Smucker sued over '100 percent' fruit label

[B00ne]

May I add something. Funny lawsuits you guys have.
But anyway I have to disagree with you ppl saying that because the sugar, pectin and other ingredients are made from fruit the calim 100% fruit is applicable. In my eyes that is false advertising. That would be the same as claiming some plastic toy to be 100% crude oil which it was at one point or another but it still is plastic and not oil. Though, such claim wouldnt be helpful in selling the toy I suppose

 

[PatboyX]

yes, becuase maxwell house is, in fact, good to the last drop.

all of the jams parts originate from parts of the fruit used to make the jam. therefore, it is 100% fruit.
no?

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: rjain
If you go an squeeze the juice out of an apple, by your criteria on Smuckers, it wouldn't be 100% fruit.
[...]
"Correcting"? You contradicted yourself on that one. You said that Smuckers isn't 100% fruit because they don't use the whole fruit and then you said that applesauce is 100% fruit because it doesn't need to use the whole fruit.

You're wrong on both counts. In fact, if you can point out where I said anything that you say I said, I'll lie down on my back and bark like a dog and let you take pictures. But if you can't, you have to do the same. Deal?

Sure.

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: daniel1113
The premium jam also contains fruit syrup, lemon juice concentrate, fruit pectin, red grape juice concentrate and natural flavors
Aren't all of these things fruit or made from fruit?

Just because they're made from fruit doesn't make them 100% fruit. And if the ingredients for the jam aren't 100% fruit, how can the jam itself be 100% fruit?

You claim that those ingredients, which are each part of a fruit, are not "100% fruit". Therefore, applesauce would not be 100% fruit.

Originally posted by: Gaard

That doesn't make any sense. Just because the whole fruit isn't being used doesn't make it less than 100% fruit. The fact that other ingredients besides fruit are being used does make it less than 100% fruit.

And then you contradict yourself by claiming that the applesauce is 100% fruit.

I don't feel like coming over and taking pictures of you. Please take them yourself and post them in Off Topic.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: B00ne
That would be the same as claiming some plastic toy to be 100% crude oil which it was at one point or another but it still is plastic and not oil.

Plastic is not a part of crude oil. Feel free to help Gaard prove that applesauce made from just boiled apple flesh is not 100% fruit (let alone 100% apples).

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: rjain
If you go an squeeze the juice out of an apple, by your criteria on Smuckers, it wouldn't be 100% fruit.
[...]
"Correcting"? You contradicted yourself on that one. You said that Smuckers isn't 100% fruit because they don't use the whole fruit and then you said that applesauce is 100% fruit because it doesn't need to use the whole fruit.

You're wrong on both counts. In fact, if you can point out where I said anything that you say I said, I'll lie down on my back and bark like a dog and let you take pictures. But if you can't, you have to do the same. Deal?

Sure.

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: daniel1113
The premium jam also contains fruit syrup, lemon juice concentrate, fruit pectin, red grape juice concentrate and natural flavors
Aren't all of these things fruit or made from fruit?

Just because they're made from fruit doesn't make them 100% fruit. And if the ingredients for the jam aren't 100% fruit, how can the jam itself be 100% fruit?

You claim that those ingredients, which are each part of a fruit, are not "100% fruit". Therefore, applesauce would not be 100% fruit.

Originally posted by: Gaard

That doesn't make any sense. Just because the whole fruit isn't being used doesn't make it less than 100% fruit. The fact that other ingredients besides fruit are being used does make it less than 100% fruit.

And then you contradict yourself by claiming that the applesauce is 100% fruit.

I don't feel like coming over and taking pictures of you. Please take them yourself and post them in Off Topic.

I've seen the "you lack reading comprehension" line a thousand times on these boards, but never gave them much thought. However, in your case I think it fits perfectly.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Gaard

I've seen the "you lack reading comprehension" line a thousand times on these boards, but never gave them much thought. However, in your case I think it fits perfectly.

I see. So all your claims were based on a jam, unlike Smuckers, that isn't 100% fruit, but claims to be. Thank you for your topical contribution to this thread.

 

[JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn]

Originally posted by: Zebo
This thread is halarious. Who cares if they put dog doo in there it did'nt hurt her.. Some of you guys crack me up acting as if she deserves damages for a "sensitive palate" gimme a break.. Keep things in persective here folks

Actually I think you've kind of stumbled on the real issue here, which is damages. There was an interesting news piece last night about how juries haven't a clue how to award damages in a case. I really don't see a problem with scrutinizing people or companies to ensure they are abiding to the law.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Gaard

I've seen the "you lack reading comprehension" line a thousand times on these boards, but never gave them much thought. However, in your case I think it fits perfectly.

I see. So all your claims were based on a jam, unlike Smuckers, that isn't 100% fruit, but claims to be. Thank you for your topical contribution to this thread.

I think before you roll your eyes at me, you may want to reevaluate what you think a 'claim' is.

<<You claim that those ingredients, which are each part of a fruit, are not "100% fruit". Therefore, applesauce would not be 100% fruit.>> - Not true.

<<And then you contradict yourself by claiming that the applesauce is 100% fruit.>> - Not true.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn

Originally posted by: Zebo
This thread is halarious. Who cares if they put dog doo in there it did'nt hurt her.. Some of you guys crack me up acting as if she deserves damages for a "sensitive palate" gimme a break.. Keep things in persective here folks

Actually I think you've kind of stumbled on the real issue here, which is damages. There was an interesting news piece last night about how juries haven't a clue how to award damages in a case. I really don't see a problem with scrutinizing people or companies to ensure they are abiding to the law.

$5.95 or whatever a jar of smuckers cost seems acceptable, however most if not all food products carry a satisfaction guarantee so she was already availed to such a return. She is trying to stick it to a big corp with deep pockets over symantics and I bet some lame ass jury WILL give her something... has'nt been thrown out by judge yet!!! Me and you end up paying for this womans "sensitive pallate" and frivilous suit thought higher costs...

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Gaard

<<You claim that those ingredients, which are each part of a fruit, are not "100% fruit". Therefore, applesauce would not be 100% fruit.>> - Not true.

<<And then you contradict yourself by claiming that the applesauce is 100% fruit.>> - Not true.

I've quoted exactly where you said those two things. You just claimed I can't read in response. Do you care to explain what you really meant when you said those things?

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn

Originally posted by: Zebo
This thread is halarious. Who cares if they put dog doo in there it did'nt hurt her.. Some of you guys crack me up acting as if she deserves damages for a "sensitive palate" gimme a break.. Keep things in persective here folks

Actually I think you've kind of stumbled on the real issue here, which is damages. There was an interesting news piece last night about how juries haven't a clue how to award damages in a case. I really don't see a problem with scrutinizing people or companies to ensure they are abiding to the law.

$5.95 or whatever a jar of smuckers cost seems acceptable, however most if not all food products carry a satisfaction guarantee so she was already availed to such a return. She is trying to stick it to a big corp with deep pockets over symantics and I bet some lame ass jury WILL give her something... has'nt been thrown out by judge yet!!! Me and you end up paying for this womans "sensitive pallate" and frivilous suit thought higher costs...

Assuming this woman wins her lawsuit, I would think the amount she wins would depend on what a judge or jury decides is a just reward. IMO, the jury should reward her with what this suit deserves...

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: rjain

Originally posted by: Gaard

<<You claim that those ingredients, which are each part of a fruit, are not "100% fruit". Therefore, applesauce would not be 100% fruit.>> - Not true.

<<And then you contradict yourself by claiming that the applesauce is 100% fruit.>> - Not true.

I've quoted exactly where you said those two things. You just claimed I can't read in response. Do you care to explain what you really meant when you said those things?

Not really. Let me just finish by saying that your whole problem with me is based on the fact that you misenterpretted what I said. If you would go back and reread what I said in all of my posts you'd see that I never said (or claimed) what you accuse me of saying.

I think you are assuming that the phrase '100% fruit' means '100% of the fruit', when it only means 'fruit, and nothing else'. Is that right?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: JohnnyMcJohnnyJohn

Originally posted by: Zebo
This thread is halarious. Who cares if they put dog doo in there it did'nt hurt her.. Some of you guys crack me up acting as if she deserves damages for a "sensitive palate" gimme a break.. Keep things in persective here folks

Actually I think you've kind of stumbled on the real issue here, which is damages. There was an interesting news piece last night about how juries haven't a clue how to award damages in a case. I really don't see a problem with scrutinizing people or companies to ensure they are abiding to the law.

$5.95 or whatever a jar of smuckers cost seems acceptable, however most if not all food products carry a satisfaction guarantee so she was already availed to such a return. She is trying to stick it to a big corp with deep pockets over symantics and I bet some lame ass jury WILL give her something... has'nt been thrown out by judge yet!!! Me and you end up paying for this womans "sensitive pallate" and frivilous suit thought higher costs...

Assuming this woman wins her lawsuit, I would think the amount she wins would depend on what a judge or jury decides is a just reward. IMO, the jury should reward her with what this suit deserves...

In a way she's already won by the nature of this suit and or court system which has hurt the customer and smuckers. lawyers are already costing smuckers, we pay for this, press has already run the negative story. The judge should have tossed it immediatly.

 

[rjain]

Originally posted by: Gaard

Not really. Let me just finish by saying that your whole problem with me is based on the fact that you misenterpretted what I said. If you would go back and reread what I said in all of my posts you'd see that I never said (or claimed) what you accuse me of saying.

Ok. What you said is this:
"Just because they're made from fruit doesn't make them 100% fruit. And if the ingredients for the jam aren't 100% fruit, how can the jam itself be 100% fruit?"
in response to a list of ingredients, which were "100% fruit", in the interpretation that all are parts of fruit. My response to that is, if a fruit is 100% fruit, how could part of it not be 100% fruit. By your logic above, if part of the fruit isn't 100% fruit, how could the whole fruit be 100% fruit?

I think you are assuming that the phrase '100% fruit' means '100% of the fruit', when it only means 'fruit, and nothing else'. Is that right?

No. You claimed in my quote above that the parts of the fruit may not be 100% fruit, even though they are made from fruit. Which ingredient were you talking about? Which brand of jam were you talking about?

No one claimed in this thread, as far as I understand, that you need 100% of the fruit to be 100% fruit except for your statement above, which said that just because the ingredients are all made from fruit doesn't mean that the mixture is 100% fruit.