Steve Wertz wrote:
> A couple weeks ago somebody mentioned that their store-bought
> avocado/guacamole dip had little or no avocado in it.
>
> Here's your chance to fatten the wallets of the class-action
> lawyers, while getting a free pint of (50% or more) guacamole.
[snip nonsense]

What we need are stronger laws and bar association rules against filing
frivolous lawsuits.

They acknowledge that the products in question have ingredient lists
and they don't allege that avocado was incorrectly or deceptively
placed on those lists. So the manufacturers are in compliance with the
laws and regulations and if a consumer was "hurt" it's only because of
failure to read the label. BFD.

I'm not a knee-jerk lawyer basher, but this kind of attempt to drum up
plaintiffs for a bullshit lawsuit could make me one. -aem

> What we need are stronger laws and bar association rules against filing
> frivolous lawsuits.
>
> They acknowledge that the products in question have ingredient lists
> and they don't allege that avocado was incorrectly or deceptively
> placed on those lists.

The problem is, the government has definitions for every kind of food.
Ever wonder why Miracle Whip is a salad dressing rather than a
mayonnaise? Or why Velveeta is, like, an Orange Pasteurized Non-Dairy
Amalgam rather than Cheese? It's the law!

IMHO guacamole has avocado in it -- but I'd let manufacturers call
their products whatever they want, as long as there's an ingredient
list.

Bailey Legull wrote:
> > What we need are stronger laws and bar association rules against filing
> > frivolous lawsuits.
> >
> > They acknowledge that the products in question have ingredient lists
> > and they don't allege that avocado was incorrectly or deceptively
> > placed on those lists.
>
> The problem is, the government has definitions for every kind of food.
> Ever wonder why Miracle Whip is a salad dressing rather than a
> mayonnaise? Or why Velveeta is, like, an Orange Pasteurized Non-Dairy
> Amalgam rather than Cheese? It's the law!

Introducing : Guac-im-ole', an avacado flavored food dip. Note, this
product contains less than 5% avacado. The majority of the product is a
congealed mixture of trans-fatty acids, high-fructose corn syrup, and
various preservative. Also includes artificial lemon flavor. Please see
your physician before injesting this product. Not liable for any health
problems stemming from use of this product.

Dean G.

"Dean G." > wrote in news:1149193089.367269.326690
@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

> Please see
> your physician before injesting this product. Not liable for any health
> problems stemming from use of this product.


LOL! OR... "discuss this with your doctor if you have trouble making
fresh guacamole, periodic guacamole mix binging or green poop!"

Andy

"Bailey Legull" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> What we need are stronger laws and bar association rules against filing
>> frivolous lawsuits.
>>
>> They acknowledge that the products in question have ingredient lists
>> and they don't allege that avocado was incorrectly or deceptively
>> placed on those lists.
>
> The problem is, the government has definitions for every kind of food.
> Ever wonder why Miracle Whip is a salad dressing rather than a
> mayonnaise? Or why Velveeta is, like, an Orange Pasteurized Non-Dairy
> Amalgam rather than Cheese? It's the law!
>
> IMHO guacamole has avocado in it -- but I'd let manufacturers call
> their products whatever they want, as long as there's an ingredient
> list.
>

Ingredient lists seem to be set in smaller and smaller type, or maybe it's
my eyes. I read labels when I'm looking at an unfamiliar product or brand,
but if something I normally buy suddenly changed to something else, I think
I'd like to know.

Donna

In article . com>,
says...
> The problem is, the government has definitions for every kind of food.
> Ever wonder why Miracle Whip is a salad dressing rather than a
> mayonnaise? Or why Velveeta is, like, an Orange Pasteurized Non-Dairy
> Amalgam rather than Cheese? It's the law!
>
> IMHO guacamole has avocado in it -- but I'd let manufacturers call
> their products whatever they want, as long as there's an ingredient
> list.
>
>

Why should anyone have to read a micro-print ingredient list just to be
sure that they are buying what the label says? Also, some people do not
know what goes into certain foods, so they would not be able to tell
mayonaisse from salad dressing by the list. If corporations were not so
eager to cheat and lie we would not need these regulations, but 100+
years of history has proven that corporations will do anything they can
get away with to make a few extra bucks.

--
Peter Aitken
Visit my recipe and kitchen myths pages at www.pgacon.com/cooking.htm

Bailey Legull wrote:

>
>
> The problem is, the government has definitions for every kind of food.
> Ever wonder why Miracle Whip is a salad dressing rather than a
> mayonnaise? Or why Velveeta is, like, an Orange Pasteurized Non-Dairy
> Amalgam rather than Cheese? It's the law!
>
> IMHO guacamole has avocado in it -- but I'd let manufacturers call
> their products whatever they want, as long as there's an ingredient
> list.
>

But isn't it reasonable to expect that a product with a picture of
something on the label would contain that thing (in this case an avocado)?

George wrote:
> Bailey Legull wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> The problem is, the government has definitions for every kind of food.
>> Ever wonder why Miracle Whip is a salad dressing rather than a
>> mayonnaise? Or why Velveeta is, like, an Orange Pasteurized Non-Dairy
>> Amalgam rather than Cheese? It's the law!
>>
>> IMHO guacamole has avocado in it -- but I'd let manufacturers call
>> their products whatever they want, as long as there's an ingredient
>> list.
>>
>
> But isn't it reasonable to expect that a product with a picture of
> something on the label would contain that thing (in this case an avocado)?


You mean like that brand of toilet paper that has a picture of a puppy
on the label?

Best regards,
Bob

> But isn't it reasonable to expect that a product with a picture of
> something on the label would contain that thing (in this case an avocado)?

I thought the OP said this guacamole had avocado flakes or pellets or
dessicated bits or something in it. As Bob so humorously implied,
there's no link whatsoever between pictures on the product and the
contents. Otherwise, I'd steer clear of that honey shaped like a bear.

If the ingredient list type is too small, the law should mandate that
it's readable. But as far as a law stating mayonnaise HAS to contain
20% egg or something, that's ridiculous. Frankly, I could care less if
there's any egg at all in my mayo, and I don't know why the government
has to protect us from egg-free imposters.

zxcvbob wrote:

>
> You mean like that brand of toilet paper that has a picture of a puppy
> on the label?
>
> Best regards,
> Bob

Well sure, how else could it be so fluffy and gentle...

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 11:20:38 -0500, Steve Wertz
> wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 20:40:51 -0500, zxcvbob wrote:
>
>> George wrote:
>
>>> But isn't it reasonable to expect that a product with a picture of
>>> something on the label would contain that thing (in this case an avocado)?
>>
>>
>> You mean like that brand of toilet paper that has a picture of a puppy
>> on the label?
>
>Or Kool-Aid packets, with grapes, cherries, pineapples, blue moons
>and yellow stars.
>
>-sw

I was quite disappointed to find out Girl Scout Cookies had no Girl
Scouts in the ingredients.


Tom