollar passed onto "the people". You know, the very people you champion are the same who spend their money on corporations they actually enjoy and seek out. Who do you think keeps Starbucks and Walmart and Kellogg healthy operations?

The problem, at its base, is capitalism. In a world in which something other than money were paramount, taking these kinds of shortcuts would be unthinkable because that's not how you treat fellow human beings. But under capitalism, you do anything you can including duping your customers if it means you make more money.


Not to pick on you, but this is incoherent. The "because capitalism" moralizing explainer is beyond tired, despite it's popularity around these parts, and needs to to be reserved for instances that make better sense. Seriously, it's like listening to people inject religion into the topic. Really half baked religion.

It’s amazing to me that ostensibly progressive people will jokingly carry water for our class enemies that are literally poisoning us, but go off I guess


*sigh*
posted by 2N2222 at 9:27 PM on August 17, 2023 [5 favorites]

I would absolutely be willing to trade the private litigation approach for serious government regulation, but that’s not how our government has chosen to handle its systems.

Also I don’t think civilization will fall if Pop-tarts are forced to label themselves as fudge-flavored instead of as fudge.
posted by corb at 9:47 PM on August 17, 2023 [6 favorites]

The other thing is that if courts normally do something useful at least some of the time, tying them up with frivolous lawsuits is a waste for society at large.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 9:55 PM on August 17, 2023 [1 favorite]

The man is a progressive hero the same way Michael Avenatti is, which is to say not at all. It doesn't matter who he sues.

I've got lots to say about about lawsuits in the US and our lack of regulation or a safety net. Actual safety lawsuits increase costs but also increase safety. This? No.

Also, food labels are in fact highly regulated! There are rules on what can be called "natural" and how big "artificial flavor" needs to be on the label and what is mayonnaise vs. mayo-like or cheese vs. process cheese food. I haven't seen anything in this thread that isn't already available on the label.
posted by mark k at 9:57 PM on August 17, 2023 [5 favorites]

I would be surprised if there were even one person who knows what a Pop-Tart is who sincerely thinks the name Fudge Pop-Tarts is an implied guarantee that there will be butter and milk in them

As an Australian who occasionally sees predominantly American snack products sold here in Australia and A: knows a Pop-Tart is some sort of large frosted biscuit entity and B: does not actually know what a Pop Tart consists of ingredient-wise, I would expect some buttery ingredient in a Fudge Pop-Tart. If there is no butter (or analogue of butter like some appropriate oil) and they are entirely flour, water, and sugar frosting, this would be against my expectation.
posted by solarion at 11:00 PM on August 17, 2023 [1 favorite]

But here the theory is that consumers read "Mayo with Olive Oil" and reasonably expect some particular amount of olive oil.

I don't know much about the composition of mayo so I wouldn't really have expectations about the amount of olive oil versus non-oil ingredients, other than "not so minuscule as to render this claim ridiculous". Somebody who knows more about mayo would probably have much stronger expectations in that regard. (Similarly, I've never actually thought about the ingredients of fudge beyond "chocolate". I lack domain knowledge.)

However, even without domain knowledge and based purely on the description, I would have an expectation that whatever oil there was in the mayo would be olive oil. I wouldn't expect it to be, say, 50% olive oil and 50% another oil, and I definitely wouldn't expect the majority of the oil to not be olive. In the same way that if someone asked me "Do you want to go see a movie with me and Jay?", I wouldn't expect to find five additional people in the group when I got to the theater, and if someone told me "I've been married once", I wouldn't expect to find out they've been married once, and once before that, and once before that too.

There's a lot of linguistics research about what expectations people have based on being given, or not given, certain information, and a lot of that research is around the idea that these expectations aren't idiosyncratic quirks but instead form a generally shared communications framework within a society, and that both the recipients and issuers of the information are generally working within the same framework of assumptions.
posted by trig at 11:42 PM on August 17, 2023 [8 favorites]

I really kind of detest this guy. And at the same time, can’t understand how a brand like “Just Mayo” which features a stylized egg logo on the label can win a fight from a consumer who didn’t realize it contained no eggs. I mean… that feels false to me. Lawsuit-level false? Not to me. I don’t think suing the company for something that silly does anything for the consumer. It doesn’t drain corporate coffers, it just encourages them to pass the cost on to you with bullshit like “Same product, new packaging!” (2 ounces less for the same old price!)
posted by caution live frogs at 11:50 PM on August 17, 2023

Googling a bit further, the "study" cited about potassium levels comes from a competitor named Puroast, which did not go unnoticed by the court. So the coffee lawsuit is just piggybacking on this junk science.
posted by credulous at 11:52 PM on August 17, 2023

It’s amazing to me that ostensibly progressive people will jokingly carry water for our class enemies that are literally poisoning us, but go off I guess
posted by rhymedirective at 7:26 PM on August 17

well yeah, it was mislabeled "water"
posted by ZaphodB at 12:47 AM on August 18, 2023 [5 favorites]

For people with food allergies, proper labeling can be a matter of life and death. But this guy is just making noise for his own gain. Not only is he not helping anyone, he's potentially making things worse by making any labeling lawsuit seem frivolous.
posted by tommasz at 6:00 AM on August 18, 2023 [4 favorites]

The mayo with olive oil arguments are silly. First, anyone who has ever made mayonnaise knows that one made with 50% extra virgin or virgin olive oil would not taste anything like what consumers think of as "mayonnaise flavor," and isn particularly good. When I make mayonnaise I might use 20% extra virgin olive oil. Second, there are plenty of grades of olive oil, and lower grades such as refined olive oil and olive pomace oil have practically no flavor. You could make a mayonnaise with 100% refined olive oil that would taste effectively the same as one made with 100% soybean oil. But the important thing, really, is that it's called "mayonnaise with olive oil" not "olive oil mayonnaise." Do we expect that "peanuts with salt" are 50% salt? Clearly the olive oil component in the mayonnaise is a flavoring, and the manufacturer used enough olive oil of whatever grade to give the mayonnaise some olive oil flavor that differentiated it from their mayonnaise that does not include olive oil.
posted by slkinsey at 6:41 AM on August 18, 2023 [4 favorites]

I was thinking of it more in terms of health claims than taste. Regardless of the accuracy of this belief olive oil has an image of being particularly healthy. And current diet fads even have things like soybean oil labeled as unhealthy - too much omega-6 - although those people are probably checking the back of the package anyway.
posted by atoxyl at 9:03 AM on August 18, 2023

Regardless of the accuracy of this belief olive oil has an image of being particularly healthy. And current diet fads even have things like soybean oil labeled as unhealthy

Right - like, we have to first ask why did the manufacturer label it that way? And the answer is that the manufacturer expected that a non-insignificant group of people would either pay a higher amount of money for that, or that it would distinguish them from a group of others as the brand to buy. Because let's face it, there isn't *that* much difference between mayonnaise until you start getting really high end.

And so if people are buying the mayonnaise because they are *either* looking and seeing "oh, olive oil is healthy, this must be a healthier mayonnaise" or saying "olive oil is an expensive ingredient, this must be a higher quality mayonnaise", in either case, they are getting snookered if it is actually just 'enough olive oil to give it intangible amount of olive oil flavoring'.

And I think the judge, just like a lot of people here, are thinking "oh, for god's sake who cares, this is part of the ways in which we are snookered constantly in every way in every part of society, only an idiot would actually *believe* it." I think it is particularly relevant that the Hon. Frederick Scullin, the upstate New York judge who is promising potential sanctions in this case, is a conservative Reagan/Bush appointee who served as an infantry commander in Vietnam. I suspect he has less tolerance for what he sees as trivial nonsense.

But I don't actually think that the myriad of ways that we consider it acceptable to mislead the public into spending their hard-earned money are nonsense. In this particular case, it's 10.99$ for a 12 ounce bag of coffee. The same size of coffee, but Folgers, costs 6.97$. Starbucks is able to charge additional prices because it promises and implies the promise that their coffee is better, purer, with less additives. If in fact their coffee is *not* better, *not* purer, does *not* contain less additives - if in fact they just have great marketing and a host of baristas and machines that make the coffee *seem* better - then the public deserves to know and the public deserves to have those extra dollars - the price of a bus ride - in their pocket.
posted by corb at 9:20 AM on August 18, 2023 [2 favorites]

First, anyone who has ever made mayonnaise knows that one made with 50% extra virgin or virgin olive oil would not taste anything like what consumers think of as "mayonnaise flavor"

How many people do you think have made their own mayonnaise?

Clearly the olive oil component in the mayonnaise is a flavoring

No, that's not clear at all.

Some of you are vastly overestimating the average consumer's food knowledge and ability to understand labels.

From this article which references this study:

Studies show that most Canadians don’t comprehend the percent daily value or the variety of units (g, ml, percentages) common on food nutrition labels. One Canadian study showed that less than half of participants could identify the number of calories in a soft-drink bottle even after consulting the nutritional labels. Half of participants who saw a “110 calories per serving” label believed this was the number of calories for the entire bottle, when, in fact, the bottle in question contained several servings (264 calories).
posted by Stoof at 9:22 AM on August 18, 2023 [2 favorites]

On the one hand, I despise deceptive labelling and all the tricks of the marketing trade that exist to mess with our lizard brains.

On the other hand, lawyers like this guy are a large part of the reason that people hate lawyers. He's not other there trying to make things safer for folks. He is the reason why coffee cups say "warning contents may be hot" and in a very real sense, he's the kind of jerk who ruins it for everyone.

Here's my "favorite" example of the exact same hucksterism this lawyer is pulling. In California we have a law that attempts to protect folks from discrimination, like Men's Only Social Clubs (as an example). (Unruh Civil Rights Act) The spirit of the rule is pretty clear - you're not allowed to squash someone/privilege others in business. Jokingly, it's the reason we don't have "Ladies Nights" here in CA.

A friend of mine and her brewery got sued by a "Men's Rights Advocacy Group" for running a monthly "Womans Beer Seminar" intended to educate women in a non-mansplainy space about various beery topics. This group has made hundreds of these lawsuits over the years claiming discrimination against men and it's how they make $$. The brewery tried to fight the suit for the longest time, but ended up settling because it was costing them too much. The lawyer in this article may be targetting larger corporations but its the same neighborhood of legal abuse.
posted by drewbage1847 at 9:55 AM on August 18, 2023 [1 favorite]

He is the reason why coffee cups say "warning contents may be hot"

The reason coffee cups say "Warning contents may be hot" is that McDonald's knowingly served coffee hot enough to give customers third-degree burns, and that was their policy because it meant that they had to make a fresh pot of coffee less often, and coffee should be served hot but it should not be served hot enough to sear the skin off your thighs.
posted by Jeanne at 10:00 AM on August 18, 2023 [11 favorites]

yes, I'm aware of the McDonald's boiling coffee, but look around at all of the meaningless warnings put on packages these days and they're directly because companies will overly label everything to try and indemnify themselves from lawsuits. You shouldn't serve coffee that's boiling hot and you should also be aware that things in coffee cups are hot (within reason)

Another example of why this is a problem is seen in the whole Prop 65 warning thing here in CA. The intention is spot on "hey, there is a possible toxic/cancer risk here" but because of everyone trying to cover their butts, you get Prop 65 warnings everywhere to the point that they're background static and useless.
posted by drewbage1847 at 10:02 AM on August 18, 2023

you get Prop 65 warnings everywhere to the point that they're background static and useless.

No, Prop 65 warnings were intended to identify the companies that were putting cancer and reproductive harming stuff in things, and what we found out was that all of them were, that nearly all of them were doing it because it was so profitable. The fact that they're everywhere to the point that they're "background static" should be horrifying, not a case of wild labeling run amok.

Like...what if, I know this sounds crazy, but what if businesses weren't willing to literally poison people in the quest for their executives to make just a little bit more profit? Right now, 'shareholder value' is king, and so much gets justified in that pursuit. But what if companies had to pay for the bullshit they did, and so it actually decreased shareholder value when they did stuff like that? Wouldn't you like to live in that world?
posted by corb at 10:29 AM on August 18, 2023 [2 favorites]

First, anyone who has ever made mayonnaise knows that one made with 50% extra virgin or virgin olive oil would not taste anything like what consumers think of as "mayonnaise flavor"

But it actually tastes good! I would buy this if they sold it in the store, but they do not. And the reason it isn't sold in the store is at least partly because the shelves are already stocked with the misleadingly labelled "Made with Olive Oil" mayonnaise. It would be hard for a product actually made with 50% olive oil to compete with the cheaper options which would appear to be very similar unless you inspected the label carefully.
posted by ssg at 10:33 AM on August 18, 2023

Corb, I agree that there is a message there about the cancerous nature of modern life, but what I see in talking with business is things like "I put up a Prop 65 sign because we're a brewery and ethanol can cause cancer." or "I make french fries and there's all the news out there that fried foods contain pre-cancerous compounds" or my favorite "I put it up because who knows and I don't want to get sued"

So instead of the signs being about "real" risks like exposure to asbestos, carbon monoxide, etc - they're just everywhere to keep people from being sued, which really sucks and defeats the purpose of the prop.
posted by drewbage1847 at 10:43 AM on August 18, 2023 [1 favorite]

I can’t believe anyone would side with the lawyer. This is the Steve Bannon “flood the zone with shit” of lawyers and we should be *more* strict about frivolous lawsuits, not to mention frivolous motions within lawsuits. Just because corporations produce stuff that’s terrible for you and we need better labeling laws does not mean we need to let this guy convince us that people are too fucking dumb to know that , for example, ready to eat in 5 minutes does not include peeling the thingy off the top of the microwaved package. Encouraging this is unbelievably counterproductive and makes America worse. Legal fail.
posted by caviar2d2 at 3:38 PM on August 18, 2023 [1 favorite]

I can’t believe anyone would side with the lawyer. This is the Steve Bannon “flood the zone with shit” of lawyers and we should be *more* strict about frivolous lawsuits, not to mention frivolous motions within lawsuits.

There's no conflict between thinking consumer protection litigation is extremely important and broadly a good force in society and thinking that what this guy does is basically extortion and a complete abuse of the legal system.

I think it becomes adults on today's Internet to understand that a million objectionable things happen every day in America and it matters what we decide to treat as outrage fodder and discourse-worthy. In other words, one can thoroughly support vigorous use of Rule 11 while recognizing that people stirring up a fuss about a particular case are in fact agitating to make the world worse.

Also, food labels are in fact highly regulated! There are rules on what can be called "natural" and how big "artificial flavor" needs to be on the label and what is mayonnaise vs. mayo-like or cheese vs. process cheese food. I haven't seen anything in this thread that isn't already available on the label.

Actually, the FDA does not define the word "natural." Look it up if you don't believe me. (The USDA does, but obviously that applies to forms of animal products, a mere subset of food products.)

More broadly, if you are imagining that the FDA is routinely inspecting a broad range of product labels for facial accuracy, much less running experiments to see if they're truly accurate, you're wrong. They simply do not have the resources. Most enforcement work in this space is done by private lawsuit. So, yes, by getting worked up about this guy (rather than the corporations who deceive on labels whenever they think they can get away with it, or the corporations who file incredibly stupid, yet vastly resource-consuming, litigations against each other with no worries about being accused of "tying up the courts"), you're letting yourself be encouraged to carry water for people who would happily feed you arsenic in your Cheerios if they could get away with it.

If this guy violated Rule 11 or state equivalent, the judge can deal with it as appropriate. He is but a pebble compared to the mountain of wickedness on the corporate side, and I refuse to get disproportionately agitated about him.
posted by praemunire at 9:10 PM on August 18, 2023 [3 favorites]

Actually, the FDA does not define the word "natural." Look it up if you don't believe me. (The USDA does, but obviously that applies to forms of animal products, a mere subset of food products.)

Here's the FDA definition of natural flavor.

I refuse to get disproportionately agitated about him.

I am also not disproportionately agitated by him. I'm not agitated about him at all.

My lack of agitation doesn't make his lawsuits non-frivolous, let alone a progressive crusader for food safety. There are lawsuits that accomplish safety goals. He's not doing that.
posted by mark k at 11:07 PM on August 18, 2023

Here's the FDA definition of natural flavor.

"Natural flavor" and "natural" are not the same (and are not used interchangeably on labels). The FDA has not defined "natural" even though the notice & comment on a proposed definition closed seven years ago.

I'm not agitated about him at all.

Well, I'm sure you're not fuming and clenching your fist, etc., but here you are, repeating (intentionally or not) broader industry talking points in connection with the story. Which will absolutely be the intent of most people pushing it.
posted by praemunire at 11:42 PM on August 18, 2023

No, Prop 65 warnings were intended to identify the companies that were putting cancer and reproductive harming stuff in things, and what we found out was that all of them were

That’s an oversimplification of the appearance of Prop 65 warnings in everyday contexts, but that still doesn’t mean they are a bad idea.

Like from drewbage1847’s comment:

I put up a Prop 65 sign because we're a brewery and ethanol can cause cancer." or "I make french fries and there's all the news out there that fried foods contain pre-cancerous compounds

so I actually agree that these don’t fit the same model of companies poisoning people without their consent - these are products people very much want that are also very much carcinogenic by nature. But then why is it silly for there to be a health warning? It was kind of astonishing to me to see people “discovering” that alcohol causes cancer when it came up in the news recently, because I’ve seen that warning on bottles my whole life.
posted by atoxyl at 1:14 AM on August 19, 2023

Wait until people learn that olive oil pretty routinely may not even contain olive oil.
posted by srboisvert at 2:35 AM on August 20, 2023