Anyone else see this fat free lawsuit???

13»

Replies

  • lawmama_
    lawmama_ Posts: 103 Member
    Do I agree with her? No. Do I think she's the brightest crayon in the box? No. Do I totally believe that she believed what she says she did? Yes.

    Come to think of it, I remember someone in WW do something similar when I attended meetings there years ago. There was a WW brand cereal that was zero points per serving. So she was eating an entire box of it every single morning for breakfast and then complaining that she was gaining weight. And nothing anyone said to this woman could seem to make her comprehend why.

    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:

    Agree. And it's like saying, "oh, I ate 15 lbs of 95% lean ground beef every day and I have no idea how I gained weight!"
  • joelhoro
    joelhoro Posts: 6
    What's silly is that she pretends that her diet would have been great and she would have lost weight if it were not for this butter. But even if you agree that the labelling is unclear, if she *had* understood that this product is not great for her diet and had not used it, perhaps she would have had just a tiny bit of craving that she would have satisfied with something else of same calory / fat content. So she would have been consuming the same amount of calories, but just not been able to blame it on someone else...
  • dhakiyya
    dhakiyya Posts: 481 Member
    while I think that the woman in question should have had more common sense, I mean the only ingredient was oil so it can't have really been free of fat and calories, I do think it's wrong that they'are allowed to market anything as having zero calories, fat or zero anything else when it actually has them in it. Serving size should not make the blindest bit of difference because zero times anything still equals zero. So if it *really* has zero of something, then 20 servings would still have zero and a million servings would still have zero. Perhaps this woman was better at maths than she was at biology and spotting misleading serving size loopholes. If it hasn't really got zero fat, calories or whatever in it, it should not be allowed to be marketed as such.

    In Britain, if there are very small amounts of something they will write "trace" in the nutritional info, to acknowledge that it does have a tiny little bit of that in it, albeit a smaller quantity than most people would worry about in a normal serving size of it. Trace does not mean zero, and trace x a ridiculous number of servings sizes can add up to something significant. Although in the case of anything that contains nothing but oil, "trace" should not be allowed for either calories or fat, because oil does not contain only a "trace" of either, it is 100% fat and fat has 9cal/g.

    Personally I find this issue very annoying as I track my macros and sometimes I have something that claims it has zero carbs (or whatever) based on a ridiculously small serving size but it clearly has carbs in it because they're listed in the ingredients. However I would like to know how many carbs it *actually* has in it so I can log the carbs that it actually has in it, because even if the company isn't being honest, I'd like to be honest about what I'm eating!! So even if we ignore the issue of people who don't get that it's a loophole and that the company is not being honest, everyone who wants to be accountable about their own diet suffers too, because none of us get accurate info about what's actually in a lot of stuff. No-one benefits. The people who believe the lies don't benefit, as they think they're buying something that's healthier than it really is. And those who don't believe the lies and want accurate info don't get the accurate info.

Categories