Mother Sues Cereal Makers for Sugar Claims

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:52:37 -0600, Tori M.
wrote:

Not that it means much but when They said 1/2 the sugar I thought it ment
1/2 the carbs... But I dont buy that kind of cereal anyway.. my daughter
is
still happy with the healther ones.. you know Kix, Cherios... stuff like
that

Tori


There are healthy cereals? Seriously, no cereals whatsoever are healthy,
regardless of what the Government says.

--
Bob in CT

``Consumers wanted less sugar, so we gave them less sugar,'' she said. ``Our
packaging is clearly labeled with nutritional information that complies''
with government regulations.

A woman suing because she refuses to read anything beyond the ad tagline.
LOL. Just like with hair-dryer labels we'll eventually be seeing a whole
book of "Don't use while sleeping" regulations with every package haha.

Their cocoa crap has less sugar. If she wants to continue to buy crap,
she can't expect it to suddenly be a healthful product.

"There are healthy cereals? Seriously, no cereals whatsoever are
healthy,
regardless of what the Government says.

--
Bob in CT "

That's simply not true. There are lots of true LC cereals available
from Atkins, CarbSense, and others that are formulated with lots of
fiber, no sugar, low in net carbs, and quite good.

Crafting Mom wrote:

``Consumers wanted less sugar, so we gave them less sugar,'' she said. ``Our
packaging is clearly labeled with nutritional information that complies''
with government regulations.


A woman suing because she refuses to read anything beyond the ad tagline.
LOL. Just like with hair-dryer labels we'll eventually be seeing a whole
book of "Don't use while sleeping" regulations with every package haha.

Their cocoa crap has less sugar. If she wants to continue to buy crap,
she can't expect it to suddenly be a healthful product.

If they are advertising it as better and it is not then it is false
advertising. Shouldn't they be held responsible? You shouldn't have to
look further because what they say should be true. And as you should
know what matters is the positioning, not the facts. That's how politics
works too. They use this strategy because it works on humans very
effectively.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 06:57:40 -0800, greg wrote:

Crafting Mom wrote:

``Consumers wanted less sugar, so we gave them less sugar,'' she said. ``Our
packaging is clearly labeled with nutritional information that complies''
with government regulations.


A woman suing because she refuses to read anything beyond the ad tagline.
LOL. Just like with hair-dryer labels we'll eventually be seeing a whole
book of "Don't use while sleeping" regulations with every package haha.

Their cocoa crap has less sugar. If she wants to continue to buy crap,
she can't expect it to suddenly be a healthful product.

If they are advertising it as better and it is not then it is false
advertising.

They advertised that it has "less sugar", and it does indeed have less
sugar than its full-sugar counterpart. Less sugar doesn't turn crap into
something that's not crap.

One liners like "less sugar", "improved"... are not false advertising

Shouldn't they be held responsible?

Only if their product does NOT have "less sugar" like they claim.

"They advertised that it has "less sugar", and it does indeed have less

sugar than its full-sugar counterpart. Less sugar doesn't turn crap
into
something that's not crap.

One liners like "less sugar", "improved"... are not false advertising "


I wouldn't say it's false advertising, just very misleading
advertising. As a example of how they are marketing it, from Kellogg's
website on the reduced sugar fruit loops:

"Give your kids the cereal they love and feel great about doing it.
1/3 less sugar than original brands." This to most people, would imply
that the new version is a healthier alternative, when in fact, it has
virtually the same amount of refined carbs and calories as the
original.

And if you look at the websites and advertising of these companies,
they position themselves as offering new and innovative products that
allow customers to eat healthier. When you take all that in context,
it is IMO, very misleading and unethical.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:56:28 -0800, wrote:

I wouldn't say it's false advertising, just very misleading
advertising. As a example of how they are marketing it, from Kellogg's
website on the reduced sugar fruit loops:

"Give your kids the cereal they love and feel great about doing it.
1/3 less sugar than original brands." This to most people, would imply
that the new version is a healthier alternative, when in fact, it has
virtually the same amount of refined carbs and calories as the
original.

They have to present their product in the best light. It's how things
get sold. Much like the "low carb" yogurt out there. It's sweetened with
splenda and has very little ingredients in it that even remotely
resemble yogurt. But hey, it's technically low carb, tastes like
yogurt, so there ya go. Forget the fact that it's full of food dyes
and artificial flavorings.

The truth is, most people really do only care that something has less
sugar, so yeah, they're going to aim for the thing that people care most
about.

The phrase you quoted about says exactly what it means. I read it as "You
asked for 1/3 less sugar, so here you go." Companies cannot be held
responsible for what people read between the lines, or assumptions that
they make, because there as many assumptions to be made as there are
people in the world.

Do people even have a pulse anymore? The dichotomies in this continent
(North America where I am sitting) are truly baffling. People want the
freedom to speak and think for themselves, and then the next day turn
around because some junk-cereal company wasn't spoon-feeding them
information they should have figured out at the age of ten in
consumer-education class.

I'm amazed some of these people find jobs enough to earn a living! Don't
people need an education level in order to get jobs to earn the money to
buy that crap in the first place?

People will pour months, sometimes years of research into learning "what
the wording means", when it comes to buying a stereo, car, even a ten
dollar music CD, and will pride themselves on how smart they are for doing
so and not getting ripped off, and then sue some Cocoa-puff company
because they didn't say in a 2nd grade reading level "hey we have less
sugar, but It does not mean it's more nutritious, it just means we have
less sugar"...

I'm sorry, but it doesn't fly with me and I have no sympathy for people
who refuse to take responsibility for themselves and critically think like
adults.

These are the same type of people who assume you can use your
hair dryer in the bath-tub just because the new and improved label is on
their and they didn't spell it out for you in the instructions....

If the woman was really THAT concerned about "health" she wouldn't be
feeding her children that crud in the first place. I just have no
sympathy for people who are too lazy to read beyond the tag-line (and
admit it too!!!) and do their own homework. She'd "earn" more money by
ceasing to give the dollars she already has to the cocoa-puff company.
There, problem solved.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:02:36 +0000, Ignoramus6685 wrote:

These cereal companies (just as many others) are built on lies,
deception, "perception management", "positioning", and other cute
tricks to trick people into buying based on reasons other than good
value for the money. Much of their advertising to parents goes along
the lines "this food will make kids shut up and stop bothering you".

So, I feel no pity when they are sued, although an objection to using
stupidity as grounds for lawsuits, is quite valid.

Two wrongs (deceptive marketing and bogus lawsuits) do not make a
right.

Lawyers will get richer, and same crap will continue to sell.

That is true, but still I have no sympathy for people who make a *regular*
purchasing decision BASED ON a one-line advertising tagline. It is not
that much of a stretch of the imagination for someone, short of being in a
coma, to know that *Cocoa-Puffs* are crap food! I don't buy this, "Oh the
backs of those boxes are just too difficult for me to read!" business.

If they own or rent an apartment/house, they have to *read* the tricky
wording on the lease. If they have a job, they have to have *some*,
thinking skills. Even the stock-boy in a grocery store needs them. To
have the ability to know how to word your resume to get a job, and then
turn around and go boo-hoo because yes indeedy, cocoa-puffs are still not
IV-worthy, is a contradiction in terms, IMO.

A one-off purchase, I can understand, but a regular, routine, IV drip
feeding of the stuff, I mean, come on... People are going to find ways to
justify their laziness, but relying on one-liner advertising as the
determining factor for what to include as a regular dietary choice, I'm
sorry, but even the most undereducated can get that.

The woman sounds like she needs to take her third-grade teacher with her
to shop. If she can read the price tag on something, she can flip the box
over and read the ingredients/label.

But, Hey, it's america, my guess is the mother will win the lawsuit.
She's too stupid to read a label, but knows the right trick to weasel
millions of dollars from some junkfood company. So it's obvious she's not
entirely clueless about loopholes and wordings.

Crafting Mom wrote:
:: On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 07:56:28 -0800, wrote:
::
::: I wouldn't say it's false advertising, just very misleading
::: advertising. As a example of how they are marketing it, from
::: Kellogg's website on the reduced sugar fruit loops:
:::
::: "Give your kids the cereal they love and feel great about doing it.
::: 1/3 less sugar than original brands." This to most people, would
::: imply that the new version is a healthier alternative, when in
::: fact, it has virtually the same amount of refined carbs and
::: calories as the original.
::
:: They have to present their product in the best light. It's how
:: things get sold. Much like the "low carb" yogurt out there. It's
:: sweetened with splenda and has very little ingredients in it that
:: even remotely
:: resemble yogurt. But hey, it's technically low carb, tastes like
:: yogurt, so there ya go. Forget the fact that it's full of food dyes
:: and artificial flavorings.
::
:: The truth is, most people really do only care that something has less
:: sugar, so yeah, they're going to aim for the thing that people care
:: most about.
::
:: The phrase you quoted about says exactly what it means. I read it
:: as "You asked for 1/3 less sugar, so here you go." Companies cannot
:: be held responsible for what people read between the lines, or
:: assumptions that they make, because there as many assumptions to be
:: made as there are people in the world.
::
:: Do people even have a pulse anymore? The dichotomies in this
:: continent (North America where I am sitting) are truly baffling.
:: People want the freedom to speak and think for themselves, and then
:: the next day turn around because some junk-cereal company wasn't
:: spoon-feeding them information they should have figured out at the
:: age of ten in consumer-education class.
::
:: I'm amazed some of these people find jobs enough to earn a living!
:: Don't people need an education level in order to get jobs to earn
:: the money to buy that crap in the first place?
::
:: People will pour months, sometimes years of research into learning
:: "what the wording means", when it comes to buying a stereo, car,
:: even a ten dollar music CD, and will pride themselves on how smart
:: they are for doing so and not getting ripped off, and then sue some
:: Cocoa-puff company because they didn't say in a 2nd grade reading
:: level "hey we have less sugar, but It does not mean it's more
:: nutritious, it just means we have less sugar"...
::
:: I'm sorry, but it doesn't fly with me and I have no sympathy for
:: people who refuse to take responsibility for themselves and
:: critically think like adults.
::
:: These are the same type of people who assume you can use your
:: hair dryer in the bath-tub just because the new and improved label
:: is on their and they didn't spell it out for you in the
:: instructions....
::
:: If the woman was really THAT concerned about "health" she wouldn't be
:: feeding her children that crud in the first place. I just have no
:: sympathy for people who are too lazy to read beyond the tag-line (and
:: admit it too!!!) and do their own homework. She'd "earn" more money
:: by ceasing to give the dollars she already has to the cocoa-puff
:: company. There, problem solved.

It appears to be that the woman did read between the lines and that's why
she is bringing the suit. The intent of the manufactures was indeed to
mislead their customers by getting them to believe that the new product is
healthier than the old one when it indeed it is not.

Funny how you have no sympathy for people who are dumb or not critical
thinkers and get taken advantage of. Those are the very ones you should
have sympathy for. I'd have no sympathy for those who know better and yet
refuse to do anything.

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of most people and the quality of
their education or critical thinking. It must be nice to be such a
superior individual. Just for the record, I hold an engineering degree
from a well respected institution and from a look at those labels, I
would have thought that they indeed were being marketed as healthier
versions of the existing product. I'd call that misleading and
deceptive. And I hope the lady succeeds in her lawsuit. It's more
likely that between the suit and perhaps the govt getting aftern them,
they will either change or kill the products.