Litigation

Hellman's Sues to Protect Its Mayo-Monopoly

Hellman's says a competitor doesn't meet FDA "mayonnaise" standards. So it sued.

|

Mayo
Cyclonebill / Flickr

Must mayonnaise contain eggs, as FDA regulations require? Is "mayo" "mayonnaise"?

Concerned sandwich makers everywhere can take comfort in the fact that these important questions will be answered in a lawsuit filed late last month by Unilever, maker of Hellman's, against Hampton Creek, maker of Just Mayo. (Full disclosure: My girlfriend digs Hellman's, while I'm a Just Mayo guy.) The former contains eggs, while the latter—which contains pea protein—does not.

At issue are the FDA's general standards of identity for various foods and, specifically, the agency's standard of identity for mayonnaise, which requires that any product labeled as "mayonnaise" must be an "emulsified semisolid food prepared from vegetable oil(s)," specific "Acidifying ingredients," and "Egg yolk-containing ingredients," and may contain one or more "Other optional ingredients," including salt.

Unilever claims that, based on the FDA standard of identity, egg-less Just Mayo is lying—despite the company's use of the non-standard term "mayo"—and that this alleged deceit has harmed Hellman's profits. It's seeking millions of dollars in damages and wants the judge to bar Just Mayo from calling itself, well, mayo.

I spoke by email this week with Michele Simon, a public health lawyer who's been quoted widely for her extensive research on the labeling controversy, about the case.

Baylen Linnekin: You've sided with Just Mayo? Why?

Michele Simon: Because the lawsuit is absurd and I admire Hampton Creek's mission to make healthier, more sustainable, and cruelty-free foods that are affordable and appeal to the mainstream consumer, all of which should be encouraged and not threatened with legal action. Hampton Creek represents just the sort of market-based approach to fixing what's wrong with our food system that libertarians like you should support!

BL: Can an egg-less product be mayonnaise? If Just Mayo is mayonnaise, then shouldn't Miracle Whip, which has been forced to call itself "salad dressing" for generations because it didn't fit the FDA definition of mayonnaise, also have the right to use the "mayonnaise" tag? To me, this is one key narrative that's been missing in discussions of this story so far.

MS: This is tricky because I do think it's important to have some standards for what products can be called to protect against outright fraud and adulteration. And again, that's why intent matters. I am inclined to agree that if Just Mayo is allowed to be called "mayonnaise" under FDA law then so should Miracle Whip. But the main issue here is that Unilever is relying on an outdated definition and in the 21st century, there is really no reason mayonnaise has to include eggs.

BL: What do you think the specific guiding principle should be when it comes to labeling issues like these? I've always argued that "the federal government should '[o]pen up all food labels to any and all statements that aren't demonstrably false.'" Is that a good rule? If not, what would you suggest in its place? 

MS: No it's not, because labels can still be deceptive even when they are not false. That's why our consumer protection laws do not allow "false or deceptive" marketing, recognizing that these can be, and often are, mutually exclusive ways to fool consumers. For example, FDA does not allow junk foods to be fortified with vitamins (i.e., the "jelly bean rule") because it would deceive the consumer into thinking the product is healthy when it isn't. As to the mayo wars, the guiding principal to me is that intent matters. The Just Mayo product does not intend to deceive anyone, contrary to Unilever's desperate argument.

BL: This case is exactly the sort of absurd fallout I predicted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in POM v. Coca-Cola. Do you agree that case has made it easier for companies like Unilever to file (and win) Lanham Act suits like this one?

MS: I don't think it's applicable here. In the POM case, there was no question that FDA allowed Coca-Cola's deceptive labeling, and the Court found that Coke's defense of FDA compliance did not preempt a Lanham Act claim. In this case, Unilever is making an affirmative accusation of an FDA violation. Now the POM case is relevant in the sense that Hampton Creek will argue they are also in compliance with FDA law, but they can no longer use preemption as a way of avoiding the Lanham Act.

BL: Hellman's is the most popular mayonnaise in the country. Other egg-less competitors include Miracle Whip, Vegenaise, and—now—Just Mayo. Do you think Miracle Whip's and/or Vegenaise's manufacturers might ask to join the Unilever lawsuit, taking Just Mayo's side in hopes of gaining the legal right to identify their own products as mayonnaise? Why wouldn't they?

MS: This doesn't strike me as legally viable. Those other companies would need to take up their cases with FDA directly.

BL: I'm not as skeptical. I think this case is as much about Miracle Whip and Vegenaise as it is about Just Mayo. I'd be surprised if those companies don't at least consider joining the lawsuit as co-defendants with Hampton Creek.

BL: At first glance, I note at least two reasons that Hellman's mayonnaise may itself not meet the FDA's standard of identity for mayonnaise. First, Hellman's mayonnaise contains added water, which is not itself a permissible ingredient under the FDA's standard of identity for mayonnaise. (Diluting vinegar and/or citric acid with water is permissible under the standard of identity, but there's no mention of adding water to the mayonnaise mix itself.) Second, Hellman's mayonnaise contains soybean oil. The FDA's standard of identity for mayonnaise states that mayonnaise must contain vegetable oil. Soybeans are legumes, not vegetables. Is it possible then that—at least according to the FDA's definition—Hellman's is not mayonnaise? Meanwhile, rather unhelpfully, the FDA refers in its regulations designating the proper name of food ingredients to the following example: "hydrogenated vegetable oil (soybean, cottonseed, and palm oils)[.]" But neither soybeans, cotton, nor palm are vegetables. Is it possible then, too, that FDA regulations pertaining to proper names which misidentify a legume, a shrub, and a tree as vegetables may be worth tossing in the rubbish?

MS: There are at least 6 varieties [of Hellman's mayonnaise], some do and some don't. I explain it here.

BL: That's true that there are several varieties of Hellman's products. If I were Hampton Creek, though, I'd be hammering Unilever for violating the rules it claims to follow. Every Hellman's mayonnaise product appears not to meet the FDA's standard of identity for mayonnaise. My argument is pedantic, sure, but regulations that pedantic should themselves be met with a healthy dose of pedantry. And that brings me back to my previous point, which is the sheer idiocy of FDA standards of identity for food.

Advertisement

NEXT: Tonight on The Independents: Obama's Immigration, Thad McCotter on Libertarians Rising, Ecstasy for PTSD, FCC for the Internet, Jeb's Common Core, Webb's Uncommon Appeal, Obamacare Closing Hospitals, Plus Citizenship Quiz!

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Why not just call it Acme Eggless Mayonnaise, and be done with it?

    I suppose the FDA would call it deceptive, even if “eggless” is right there on the label.

    1. It is right there on the label…in the list of ingredients.

      1. Right after monosodium glutenate?

    2. I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

      ??????? http://www.walletwiki.com

  2. Bring out the worst foods, and bring out the worst.

    1. I brought out the wurst, but this mayonnaise doesn’t go well with it.

  3. “…I admire Hampton Creek’s mission to make healthier, more sustainable, and cruelty-free foods that are affordable and appeal to the mainstream consumer, all of which should be encouraged and not threatened with legal action.”

    So why not label tofu as filet mignon while you’re at it?

    1. “Cruelty-free”, that’s why!

    2. Yeah, he lost me right there with that SWPL vegan soapbox crap right out of the gate.

      Low-fat “healthy” mayos or mayo substitutes basically use processed starch (in this case pea “protein”) as a thickener in place of egg and/or oil. They should be available to any idiot who wants to consume them, of course, but definitely not “encouraged”.

      1. Stupid entrepreneurs trying to fit a market niche I don’t go for!

        1. Exactly, that’s why I wrote:

          They should be available to any idiot who wants to consume them, of course

          You really are a tedious bore, BoBo.

          1. But they should of course be ridiculed as stupid. I didn’t accuse you of wanting to use coercion to stop them.

            1. Actually I ridiculing their lawyer Simon’s idiocy if you care to read what I wrote you tedious little shit.

              I know, let’s have a long drawn out argument about what I actually meant. I hope it includes copious use of the word “projection” and SoCon.

              1. The lawyers words you mock are the aspirations of the producers. Why feel so threatened by the idea of entrepreneurs moving (unless the gov steps in at the bequest of Hellmans lawyers) to cater to this growing niche? They value different things in their product than your traditional understanding, yeah that can’t be encouraged!

              2. The lawyers words you mock are the aspirations of the producers. Why feel so threatened by the idea of entrepreneurs moving (unless the gov steps in at the bequest of Hellmans lawyers) to cater to this growing niche? They value different things in their product than your traditional understanding, yeah that can’t be encouraged!

                1. I don’t have any animus towards people I argue with, who do so in an intellectually honest manner, or even in a semi-honest manner. But honestly, the fact that you will be graduating from a TTT law school under a mountain of debt, looking for a soul-crushing job in an over-saturated market warms the cockles of my heart.

                  At least it would if I believed you actually had a soul.

                  1. Wait, has Bo ever said what law school he attends?

                    1. I just assumed TTT from his writing style, but you’re right, I could be overestimating.

                    2. Gotta love the credentialism elitism from a guy whose handle is Snark Plissen.

                    3. Gotta love the credentialism elitism from a guy whose handle is Snark Plissen.

                      If you are trying to convince me to put an esq. after my handle, you’re barking up the wrong tree.

                      And the name’s Plissken.

                    4. Gotta love the credentialism elitism from a guy whose handle is Snark Plissen.

                      Credentialist elitism. Are you trying to prove my point?

                    5. elitism

                      From the 2L with an esq. in his handle.

                    6. Gotta be Thomas Cooley.

                  2. My debts are actually small due to scholarship and work study.

                    1. I just assume anything Bo posts is an attempt at trolling or self aggrandizement.

                    2. “I made $50K last year placing thousands of posts all over the internet from my tiny one bedroom apartment!”

                    3. Sure you did.

                2. You are a fucking idiot Bo, and arguement 1 that we have way too many so called law schools.

    3. If it isn’t deceptive, why not? I.e. off it is reasonably close and doesn’t makes you about what it is, why not?

      Besides, just because something is a meat based filet mignon doesn’t mean it’s any good. To many people, actual taste and assistance of a food matter more than ingredients

    4. So, we “do good” and therefore should be able to ignore long-understood legal labeling conventions and definitions? I don’t follow . . . .

      Again, the average guy has no idea of what’s in mayonnaise, but “mayonaise” is a thing, like tofu or filet mignon. Of all the dumb details of our food regulation you pick this?

  4. If you’re trying to redefine words to fit your product, just announce it prominently on the label, nobody gets fooled.

  5. Hellman’s mayonnaise contains added water, which is not itself a permissible ingredient under the FDA’s standard of identity for mayonnaise. (Diluting vinegar and/or citric acid with water is permissible under the standard of identity, but there’s no mention of adding water to the mayonnaise mix itself.) Second, Hellman’s mayonnaise contains soybean oil. The FDA’s standard of identity for mayonnaise states that mayonnaise must contain vegetable oil. Soybeans are legumes, not vegetables.

    Oh, FFS! Just give it some cutesy name like Helldelish and display it in the “mayonnaise aisle”.

    1. Mayon-ayyys!

      1. Or mayon-ehs, in Canada.

        Or if it has to be bilingual, mayon-ehs/je ne crois pas que c’est mayo!

          1. Alors, que l’enfer est this white stuff?

            1. Demander ? votre p?re.

              1. “You call us ze jerks, yet you are ze ones who make mayonnaise without les ouefs? How can you make ze mayonnaise without les ouefs? You may as well call your wife your mistress!”

          2. Quick. TM that.

        1. Mayo?

          Mais oui!

          It’s the same. FYI.

          They pronounce it ‘Mayoo’.

          As in, ‘passe moe l’mayoo.’

          (That’s written dialect).

  6. But the main issue here is that Unilever is relying on an outdated definition and in the 21st century, there is really no reason mayonnaise has to include eggs.

    If it were still the Dark Ages of the oh-so-distant 20th century, however, mayonnaise would not be mayonnaise without eggs, right?

    1. But the main issue here is that Unilever is relying on an outdated definition and in the 21st century, there is really no reason mayonnaise has to include eggs.

      That is some mighty fine reasoning right there.

      1. Look, it’s trans-mayonnaise.

        1. Ah, the most fruitful approach yet.

          1. Stop your hating! They don’t need sauce reassignment surgery to become mayonnaise, it’s a matter of self-identification.

            1. Oops, spread, not sauce. Whew.

      2. No, the main issue is that they printed their labels without thinking. Now they’re gonna lose money. Let’s be real.

      3. No, the main issue is that they printed their labels without thinking. Now they’re gonna lose money. Let’s be real.

  7. Since when is Hellman’s a “Mayo monopoly” ? MAyonaise is one of the most competitive foods around – Kraft, Dukes, Hellamns, others, and hundreds of local brands. One can argue that reason.com has a monoploy on Libertarian websites, but arguing that Hellman’s is a monoply is
    more Libertarian BS.

    1. Yet Bill Maher can label his product as libertarian.

      1. I mean talk about mayo without eggs, this is libertarianism without liberty!

        1. I think you just described libertarian-communism.

          Laugh. But I saw someone describe themselves as such.

        2. I only use mayo or whatever one calls it when making tuna salad sammies a couple times a month. Who gives a fuck, though I was fed miracle whip as a kid and it really is revolting.

          About as revolting as twits like Bo defining anything.

        1. “I got nowhere else to gooooo!”

          /Mayo-nnaise

    2. arguing that Hellman’s is a monoply is
      more Libertarian BS.

      I suspect Baylen is engaging in a little libertarian, um, artistic license.

      1. Not libertarian BS. More like Reason writer BS.

        Reason is reaching way way out and on several occasions has fallen off the deck.

    3. Don’t forget the Brooklyn hipster ‘artisanal’ mayonaisses. I just love when the waiter brings out a bunch of upside-down mason jar lids for me to sniff.

      1. Is it sad that I can’t tell if this is a joke or not? I would like to believe I live in a world where people are not sniffing upside down jar lids.

    4. Baylen writes on food freedom, but he doesn’t identify as an -arian of any variety, as far as I can tell. Every word I’ve ever read or heard of his had to do with food freedom, and never anything other than that issue.

      His single-mindedness would be admirable if he weren’t a dirty, dirty lawyer.

      1. You Know Who Else actually did identify as a variety of Aryan?

        1. If it’s not the coach of the Arizona Cardinals it’s Hitler.

          Always Hitler.

        2. Aryan Ryand.

      2. So a lawyer that doesn’t want to force people to act in a certain manner, I’ll be in his corner while realizing your sarcasm.

        1. Sarcasm?

    5. MAyonaise is one of the most competitive foods around

      No not really. Dukes is far superior to any other. Especially slathered on sourdough bread and topped with juicy rich off the vine tomato.

      Summer…come back summer.

      1. Dukes is good, but have you tried Blue Plate?

  8. “Ce n’est pas Mayonnaise”

    1. C’est le crap!

  9. Also

    more sustainable, and cruelty-free foods that are affordable and appeal to the mainstream consumer, all of which should be encouraged and not threatened with legal action

    go fuck yourself.

    1. See I’ll agree they should be “available” if unavailability were the result of some government-induced distortion. But “encouraged”? That’s where the Go Fuck comes in.

    2. I hate lawyers and poseurs.

  10. Alt-text: “Just Shit On A Shingle”

  11. Yum?

    Isn’t that just a different (and thus lesser) variety of an egg salad sandwich? No such thing as a bad egg salad sandwich. Unless it’s gone bad.

  12. the guiding principal to me is that intent matters

    Intentions!

    O.K.

  13. “Other egg-less competitors include Miracle Whip,…”

    That does not help the case. My Dad accidentally bought Miracle Whip once when I was a kid thinking it was Kraft Mayonnaise (was not paying too close attention to the label). Tried to make sandwiches with it but that stuff is vile.

    1. http://www.justapinch.com/reci…..-cake.html

      Try it. It’s great. Certainly the best way to use an errant jar.

      1. That was…a long time ago.

        Never Again!

  14. ENB demands libertarians acknowledge the existence of “rape culture”.

    Bayelin Linnekin demands libertarians recognize ersatz Mayo as mayonnaise.

    Might as well relocate the Reason head office to Pyongyang.

  15. ” And that brings me back to my previous point, which is the sheer idiocy of FDA standards of identity for food.”

    A point which of course seems lost among our paleos too busy with kulturkampf battles against dirty vegan foodies.

    1. This seems like an unusual battle to fight. Pointing out that “eggless” mayonnaise is like milk-free ice cream and that words do indeed have meanings is not your dreaded “kulturkampf.”

      1. Yes it is. There’s no cosmic, fixed definition of mayonnaise or ice cream. It’s culturally constructed. This ‘you can’t do this because x has always been understood to have y as an essential element’ is just the attempt to impose one’s rigid cultural preferences in the form of pedantic dictionaryism. ‘It says so right here!’

        1. No, no it isn’t. The meaning of the word “mayonnaise” is no more a cultural construct than the meaning of the words “tire” or “dog”. Ask any classically-trained chef, the entire nations of France, Russia, or Spain, or anyone with an ounce of sense.

          1. “No, no it isn’t. The meaning of the word “mayonnaise” is no more a cultural construct than the meaning of the words “tire” or “dog”.”

            Remind me never to get a hot dog from you.

            1. Well, at least if I offer you a stout you’ll know you won’t wind up with a pilsner.

              1. Don’t bother arguing with him, he’s just playing captain contrary again.

                Besides if words can mean whatever we want then maybe the phrase “Remind me never to get a hot dog from you.” really means “I’m a complete fucking idiot, please berate me.”

          2. Right it is no more and no less culturally constructed than “tire” or “dog” both of which are cultural constructs. Where do you suppose the meanings of words come from other than their cultural use? I suppose you think the term twerking came from an FDA regulatory declaration as opposed to the natural cultural evolution of language?

            This is simply moronic. If you buy mayo and get a tire instead you can probably sue or I don’t know return it? The fact this kind of lawsuit nonsense isn’t laughed out of court suggests there is a biological de-evolution in progress that should put us somewhere between single cell organisms and the cast of idiocracy sometime in the next 50 years.

          3. It is when it gets to the fine points of what kind of oil is used or what percentage of water is present.

            There is no need for a government definition of mayo. If people buy it and don’t like it, that’s the only definition needed. If some people want to consider Miracle Whip as mayo, that’s their business. If a hamburger stand uses Miracle Whip and calls it mayo, and people don’t like it, they won’t buy it and the burger stand will suffer.

        2. Of course it’s culturally constructed. But “culturally” itself has a meaning!

        3. It’s Bo, doing his law school hipster schtick. Standards have definitely slipped when twits like Bo are accepted to law schools of any sort.

          That is not a good thing thing going forward.

    2. There is some point when changing the ingredients of a recipe you have changed it to something else entirely and promoting it as the original dish/sauce is fraud. At some point consumer’s would have a legitimate grievance.

      1. This is not at that point. The understanding of what ingredients are ‘essential’ to a recipe change with time and over communities.

        1. And if the general understanding of essential ingredients has not changed? Then what?

          1. It’s not going to be settled by pointing to a dictionary, that’s for sure.

            1. Neither is one person whining “outdated” going to settle it.

              1. Why not allow both products then, as long as the ingredients are clearly labeled, and let consumers decide which is what?

            2. Why isn’t it settled by dictionaries? What business did you think dictionaries were in?

              1. Thats it I’m making my own dictionary, with blackjack, and hookers!

              2. Drawing lines which cannot be drawn in a hard and fast way?

                1. Well, see, here’s the problem. Mayonnaise has a standard so chefs can create it, and then alter it to their tastes. So in the case of cooking, mayonnaise is equivalent to an “inch” i.e., a standard.

                  So appealing to the lexicon is pointless.

                2. This is hilarious coming from the person who will pick one word out of someones comment and beat them over the head about the meaning of it.

        2. That point is well taken, esp. considering of the evolution of the concept of ketchup. But just because there can be change over time or from community to community in the meaning of a word is not evidence in any given case that, for the relevant audience being addressed (in this case purchasers in grocery stores in the USA), the meaning has changed.

          The number of people making mayonnaise at home must far exceed the number making it commercially, because the commercial makers mass produce it so don’t need many people to know the recipe. If you were to survey people making what they thought of as mayonnaise at home, how many do you think would be making something other than an emulsion based on oil, vinegar, and egg yolk? I’d guess that’d be as close to 0 as necessary to establish practical unanimity on the meaning of the word.

  16. If there is one goddamn thing a limited government should do other than providing for mutual defense in time of war it is to provide a system of courts where these fake-mayonaisse fraudsters can be held accountable for their fraud.

    1. What fraud?

      Are they trying to sell you something made of eggs and it turns out it wasn’t?

      They’re not even using the word mayonnaise. In fact their entire marketing strategy is that the fact their product is egg-less

      1. What fraud?

        A product called “Just Mayo” with a label prominently depicting an egg. I assume it is sold on the condiment aisle right next to the Real Mayonnaise.

        Their marketing stategy is to pretend their eggless vegan sandwich spread is ” Real Mayonnaise…ONLY BETTER “

        1. A product called “Just Mayo” with a label prominently depicting an egg.

          No. It is the silhouette of an egg with a fucking pea sprouting inside it

          Just like a logo that is egg-shaped but clearly not an egg, the marketing relies on irony to make a certain point. They want you to know that it’s eggless. Again, they never use the word mayonnaise on the product either.

          I don’t see what’s wrong with it being sold next to real mayonnaise either. I see “white-bean hummus” sold next to traditional chick-pea hummus. Anyone who’s not an idiotic can read to see the difference. But that’s also besides the point since that’s up to the store owner.

          How do you feel about haunted house attractions? Should the government shut them down too since after all, they’re not really haunted.

      2. Hellmans wouldn’t give a shit if the stuff was marketed as “egg-free sandwich spread (mayonnaise substitute)”. The vegan food market is niche. Just Mayo is marketing to people that their product is mayonnaise, only better. Hence “Just Mayo” complete with a picture of the defining ingredient it doesn’t actually contain.

        1. Why would a vegan rush to buy a product with a picture of a big fat egg on the label? That’s like putting a picture of dead Edward G. Robinson on a package of Soylent Green. Just curious.

          1. The same reason vegans buy fake meat. Their body craves what their mind won’t let them have.

          2. For the win, fc.

  17. “The Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee has issued a report roundly rejecting a number of conspiracy theories about the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.”

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/the…..iracy.html

    1. Now why would you go and ignite the Buttplug beacon like that? Can you give us some warning first?

      1. He’s beginning to run out of people who will engage with him. Lighting the PB flare is his way of screwing up the thread.

  18. Outdated definition, huh? Michele Simon strikes me as like those who want to partisanly redefine “married” & “spouse”.

    Meanwhile, BL, you’re not saying soy or cotton plants are animal or mineral, are you? Of course they’re vegetable. I don’t see how you can distinguish “legume”, which is a subset of “vegetable”, from vegetable generally.

    1. Yes, outdated. Most people I know would call MW mayonnaise with no problem. Paleos tend to be obscenely literalistic people.

      1. Anecdotal evidence that people you know are morons does not change the definition of words. Most people you know might think cube steak is filet mignon, and the Bill of Rights was a typo- doesn’t make it so.

      2. ” Most people I know would call MW mayonnaise with no problem”

        Not a single person I know would.

        1. Any that do should be horsewhipped. MW is just nasty.

      3. “Most people I know would call MW mayonnaise with no problem.”

        OK, Bo… let me start by saying that I 100% agree with you that there shouldn’t be any food regulations, but I am not having this. If most people you know would call Miracle Whip mayonnaise, then most people you know are fucking cunts.
        Good God, I would never want a sandwich from some dickhead who can’t you what viscous fluid he’s about to spread on it. Fucking hell, who knows when you and the fucking idiots you know will start calling semen ‘ketchup, and fecal matter, ‘mustard.’

    2. “Outdated definition” seems to be the go to argument when you do not really have one. It is all kinds of avoidance of reason and logic.

      1. Is say pointing to a dictionary and jumping up and down is a pretty poor argument. It’s like those who think the marriage debate is settled by pointing to the dictionary definition of ‘marriage.’ It’s begging the very question. Words change their conceptual understandings all the time.

        1. Claiming a definition is outdated is not?

          It has the virtue of having more objective support than an unsubstantiated claim that the definition is “outdated”. When SSM was put up to votes it tended to lose which did not lend much credence to the claim that the conceptual meaning had changed. How is it clear that the definition mayonnaise no longer includes eggs?

          When words can mean anything, they mean nothing and lose value as the most basic communication tool.

          1. “When SSM was put up to votes it tended to lose which did not lend much credence to the claim that the conceptual meaning had changed. ”

            How’s that worked out lately? This proves my point: when there’s significant or growing different understandings of a concept they can’t just be dismissed by pointing to the traditional understanding, and the government shouldn’t step in to use force to effectively end the debate under the rationale of enforcing the traditional definition.

            1. When there was an actual debate over the definition the updated version lost and it supporters ran to the courts to end debate and enforce their definition over the popular and traditional conception.

              1. Look at that shiny thing over there.

                /Bo

            2. How’s that worked out lately? This proves my point:

              Actually, no Bo-Bo, it proves how fucking wrong you are.

              The only reason it is working out the other way is that SSM supporters have used the courts to circumvent the majority held conventional definition because they fucking lost in the polls.

          2. Yep without meaning words mean nothing, language becomes useless. We might as well go back to grunting at each other, and living in caves.

            1. That may be an improvement for Bo.

        2. Yes, words do change their meanings, but whether such a change has occurred is a question of fact, not something to be decreed. If a dictionary is suitably descriptive more than authochtonously prescriptive, it is indeed good evidence.

          1. “. If a dictionary is suitably descriptive more than authochtonously prescriptive, it is indeed good evidence.”

            A premise that’s questionable to say the least.

            1. How do you think dictionaries make money? People trust them to do unbiased research on what words mean & how they’re spelled.

              1. Or look at Wiktionary, which is crowd-sourced?the wisdom of the masses. I think you’ll see broad agreement between entrepreneurial dictionaries and the wiki. It’s only satiric “dictionaries” that intentionally skew the definitions of words.

    3. Yes, the alleged FDA “misidentified legume” paragraph was a particularly painful read and far beneath BL.

  19. …in the 21st century, there is really no reason mayonnaise has to include eggs.

    Except the recipe, of course. And then there’s this, from Wikipedia:

    The Larousse Gastronomique suggests: “Mayonnaise, in our view, is a popular corruption of moyeunaise, derived from the very old French word moyeu, which means yolk of egg.”

    But don’t let over three hundred years of history and the worldwide understanding of the definition of a word get in your way, hippies, go ahead and call your thing “mayonnaise”. I’ll just be sitting here on this velociraptor, typing on this harmonica.

    1. You might have some serious issues with ‘hamburger…’

      1. Not when I remember that it is so named because it was popularized in the city of Hamburg. Try again.

        1. Don’t order Bombay Duck, for one.

    2. wwhorton,

      What’s your opinion of places like Italy who have moved to protect foods through heritage laws like pizza, parmiggiano and prosciutto from corrupted copy cats?

      E,g.: Kraft parmesan/Reggiano-Parmiggiano.

      1. I’m not wild about using legislation…well, full stop, really. But I generally think it’s a particularly silly waste of time and money, and it leads to abuse. On the other hand, I find a great deal of value in knowing exactly what it is I’m getting. I’d like to think that people who feel the same way tend to manage that situation best simply by not buying mislabeled products and spreadin’ the word, so to speak, but, at the risk of making more of this than there is, I think you could probably make an argument that labeling something as something it isn’t and defending the practice by claiming constructivism is either fraud or something very close to it.

        I brew beer, and stuff like this comes up a lot. There’s the Reinheitsgebot, of course, and there’s CAMRA, and there are various style guides (BJCP is a popular one). I tend to stick pretty closely to the latter, mostly as a hobby, but there’s also some real merit to establishing what exactly makes something an IPA versus a pale ale, for instance. It comes down to knowing what it is you’re getting.

        1. Thanks. I see it along those lines (including legislation – which so far as far as I can tell only France and Italy consider it as an option) as well.

          1. For those European countries, legislation regarding food labeling is pure protectionism.

            I don’t believe legislation should ever be used in this area. Courts are better suited, since a plaintiff would have to prove he was somehow harmed beyond merely “that’s not exactly what I wanted.”

            1. Brown v. Margarine; I can’t believe it’s not butter/Butter.

  20. I’m not sure the FDA can define mayo any more than the government can define any word. The definition exists prior to government. It’s just a case if fraud.

    Whether the FDA exists or not I can’t sell a cardboard box and call it a computer, a hotdog and call it a steak, or slop and call it mayo.

    1. Well, you can do those things, just don’t be surprised if u end up in court.

    2. You should be able to do those things.

  21. Next up: Reason endorses force and coercion.

    1. Reason likes Gary Johnson.

  22. It would be one thing if a gov’t had made up the word, or had chosen one meaning out of several same-context ones that existed at a given time. But no, this word is customary, a product of spontaneous order, not originally decreed by anyone in power. Same with marriage & money terms.

    1. “Same with marriage”

      And goodness knows the understanding of that word and what’s essential to it has remained unchanged

      1. Words have no meaning anymore, so even though you are typing in plain English, how do I really know what you are trying to say? Maybe you’re really saying you enjoy donkey dick or something, who knows.

        1. It’s hilarious how conservative minded soil themselves from contemplating that life might not firmly correspond to their rigid and literalistic definitions. I mean, if marriage can mean something other than one man and one woman then we will soon have men marrying their dogs!

          1. Not sure what you’re trying to say sense words don’t mean anything anymore, and I can’t just look them up in a dictionary, because according to you the actual dictionary definition of words don’t mean anything either…

            1. You actually reinforce my point with your continued pants soiling

            2. But dictionaries really don’t prescribe definitions. They describe them. If enough people use a word in a certain way it’ll end up in the dictionaries, just like how new words end up in dictionaries.

              It’s both a pro and con of English. Words are fluid. There are no real rules for orthography either. That’s why spelling bees are a thing in English. And a century or two from now, spelling may change again just as how it had from a century or two ago.

              Lots of ambiguity people import redundant words. Free- is simply German translation for the Latin libre- but both are imported. We have aqua- and we have hydro- and water. No consistency whatsoever. It’s the same way we get the meaning of the word awful which is literally awe + ful, yet means attained the opposite meaning around the 18th and 19th century. So dictionaries included this other meaning.

              1. * well I certainly messed up all the grammar when editing that last paragraph.

    2. What’s your stance on Champagne?

      1. Marriage as a social construct might indeed mean different things to different people, but the core idea remains pretty universal. On the other hand, if you sell something called “Just Mayo” to someone who knows what mayonnaise is, they’d look at the label and return it to you with a note saying, “You seem to have forgotten to put eggs in this.” Mayonnaise has been commonly popular throughout Europe for hundreds and hundreds of years. There are even guidelines published by international sauce committees (they actually have those) that specify what the oil to egg ratio ought to be. It’s not like defining “manliness”, it’s like defining “pilsner”.

        1. “to someone who knows what mayonnaise is”

          This is where you begged the question

          1. Damn I wish words had meanings. You wrote “This is where you begged the question.” but for all I know that means “Hello may I please act in some toilet based porn please?”

            If only there was a handy book around to tell me the meaning of words, but unfortunately I’ve learned that a dictionary definition of a word doesn’t mean anything either.

            1. How hilarious is it to see BoBo argue against words having meanings?

              Words have very precise meanings that I will argue about for hours–except when those definitions are begging the question. Also, projection.

              1. Whats really hilarious is how BoBo spent so much time in the past letting us know who was a real Libertarian and who wasn’t, is now arguing that words don’t really have meaning.

                So maybe the definition of Libertarian as also evolved? Or is he fixed an such a rigid definition of something that seems to have a far more vague definition then mayonnaise?

            2. You really think you have some super cute point here, but it’s just pants soiling over your absolute breakdown over the possibility that words might not have the rigidly fixed meanings you want them to, and it’s magnified by your obsessive need to keep repeating yourself on it.

              1. You really think you have some super cute point here, but it’s just pants soiling over your absolute breakdown over the possibility that words might not have the rigidly fixed meanings you want them to, and it’s magnified by your obsessive need to keep repeating yourself on it.

                I honestly don’t believe I’ve seen any person/entity/sockpuppet posting on this site in the several years I’ve been here so thoroughly and exquisitely demonstrate psychological projection than you just did with that one post.

          2. Yeah, I did. There is a thing called “mayonnaise”. You can say that there’s an eternal, immutable archetypical mayonnaise that serves as the model for what we call mayonnaise, or you can say that there is a thing we’ve all sort of decided to call mayonnaise, or you can say that tradition has created a concept of mayonnaise in a sort of generational feedback loop. But however you get there, the word does have a particular meaning. You can change it for yourself if you’d like, but you can’t change it for everyone else.

        2. I think I see where you’re going and I agree. Mayo is a recipe and there’s a certain ‘heritage’ to such things. If not, we’d consider Ketchup to be tomato sauce if taken to its logical end. Lines must be drawn! Walls! As Les Nessman would say.

          For example, if an original recipe calls for certain ingredients then that’s the recipe.

          I remember watching Jamie Oliver traveling throughout Italy cooking and that’s the ONE thing they kept reminding him when he started getting creative. They understood that recipes can be altered but when you cook a dish that’s been prepared a certain way for ages, don’t get fancy or else it ceases being that dish.

          I’m that way. If I order alla carbonara DO NOT add cream to it.

          If I understand your overall point.

          It frustrated him but he got the point eventually.

          1. Yeah, that’s basically what I’m getting at. To continue my riff off my reply to your post above, Dogfish 120 Minute IPA is not, technically speaking, an IPA, because it’s way, way too bitter. It’s an “American IPA”, which is a catch-all group for like “novelty” IPAs. Still a great beer, although it’ll take the paint off walls. Just not an IPA per se.

            1. I’m still learning about beers (and bourbon). It took me a long time to get a decent grasp of wine.

              1. There’s a surprising variety of stuff that falls under the category of beer. The range of styles alone is pretty wide, and when you get into brewing you start to see the relationships between ingredients and the whole brewing process. I find that the more I brew the more I appreciate the flavors in beers I drink, because I can pick out specific grains and hops, and I can take a stab at how and when hops were added, for instance, or how long the wort boiled, stuff like that. People who’ve been doing it for a while can get scarily specific, but I’m not there yet.

                Wine, on the other hand, is a black box to me. I took a half-hearted stab at learning about wine a few years ago but, frankly, I have a lot of trouble telling the difference between varietals. I sort of know more or less what I like (chardonnays, pinot noirs, and Sangioveses, mostly) but you could pour me a glass of Welch’s and tell me it was merlot and I’d believe you.

                Bourbons are great. Are you a whisky drinker generally? I used to prefer Scotch but over the past few years price has made Bourbons more attractive, and there are some pretty damn good ones out there.

                1. I’ve gotten into Bourbon over the last couple of years.

                  1. It’s very hard to learn about the grape varieties. It’s incredibly subtle. Some grape varieties are more distinct and easier to spot. My uncle was a master at it. I’m still trying to learn what a ‘hop’ is supposed to ‘taste’ like.

                    So far I just know the types of beers I like. Stout for example.

                  2. A friend bought me a bottle of Blanton’s a while ago and I was very impressed.

      2. Whoops, meant to reply to the guy above.

      3. A sparkling wine made in the Champagne region of France?

      4. Not that you asked but Champagne is an actual region and name. Champagne made outside this region is not Champagne but rather attempts to use the process of making Champagne which becomes ‘white sparkling wine’. Like Asti for example.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asti_wine

        1. I heartily disagree with this definition.

          Mostly because it really pisses off the pretentious (and especially the French).

          But seriously, this is like saying that cheddar cheese can only be made in Cheddar.

          1. And before BoBo wades in with his tendentious bullshit, there’s a big difference between defining something by recipe and ingredients, such as champagne, cheddar or mayonnaise, and defining it by some government-sanctioned specific region where it was produced.

            1. Yeah, I can totally see this argument.

              Just so I’m clear it’s not my point but one I’ve heard over the years in conversations. Personally, I go back and forth. I’m more with whorton in that there’s value in knowing the difference.

              So, when I have Asti I know it’s Asti and not Champagne.

          2. While I sympathize with pissing off the French, the region is the point. It’s the grapes, yeah, but it’s the combo of the particular grapes and the particular area. It’s like Vidalia onions, Cuban cigars, or Kobe beef. The locality is intrinsic to the meaning.

            And, not to be all whatever about it, but there are specific varieties of cheddar that can only be labeled as such if they’re made in specific parts of the UK.

            1. All joking aside you make some quite valid points, the issue isn’t black and white. But wouldn’t it be silly if the only cheese you could buy labeled ‘cheddar’ was from some specific region in Britain?

              1. Yeah, I totally agree, and I honestly feel like if you take the whole Champagne thing to its logical extreme you’ve got to start suing anyone selling “New York-style” pizza that isn’t in NYC. I actually met a guy at a party who wanted to start up a business selling NYC tap water to local pizzerias (this is in Maryland) so they could make “authentic” NY pizza.

                1. Some claim it’s not pizza unless you use tomatoes from Naples.

                  1. What about deep dish?

                    *ducks*

                2. if you take the whole Champagne thing to its logical extreme you’ve got to start suing anyone selling “New York-style” pizza that isn’t in NYC.

                  Yeah, it can get pretty silly when taken to either extreme. And then politicians and professional regulators end up getting to decide the issue.

            2. or walla walla sweet onions.

        2. True, but it’s far from the only time that custom has broadened the use of a word that was formerly proprietary, such as zipper. There are borderline or contentious cases such as castile soap wherein you can’t win a fraud case but many people will insist non-olive soaps don’t count, or like Xerox where you can’t sell your brand of copier under their name but people will colloquially use it in lower case as a verb or noun broadly.

          But just because there’s plenty of precedent for it to happen doesn’t mean that every time someone asserts a new meaning, it becomes legit. In particular, what’s the evidence that “mayonnaise” has broadened its meaning?

  23. An example where FDA is very deliberately behind the times in using a particular definition of a statutory word: soap. Soap originally referred to the whole product of saponification (sorry about the circularity there, but it’s the easiest way to put it now). Later people discovered that they could fractionate kettle process soap into glycerine and the remainder, which was called “soap”. This was a sensible evolution of language wherein once a minor part is separated from the major part, the major part retains the word of the entirety. As chemistry progressed, a more technical meaning of “soap” was devised to apply to all fatty acid salts, even of those fatty acids that aren’t very fatty and salts of them that aren’t very soapy, such as calcium acetate; however, this meaning could be distinguished from the popular one, which however, could also include insoluble soaps used as lubricants.

    In the 1970s FDA issued an advisory letter that a soap-like but technically soapless detergent solution for washing hands could be labeled “soap” as long as consumers thought of it as such, and indeed popular usage now is that various detergents made to be used with water are called soaps. However, in interpreting the word in the FFDCA where soap has since 1938 exempted from being considered a “cosmetic”, FDA has held to a narrow definition of “soap”, as if Congress had a technical meaning in mind rather than a popular one, even though in labeling they allow the word to be used broadly.

    1. I would never consider acetate to be a fatty acid and I’ve never heard of anyone calling it that. Even propionate is not fatty. I’d think you’d have to get up to 10 or so carbons before you started calling a carboxylic acid fatty.

  24. If it spreads, looks, and tastes like mayonnaise, I don’t see why one cannot call it mayonnaise.

    1. Artificial diamonds can now be made & cut like mineral diamonds for jewelry, but at least some buyers care about how they were made.

    2. You can call it mayonnaise. You can call it whatever you want. But if you try to sell it without disclosing that it’s not mayo you may end up in court.

    3. Most people I know would say it taste nothing like mayonnaise.

      1. I didn’t mean this stuff specifically; I just meant if a product met those basic characteristics, how is it not mayonnaise?

    4. Use of the word mayonnaise entails acknowledgment of the magic and permanent meaning of words.

      Thus a food that actually trumpets the fact that it’s vegan, that it has no eggs, and which features a bean sprouting into an egg on the actual logo must not call itself mayo or fear lawsuit from top-down anti-Hayekian technocrats.

      Because people can’t decide for themselves whether buying $5 vegannaise is a good idea.

    5. If it spreads, looks, and tastes like hot sauce, I don’t see why one cannot call it mayonnaise.

      Lazy consumers don’t deserve special protection.

  25. OT:
    Hey! He kept us out of Pakistan!

    “In a Shift, Obama Extends U.S. Role in Afghan Combat”
    […]
    “In an announcement in the White House Rose Garden in May, Mr. Obama said that the American military would have no combat role in Afghanistan next year,[…]In effect, Mr. Obama’s decision largely extends much of the current American military role for another year”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11……html?_r=0

  26. They’re not even using the word mayonnaise. And the word “Mayo” is not private property. There’s no fraud because they’re telling you it’s eggless. In fact they are explicitly marketing it as eggless–that’s their entire niche, with a godamn pea sprouting inside an egg.

    This is just like the IP stupidity of Sabra suing over non-chickpea hummus, when their competitors explicitly label and market it as such.

  27. OT:
    What happens if you give an Executive Order and nobody comes?

    “Immigration reform: Farmworkers, agribusiness feel left out”
    […]
    “The executive order that Obama announced Thursday night contains no specific provisions applying to undocumented farmworkers, such as a visa that would grant them temporary legal status.”
    http://www.sfgate.com/politics…..909909.php

    1. “Farmworkers, agribusiness feel left out”

      Especially women and minority farmers and agribusinesses?

  28. I know mayonnaise matters, it’s just that after watching Obama bend Article One, Section 8 over his desk, earlier this week, it all seems kinda trivial now.

    1. Article One, Section 8

      Article what, section who? Seriously, in some circles, you can’t even say that such a thing exists without reducing the true believers to name-calling.

  29. Look, language develops organically, meanings change. But while *waiting* for the meaning to change, you can’t use a word in one sense that is generally understood in another, in order to sell stuff.

    At some point, people may informally come to a new meaning of mayonnaise, which excludes eggs. Then you can call your eggless product mayonnaise without fraud. But so long as eggs are part of the acceptable definition, calling it mayonnaise without eggs is fraud.

    So of course I am skeptical about the FDA trying to freeze the meanings of words, but so long as they uphold the currently-accepted meaning, that would be OK.

    Say you were selling underwater mines, but you labelled them as “torpedoes” because that’s the old usage. So someone who’s looking for torpedoes could buy the mines by mistake and that would be fraud. If, at some later date, we recover the original meaning of torpedoes, then well and good, but until that time, we need to use the common usage, unless there’s an agreement to use a specialized language.

    1. How is that new understanding going to become accepted when the government uses force to prevent it being out there? As long as the ingredients are not secret then why not let consumers decide whether they think eggs are essential?

      1. It’s a question that depends on context. Posit a reasonable consumer speaking the same language the seller uses – is the consumer being misled?

        Yes, the seller has to keep track of the evolution of the language – and if he sells to customers of different languages, he has to keep track of the evolution of those languages, too.

        But so long as “chicken salad” means a dish made from cutting up chicken, and “chicken shit” means the feces of a chicken, you can’t sell one labelled by the other.

        1. Translation can also be a bitch.

          Thus, to most people in the U.S., a notary public witnesses documents. To Latin Americans, “notorio publico” (the literal translation of “notary public”) involves many more legal functions, opening avenues for fraud by U.S. notaries public.

          http://www.americanbar.org/gro…..fraud.html

          1. notario

    2. Say you were selling underwater mines, but you labelled them as “torpedoes” because that’s the old usage.

      More accurately, using your analogy, it’s like marketing say, “torps” instead. Except in this case they’re explicitly selling it as torpedo-less torps. There’s no fraud.

      They’re not trying bait-n-switch. That would defeat the purpose.

      1. It depends on whether this is clear from the front of the label or stuck in fine print on the back label.

        1. “Just Penicillin” an all-natural homeopathic tincture of organically-grown Penicillum”.

          The advertisements should have a zither musical score.

          1. I was wondering why my symptoms persisted even after I took the pills.

          2. “The advertisements should have a zither musical score.”

            +1 extra man

    3. Say, where’s the fuse on this tor…KABOOM!

    4. Hell no, as a buyer you are expected to do your own due diligence in determining what you’re buying. Fuck this hand holding shit you millennials are so fond of.

  30. my co-worker’s mother makes $60 hourly on the internet . She has been out of work for 8 months but last month her paycheck was $18001 just working on the internet for a few hours. visit this site……

    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  31. You cannot buy decent mayo in this country. It has texture, but almost no flavor. The state of mayo in this land is like the state of beer in the 1970’s. Bud, Coors, or Miller or. few smaller brand carbon copies. I would love to see a mayo renaissance happen. And yes, it is the best thing to go with french fries.

    1. French fries with mayo is disgusting. That’s why Belgium is a Third World country.

    2. Only homemade mayo is any good. I would never buy mayo.

  32. Enough about Mayo.

    Let’s talk about mustard.

    1. In the library, with a candlestick.

    2. Mustard is a god among condiments. Especially a nice stone ground.

  33. Really not that complicated. Just Mayo wants to use the name to increase sales and profit. If they used the name “Really Healthy, Non Violent Spread” sales would be down. It is the old bait and switch but because they are Vegan we should look the other way?

    1. Peayo.

      See if people connect to that!

    2. Bait and switch only catches dishonest people themselves, I have no problem with it.

  34. Too much mayonnaise can be unhealthy for you.

    Do you know where you go if you have a heart attack from eating too much mayonnaise?

    The Mayo clinic!

    Thank you, I’ll be here all night, try the tofu.

    1. Ok.

      I laughed.

  35. Just Mayo, known as Only Naise west of the Rockies.

  36. While I personally believe that egg-less mayonnaise is an affront to God, I think that people like myself are perfectly capable of reading the ingredient list if they wish to avoid abominations such as Miracle Whip and Just Mayo. 🙂

    1. Yeah, I think there needs to be more than just mis-naming for fraud. There needs to be some deception involved. If I hold up an apple and say “hey, you wanna buy this National guitar” and you buy it well thats on the buyer. If I promise to sell you a National guitar and then send you a crate of apples well then I’m guilty of fraud. When the product is out in the open it should be on the buyer to make sure he’s getting what he thinks he’s paying for.

  37. As a committed and serious food person, a lifelong vegetarian, an enthusiast of Champagne, and a strong advocate of the position that deep dish (however tasty) is not pizza, there’s only one thing I can say:

    Mayonnaise is pus. Mayo is imitation pus. Pus Pus Pus Pus Pus. Pus Pus Pus Pus Pus. Pus Pus Pus Pus Pus. Pus Pus Pus Pus Pus. Pus Pus Pus Pus Pus.

    Do I make myself clear?

    PUS.

    1. Reminds me of some nasty jokes we used to tell as kids. You know what ketchup is? Potato chips? Lumpy buttermilk?

      Damn, you made me remember those things. Now I’m gagging.

      1. It’s not a joke. MAYO/MAYONNAISE IS PUS!

        PUS!

    2. serious food person, a lifelong vegetarian,

      These two things are antithetical.

    3. If you’ve only been buying store mayonnaise I understand this sentiment, but true homemade mayonnaise is a thing of wonderment.

  38. It looks like a Rolex, and keeps time like a Rolex, so does it matter if it isn’t really a Rolex?

    Mayonnaise has a traditional recipe and meaning. And I really don’t get the libertarian objection to that. Aren’t we generally against force and fraud? How is this not fraud? Sure, there’s some flex in words and recipes, but if it says “mayo” on the label and has a picture of an egg, I expect mayonnaise, which has eggs in it. So I agree with Hellman’s: it’s deceptive labeling.

    (In fact, it’s deceptive in another way: I expect a “Just ____” product to be pure. I’d think it meant that it was only mayonnaise, lacking additives or preservatives or whatever. I would not expect it to mean it lacked the core ingredient of mayonnaise.)

    If a bottle says “Just Cider” and has a picture of an apple, it should be cider made from apples, not imitation-apple-flavored whatever. If you want to make “ground beef” out of peas, fine, just don’t call it “Just Ground Beef” and put a cow on the label.

    I’m no fan of the FDA, but accurate labeling seems like a legit function.

    1. Mayonnaise has a traditional recipe and meaning.

      And is not a brand name or trademark like Rolex. Try again.

      1. OK, then my apple cider example applies. Sheesh.

    2. Your “traditional recipe and meaning” mean nothing. The FDA should not be in the dictionary business. They should be abolished.

  39. I think labeling laws like this are fairly stupid. However, in the real world, a mayonnaise without eggs is like a beef stew without beef. This anti-meat hippie lawyer knows that.

    1. Or like good without god!

    2. What about this?

      http://www.heritagehealthfood……388109.jpg

      1. See, if they spell it chiken it’d be okay.

        But if they use that extra c a federal agency should destroy their business via regulation. Which can never be captured, because state regulators never have previous experience in private business.

      2. At least that has the “no chicken” image in the upper right. The big word “Chicken” makes it a bit marginal, but it’s still better than “Just Mayo” with an egg graphic.

  40. 200+ posts about fauxyonaise? C’mon man!

    1. This is on the heels of last weekend’s lengthy debate on the same.

  41. Learn The Simple Secret To Making Money From Home , Work From Home Safe And Easily
    ==== ==== ===== http://WWW.WORK4HOUR.COM

  42. Nonsense. Sounds a little like Clinton and what the meaning of “is” is. Mayonnaise IS an emulsion of eggs and oil. If you want to market something that isn’t mayonnaise, call it something else. “Garden Burgers” can’t call themselves Hamburgers, right?

    I grant you that the average American has not idea of what’s in anything he or she eats these days, but that’s still not license to mislabel food. Pick your battles.

    1. So we should let the government determine the definitions of words? No thanks.

  43. So eggless Mayo has to be fauxnaise but no one has a problem with fat-free cream cheese? We’ve let the lawyers run the asylum much too long.

  44. you’re all morons. It SAYS IT RIGHT ON THE FRONT OF THE BOTTLE IN LARGE LETTERS that it’s a special egg-less mayonnaise. There is no attempt to deceive. There is full disclosure. Nobody is buying this thinking it’s traditional mayonnaise.

    How have you chuds not seen the bottle? They’re all over the place in stores. You guys need to fucking get off the computer and get a life. How have you seriously not seen the bottle?

    1. The bottle has an egg on it. It’s called “Just Mayo.” Would you consider it OK if ground soybeans were called “Just Burger” and the package had a cow on it?

      1. The jar’s label has an icon of a sprout transforming into an egg and large print vegan-friendly braggadocio about how it’s free of all sorts of tasty things that human beings have been consuming from the time that we climbed down from the trees. Plus the damn stuff is twice as expensive as regular mayo–why in the hell would they be trying to pass their product off as the cheap, normal stuff?

        And if Just Burger’s packaging had a labeled featuring a joyful soybean being led into a slaughterhouse, I’d buy it purely for hilarity’s sake even if I did have to pay twice as much.

        1. When I grow up I’m going to Legume University!

        2. a sprout transforming into an egg

          I see a sprout in an egg, with no “transforming.”

          large print vegan-friendly braggadocio

          You call this “large print”?

          And again, the name “Just Mayo” implies purity, not substitution.

          1. I see a sprout in an egg, with no “transforming.”

            Not an art fan, I take it. How often do you see sprouts in eggs? What does that bring to mind?

            You call this “large print”?

            Yes? Are you trying to claim that a vegan product is trying to hide it’s vegan-ness because it uses easily readable print instead of, super-easily readable print?

            This is the goofiest topic this board has seen in a long time: libertarians arguing that the state rather than markets should dictate the meaning of words.

            1. I am indeed an art fan, and have made part of my living designing. I see a sprout framed or silhouetted by the shape of an egg, but no transformation. The straight visual meaning of that image is “an egg with a plant in front of it.”

              I don’t consider the topic goofy at all, just some of the reactions. I always thought libertarians opposed force and fraud, and weren’t averse to a minimal government that protected people from those things. I am saying that, taken as a whole, the packaging is misleading.

              As I said, I have absolutely no objection to imitation mayonnaise, just an attempt to pretend that it’s real. A package labeled “Just Burger” with a picture of a cow should be hamburger, regardless of the small print. A bottle labeled “Just Cider” with a picture of an apple should really be apple cider.

              1. Why is it the government’s duty to determine that for you? For fuck’s sake, it’s the 21st century. If you want to know what’s in a McNugget there are 12 million youtube videos showing you exactly that. Stop being such a child and take some responsibility for your own life.

                You millennials are fucking terrible.

    2. Let’s see.

      Storms into thread, doesn’t read all posts, claims “you’re all morons” (points deducted for correct spelling of “you’re”), then either 1) fails to spell chode/choad correctly or 2) disrespects the cult classic C.H.U.D. via lousy acronymization technique. Bonus points for “You guys need to fucking get off the computer and get a life,” as this indicates a sound understanding of the rich and subtle history of trolling.

      3/5

  45. I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

    ??????? http://www.walletwiki.com

  46. So, apparently there are a lot of libertarians who think consumers need the FDA telling them what is or isn’t mayonnaise. Good to know.

    I say no product gets to call itself mayonnaise, then. I mean, if they deviate from the FDA’s prescribed ingredients, it’s obviously fraud.

    1. I suspect many libertarians like myself would like to abolish the FDA, so it’s completely irrelevant.

  47. I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

    ??????? http://www.payflame.com

  48. I started with my online business I earn $58 every 15 minutes. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it out.

    ??????? http://www.payflame.com

  49. ????????? ONLINE JOBS ??????????
    You make 27 Dollar per hour good for you! I make up to 85 Dollar per hour working from home. My story is that I quit working at shoprite to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around 45 Dollar per hour to 85 Dollar per hour heres a good example of what I’m doing more detail here….
    ????????? http://www.jobsfish.com

  50. King Solomon would call it Just Gayo and be done with it.

  51. Government should not be in the position of determining truth in labeling. The Affordable Care Act is anything but. Everyone who works in the government is a lying asshole fuckface. Everyone of them.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.