Mhays wrote:I don't think all these cases are the same: I think that describing your oatmeal as "Fruit and Maple" offers more expectation of maple syrup than "Maple and Brown Sugar," especially when the syrup you get with your pancakes expressly says "Hotcake Syrup."

OK, I lost you on that example (I would have thought you'd be equally against both).

At any rate, of course I agree there should be naming standards in place. We just disagree on where the line is separating reasonable naming convention and intentional deception/purposeful misrepresentation lies.

I can extrapolate pretty easily that "Maple and Brown Sugar" is going to contain more of the cheaper ingredient, and the packaged-food standards are such that anything that says anything other than "maple" isn't going to have it, right? Most packaged goods either mention the sugar upfront, or say "maple flavor."

But since this standard doesn't exist in restaurants, McDonalds doesn't mention brown sugar anywhere in its advertisement, you don't see it unless you read the nutritional information. It's reasonable that consumers will expect the standard to be the same as packaged goods - where sugar and other sweeteners are mentioned up-front.

Not all packaged goods are as upfront as I'd like, either, though - case in point is the recent furor over "blueberry crunchelets"

Mhays wrote:I can extrapolate pretty easily that "Maple and Brown Sugar" is going to contain more of the cheaper ingredient, and the packaged-food standards are such that anything that says anything other than "maple" isn't going to have it, right?

I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse, I'm still having trouble following. Are you saying that Quaker Oats "Maple and Brown Sugar" oatmeal actually has maple? The ingredient list merely states "natural and artificial flavor," and my suspicion is if there were real maple flavor in there, it'd be listed. I'm pretty sure if there were real maple syrup in there, the ad teams would be advertising the hell out of that. So far as I know, it doesn't--which is why I thought you'd apply the same standard to the Quaker product.

Oh, and Taco Bell fires back with their "Thank You for Suing Us!" campaign, this time making very specific and advertised claims on what's in their seasoned ground beef.

Binko wrote:I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse, I'm still having trouble following. Are you saying that Quaker Oats "Maple and Brown Sugar" oatmeal actually has maple? The ingredient list merely states "natural and artificial flavor," and my suspicion is if there were real maple flavor in there, it'd be listed. I'm pretty sure if there were real maple syrup in there, the ad teams would be advertising the hell out of that. So far as I know, it doesn't--which is why I thought you'd apply the same standard to the Quaker product.

In general, MAPLE FLAVORED SYRUP does contain a maple extract added to a corn based syrup.

In years where my family has had some mediocre syrup, we have been able to sell the excess syrup at 50% our normal price to Staley Continental where they used it to make pancake syrup. The sweetness of the corn syrup offsets the potentially bitter taste of poor syrup.

What makes a mediocre real maple syrup? Generally, it occurs toward the end of the season as some of the trees start to bud. Once the tree buds, the sweet sap beomes a lot more bitter.

How do you advertise the heck out of a syrup that might be 5% maple??

jlawrence01 wrote:How do you advertise the heck out of a syrup that might be 5% maple??

"Made with real maple syrup." "Contains real maple syrup." Etc. I'm willing to bet the Quaker product contains no maple syrup at all. Reading the labels of imitation maple syrup or maple-flavored syrup, I see the ingredients "natural and artificial flavors." From my understanding, it is usually fenugreek that is used as the "natural flavor" component of maple-flavored syrups, and not usually actual maple syrup.

But neither of these products claim to be made with maple syrup. It's "maple and brown sugar" or "fruit and maple." My assumption, as a consumer, is these are flavor descriptors, not ingredients. I don't expect that to be real maple anymore than I expect my Banana Bread oatmeal to be made with real banana bread or, for that matter, real bananas.

I guess there is one real difference, which is apparent with "blueberry crunchelets." All the products you mention have readily available ingredients lists - while you can go online and get McDonald's ingredients lists, they are rarely easily available in the store.

I seem to recall that most of the analog-but-not-real things used to have "flavored" after the title - I wonder why that's changed? (I do remember "Maple and Brown Sugar FLAVOR" oatmeal and "Banana FLAVORED" pudding, specifically)

Along these same lines, I saw a commercial for some chain restaurant's popcorn shrimp tonight. It occurred to me that there was probably no popcorn involved in the ingredients list.

Of course, the classic case is Grape Nuts, which contains neither grapes or nuts.

Mhays wrote:...McDonald's sure shouldn't be claiming that their oatmeal is fruit and maple without at least using quotation marks (that is, outside of Vermont.)

They may not be making this claim for long...
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=13804351
http://www.slashfood.com/2011/01/10/a-s ... mcdonalds/

Interestingly, it looks like an Egg McMuffin is just 10 calories more than McDonald's "healthy" oatmeal.

Are they making the change nationally? I didn't see that in either linked article - McDonald's settled with Vermont by changing the formulation to include real maple syrup - but that formulation is only available in that state.

leek wrote:

Mhays wrote:...McDonald's sure shouldn't be claiming that their oatmeal is fruit and maple without at least using quotation marks (that is, outside of Vermont.)

They may not be making this claim for long...
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=13804351
http://www.slashfood.com/2011/01/10/a-s ... mcdonalds/

Interestingly, it looks like an Egg McMuffin is just 10 calories more than McDonald's "healthy" oatmeal.

That one's already been settled

[S]tarting Feb. 1, customers at Vermont McDonald's stores can request 100 percent maple syrup or sugar to be added to the restaurant chain's new Fruit and Maple Oatmeal to settle complaints that the company improperly labeled the product as maple flavored in the state.

Mhays wrote:McDonald's settled with Vermont by changing the formulation to include real maple syrup.

Not quite, according to the article I cited above. Apparently, customers can request maple syrup or maple sugar, but the formulation and name of the product stay the same.

More info on the story, much of it already discussed here, at the Trib's web site today, courtesy of Gregory Karp and Ellen Gabler . . .

Chicago Tribune wrote:As it turns out, the lawsuit's allegations — and the stomach-churning terminology — hinge partly on regulatory language that is meant to be used by manufacturers for labeling purposes, not restaurants. There also aren't any hard rules that define what a company or restaurant can advertise as meat.

<snip>

Chicago Tribune wrote:According to the USDA, which regulates the nation's meat supply, "taco meat filling" is required to contain at least 40 percent fresh meat and must be labeled with the product name, including the word "filling."

But that requirement applies to raw meat sold by manufacturers. The USDA doesn't regulate what companies such as restaurants can describe to their customers in advertisements as "beef," "chicken" or "meat," said USDA press officer Neil Gaffney.

Nothing unusual about Taco Bell's meat, experts say

=R=

Fascinating article on Taco Bell's response. I'm not sure I agree that 12% seasonings is something to make a fuss about, but it is funny that out of one side of their mouth, they're talking about the quality of the beef and out of the other they're saying it's bland.

Not that I expect high-quality beef from Taco Bell.

Mhays wrote:Fascinating article on Taco Bell's response. I'm not sure I agree that 12% seasonings is something to make a fuss about, but it is funny that out of one side of their mouth, they're talking about the quality of the beef and out of the other they're saying it's bland.

Not that I expect high-quality beef from Taco Bell.

Silly article. Are tacos ever just meat, no spices? That would be bland, at least as far as tacos go.

Precipitated by thier meat authenticity being in the news recently, They are now offering "crunchwrap supremes" for 88 cents until March 5, I believe. Their site also has some director type explaining their recipe for seasoned beef looking proud that it is 88% beef.
I'm eating my crunchwraps as I type.

http://www.tacobell.com/BeefIngredientFAQs

I can't believe I wasted a minute reading some of this.

Put a fork in this one . . .

In the Chicago Tribune, Rob Manker wrote:Taco Bell has a beef with the law firm that alleged its menu items don't have enough real meat.

Beasley Allen, the law firm that filed suit on behalf of a California woman alleging the company's food did not meet federal standards to be considered "beef," has withdrawn the suit, Taco Bell and the Alabama firm said this week.

On Wednesday, the fast-food chain decided to trumpet that good news with full-page ads in 10 major U.S. newspapers, including the Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today and The Wall Street Journal, demanding an apology. The company pegged the ads at a total cost of between $3 million and $4 million.

Taco Bell demands apology after lawsuit withdrawn

=R=

Soo... no redress for the millions spent on advertising, legal costs, or lost business as a result of the suit? No accountability from the attorneys who brought the suit? Or is this ok because it's Taco Bell?

Are you kidding? This is the Taco Bell version of New Coke! Wouldn't it be funny if it was later discovered that they engineered the lawsuit themselves?

(Though, yes - it stinks.)