Anyone else see this fat free lawsuit???

24

Replies

  • cole_carter
    cole_carter Posts: 174 Member
    I wonder how Darwin would conceptualize this?
  • jennajocummings
    jennajocummings Posts: 104
    No wonder I'm fat! =)
  • leslielt
    leslielt Posts: 113 Member
    You have to be kidding. They said a serving is fat-free. Not the whole dang bottle!

    I've used the spray ranch dressing and it's like 5 calories for ten sprays which is more than enough. I'm guessing the same is true with the 1-5 sprays of substitute butter the article says you can have per serving.
  • lolagurlx0x0
    lolagurlx0x0 Posts: 149 Member
    IDIOT- They also say calorie and fat free on spray oil. But im not going to get a spray can of vegetable oil and fry things in it. This sounds like the opening of one those tacky dumb blonde jokes....
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    Don't those bottles label that the bottle actually does have calories? I think they do ... but would 900 unaccounted calories over two weeks be enough to make someone GAIN when they are trying to lose? I would think worst case she would maintain.

    Edit: Oops misread. 1800 unaccounted calories a week, not 900. But I don't think that could have made her gain drastic amounts of weight anyway.
  • leslielt
    leslielt Posts: 113 Member
    Everyone here.. needs to go look at the other thread about this. Pretty funny. They are opposite threads..

    Protect yourself, do your own research, that is the only way to be sure! If something says '0' calories, please just know.. they can consider 5 calories, 0.
    Absolutley you have to be smart and they sholdn't be allowed to misled people with their labeling but at the same time pouring it over your veggies kind of defeats the purpose. Calories and fat are important but there are other factors beside calories and fat that are more important. I've found most things labeled healthy aren't so maybe that's why I'm not "shocked" like this two bottles a week person. Hmm I went off topic a little :)
  • smhammons
    smhammons Posts: 115 Member
    :: 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.....
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    The McDonalds woman won because the coffee was hotter than industry safety standards and caused severe injury.

    But this woman should sue legislators if she wants to see change. They followed the 5 calorie and under law, so they didn't do anything wrong under current standards.
  • cbferriss
    cbferriss Posts: 122
    Maybe this will force the government to stop allowing companies to claim a product contains 0 fat when it's really a fraction of a gram. You know, they do the same thing with trans fat. If it's under a certain fraction of a gram per serving, a product can claim it has 0 trans fat. Rubish!!!!
  • ZugTheMegasaurus
    ZugTheMegasaurus Posts: 801 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:
  • rml_16
    rml_16 Posts: 16,414 Member
    Did she miss the "per serving" caveat? WTH! And ... YUCK!
  • elisa123gal
    elisa123gal Posts: 4,287 Member
    i'm picturing the old cheeze whiz spray in the mouth thing...only with butter spray. haha.
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    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?
  • ZugTheMegasaurus
    ZugTheMegasaurus Posts: 801 Member
    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?
    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.

    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.
  • Sherryluka
    Sherryluka Posts: 2
    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!!
  • FlaxMilk
    FlaxMilk Posts: 3,452 Member
    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.)
  • lupo316
    lupo316 Posts: 26
    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.
  • carld256
    carld256 Posts: 855 Member
    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.
  • carld256
    carld256 Posts: 855 Member
    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.
  • caNwa
    caNwa Posts: 26 Member
    Oh for cryin' in the mother lovin' wind!

Categories