One of the most unheralded rip-offs of the modern age here in America, is how our food industry operates and the products it produces.  Food Nutrition Labels?  Still no entry for the "Sugars" category.  Why? Because it could be, just speculation here of course, that Kellogg's, Post, General Mills and all the other cereal manufacureres don't want you to know that a single serving of Frosted Whole Wheat Diddly Doos, with or without milk, gives you three days of your sugar intake in that single serving.  Revamping school lunches to provide kids with healthier fare?  Nah.  Kids don't like the new healthier menus.   Of course, you and I both know that if kids had their way, lunches would consist of one large serving of Sticky Gummy Bears with a small side of Yellow-Orange Cheese-Bits slaked down with fortified malted milk, the fortification being more sugar.  

And then there's the criminalization of exposes that involve our Big Agra food suppliers.  They are called "Ag-Gag" bills and yes, indeed, a dozen state legislatures have passed or are considering such laws.   (Thank you ALEC for your help.)  But I have to ask what national security issues are involved in exposing the criminal environments and practices that our chicken, beef and pork suppliers must protect that are so vital to keeping America safe from foreign and domestic terrorists?  

And then there's the GMO fight.  Big Agra is fighting this one tooth and nail.  They say (and Congress agrees) that such indentification in the food products we consume would be confusing to us.  WTF?  What this actually means, when you think about it, is that Europeans who have had such mandatory labelling for more than a decade now are just plain smarter than we Americans.  I suppose this conclusion logically follows since most European countries are much more socialistic than the USofA pretty much proving how lacking we are when it comes to adopting sensible, beneficial public policies rather than letting our "corporate partners" dictate public policy.  

But I thought that we still had "Truth In Advertising" laws.  But then I might be behind the times since I'm recalling back in a different century when television advertisers had to pull ads from the airwaves for exaggerating (making up) the wondrous benefits of laundry detergents and sugar laden soft drinks.  Then, too, I guess that was during a time when the FCC, FEC, USDA, FTC and the plethora of Federal Agencies charged with keeping us safe and corporations honest, actually did what they were legislated to do.  

The following article from Salon about an innocuous, benign, not-exactly-life-threatening situation of misleading "claims" pretty much illustrates the fix we are in today:


Almond Milk Is an Even Bigger Scam Than We Thought

Remember when we suggested (okay, aggregated an article that suggested) that almond milk is “kind of a scam“?

Well, a class action lawsuit filed against the makers of Almond Breeze for false advertising contends that the popular milk alternative is even more of a rip-off than we thought — because it barely contains any almonds.

Just two percent almonds, to be exact. The rest is just carton filler. (Hey, there’s no breeze in there either!) Blue Diamond doesn’t make that information publicly available in the U.S., but the plaintiffs found the information they were looking for on the company’s U.K. website. Of course, not even homemade almond milk is expected consist entirely, or even mostly, of almonds. But according to Food Navigator, the plaintiffs contend that based “upon an extensive review of the recipes for almond milk on the internet,” a reasonable amount of almond to expect is somewhere between 25 to 33 percent.

And they say Blue Diamond, by putting big pictures of almonds on its cartons of the beverage it calls almond milk and using “made from real almonds” as its slogan, is “leading people to believe that the products are made primarily from almonds,” which, as we’ve learned, they are not.

This isn’t the first time the almond milk industry’s come under legal fire. Previous lawsuits have taken issue with labels identifying the product as “all-natural,” “non-GMO” and even “milk.” But this newest attack has strong precedent in the case that POM Wonderful, which is one hundred percent pomegranate, launched against Coca-Cola’s “Pomegranate Blueberry” drink, made with 0.3 percent pomegranate and 0.2 percent blueberry juice. The Supreme Court got to have its say with that one, and it determined that the label, while not technically illegal, was “misleading” and “deceptive,” and thus counted as false advertising.

Should this stop you from drinking almond milk? Perhaps, if you were drinking it because you suffer from a severe almond deficiency, or because you just wanted to waste as much of California’s dwindling water resources as possible and heard that eating copious amounts of almonds was the best way to do so. If you enjoy almond milk because it’s a tasty, non-dairy alternative, on the other hand, and were feeling kind of guilty about all the water you were wasting, well, congratulations. You can go back to feeling guilty about all the meat you’re consuming instead.

And class action lawsuits are the sole means that we must undertake to force just one company to be forthcoming about their product?   Now, just think what the rest of the Big Ag/Food Processing industry gets away with when Almond Milk is allowed to pretend that the product actually contains almonds and milk.  

Have A Good Day!  


Popular posts from this blog