Jelly Belly sued by woman claiming she didn't know jelly beans contain sugar

Fox News ^ | 5/25/17 | Fox News Staff

[IYAS9YAS]

The simple fact is, the label at the time was "true" as to what was in the product. Regardless of what they called it, the label was factual. Sugar is an accepted generic label for many different things. They were actually being more specific in the label. If they said sucrose, and not sugar, would they have been wrong?

Would the lady still have eaten them?

[hal ogen]

The woman and her attorney are idiots...MEGA-idiots.

[jjsheridan5]

The nutrition side clearly states there are Carbs and lists the number of carbs that are "sugars."

You cannot determine added sugars from the nutritional label alone. The only way to determine added sugars is to use the nutritional label in conjunction with the ingredient list. But, in this case, the ingredient list contains a phrase that is clearly intended to deceive.

As far as the lawsuit (which is a ridiculous one): most people when they avoid "sugars" are avoiding added sugars. Natural sugars are not nearly as damaging to people who are diabetic, worried about diabetes, or attempting to lose weight (which is why fruits and safe starches are generally acceptable in many common dietary approaches). The problem is two-fold: nutritional labels are incomplete, in that they fail to differentiate natural and free sugars. Secondly, manufacturers have become quite creative in terms of hiding free sugars behind innocuous-sounding phrases. Take, for example, one of the labels above. It has a laundry list of ingredients including things like "mango juice concentrate". What in the world is that, exactly? Is that table sugar, derived from evaporated mango juice, or is it plain concentrate? What additional steps were taken to this evaporated mango juice? Is it just a deceptive way of saying "(free) sugar"? What about "mango puree"? Is it the same thing as what I would get if I took a mango and threw it in a food processor, or is it essentially table sugar that has been derived from mangos? I have no idea, and neither do you. And there is no way to tell from the nutrition label.

In the past, sugar would have been listed as "sugar", regardless of source. Now, manufacturers are very deceptive.

[IYAS9YAS]

What in the world does politics have to do with this?

Your statement of 100% true, but 100% deceptive. That's what. Was the product evaporated cane juice or not? What prevented this moron from searching for "Evaporated Cane Juice" if she was concerned about it?

If I said my product contained sodium chloride evaporated from sea water, would I be sued because some idiot didn't know that was salt?

[Gamecock]

Jelly Bean? I' ve been wanting a piece of them for years.

[IYAS9YAS]

Now, manufacturers are very deceptive.

Actually, I'd say "sugar" is more deceptive than sucrose, fructose, lactose, or any of the other natural or refined versions. Sugar could be any of them. Evaporated cane juice tells me it's not from beets or fruit. If I want to know more, I can look it up.

[jjsheridan5]

Actually, you are right, in that "sugar" is very ambiguous. As far as "looking it up", the problem is that, in most cases, you can't. Evaporated cane juice is a general term, and doesn't have a specific definition. All I know is that none of the language used in an ingredient label is accidental. Every term that they use is carefully chosen, and is run by both marketers and lawyers prior to use. And this particular term is chosen because most people will not think of "juice" as "sugar", and because most people who are reading nutritional labels are avoiding, among other things, "sugar". This is deception. And this is why the FDA issued a "recommendation" that evaporated cane juice is a deceptive term, and the term "sugar" should be used instead (it came out in the lawsuit against one of the yoghurt companies, IIRC). However, this was not binding, and while the FDA called the term deceptive, and said that companies (like this jelly bean company) shouldn't use it, it is not illegal to do so.

[jjsheridan5]

The purpose of a nutritional label is to convey information to consumers, in a manner that consumers can make informed choices. It is not there to act as marketing information, nor is it there to show off one's cleverness. If you call "salt" "sodium chloride evaporated from sea water", then you are using the nutritional label not to convey information, but rather to conceal it. You know perfectly well that virtually 100% of people know what salt is, but that a much smaller percentage know what "sodium chloride evaporated from sea water" is. I am not saying that what you are doing is illegal (I have no idea) -- what I do know is that it would be an attempt at deception, it would be an attempt to conceal the type of information that nutritional labels are supposed to convey, and that there is no reason to choose that particular wording other than to deceive. As I said, it may or may not be illegal. But it would certainly be unethical.

Much like a liberal.

[IYAS9YAS]

As I said, it may or may not be illegal. But it would certainly be unethical.

This is where we simply have to agree to disagree. Ultimately, I think her lawsuit falls apart, as she claims the label didn't say there was sugar in the product, but the image of the very label that states "evaporated cane juice" also very clearly shows that there are most definitely sugars in the product. 17 grams of them, in fact.

How she could claim the first, without looking an inch to the right and not see the second, is beyond all reason and logic.

[Kickass Conservative]

For a moment, just imagine the first phone call she made to her Lawyer.

[jjsheridan5]

I agree, and when you see “17 grams of sugar”, it is a good bet that added sugars are involved. But the purpose of nutritional labels is to convey information in the clearest possible manner. It’s purpose is not to kill off stupid people. There is absolutely no good reason to use the term “evaporated cane juice” rather than “sugar”.

As far as the actual lawsuit goes, I know that a similar lawsuit failed, but the fact that the FDA has recommended the term not be used may change the outcome in this case. She may be stupid. This may be a frivolous lawsuit. But none of that negates the underlying unethical acts taken by this company. It really is as bad as the ones who use “celery juice” instead of nitrates (IIRC, some even went so far as to say “no added nitrates”!). It is just blatantly unethical.

[KarlInOhio]

That’s one dumb, and/or delusional PhD.

More of naive to label trickiness. Once I said cane meant sugarcane he figured out everything quickly and wasn't happy at being tricked.

[zeugma]

Now here’s a woman who could use a lifetime supply of Sugar Free Gummy Bears.

Now that's just evil.

[minnesota_bound]

Never thought about suing anyone as it is a whole lot of bother. Sure I have offed a few people here and there who done me wrong. I would never sue..... : )