On 4/28/2012 11:28 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 28/04/2012 1:29 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
>> On 4/28/2012 12:55 PM, sf wrote:
>>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 14:03:51 -0800, Mark >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> No kidding. The lawyers get the big bucks,
>>>> but you can get $20 for filling out a claim form.
>>>>
>>>> http://nutellaclassactionsettlement.com
>>>
>>> Why the lawsuit?
>>>
>> They were advertising Nutella as a healthful spread compared
>> to others. Some woman fed it to her kids and at some point
>> decided to read the label. Shockingly, chocolate hazelnut
>> spread is not free of calories.
>>
>> This outraged her so much that she sued.
>>
>
> Yeah. I can just bet that she was outraged. I have to ask if she ever
> really thought that a sweet, chocolatey, nutty spread could possibly be
> "healthy" food, if she allows her kids to eat chocolate bars, chocolate
> milk, potato chips or commercially made baked goods. My bet would be
> that it was not just a matter of being outraged by the false claims, but
> that it sparked a the imagination of a litigation prone person to a scam
> to make herself a name and some money.

The label on the jar claims that whole wheat bread slathered with
Nutella chocolate frosting with a glass of milk and orange juice is a
balanced meal. The best you could say is that the kids might feel
inclined to eat a meal like this. I'd leave out the OJ though since the
added sugar is not really needed.

>
> Are food products in the US not required to have their nutritional
> values on the label?
>
>
> IMO, this ranks very high on the stupidity scale, right up there with
> the complaints by an Indian reserve in northern Canada where they were
> upset over the us of some dangerous metals in lighting at the airport.
> It seems that their darling little children were exposed to toxic
> substances when the little vandals smashed the lights for fun.
>