Kraft Sued for Mislabeling (again)

"Emma Thackery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kraft is being sued because the drink Caprisun is/was
allegedly labeled
"All Natural" despite that one of the main ingredients is high
fructose
corn syrup. Apparently, products containing HFCS are not
legally
entitled to carry the "all natural" label according to the
complaint.
That would certainly make sense.

This news item really grabbed my attention because I've had so
many
problems with gluten in Kraft products that were allegedly
wheat free.
Companies that run fast and loose in one area tend to abuse
the
consumers' trust in other areas as well.

For my own education, what's unnatural about high fructose corn
syrup? Isn't corn a natural product?

--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

"James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Emma Thackery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kraft is being sued because the drink Caprisun is/was allegedly labeled
"All Natural" despite that one of the main ingredients is high fructose
corn syrup. Apparently, products containing HFCS are not legally
entitled to carry the "all natural" label according to the complaint.
That would certainly make sense.

This news item really grabbed my attention because I've had so many
problems with gluten in Kraft products that were allegedly wheat free.
Companies that run fast and loose in one area tend to abuse the
consumers' trust in other areas as well.

For my own education, what's unnatural about high fructose corn syrup?
Isn't corn a natural product?
James Silverton

Labeling as "natural"
In May 2006, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) threatened
to file a lawsuit against Cadbury Schweppes for labeling 7 Up as "All
Natural", despite containing high fructose corn syrup. While the FDA has no
definition of "Natural", CSPI claims that HFCS is not a "natural" ingredient
due to the high level of processing and the use of at least one genetically
modifed (GMO) enzyme required to produce it.[19] In January 2007, Cadbury
Schweppes agreed to stop calling 7 Up "All Natural".[

"Emma Thackery" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Kraft is being sued because the drink Caprisun is/was allegedly labeled
"All Natural" despite that one of the main ingredients is high fructose
corn syrup. Apparently, products containing HFCS are not legally
entitled to carry the "all natural" label according to the complaint.
That would certainly make sense.

This news item really grabbed my attention because I've had so many
problems with gluten in Kraft products that were allegedly wheat free.
Companies that run fast and loose in one area tend to abuse the
consumers' trust in other areas as well.

The term "all natural" is a non-term. Arsenic is all natural.

Emma Thackery said...

Quoted message said:

If the product is not what Kraft implies or represents it to be and is
playing semantic games, then it is a fraud on the consumer just as it
would be a fraud to label a product that includes HFCS "sugar-free" by
asserting that "sugar-free" only implies the absence of cane sugar.

HFCS isn't found in nature. It's a genetically engineered product. I wouldn't
call it all natural. Corn syrup, yes, HFCS, no.

Imho,

Andy

JoeSpareBedroom said:

"Dave Bugg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

JoeSpareBedroom said:

Labeling as "natural"
In May 2006, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)
threatened to file a lawsuit against Cadbury Schweppes for labeling
7 Up as "All Natural", despite containing high fructose corn syrup.
While the FDA has no definition of "Natural", CSPI claims that HFCS
is not a "natural" ingredient due to the high level of processing
and the use of at least one genetically modifed (GMO) enzyme
required to produce it.[19] In January 2007, Cadbury Schweppes
agreed to stop calling 7 Up "All Natural".[

I guess that means bullcrap ain't all-natural either, according to
CSPI; it is, after all, highly processed.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right, considering your massive background in
food chemistry, and your hundreds of patents.

Since that is the requirement, I guess that leaves out the CSPI.

--
"So long, so long, and thanks for all the fish!"
Dave
www.davebbq.com

In article <[email hidden]>,

Steve Wertz said:

Emma Thackery said:

Kraft is being sued because the drink Caprisun is/was allegedly labeled
"All Natural" despite that one of the main ingredients is high fructose
corn syrup. Apparently, products containing HFCS are not legally
entitled to carry the "all natural" label according to the complaint.
That would certainly make sense.

This is BS. Almost all manufacturers (and probably the USDA)
consider HFCS "All Natural" and label it as such. Some greedy
lawyer(s) just went after Kraft because they've got the most cash
to make them go away.

I'm sure the Princeton Law Review will be holding the presses in
anticipation of publishing your astounding "BS" and "greedy lawyer"
arguments. 😉

Quoted message said:

...I'm sure they'll fight it, though (if it doesn't get thrown out
immediately).

I find it noteworthy that you seem come down on the side of misleading
consumers. Kraft, on the other hand, said it will revise the label and
the formulation of the product. Perhaps you should let them know you
disagree and think they can continue to mislead consumers unfettered by
either rule or ethic. USDA regulations, BTW, say that meat and poultry
can only be labeled "all natural" if they contain no artificial or
synthetic ingredients and if they are minimally processed. Of course it
is the FDA that is relevant here (not USDA) and their regulations are
reportedly not as clear.

<http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=73188-kraft-cspi-natural
-hfcs>

Emma

JoeSpareBedroom said:

Labeling as "natural"
In May 2006, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) threatened

CSPI takes up some pretty fringe stances, in my opinion. They are barely
one step better than PETA on the "nutjob" scale.

Quoted message said:

Natural", despite containing high fructose corn syrup. While the FDA has no
definition of "Natural", CSPI claims that HFCS is not a "natural" ingredient
due to the high level of processing and the use of at least one genetically
modifed (GMO) enzyme required to produce it.[19] In January 2007, Cadbury

One minor nit, a GMO is a "genetically modified organism." In other words
a living thing. An enzyme is not a living thing, though living things both
depend upon and produce enzymes, they aren't organisms in themselves and
you could not genetically modify an enzyme. You might
genetically modify an organism to produce a different enzyme, or maybe
just more of a particular enzyme, but the enzyme itself is just an
enzyme and neither an organism or genetic.

On the "natural" vs. "un-natural" I'll just say that people have been
using various bacteria, yeasts, and molds to convert starches and sugars
into different forms for millenia. Is bread, beer, and wine all un-natural?.
I'm pretty sure the yeasts and mothers have been selectively bred and "modified"
over the years. Now, if they had to use gene-splicing, I can at least see
the argument. Not that I totally agree, but I can at least see it as a valid
point of argument.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

Andy wrote on Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:30:35 -0500:

??>> If the product is not what Kraft implies or represents it
??>> to be and is playing semantic games, then it is a fraud on
??>> the consumer just as it would be a fraud to label a
??>> product that includes HFCS "sugar-free" by asserting that
??>> "sugar-free" only implies the absence of cane sugar.

A> HFCS isn't found in nature. It's a genetically engineered
A> product. I wouldn't call it all natural. Corn syrup, yes,
A> HFCS, no.

A> Imho,

I'm glad you said IMHO since HFCS refers to a group of corn
syrups which have undergone enzymatic processing in order to
increase their fructose content and are then mixed with pure
corn syrup (100% glucose) to reach their final form (Wikipedia).
Processing, be it by machines or enzymes, is *not* genetic
engineering. Even if people did not know it, they were using
enzymes before history began.

It was H.G. Wells who said that the most unnatural thing he
could think of was a ploughed field but
the familiar always seems more "natural" than the new.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not

In article said:

Emma Thackery said...

Quoted message said:

If the product is not what Kraft implies or represents it to be and is
playing semantic games, then it is a fraud on the consumer just as it
would be a fraud to label a product that includes HFCS "sugar-free" by
asserting that "sugar-free" only implies the absence of cane sugar.=

HFCS isn't found in nature. It's a genetically engineered product. I wouldn't
call it all natural.

Me either

Quoted message said:

Corn syrup, yes, HFCS, no.

q said:

Emma Thackery said...

Quoted message said:

If the product is not what Kraft implies or represents it to be and is
playing semantic games, then it is a fraud on the consumer just as it
would be a fraud to label a product that includes HFCS "sugar-free" by
asserting that "sugar-free" only implies the absence of cane sugar.

HFCS isn't found in nature. It's a genetically engineered product. I wouldn't
call it all natural. Corn syrup, yes, HFCS, no.

well as long as we're all being obtuse... that corn syrup probably came
from a hybrid (genetically modified) variety... in fact probably all
industrially farmed corn is hybrid

tert in seattle said:

well as long as we're all being obtuse... that corn syrup
probably came from a hybrid (genetically modified) variety... in
fact probably all industrially farmed corn is hybrid

I think it's safe to say that Indians started hybridizing
corn thousands of years ago and there is no such thing as
a wild strain of corn in agriculture.

Where you draw the line between normal hybridizing and
genetic engineering, I'm not sure.

Steve

In article said:

JoeSpareBedroom said:

Labeling as "natural"
In May 2006, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)
threatened

CSPI takes up some pretty fringe stances, in my opinion. They are barely
one step better than PETA on the "nutjob" scale.

Gosh, I'm just a little curious about what your "fringe" conclusion is
based on. Could you elaborate? Was it that they managed to get lower
amounts of sodium nitrates in bacon and similar foods? Was it their
success in getting amounts of sodium in food labeled? Or perhaps that
they were able to get fast food enterprises to stop cooking french fries
in beef fat?

Emma

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Steve Pope) said:

tert in seattle said:

well as long as we're all being obtuse... that corn syrup
probably came from a hybrid (genetically modified) variety... in
fact probably all industrially farmed corn is hybrid

I think it's safe to say that Indians started hybridizing
corn thousands of years ago and there is no such thing as
a wild strain of corn in agriculture.

Where you draw the line between normal hybridizing and
genetic engineering, I'm not sure.

With normal hybridization, genetic modifications are not usually
imported from other species as they are in genetic engineering where
genes from animals can be implanted into the DNA of a plant for
instance. You cannot hybridize a deer with an daffodil but you can
implant genes from one to the other via genetic engineering. That
should be enough to require a very high degree of regulation and
oversight for such processes. No?

Quoted message said:

tert in seattle said:

well as long as we're all being obtuse... that corn syrup
probably came from a hybrid (genetically modified) variety... in
fact probably all industrially farmed corn is hybrid

I think it's safe to say that Indians started hybridizing
corn thousands of years ago and there is no such thing as
a wild strain of corn in agriculture.

Where you draw the line between normal hybridizing and
genetic engineering, I'm not sure.

for corn I would draw the line at detasseling

Emma Thackery said:

[email hidden] (Steve Pope) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Where you draw the line between normal hybridizing and
genetic engineering, I'm not sure.

Quoted message said:

With normal hybridization, genetic modifications are not usually
imported from other species as they are in genetic engineering where
genes from animals can be implanted into the DNA of a plant for
instance. You cannot hybridize a deer with an daffodil but you can
implant genes from one to the other via genetic engineering. That
should be enough to require a very high degree of regulation and
oversight for such processes. No?

Sounds like a reasonable distinction. (Although I have heard
that "lateral gene transfers" occur in nature, specifically
genes that have been artificially spliced in tend to migrate
around and appear in unexpected places...)

S.

Emma Thackery said:

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

CSPI takes up some pretty fringe stances, in my opinion. They are barely

Quoted message said:

Gosh, I'm just a little curious about what your "fringe" conclusion is
based on. Could you elaborate? Was it that they managed to get lower

Just my opinion, as I clearly stated. This HFCS thing is a good example.
It's mostly overblown nonsense. It's sugar, pretty much like any other.

Quoted message said:

amounts of sodium nitrates in bacon and similar foods? Was it their
success in getting amounts of sodium in food labeled? Or perhaps that
they were able to get fast food enterprises to stop cooking french fries
in beef fat?

And, getting fast food to stop using beef fat was so wonderful because . . .?

Oh, because the fast food places replaced it with a lot of trans fats and that
gave CSPI something else to rant about and claim "victory" over years later.

Sorry, I didn't see that as a big deal then, and I still don't. Does anyone
seriously think it's that much more healthy to eat french fries now?

They also seem to take sole credit for a lot things that came about by
the actions, words and deeds of many people. Nope, they aren't "all that"
in my opinion. You're not going to tell me they were the only ones
asking for decent labeling on foods, yet if you read their web site they
certainly lay claim to it.

Bill Ranck
Blacksburg, Va.

In article said:

Emma Thackery said...

Quoted message said:

If the product is not what Kraft implies or represents it to be and is
playing semantic games, then it is a fraud on the consumer just as it
would be a fraud to label a product that includes HFCS "sugar-free" by
asserting that "sugar-free" only implies the absence of cane sugar.

HFCS isn't found in nature. It's a genetically engineered product.

I don't think "genetically engineered" means what you think it
means.

Mike Beede

Mike Beede said...

Quoted message said:

In article said:

Emma Thackery said...

Quoted message said:

If the product is not what Kraft implies or represents it to be and is
playing semantic games, then it is a fraud on the consumer just as it
would be a fraud to label a product that includes HFCS "sugar-free" by
asserting that "sugar-free" only implies the absence of cane sugar.

HFCS isn't found in nature. It's a genetically engineered product.

I don't think "genetically engineered" means what you think it
means.

Mike Beede

Genetically modified, whatever!

The leap from CS to HFCS would never have occurred if somebody hadn't
messed with it genetically. Is that natural?

Andy

Emma Thackery said:

Kraft is being sued because the drink Caprisun is/was allegedly labeled
"All Natural" despite that one of the main ingredients is high fructose
corn syrup. Apparently, products containing HFCS are not legally
entitled to carry the "all natural" label according to the complaint.
That would certainly make sense.

This news item really grabbed my attention because I've had so many
problems with gluten in Kraft products that were allegedly wheat free.
Companies that run fast and loose in one area tend to abuse the
consumers' trust in other areas as well.

Emma

And another serious mislabelinghttp://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21421240-5005961,00.html