In article <[email hidden]>, "cybercat" <[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.The term "all natural" is a non-term.
What exactly is a "non-term"?
Quoted message said:Arsenic is all natural.
Irrelevant. Context is important.
I was reporting what I heard in the food news and have no esoteric
knowledge on the specific statutory or regulatory requirements material
to this litigation (as yet). However, it seems to me that what is
important here is how the term "all natural" (and of course it is a
term) is generally understood by consumers as it applies to *food
products* --- not common poisons or bodily waste. The "all natural"
descriptor implies that the food is safe and healthy without chemical
additives, used in this context and that is how it is generally
perceived by the vast majority of consumers. Further, that is precisely
what Kraft means to convey when it applies that label because Kraft
wants to sell a lot of product and make a great deal of money on it.
Kraft knows that is what people want to buy.
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.