Fed-up consumers are increasingly going after food companies for misleading claims
Fed-up consumers are increasingly going after food companies for misleading claims
Mango Dragonfruit Starbucks Refreshers are missing mango, Strawberry Açaí Starbucks Refreshers lack açaí and Pineapple Passionfruit Starbucks Refreshers have no passion fruit.
That's what two consumers who have sued Starbucks for consumer protection law violations say about the coffee giant's fruit-based drinks. This week, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled their case could move forward.
U.S. District Judge John Cronan said in his opinion that "a significant portion of reasonable consumers could plausibly be misled into thinking" that Starbucks Refreshers include the fruit in their names.
It's the latest example of a recent legal trend that's seen fed-up consumers taking major food and beverage companies to court over what they say is fishy advertising.
Plaintiffs typically argue that companies are going beyond simple marketing hyperbole and misrepresenting their food and drinks — whether it's promising ingredients that aren't there or displaying promotion images that don't match the real-life items.
There has been a smorgasbord of accusations in recent years: Barilla pasta isn't made in Italy. Burger King's Whoppers are smaller than they appear. The "boneless wings" served at Buffalo Wild Wings aren't actually chicken wings. Subway's "100% tuna" sandwiches either partially or completely lack tuna. Taco Bell skimps on the fillings in its Mexican Pizza, Crunchwrap Supreme and more.
"In general, companies can say great things about their product and make any kind of opinion claims they want to make about it. They can even say it's the best in the world," said Louis Tompros, an intellectual property attorney at the law firm WilmerHale in Boston.
"Opinion claims about a product are called puffery, and they're perfectly fine under false advertising law. What false advertising law does not allow is a false factual claim," he said.
You're viewing a single thread.
Some of this is dumb (not all, just some). We should be going after the FDA for their contrived distinction on "natural/artificial" and shoddy labeling requirements. The companies are always going to do whatever nets the most profit within the rules, which often means using the cheapest or most minimal ingredients.
Let's take candy as an example. I mean, I don't expect lemon Starbursts to contain actual lemon. I think everyone is mostly fine with that being 'artificial' flavor.
But what is artificial, exactly? Chemists don't really make that distinction; just like the FDA, if a molecule is extracted from a living thing it's called a "natural product". But that doesn't actually tell you anything about the molecule itself or mean it's different than it would be if synthesized from components chemicals in any way whatsoever.
Pineapple and pear flavors are just one simple ester each, I've easily made them in a lab. Any lack of "real" taste is probably just a matter of sugar or acidity balance or missing texture. If a commercial product is made well, you'll never know the difference because it's the exact same compound whether it comes from a farm or an industrial vat. That one ester molecule is literally indistinguishable from either source (assuming it's been isolated / 'purified' sufficiently).
But strawberry and apple are much more complex fruits, with dozens or maybe hundreds of esters and other flavor compounds. Fake strawberry and apple might never be convincing. You can easily tell if those tastes are 'artificial' when they lack the nuance of having the right mix of many flavor chemicals.
Now, that claim about the 100% tuna sandwich... that's totally misleading and a good basis for a lawsuit IMO. Nobody is synthesizing a convincing fish protein at scale.
EDIT: Lots of clarifications. EDIT2: Can folks please explain when they downvote? I'm on topic and discussing nuances of the issue here.
Did you read Starbucks as starburst?
No that was just an example of a food item with certain expectations on artificial flavor.
It literally says on the package that Starburst has artificial flavoring. Show me the same on the Starbucks cup.
Here's the one advertised as Pineapple Passionfruit where the ingredients don't list actual passionfruit. It has "natural flavors". Maybe that includes extract from passionfruit, maybe it's entirely from other fruits, but they're not required to say.
https://www.starbucks.com/menu/product/2123675/iced/nutrition
The FDA makes a distinction between "natural" and "artificial" flavor based on source, but my point is that distinction itself is sometimes completely pointless and misleading. For some flavors there is truly zero difference. I suspect that's the case for passionfruit, so it's possible customers are worked up over nothing.
(I would highlight pineapple but Starbucks actually claims there is real freeze-dried pineapple chunks in their drinks, and that seems easy to verify)
Have you ever been to Starbucks?
A few times but not often, their items are overpriced and not particularly good.
I agree, but I go often enough to know that I do actually expect the real fruit to be in the drink, and now wonder what I've been chewing on that tastes like mango. It's definitely advertised that way, and starbursts are not
The answer is almost certainly dragonfruit pieces with mango flavoring.
https://www.starbucks.com/menu/product/2122725/iced/nutrition
That still includes real fruit, but Starbucks has the liberty to name the drink based on its flavors and not solely on the ingredients. I'm not claiming that's entirely ethical, but it definitely seems allowed per the FDA rules.
Turns out, freeze dried pineapples (in the paradise drinks). I thought it was mango. Honestly now that I realize they weren't saying what I thought they were, this does seem somewhat frivolous
Right? it's easy to have a knee-jerk reaction. But compared to all the terrible things companies do, flavoring is super minor. The FDA doesn't really restrict them much here as long as the ingredients are generally safe to consume.
I'd like to see more people angry about sugar & corn syrup content, that's actually bad for our bodies and there was half a century of bribes and disinformation behind it.