[jjsheridan5]

Only to a liberal.

What in the world does politics have to do with this? I have known many liberals who were quite knowledgeable about nutrition-label gotchas, and an embarrassingly large number of conservatives who were utterly clueless. This has nothing to do with politics. If you think that they chose this phrase "evaporated cane juice" for any reason other than deceiving people (conservatives, independents, and liberals alike), then you are simply wrong. This shouldn't be handled via a lawsuit (in fact, attempting to do so seems like an abuse of the judicial system), but on the other hand, there is no question that these types of practices are blatantly deceptive.

[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?

[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?