Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: Nutella Lawsuit...
Of course people should look at the labels, but the lawsuit is about the advertising not lying on the packaging.
As someone who has never had nutella, the emphasis on hazelnut spread with a "hint" of cocoa sounds like an alternative to peanut butter or some other reasonably healthy spread. I would not have assumed chocolatey goodness by watching the description in the commercial. Now knowing what it is I of course look at the commercials differently and roll my eyes as I would if they attempted to imply Lucky Charms was a balanced breakfast.
Of course people should look at the labels, but the lawsuit is about the advertising not lying on the packaging.
As someone who has never had nutella, the emphasis on hazelnut spread with a "hint" of cocoa sounds like an alternative to peanut butter or some other reasonably healthy spread. I would not have assumed chocolatey goodness by watching the description in the commercial. Now knowing what it is I of course look at the commercials differently and roll my eyes as I would if they attempted to imply Lucky Charms was a balanced breakfast.
If you think that a spread of most peanut butters are reasonably "healthy" for your kids for breakfast, then you need to be doing more research. Also every commercial that uses the phrase "part of a balanced breakfast" means you have to a whole bunch of other good stuff to balance out the cr0p being advertised. Nutella is by far not the first to do this, by a long shot.
And don't go dissing my Lucky Charms.
My eyes cannot roll hard enough at all of this.
Click me, click me!
lol, okay. Anyway, there are nutritionists that do recommend (at least for diabetics) that whole wheat toast with peanut butter is an option for breakfast. I would think their dietary needs are a little more restrictive than that of the average kid, but whatevs. As for the rest of your post, there is nothing that balances out nutella. It takes a balanced healthy breakfast and makes it unhealthy. Maybe you should do your research and check the calorie content again.
I agree with you, however, no one is suing Hidden Valley Ranch for their commercials where kids are eating all kinds of vegetables after drowning them in ranch dressing.
I don't see how the Nutella commercial is all that different.
(sorry no clicky)
True. : ) I forgot about that commercial. It actually pisses me off because there is nothing I can drown veggies in that will make my son eat them so joyfully as they do in that commercial!
I guess their saving grace is that they don't actually discuss the ingredients. Also they make it pretty clear it is just a way to get your kids to eat veggies, not that ranch dressing itself is good for you or will add nutritional value to balance out the meal.
Well for my normal adult DSV, 2 tablespoons of peanut butter is ~25% of my recommended fat, in 2 tablespoons--not what I consider healthy. I have no idea what it would be for kids because I don't have kids.
I'm not saying Nutella is good for you (other than is does induce joy). But then if you actually pay attention to the commercials, neither did they. They said you can get kids to eat healthy things but putting Nutella on it--that is not a lie. The only lie I've seen is the "hint of cocoa" and that doesn't seem to be what people are upset about (and since there isn't a set definition of what exactly a "hint: is, I don't think they could really say that is a proven lie either). People aren't suing Healthy Choice because their meals aren't really all that healthy and they have it in their name--sorry, I'm just on the consumers need to take responsibility for what they eat and feed their kids. That is the entire reason the nutritional information is there.
I just watched the Hidden Valley commercial. What are they lying about? it does make vegetables delectable. Nowhere in that commercial to they say it is nutritious or otherwise suggest it has healthy ingredients in it. They don't even say that vegetables are nutritious or made more nutritious with it.
Contract that with the Nutella commercial, which as cookie points out, describes the ingredients. The commercial says the ingredients are milk, hazelnuts, and a hint of cocoa.
Do you know what the actual ingredients in Nutella are? In order from the most prominent to least prominent:
Sugar
Palm Oil
Hazelnuts
cocoa
Milk
chemically things
Basically, there's a drop of milk and a crap ton of sugar. Not a full glass of milk and a pinch of chocolate. And there's more palm oil than nuts or milk.
That's the part that's false and misleading.
If someone did not know that federal law mandates that companies list their ingredients from the most prominent to the least prominent, then how would they know that it's junk food, based on the what the ad says?
whatever.
Trader Joe's Cocoa Almond Spread is better. Fact.
You know how we do
Click me, click me!
word. One only need compare the labels on Nutella and PB to see that PB is the better choice. It is higher in protein and lower in sugar. Even the big brands like Jif (my personal fave) and Skippy.
You know how we do
I have given up. Come join me. : )
I understand what you are saying and agree that Nutella's ad is misleading, but so is just about every ad on tv. And I think that the Hidden Valley Ranch commercial is misleading in a similar way (but not the same, identical way).
Someone might see that commercial and think "oh, great idea! if I want my kid to eat his veggies, I'll just have him dip them in ranch dressing!" without knowing that regular ranch dressing has 14 grams of fat in just 2 tablespoons.
I have no issue with Nutella getting sued, but I why aren't they all getting sued? I grew up hearing that Cookie Crisp and Fruit Loops are a part of a balanced breakfast...has anyone sued General Mills or Kelloggs over this? Because there is no way that's remotely true. (I'm asking for real.)
::raises hand::
I just bought some cinnamon raisin peanut butter and it's amazing. I've had the jar for less than week and it's more than halfway gone. I don't even want to talk about the "nutritional" information...
I have never heard of this. Part of me wants to know where I can find this, but I am scared I may fall in love with it.
Whole Foods :-)
http://ilovepeanutbutter.com/
it's from a sandwich shop in nyc. some of the sandwiches on the menu look awesome!
I think there's a huge difference in the Hidden Valley Ranch ad and the Nutella ad. HVR does not call itself healthy and does not stress healthy ingredients.
In the world of false advertising law (at least in California where this case was filed), it's not just about whether something was misleading. Rather you have to show a consumer made a decision to purchase the product because of the misleading statement.
Think about it - do you really believe these two scenarios are similar?
1. A consumer saw the Nutella ad, and heard Nutella's representation that it is part of a nutritious breakfast, and is full of milk and nuts, and bought it because they believed Nutella is full of milk and nuts. Then they learned it was not full of milk and nuts, and was full of sugar and palm oil.
2. A consumer saw the HVR ad, and heard HVR's statement that kids can dip their vegetables in it, and made no representation about the nutritional aspects of the dip or emphasized any healthy ingredients in the dip itself. The consumer bought it. Then they learned that kids can still dip their vegetables in it, but the dip was not healthy.
Do you see why they aren't similar AT ALL?
Advertising is legal. False advertising is not.
As for sugary cereals not getting sued...have you read the nutritional info for some of them? They aren't horrible. There's sugar in there, but many of them have actual vitamins in them.
Cookie Crisp has less sugar, more iron, and more vitamins A and C than Nutella. And even before you add the milk to Cookie Crisp, it still has more calcium than Nutella. That's why it's legal for Cookie Crisp to say it's part of a balanced breakfast. It actually is.
Nutella adds nothing of nutritional value to a breakfast.
Nutella is not comparable to sugary cereals. It's more along the lines of a candy bar. And there's a reason why you don't hear Snickers calling itself part of a balanced breakfast - that would be illegal.
Yes, I know what the ingredients are, I actually look at the Federally mandated labels. Honestly, the only thing that is making me roll my eyes at this lawsuit is the people complaining that they actually gave it to their kids thinking it was "healthy"--because I think they should have some level of responsibility to actually read the labels on things *before* they feed it to their kids.
That I think they skirt the edges and other than "hint of cocoa", they don't outright lie; they do mislead, yes. But in order to feed it to your kids, you need to actually pick up a jar--why bother making companies put the nutritional information on everything if people don't have some level of responsibility to actually read it.
OK, but this brings me back to ringstrue's question: Why do consumers have a responsibility to read the label but manufacturers don't have a responsibility not to mislead customers?
I don't think anybody in this thread has said that people shouldn't read labels. And remember that this was a settlement, not a jury verdict. Had it gone to trial, maybe Nutella would have prevailed. If Nutella believed its case was strong enough to win and that this hill was worth dying on, it didn't have to settle.
But don't you think it's a little ridiculous to put the entire burden on a consumer but leave manufacturers free to engage in deceptive practicies? How about we insist that everyone, including corporate entities, behave responsibly?
Anything you can achieve through hard work, you could also just buy.