There's really not a much gentler way to phrase it: The biggest name in breakfast foods and among the most iconic names in toys have put their ingenuity and marketing genius together to create a fruit-flavored treat -- LEGO Fun Snacks -- that is so mind-numbingly irresponsible that at first I presumed it was a joke.(2010's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries)We're talking about a children's snack shaped like the tiny plastic building blocks that every kid fortunate enough to have toys has put in his or her mouth at one time or another -- or a hundred. (The only thing my kids like better than LEGOS is watching videos of "Star Wars" characters made out of LEGOS.)The Web site Penny Arcade threw the penalty flag yesterday:I would love to know what sick (person) at Kellogg's came up with this genius idea. I just spent the first three years of my son's life trying to get him not to eat blocks, and now you're telling him they taste like strawberries. Seriously, how in the hell did this ever get past their legal department?
You can't tell me that this isn't a lawsuit just waiting to happen. I can only assume that their next product is fruit flavored thumbtacks.My initial thought was that it had to be some kind of hoax or Onion story, but a jump over to the Kellogg's Web site showed that's not the case.The mere idea of a LEGO-shaped snack reminded me of this hilariously effective 2004 Super Bowl commercial that pilloried the tobacco industry.When I sent the Penny Arcade link around the office this morning, other parents were quick to offer their own ideas for killer snacks: Paint Chip Flakes and Chewable Barbie Shoes being my favorites.There's a wide-ranging discussion of the matter over at Reddit.And, if training children to eat plastic blocks isn't enough to rile you, there's another major flaw with this LEGO/Kellogg's product: The gelatinous blocks do not stack, a design flaw highlighted in this video by a couple of foul-mouthed grownups.While a little Googling shows that the two companies have been taking relatively mild flack about this product since at least last year, here's a prediction: LEGO Fun Snacks won't be on grocery shelves for much longer.
Join the Network World communities on Facebook and LinkedIn to comment on topics that are top of mind.Welch’s Fruit Snacks is getting slapped with a class-action lawsuit because the labeling might confuse the consumer into thinking the gelatin snack contains real fruit. In case you were wondering if fruit snacks fit into the fruits section of MyPlate (that’s what replaced the food pyramid, gramps), that’s about to be legally decided for you. If you look at the Welch’s Fruit Snack packaging, you see in very clear lettering “Made with Real Fruit” and a graphic of said fruit. The disagreement between Welch’s and parties in the suit, presumably parents and adult fans of gummies, centers around what constitutes “real fruit” in this case. Welch Foods and Promotion In Motion, the two companies who make and sell the fruit snacks in question say that fruit juices and purees have “always been the first ingredient in Welch’s Fruit Snacks. Our labeling is truthful and gives consumers the information they need to make informed decisions.”
The plaintiffs in the lawsuit alledge that sweeteners comprise the two of the top three ingredients and that the fruit snacks themselves are 40% sugar in total. Any fruit juice from concentrate — which is what the plaintiffs call Welch Foods’ fruit purees — aren’t fruit, they’re “empty-calorie sugar syrup.” The packaging isn’t even accurate as to what fruits concentrates it does contain, the Welch’s Berries & Cherries snacks contain primarily apple, grape, pear, peach, and pineapple. The suit alleges that Welch’s welshes on the things that actually make fruit. Any vitamins in the snacks are put there artificially, say the plaintiffs, and the snacks have no dietary fiber, one of the key nutritional benefits of real fruit. An attorney representing the angry fruit-starved parties said “If they called it junky happy joy chewy, that would be fine, but they’re marketing this to people so they choose to buy it as an alternative to fruit. It’s an alternative to M&Ms.”
“…not to use M&Ms pejoratively,” added attorney Stephen Gardner, “I love M&Ms.”Are fruit snacks fruit? That doesn’t seem to be under debate as much as the specific advertising of the fruit snacks on the packaging. The company asserts that fruit juices and fruits in concentrate form are still technically “real fruit” and the people filing the lawsuit assert that the packaging of the product suggests it is a fruit replacement. This new suit is part of a growing movement for more accurate and detailed food labeling, like the campaign to label Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) that says consumers have a right to know exactly what is going into the products they eat. It is certainly a blow to the parenting decision to replace fruit with candy just because the candy has the word fruit in the name. Overall, the whole affair calls into question just how willfully ignorant the average consumer is of package labeling in the first place. Words like “Best” and “Natural” are thrown around in product marketing without having particular metric attached to them that you can hold accountable.
Now, the entire phrase “real fruit” has been thrown into the existential crisis. What makes a fruit “real” anyhow? Because have you seen a kiwano (the African horned melon)? How is that real? How are you real?Heinz is being sued over 'misleading' claims it made on its Little Kids Shredz products for toddlers from the age of one to three.The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has taken legal action in the Federal Court against Heinz.It is alleged Heinz made false and misleading representations on the food products by claiming they had '99% fruit and veg' and 'our range of snacks and meals encourages your toddler to independently discover the delicious taste of nutritious food'. Heinz is being sued over 'misleading' claims it made on its Little Kids Shredz products (pictured) for toddlers from the age of one to threeBut the ACCC claims Heinz was marketing these products as 'healthy options' and this was simply not the case. 'These images and statements represent to consumers that the products are of equivalent nutritional value to fruit and vegetables and are a healthy and nutritious food for children aged one to three years,' ACCC chairman Rod Sims said.'These products contain over 60 per cent sugar, which is significantly higher than that of natural fruit and vegetables.
For example, an apple contains approximately 10 per cent sugar.'Mr Sims said the products were also encouraging children to develop a sweet tooth rather than develop a taste for 'nutritious food'.The Shredz product range includes three varieties, peach, apple and veg, berries apple and veg, and strawberry and apple with chia seeds.It has been available in major supermarkets nationally since at least August 2013.Mr Sims added the ACCC wanted to send a clear message to major companies that they had an obligation by law to make sure their products do not mislead the public.'As part of the ACCC's current focus on consumer protection issues arising from health claims by large businesses, we are particularly concerned about potentially misleading health claims for products being marketed for very young children,' Mr Sims said. It is alleged Heinz made misleading representations on the products, claiming they had '99% fruit and veg'The products' claims came to the attention of the ACCC after the Policy Coalition made a complaint about food products for toddlers that made fruit and vegetable claims but are predominantly made from fruit juice concentrate and pastes, which have a very high sugar content.