Anyone else see this fat free lawsuit???
Replies
-
Did she miss the "per serving" caveat? WTH! And ... YUCK!0
-
i'm picturing the old cheeze whiz spray in the mouth thing...only with butter spray. haha.0
-
So do I think it's a viable case? Probably, yeah. And, since receiving my disclosure documents for another fifty grand in law school loans today, I'd probably take that case. :devil:
Even though the law permits them to say what they did since those labels plaster "per serving" next to each zero claim it makes?0 -
Just because they aren't breaking the labeling laws doesn't mean that she doesn't have a case against them. She's not claiming that they violated labeling laws (and if they had, she likely wouldn't have any standing to bring a case over that). She's claiming that they intentionally marketed the product in a deceptive way and profited unfairly by doing so (and harmed her in the process). That could be done while the labels are in compliance with labeling laws, so the fact that they aren't violating one doesn't mean that they aren't liable for the other.So do I think it's a viable case? Probably, yeah. And, since receiving my disclosure documents for another fifty grand in law school loans today, I'd probably take that case. :devil:
Even though the law permits them to say what they did since those labels plaster "per serving" next to each zero claim it makes?
What seems particularly problematic to me (and this is just from reading the article) is that she basically had no reason not to believe that for a product labeled "Fat-free and calorie-free" with nutrition facts giving a zero for those categories and no disclaimer or information available to the contrary that the usual mathematical rule of "zero times anything is zero" didn't apply. There is a standard that she has to prove (and I haven't taken torts in a few years, so no guarantees of accuracy) that a "reasonably prudent person under the circumstances" would have thought the same thing. And I think she might be able to successfully argue that.0 -
maybe she is stupid or maybe she has the right to know that there really was Fat in the "fat free" product. I understand she went overboard, but a little truth in advertising please? I think it's time, Tell US WHAT IS IN THE food!!0
-
Even if she is legally allowed to sue, I still think she should sue the legal systems that allow companies to mislabel. I'm a lot more likely to gain a lot of weight from a 100 calorie food that is 20% off than a 0 calorie food that is 20% off. I also don't believe she was actually *harmed.*
I agree the labeling is deceptive in this country. But they technically labeled accurately since they said "per serving" next to everything and aren't obliged to let customers know the legal codes. (I would have no issue with it if every product were required to say that there can be up to a 20% discrepancy. I think that's valid health information.)0 -
There's alot of people with this mentality. Early on in my weight loss attempts I tried Weight Watchers. WW does great things, but I ding them for one thing...they communicate that Fruits and Veggies are "Zero points." Without saying it, they ultimately suggest to people that they can eat all the food they want if it's zero points. I witnessed this first hand when I observed a frustrated woman at a meeting say "But I thought I could eat all the grapes I want!" And in this meeting they had to educate her on what "portion control" means.0
-
She won't win unless they pay for her to go away. The government allows labels to say "fat free" if one serving has 0.5 grams of fat or less. As long as they're following the government's standard they don't have anything to worry about.
Plus, she's stupid.0 -
The McDonalds woman won because the coffee was hotter than industry safety standards and caused severe injury.
Plus McDonalds' own people had warned them that the coffee was too hot.0 -
Oh for cryin' in the mother lovin' wind!0
-
That is so funny!
She obviously does not know that if the serving contains less than 5 calories, companies are not required by law to list the amount of calories in it. Spray butter has .8 calories per spray... some people just don't get it. Calories in Calories out... that is how you loose and gain weight. If you are gaining... then calories in is greater than the calories that your body uses... figure it out0 -
I'm going to bet that if she is pouring that much on her food at a time she may not know what the words "portion control" means!0
-
I think there is a valid case here on what is "one serving". Five sprays of that stuff doesn't go very far. The fact that five sprays is a single serving being used to determine that it has <5 calories and can be labeled as 0 calories is wrong.0
-
I0
-
Directions on my can of Olive Oil No Stick Cooking Spray.
1. Shake well.
2. Point arrow on button toward dot on rim.
3. Spray can upright about 6 inches from unheated cook/bakeware. A 1-second spray covers a 10 inch skillet.
Not seeing where it says to spray on food. So if her can is like mine she will lose the suit.
Mine also says 0 calories and 0 calories from fat.
Serving size is 1/4 second spray 0.25 g
Servings Per Container About 649
Calories per gram
fat 9
carbohydrate 4
protein 4
Nowhere does it say to remove spray cap and drizzle. I have not checked other cans but I'm sure they don't say it either.
I doubt this case makes it to trial. I doubt there will a settlement of any kind.
She was using one of the butter sprays, like I Can't Believe It's Not Butter or Parkay. Not a non stick cooking spray.0 -
That's a lot of butter spray. Sorry, but some people are just idiots!0
-
:: rolls eyes :: This is exactly why we should remove common sense warning labels and let Fate sort it out! I hope she loses her case!
Lol... So true! ... survivial of the fittest (or 'saneist' as the case maybe)!0 -
oops. my edit didn't work, dog bumped my arm. lol0
-
Is it less than 5 calories? For some reason, I thought they could list 0 calories only if a serving is less than 0.5 (or 1/2) calorie.0
-
Just because they aren't breaking the labeling laws doesn't mean that she doesn't have a case against them. She's not claiming that they violated labeling laws (and if they had, she likely wouldn't have any standing to bring a case over that). She's claiming that they intentionally marketed the product in a deceptive way and profited unfairly by doing so (and harmed her in the process). That could be done while the labels are in compliance with labeling laws, so the fact that they aren't violating one doesn't mean that they aren't liable for the other.So do I think it's a viable case? Probably, yeah. And, since receiving my disclosure documents for another fifty grand in law school loans today, I'd probably take that case. :devil:
Even though the law permits them to say what they did since those labels plaster "per serving" next to each zero claim it makes?
What seems particularly problematic to me (and this is just from reading the article) is that she basically had no reason not to believe that for a product labeled "Fat-free and calorie-free" with nutrition facts giving a zero for those categories and no disclaimer or information available to the contrary that the usual mathematical rule of "zero times anything is zero" didn't apply. There is a standard that she has to prove (and I haven't taken torts in a few years, so no guarantees of accuracy) that a "reasonably prudent person under the circumstances" would have thought the same thing. And I think she might be able to successfully argue that.
Also been awhile since torts class, but I agree that it is likely a winner. I remember doing the same with the spray when I was in high school...granted, not 2 bottles a week, but... Well, I like to think that I was reasonably intelligent at the time. Sometimes we on MFP forget that not everyone is as focused on nutritional information and therefore are more likely to be deceived by these kinds of misleading labels.0 -
The McDonalds woman won because the coffee was hotter than industry safety standards and caused severe injury.
Plus McDonalds' own people had warned them that the coffee was too hot.
In fact, it was SO hot that the woman had to have skin grafts. Most people don't realize this.0 -
I think there is a valid case here on what is "one serving". Five sprays of that stuff doesn't go very far. The fact that five sprays is a single serving being used to determine that it has <5 calories and can be labeled as 0 calories is wrong.
That is not a valid argument because they clearly marked that they consider a serving five sprays. Whether or not a consumer agrees with that is meaningless. I don't buy the pad thai trays because they claim that one small tray is 1/2 serving and has an insane amount of calories and I know I'd eat both halves.
For the person asking about the .5 versus 5, no, it is 5 and under can be marked as 0. Also, foods can be 20% higher in calories than labeled. So a 100 calorie soda is permitted to have as few as 80 or as many as 120.0 -
Also been awhile since torts class, but I agree that it is likely a winner. I remember doing the same with the spray when I was in high school...granted, not 2 bottles a week, but... Well, I like to think that I was reasonably intelligent at the time. Sometimes we on MFP forget that not everyone is as focused on nutritional information and therefore are more likely to be deceived by these kinds of misleading labels.
I personally don't blame the woman, because the logic makes sense. I just think she is going after the wrong people. Parkay could claim that they are losing revenue because others are able to profit off of the same advertising.0 -
^^THIS^^This is dumb but if it helps fix labeling loopholes that allow crap like trans fats to sneak in while being labeled as 0g trans fat then I'm all for it. I salute you, gross oily veggie lovers.
Stupid, yes -- but the way they're allowed to label is even more asinine, so if this helps fix it, then go for it. It's still stupid, though.0 -
And this is the information on why the jurors eventually sided with the plaintiff in the McDonald's case http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm0
-
You'd be surprised, I've heard people say they do this before. I would try to tell them that it was a per serving thing.0
-
The companies know how to manipulate the labels under the current labeling requirements in an attempt to make their food look "healthy". It is a big game. I am sure the team involved in this has long meetings with many heated discussions on what to consider a "serving". They know how to manipulate it.
Just consider everything yo buy that says 0 calories to actually have 4 per serving. Cooking spray? What is 1/4 of a second spray? Consider your two second spray to have 16 calories.0 -
Ok I agree with most people that this woman needs some common sense (she clearly has some portion control issues). I think they should at least label the container "5 sprays less than 4 cals" or whatever. I have actually seen labels like this and when I log my food I log it for a full 4 just to be safe. But you know strangely I don't see anyone complaining about the cals in some other things.
i have recently noticed that diet mtn dew says 0 cals on a 12oz can but 10 cals on a 20 oz bottle. Not the same thing as other sodas. So after I noticed this I changed diet sodas. I only drink maybe 1 a day and there are others I like but I wanted the 10 cal wiggle room in my diary. I'm sure other sodas have some cals too but they are less.
But you know even if it was listed there are some people that just flat out don't pay attention to warnings/disclaimers/etc.
One example for instance is that my boyfriend has just started reading calorie content on labels. There have been a lot of things where he says "This is only 300 cals per serving." At that point I then ask him how many servings in a package and it says 3. Well obviously most people want the whole thing and now you have 900 cals that you thought would be 300. Obviously most of us who count cals see this and adjust accordingly but other people don't pay attention.
It's just like a majority of the lawsuits against drug companies. I worked in a pharmacy for 4 years and a good number of those drugs had packets of info attached to them to give to patients. I get my prescriptions from walgreens and they print their info packet from the manufacturers packet listing all side effects and staple it to the bag and blah blah blah....you know what!!?!? People still don't read those packets and people still get ticked off when they have a side effect that was listed and people still sue the company. (Granted I know that isn't the case 100% but it is for the majority)0 -
Ffs. What a dipschit.0
-
:: rolls eyes :: This is exactly why we should remove common sense warning labels and let Fate sort it out! I hope she loses her case!
She will probably win the woman who spilled hot coffee on her self at Mc Donalds won didn't she. And for some reason I don't know why I have alway's drank mine hot.....
She won because she had THIRD degree burns. Coffee that hot IS dangerous, regardless of where it spills. That particular McD's had been warned by the dept of health that their product was too hot on multiple occasions, this was not the first time.
I actually researched this lawsuit because I thought it was so dumb, then I realized that McD's was at fault here too.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions