Weasels on Parade

Did you ever notice how some advertising -- and product labeling -- plays a bit fast and loose with the definitions? The classic example is probably fruit juice products, where you might see phrases such as "Made With" and "Made From" real fruit juice. These may sound good, but unfortunately neither one is actually defined under the law. In the actual product, "Made With" can indicate that something has 10% fruit juice in it, the rest being water, artificial flavors and colors, chemically altered high-fructose corn syrup, and so on. "Made From" sounds better, but something can still be made FROM 10% fruit juice -- along with 60% water, 25% corn syrup, and 5% artificial flavors and colors added to the mixture. It really isn't until you get to "Made From 100% fruit juice and nothing else" that you can say for sure what's in the package.

Of course, recent years have seen changes in the packaging laws that require food to be labeled with the exact ingredients, how much sugar and fat they contain, and so on, which means that if you aren't sure how much actually produce is in a fruit drink, for example, you can just look it up. Still, a lot of people make a lot of money by putting sales slogans like "Made with REAL FRUIT JUICE!" on their label and hoping that the consumer is too lazy and/or too stupid to read the ingredients and call them on it.

But what about claims that aren't even about nutritional content? There was a good article on MSN on the subject of "Green" products that aren't really, which points out that some of these claims would be impossible to verify standing there in the supermarket. "Natural," for example, has no legal definition. Most people would think twice before putting it on a product containing compounds not found in nature, but that takes in a surprisingly small amount of ground, especially in terms of flavorings and colorings. "Cruelty-free" is another good one; vegans and PETA supporters (to the extent that there's any difference) would tell you that any use of animals for food or other commercial purpose is cruel, while some hunters I have known maintain that as long as you don't actually torture the animal before you eat it, everything is fine. Farmers I have met don't even understand that distinction; to them, for the most part, animals are food, and they don't worry about them any more than you worry how a can of soda feels about being drunk.

Probably the best example is "Non-Toxic." Decades ago, this just meant that if you got some of the product in your mouth, it wouldn't kill you. But then came public interest law, consumer protection acts, and some very messy product liability suits, and today the "Non-Toxic" label usually means that if you eat it, it will taste bad, but nothing untoward will happen to you as a result. Likewise, claims that a product will not harm the environment are an open invitation to environmental groups and their lawyers, and consequently most companies either won't put this on the label or will make very sure they can back it up in court.

Of course, the claims that a product is actually environmentally friendly are even harder to disprove, and have resulted in a variety of official certifications, like Energy Star (which is backed by the EPA and Department of Energy), which really does indicate that it uses less energy, USDA Organic (which really is backed by the US Department of Agriculture), which indicates that the product contains at least 95% organic content, or FSC Certified (backed by an independent non-profit group), on wood or paper products made from trees harvested using sustainable methods. Products with these certifications are much easier to market, and there is some indication that manufacturing companies are attempting to find ways to conform to these standards without adding to the production costs, in order to increase profitability at minimal investment...

But it still pays to read the label...