The FDA Targets Vegan Mayonnaise

The presence of ingredients such as pea protein and beta-carotene violates federal mayonnaise law.


Hampton Creek/Facebook

Once again proving itself more national busybody than necessary defender of consumer safety, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is cracking down on potentially misleading mayonnaise labeling. Specifically, the agency objects to Hampton Creek vegan mayonnaise, a condiment that mimics traditional mayonnaise without using egg yolks.  

In a warning letter sent to Hampton Creek earlier this month, the FDA noted several "significant violations" of federal regulations. The first complaint is that Hampton Creek uses the term "cholesterol free" on the label of its "Just Mayo" products.

Nevermind that Just Mayo is, indeed, a cholesterol-free food. While the FDA allows foods with up to two milligrams of cholesterol per serving to bear claims that they're free of cholesterol, this statement is forbidden on products "customarily consumed" in small amounts if they a) have more than 13 grams of fat per 50 grams and b) fail to "disclose the level of total fat in a serving of the product in immediate proximity to the cholesterol claim." 

The FDA also claims Hampton Creek's Just Mayo and Just Mayo Siracha are "misbranded" because they do not meet federal requirements for calling something mayonnaise. Under federal law, only foods 1) containing at least 65 percent vegetable oil, 2)vinegar and/or lemon juice, and 3) some sort of egg-yolk product may be labeled mayonnaise. It can also contain preservatives, salt, sweeteners, spices, flavoring, and monosodium glutamate, but only "provided it does not impart to the mayonnaise a color simulating the color imparted by egg yolk." Any other ingredients are forbidden. 

Want to sell mayonnaise with an egg substitute, lime juice, or slightly less vegetable oil? Too bad—the FDA does not think the market can handle such ingredient chaos. 

Contra the FDA rules, Hampton Creek's mayo doesn't contain egg yolks (or any other animal-based ingredients). It does, however, contain several ingredients that may up the nutrient factor compared to typical mayo, such as pea protein and beta-carotene. These ingredients are in violation of federal mayonnaise law. 

Keep Food Legal director (and Reason columnist) Baylen Linnekin interviewed public health lawyer Michele Simon about the issue last November:

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… 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.

Hampton Creek—which also makes egg-free cookie dough and includes Bill Gates among its major investors—has come under FDA scrutiny before, resulting in it being forced to change "lemon juice" to "lemon juice concentrate" on labels. The company was also sued by Unilever, producer of Hellmann's mayo, in 2014; Unilever dropped the suit in December so Hampton Creek could address the labeling issue directly with the FDA. As Scott Shackford noted at the time, "Unilever ended up having to change the descriptions of ingredients in some of its own products on its website from mayonnaise to mayonnaise dressing because they weren't even in compliance with the very regulations they were trying to use to punish Hampton Creek." 

The FDA's complaint also faulted Hampton Creek for stating on its website: 

Your Heart Matters. When your heart is healthy, well, we're happy. You'll never find cholesterol in our products.

"Adjacent to this statement is a heart shaped symbol with a smiling face," the FDA notes. "Together these statements and heart symbol are an implied health claim that these products can reduce the risk of heart disease due to the absence of cholesterol," in violation of the FDA rules about implying such a thing.

Hampton Creek CEO Josh Tetrick told Quartz that he "had a really good call with the FDA" Tuesday and looks forward to "a productive conversation" through which they can "find some common ground" and keep using the name "Just Mayo."

NEXT: We Know Who You Are

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. BL: Can an egg-less product be mayonnaise?


    Next question - Why do Vegans go to so much trouble to simulate animal products instead of just rejoining the human race as omnivores?

    1. Yeah, what they're selling isn't actually mayonnaise, it's imitation mayonnaise. So why can't they just call it imitation mayo?

      1. Because the question of what is mayonnaise is not something to be decided by consumers for themselves, but was ordained by God and the Cosmos unchangeable for all time.

        1. Welcome to Botardation: A Celebration. Now, hopefully with this book, I'm gonna dispel a few myths, a few rumors. First off, the Botard doesn't rule the night. He don't rule it. Nobody does. And he don't run in packs. And while he may not be as strong as an ape, don't lock eyes with 'im, don't do it. Puts 'im on edge. He might go into berzerker mode; come at you like a whirling dervish, all fists and elbows. You might be screaming "No, no, no" and all he hears is "Who wants cake?" Let me tell you something: Bo does. Bo always wants cake.

          1. What's retarded is acting like recipes are unchangeable natural law like truths. Grow up.

            1. Dreams are a great thing, but you know something? They take a lot of energy. But that's OK. There's a job waiting for you down the block from your house that doesn't require a thought in your head or a hope in your heart. So come on down and work for the artificial flower factory. Why fight it? OK? Thank you.

            2. Mayonnaise is defined as an emulsion of egg yolks and oil. That's what it is. Words mean things.

              1. Don't waste your time, he's being deliberately obtuse.

                1. I know. Retards are like that.

              2. And marriage is defined as...yada, yada, yada.

                The meaning of words, especially words for the end results of recipes, is fluid. I can see you pre-1800 yelling 'ketchup with tomato, ketchup JUST IS this condiment without tomato!!!!' but if you were born today 'ketchup without tomato, ketchup JUST IS a tomato based condiment!!!!' The world is not a bunch of black and white third grade level concepts.

                1. See what I mean?

                  1. I've been down this road. I know. He's so open-minded that his brain fell out of his skull.

                  2. It says it in the dictionary, this has been settled forever!

                    1. *plays soccer with Botard's brain*

                    2. It's not about it being in the dictionary, numbnuts. It's about it being the recipe in virtually every encyclopedia of cooking from Larousse to Escoffier to Better Homes And Gardens. Mayonnaise follows a basic recipe with variations for taste and desired outcome. But it must have the ingredients listed above for it to be considered mayonnaise. Period, full stop.

                      Bo, you're out of your depth here. Chefs are particular. More so about their sauces and condiments than anything else, in my opinion. There are rules. When you break a rule and create something new, you name it something new. You do NOT appropriate the name of something familiar but with different core ingredients. It's simply not done.

                    3. Things change sloopy. As noted, for hundreds of years chefs would have looked at you incredulously if you suggested a tomato based ketchup. Now most people would say it's silly to talk about a ketchup without tomato. If ever there was something that wasn't fixed like natural law, it's recipes and what ingredients are 'essential' to a food.

                    4. Bo, you're out of your depth here.

                      Here? He's out of his depth on everything. Dude is so stupid he makes my head hurt.

                    5. This from a guy whose argument is 'this is how I've always understood it, therefore it's immutably essential!' My five year old nephew thinks that way.

                2. Technically ketchup made with tomatoes is called "tomato ketchup". Ketchup being a generic word for various types of table sauces. You can have mushroom ketchup, pickled fish ketchup and so on.

              3. Words mean things.

                Way to bring the patriarchal racism right out of the gate, shitlord.

                Words mean what the Red Queen says they mean. Marriage used to mean "man and woman", now it doesn't. Mayo used to mean egg yolks and oil.

                Now it doesn't.

        2. The question of what mayonnaise is WAS decided by consumers. First when they created it, and then, repeatedly when they made it over and over again across the centuries, long before the State got involved.

          It's a specific recipe. You can't make Hollandaise with tomatoes, a red wine reduction and a roux--you can make something, and even try to call it hollandaise, but it's not.

          Because there's a recipe.

          What the Just Mayo folks did was use vegan ingredients to create a condiment that tastes like mayonnaise. And it may. But it isn't mayonnaise. Because they weren't trying to make mayonnaise. They were trying to make a vegan condiment that did the same task. It's imitation mayonnaise--much like imitation vanilla tastes like vanilla, but isn't.

          And, yes, it's unchangeable. It's what you call the specific sauce you get from a specific set of ingredients.

          1. "WAS decided by consumers"

            Holy gosh conservatives are a piece of work in their desire to boil down everything into unchangeable, neat categories. It just WAS decided, for all time. Like ketchup WAS decided for centuries to not include tomato, but now WAS decided that if it doesn't have it it isn't. Sheesh.

            1. Bo derp de derp. Derp de derpity derpy derp. Until one day, the derpa derpa derpaderp. Derp de derp da teedily dumb. From the creators of Der, and Tum Ta Tittaly Tum Ta Too, Bo is Da Derp Dee Derp Da Teetley Derpee Derpee Dumb. Rated PG-13.

              1. It says so in the dictionary!!!

              2. That's unfair - he completely correct here. Ketchup was one thing, now its something else. Its recipe evolved over time.

                Mayo is one thing today, 10 years from now it may mean something else. Its simply not government's place to lock these definitions in.

                1. Bo's not very good at explaining simple concepts like that. Instead, he just shouts the conclusion as if from God's lips to his ears, and when people make fun of him, he reacts stupidly, refusing to learn from his errors or back up and explain what he left out.

                  I honestly do not know how much of the opposition he awakes is just trolling him. In this case, some of them probably do think the definition of mayo is frozen in time. But I think most are just trolling and mocking because Bo is so easy to bait and doesn't seem to know how to adjust or adapt or admit of any mistakes in his original arguments.

                  1. Oh, shut up. If you thought you could carry what the mistakes in my arguments were here you'd have jumped long ago. These fools, like many conservatives, want and need immutable categories. If they had more they'd have said so.

                    1. If you thought you could carry what the mistakes in my arguments were here you'd have jumped long ago.

                      See, Bo, there you go again, failing to think for even a few seconds, just immediately lashing out and assuming your critics are evil foul and despicable.

                      A simple reason for not jumping in sooner is that I didn't read the FA sooner.

                      No wonder you are so easy to bait and attract so much of it.

                  2. I think people's sarcasm detectors must be off-line. I understood perfectly what Bo was saying from his first comment. Recipes (and even identities) of food change over time.

                    Ketchup and soy sauce were originally the same substance (read Dan Jurafsky's The Language of Food: A Linguist Reads the Menu for the whole fascinating story (and it should resonate given yesterday's discussion about cultural appropriation).

                    Anybody who knows anything about food knows mayo contains eggs. But anyone with half a brain (or even less) would know that 'vegan mayo' would be something that is like mayo, but without eggs. The whole thing is typical corporate bullying using the government to do its dirty work since it's afraid of competition.

                    It's true that words have meanings. And it's also true that they evolve over time. And that they change when in construction with other words (so 'red hair' isn't red, 'floppy drives' weren't floppy (once they moved to 3 1/2" size) and so on.) Hence 'vegan mayo' is exactly what it says it is, and there's no deception at all--the semantics is crystal clear.

                    It's crony capitalism at its best, and is exactly why the government can't be trusted to regulate our food--it's more about eliminating competition than eliminating e-coli.

                    1. Look at the label and tell me that that's not advertised as something that contains eggs. Come on. That's fraud.

                    2. Having been misled by product changes with subtle labelling changes, I'm sympathetic to requiring food labels not be misleading - for instance, one ice cream I liked was replaced by an identical-appearing product from the same manufacturer that was a frozen dessert (i.e. cheaper to make) - I thought at first I'd bought ice cream that had gone off and I spit it out, it tasted disgusting to me and I threw the whole thing out, which is too bad because until they made the switch it was my favourite brand and flavour of ice cream.

                      I have however bought clearly-labelled frozen desserts that were not ice cream, and that was fine with me, because it was clear what they were and I chose to buy them knowing what I was getting.

                      Here, I think in principle they should be able to call it mayo or mayonnaise, so long as the label makes clear (meaning not just in small print or by reading the ingredients) that it doesn't contain eggs, i.e. is non-traditional. I think the word vegan is well-enough known to alert people to check the ingredients if they had that as prominent as the product name, or calling it imitation or vegan mayonnaise substitute or something, prominently enough that the typical purchaser would easily see the difference.

                      I also think truthful non-misleading statements should be allowed, so that if something is cholesterol-free they should be able to say so. I can see the argument that a symbol suggesting a product is heart smart may be misleading, however.

                2. Actually it's more accurate to say that "ketchup" referred to various sauces before being pinned down mostly to "tomato ketchup". So, no the recipe did not change. Just the connotation.

            2. You need to really look into ketchup.

              Because you REALLY don't understand what ketchup is.

              Look at the label of Heinz, one of the most popular brands and you'll see that they don't sell 'ketchup'.

              They sell TOMATO ketchup.

              You'll notice that on most brands.

              Ketchup flavored with tomato. Try some commercially available Mushroom Ketchup. Or get adventurous and taste some Banana Ketchup.

              Maybe 'ketchup' isn't what you think it is.

              1. Because you REALLY don't understand what ketchup is.

                There are lots of things that Bo doesn't understand. Like tying shoes for instance.

              2. And tomato based ketchup was unheard of prior to its creation. For centuries no one would have thought that ketchup could or should have a tomato based. Now it's how the government actually defines ketchup.

                Similarly, you think no one could or should think that a mayonnaise could not have eggs. That could change to. That's what things often do, change, your fear of it and need to have government try to stop it notwithstanding.

                1. Here's the funny thing, moron. Look at a jar of ketchup. You'll see, on every single one, the word tomato prefacing the word ketchup. Know why? To distinguish it from other kinds of ketchup. So take your stupid analogy and stuff it up your ass where it belongs.

                  1. "You'll see, on every single one, the word tomato prefacing the word ketchup."

                    I guess you don't eat at McDonald's and use the ketchup there. But more importantly, does that qualifier do the work for you? Would you be fine with this product being called 'Eggless Mayo?'

                    1. Would you be fine with this product being called 'Eggless Mayo?'


                    2. The ketchup at McDonalds is Tomato ketchup. It's Heinz.

                      And, like sarc, eggless mayo would be fine.

                2. That's like saying they didn't have motor carriages until they had motor. But the introduction of the motor carriage didn't change the meaning of the word "carriage". And I'm sure you could have a tomato carriage too; come to think of it, what else would you wheel your tomatoes around in?

                3. tomato based ketchup was unheard of prior to its creation

                  Words just fail.

      2. call it meio and move on. You're welcome.

        1. I've always seen it referred to as "veganaise"... Not sure when that changed.

    2. I've never used vegan mayo, and I never will, but I did once make the mistake of buying a jar of fat-free mayo. There was an overwhelming sense that I was eating something entirely artificial, like some sort of polymer in paste form.

      1. To be honest, I don't know why anyone eats mayo at all today.

        Its not like calories, including fat calories, aren't readily available.

        And, IME, mayo just dulls and hides the flavors of the rest of the sandwich.

        1. Because the turkey has gone dry in the fridge but is still edible, it just needs spackle.

          1. That and the precious combination of mayo and hamburger grease.

            1. Also, it's the best thing to dip artichoke in.

          2. At the deli when they ask if I want mayonnaise on the turkey sandwich, I say, "Not unless the turkey's dry, and then I don't want it at all." But if it gets that way, yeah.

            Plus, mayonnaise is needed for various salad sandwiches. I find for many applications, fat-free imitation mayonnaise works, but some require at least low-fat, and there's a few that aren't much good with any of the oil substituted by starch.

            Miracle Whip, meanwhile, is good for pretty much nothing, except possibly a fruit salad. And Kraft's mayonnaise is almost as bad as their Miracle Whip. I could tolerate that much sweetness in a dressing as a component of a final product that might be sweet, such as Russian dressing, but not in most things I want mayonnaise for.

        2. Also, you're using too much if it can manage to hide the flavor of the other ingredients (or you're using crap ingredients ie the dry turkey example)

          1. Dunno - IMO dry turkey is still pretty good.

            1. Dunno - IMO dry turkey is still pretty good.

              I can't stand dry meat. I eat my steaks rare, my pork chops medium rare, and I really only eat dark meat when I eat turkey or chicken.

              1. I hate dry meat as well. Especially on a sandwich

              2. What are you referring to as 'dark meat' when it isn't poultry?

                1. Could be "light" (relatively dark) tuna meat.

        3. And, IME, mayo just dulls and hides the flavors of the rest of the sandwich.

          I guess it depends on whether or not you like the taste. To you, it hides the other flavors; to me, it complements them. That said, I use it very sparingly; even a little too much can ruin a sandwich.

        4. Because it's delicious and makes everything better. It's OK if you don't like it, though.

        5. It's a great ingredient in home made salad dressing.

    3. The real question is - why go through all this effort and not call it its own thing?

      Vegan/vegetarian stuff ain't *bad* (mostly) but don't pretend a soy burger/birdseed burger are buger *substitutes* - they're their own thing (and the seed ones are pretty decent - soy . . . not so much).

      Same with 'vegan mayo'. Sure, it convenient - you use it that same way - but call it a mayo *alternative*.

      Still - there's little reason for the *FTC* to be involved (as this is a product labeling/consumer confusion issue - though I think the average consumer could tell the difference before purchase and would suffer no harm if they couldn't) and absolutely *none* for the FDA (as this stuff is apparently edible and not obviously dangerous to consume).

      1. This reminds me of the recent story about Israel and what 'ketchup' is and is not.

        The idea of the 'essential' ingredients in a given food is unpersuasive to me. This kind of thing changes over time. For example, early forms of what became 'ketchup' were tomato free. Now we say something without a certain amount of tomato can't be ketchup. It's a shadow of the same sex marriage debate. Some people say 'different gender's just *is* what marriage is, it's essential!!!' So much for that.

        The ingredients on both types are on the label, let the consumer decide if eggs are 'essential' to mayonnaise.

        1. On ketchup's historical ingredients:


          "Believe it or not, the ancestor of modern ketchup was completely tomato-free. Though tomato plants were brought to England from South American in the 1500s, their fruits weren't eaten for centuries since people considered them poisonous. Instead, the precursor to our ketchup was a fermented fish sauce from southern China....The 19th century was a golden age for ketchup. Cookbooks featured recipes for ketchups made of oysters, mussels, mushrooms, walnuts, lemons, celery and even fruits like plums and peaches. Usually, components were either boiled down into a syrup-like consistency or left to sit with salt for extended periods of time. Both these processes led to a highly concentrated end product: a salty, spicy flavor bomb...Finally, in 1812, the first recipe for tomato ketchup made its debut."

          1. Yes, but what about catsup?

          2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayonnaise:
            "The earliest reference appears to be by Alexandre Viard (1806), who however never quite gives a recipe for the sauce itself.[7] At that point, the sauce was made with aspic or jelly, rather than an egg emulsion. In 1815, Louis Eustache Ude wrote:

            No 58.?Mayonnaise.
            Take three spoonfuls of Allemande, six ditto of aspic, and two of oil. Add a little tarragon vinegar, that has not boiled, some pepper and salt, and minced ravigotte, or merely some parsley. Then put in the members of fowl, or fillets of soles, &c. Your mayonnaise must be put to ice; neither are you to put the members into your sauce till it begins to freeze. Next dish your meat or fish, mask with the sauce before it be quite frozen, and garnish your dish with whatever you think proper, as beet root, jelly, nasturtiums...The aspic version and the emulsified version would co-exist for some time before the more familiar emulsified version became standard.

            Yet the choice of eggs as the emulsifier, is an immutable law of physics, that should be enforced by men with guns.

            1. But these men have cookbooks and dictionaries!

          3. Ah, but you're overstepped yourself here, Bo. You see, what we eat today is "tomato ketchup". It is not "ketchup", but rather a subset of ketchup, hence the distinctive TOMATO precedent on virtually every label you will find on a store shelf. You can still find recipes for fish-based kecap today (if you want to use the Malay spelling). And if you've ever worked with a Malaysian chef, you'd know that they call most of their salty condiments "ketchup" and will specify what they want made by the word preceding ketchup when they're instructing you on what to make.

            So sorry, but take a look at that label next time you go to the store. You're buying TOMATO Ketchup or TOMATO Catsup. and if you go to Malaysian markets you'll find several varieties of Ketchup with no tomatoes whatsoever...and they'll have a different identifying word in front of ketchup.

            1. That's kind of the point. While if you just said the word 'ketchup' to most people in the US they would think of a tomato based product, ketchup has been understood in many times and cultures such that tomato is not only not essential but would be considered as odd as mayonaisse without eggs. Things evolve and government's job is not to try to stop that process because some people are more comfortable with things being set and fixed at what they are comfortable with. Without the government stepping in maybe egg-less mayo will never be considered mayonnaise, or perhaps, like ketchup, what's essential to something being called ketchup.

              1. As noted, ketchups had existed for centuries before someone decided to make a tomato based version. If the kind of government you advocated for had existed when that fellow did that then it would have stepped in and forced him to stop and ketchup would never have become what most consumers today see it as, a condiment with tomato as an essential ingredient.

                1. Wrong again. The people that made the first tomato based condiment went out of their way to call it "TOMATO Ketchup". And if you look at the label on your bottle, it likely remains labeled as TOMATO Ketchup. Because other products exist that are labeled [insert word] Ketchup. And they both are accepted as ketchup by people who know anything about the history of condiments from Asia.

                  1. Then let makers of egg based mayonnaise put 'Egg Mayonnaise' on their bottle, right? But of course, you're not talking about the qualifier, you're making an argument the basic product is, in this case, fixed for all time.

                    1. Then let makers of egg based mayonnaise put 'Egg Mayonnaise' on their bottle, right?

                      Yep, you're a troll.

              2. While if you just said the word 'ketchup' to most people in the US they would think of a tomato based product

                Then they're ignorant and don't know how to read a label.

                Without the government stepping in maybe egg-less mayo will never be considered mayonnaise, or perhaps, like ketchup, what's essential to something being called ketchup.

                Egg-less mayo can never be mayonnaise. But some brined fish sauce sans tomato will always be considered Ketchup. Because it is Fish Ketchup. Just like the tomato based condiment known as Tomato Ketchup will always be referred to as Tomato Ketchup. but Ketchup being used without an identifier will never, ever be used in the food service industry as something requiring tomatoes.

                Oh, and for what it's worth, they labeled it Tomato Ketchup when it first came out without prodding from the government. The industry self-regulated itself so consumers could be fully informed.

                1. They are not 'ignorant'. They speak American English. The fact that the government requires ketchup (or katsup) makers to add the word 'tomato' simply means that one hundred years ago it had a different meaning, where, back then, there was more than one kind.
                  Now there isn't.
                  Words mean what the speakers of a language believe they mean. The dictionary makers (and the FDA) scramble to keep up, but like most bureaucrats, normally fail.

                  1. They're still ignorant. Ignorant of the history of the term and its current usage around the world. They're not stupid, just ignorant.

                    And I don't know if the government requires the bottles to be labeled "tomato". I just know the FDA didn't exist when the first makers of tomato ketchup labeled their product the way they did to inform the consumers. I guess my point was that the industry did it well before the government got involved. Which is as it should be.

                    1. So, again, if these producers labeled their product 'egg-less Mayo' that's as it should be?

                      And let's say they don't do that, because they just happen to disagree with you and all your vast kitchen knoweldge, and with most chefs and (gasp) cookbooks, and they go on to call it mayo. What then? Men with guns to enforce what you, the chefs and the cookbooks say?

                    2. Yeah, Bo. I,want the government to step,in. That's exactly what I'm calling for.

                    3. This thread is about whether the FDA should step in on them calling their product mayo when it doesn't have eggs. What are you going on about then if not that? Are you just telling us what you think is essential to mayo? That's nice.

                    4. If you knew how to read, you'd understand that I was having a philosophical argument about what constitutes mayonnaise and ketchup. Historically and gastronomically. I never got into whether or not it's the government's business.

                      But I'm sorry. I'm sorry that I'm the first person on here ever to go off on a tangent that is related to the posted story. I'm sorry I did not strictly address ENB's piece but discussed an ancillary topic. I'm sorry I interacted with you without realizing your rigid rules of commenting only directly about the writer's topic. And I'm especially sorry that I decided to wrestle with a pig...because now I'm covered in mud and shit after this thread.

                    5. Look, if you wander into a conversation that is about whether a producer should not be allowed to call their eggless product mayonaise because mayo *must* have eggs and go on and on about how, yes, mayo must have eggs, don't get mad at me if I think you were talking about the topic at hand and taking the latter position. As it is, I'm glad you don't have a silly statist position on this to compound your silly philosophical one.

                    6. "Eggless Mayo" conveys one meaning, "Just Mayo" with a cartoon of an egg on the label conveys another.

                2. By the way, soy sauce? That's Ketchup (Kecap).

                3. "can never"

                  Listen to yourself. Just like a union with two dudes 'can never' be a marriage I guess.

                  You're trying to hang so much on the fact that some (and it's some, not all, consider those labeled 'Fancy Ketchup') producers choose to use the label 'Tomato Ketchup.' The fact is that most people today understand the word ketchup, alone, to be a tomato based product, but for most of history a ketchup made of tomato would have been met with the same static minded response you're giving egg-less mayo. These things change, that's how society works, things that were once thought of as essential to some things are then later not considered to be so. You'd be more comfortable with the idea of mayo as traditionally and popularly understood. That's nice; you should not buy a product claiming to be mayo that doesn't fit with that. But what gives you the right to send men with guns to force everyone to stick with your understanding? Why not let consumers work it out individually, each for itself. Why is that a proper function of government?

                  Also, you are of course ignoring that it's been pointed out that the earliest forms of mayonnaise were, yep, egg-less! Interestingly, people tinkered with it until versions with eggs came out and were overwhelmingly met with acceptance. If people who thought like you had there way it would have been frozen at the initial point and producers daring to put forward mayo with eggs would be the subject of your ire!

                  1. but for most of history a ketchup made of tomato would have been met with the same static minded response you're giving egg-less mayo

                    Through most of history, anything being made with tomato in European cooking would have been considered witchcraft, seeing as they weren't even introduced until the 16th century.

                    But to your statement in a modern context? It's simply not true. Once tomatoes were deemed safe for consumption, people immediately began using them in condiments...or ketchups, which was essentially the term for most condiments using exotic ingredients.

                    You should learn a little about the history of food. Go buy a copy of Larousse and start reading.

                    1. You're missing the point. It doesn't matter why people thought tomato couldn't and shouldn't be an essential ingredient in ketchup. What matters is that for a long time they thought it couldn't and shouldn't be, and then they said, hey, this can be ketchup. Thank goodness we didn't have people back then who thought the government should step in and say 'hey, we've never heard of a ketchup made with tomatoes, it's not something top chefs are familiar with, it's not in any cookbooks, so we're going to prevent you from calling this stuff ketchup!' Likewise, sans government, with time maybe the idea of a mayonnaise without eggs will catch on and be considered by most people to be a perfectly fine type of mayo, or maybe your view will win the day, but either way the government should not be deciding this with regulation and/or allowing causes of action over it.

                    2. It doesn't matter why people thought tomato couldn't and shouldn't be an essential ingredient in ketchup. What matters is that for a long time they thought it couldn't and shouldn't be, and then they said, hey, this can be ketchup

                      This is factually inaccurate. Nobody ever said there shouldn't be tomato ketchups made. i challenge you to find any type of rules that existed in the culinary world that defined what a ketchup required. You know, like a list of a few basic ingredients necessary for it to be called a ketchup pre-tomato.

                      I'll wait.

                    3. 'rules that existed in the culinary world'

                      This is hilarious in and of itself. The 'rules of the culinary world' change throughout history, they're not hard and fast and meant to stop innovation.

                    4. Some rules are hard and fast. A Supr?me sauce requires cream. A roux can only be made if you have flour and butter. A red wine reduction requires red wine. A Hollandaise requires egg yolks and butter. A mayonnaise requires eggs.

                      There are others.

                    5. That's perfect. Roux's are *usually and traditionally* made with butter, but there's tons of recipes that don't use butter (google this). Etc. These are not 'hard and fast' in *any* way.

                    6. I mean, remind me to never eat your Cajun dishes (where the roux's are best made with bacon fat).

                      Those poor dumb cajuns. They don't know they are breaking the Natural Law of Rouxs.

                    7. "i challenge you to find any type of rules that existed in the culinary world that defined what a ketchup required. "

                      This is pretty funny too. Your authority worship is too much.

                      There are no 'rules of the culinary world.' There are the practices and jargon of people who cook.

                      It's like you've taken the prescriptivist vs. descriptivist debate over language and translated into cooking.

                      I watched a cooking show the other day where two cooks were asked to create their own version of a quessadilla recipe. One cook actually used thin waffles instead of a wrap. That poor lady didn't realize she was violating 'the rules of the culinary world.' I'm sure she was arrested on the spot.

                    8. A wrap? You mean flour tortillas?

                      As for rules, look up a comment or two. Those are a few hard and fast rules that most certainly do exist in any kitchen.

                      Sometimes, Bo, words do actually have meanings.

                    9. And I somewhat resent you persistently trying to put words into my mouth and say I want the government imposing any of these rules. They can call their product whatever they want, regardless of the fact that it cannot physically meet the definition of mayonnaise...as determined by the industry, not by the government.

                      Oh, by the way, you should try my ham sandwich. Sure, it's made with chicken but I'm gonna call it ham and see if it works.

                    10. But the addition of tomato as the primary ingredient didn't contradict anything in the notion of "ketchup".

                  2. But what gives you the right to send men with guns to force everyone to stick with your understanding?

                    You got me! I'm just a big government guy supporting the FDA in this. Except, if you read my comments, I go out of my way to note that the producers labeled it TOMATO Ketchup without any prodding from a government agency. So go fuck yourself, you choad. You're not gonna win this argument because I'm sure I know a hell of a lot more about a kitchen than you do. Practically as well as historically.

                    1. This isn't an argument you win by knowing a lot about a kitchen you moron. If you had mentioned a tomato ketchup pre-1800 to chefs they would have been like 'what's that?' But now tomato based ketchups are well accepted by chefs. Ditto for dictionaries and cookbooks. It's almost like these things can't fix trends over time!

                    2. If,you had mentioned,the word ketchup prior,to 1800, you would get a funny look from the person you were talking to until you put a word before,it describing,what it was.

                    3. No, even 'tomato ketchup' would have gotten this look. And no wonder, no cookbook had such a recipe! No top chef made such a thing! A ketchup with tomato in it, that's unheard of!!!

                      And yet, today, when you use the word ketchup most people (in the US at least) think tomatoes first and foremost. And the top chefs and the cookbooks caught up with all that. Heck, the stupid government then came along and decided tomatoes are essential to ketchup!

                      Things change. Even what's essential to certain recipes changes (I know, OMG, right?). Efforts to stop that with men with guns is, well, silly and wrong.

                    4. No, Bo, you don't get it. "Ketchup" may not have been a word known to many at that time, but to those who did know it, they had a general concept of it. They may have had specific knowledge only of certain ketchups, but if you'd referred to tomato ketchup, they'd've said, "Oh, that's good with tomato? I hadn't heard of that one," not, "What could that possibly mean?"

                4. "Ketchup being used without an identifier will never, ever be used in the food service industry as something requiring tomatoes."

                  Here's the official government definition of catsup:


                  Note: tomato's required.

                  1. So,the industry does a better job of describing their product than the government requires.

                    Bravo to the private sector.

                    1. That's not the point. The point is that we've gone from a time where no one would have thought of tomato as an essential ingredient of any ketchup to one where they 'official' definition of it makes tomatoes *essential.* If that doesn't shake your idea that some things *just are essential* to certain recipes, what would?

                    2. I guess I see your point now.

                      Unfortunately for you, it's predicated on the fact that you do not understand that "ketchup" was a catch all phrase for most condiments not originating in Europe. And that it was in existence for a while before tomatoes were even brought to Europe.

                    3. I think you're still missing the point.

                      The concept ketchup went from something that meant 'a variety of condiments, none of which would have tomato as an ingredient' to something that most Americans think of, and which our law actually codifies, as something that *must* have tomatoes in it. This shows that this idea of *must* when it comes to cooking and recipes is silly. Words shouldn't change their meanings and shift in a Protean fashion, but they can evolve over time such that even things that once were or were not considered *essential* to the definition get discarded. That has pretty much happened with ketchup. It might happen with mayonnaise as well. Whatever else can be said on the topic, we shouldn't use the state, either regulation or via fraud laws, to enforce a rigid idea of what's 'essential' to these concepts. As long as one is not misrepresenting the actual ingredients they use, then let each individual decide if those ingredients amount to what they think is essential to a ketchup, mayonnaise, roux, etc.

                  2. If tomatoes are required, what sense am I to make of the phrase, "optional tomato ingredients"?

                5. They're not ignorant, it's just that over here for the past near-century, that's been by far the most popular type of ketchup. It's the default. There are plenty of other things like that. If you ask someone for a hammer, you'll most likely get a claw hammer. Ask for a screwdriver, it'll be a flat blade. In most of the USA if you ask for a softball, you don't need to specify 12" circumference, but in Pittsburgh or Chicago you'd better specify if you want that size & style.

                  Tomato ketchup's so dominated the field that other things that probably could be labeled as ketchups tend not to be, like Saucy Susan sauce or duck sauce.

        2. And that's fine.

          But . . .

          Vegans pride themselves on not *needing* to eat animal products. For most (not all) its also a *moral* thing (along with social signalling). So why come up with all these 'substitutes'? Why not go whole (tofu)hog and distinguish your brand. Now you have your own cuisine and are not just eating inferior versions of the foods the rest of the population eats.

          Its not 'Just' Mayo, its Hampton Creek brand sandwich spread.

          1. 'And that's fine' - with the caveat that the rest of us are also allowed to decide if mayo requires eggs.

          2. Maybe they like the taste but not the ethics, so they've come up with something to have both. I'm not sure what's so illogical or wacky about that.

            There's also the possibility that, just like the guy who first made ketchup with tomato, they think they've created a version of something good that is actually better.

            1. You insist on using ketchup as your point of argument. You need to look at a bottle of TOMATO Ketchup. Then you need to go to a Malaysian market and see the products there labeled [insert word] Ketchup (or Kecap). Tomato is an identifier. And Tomato Ketchup is one of many different types of Ketchup commercially available if you know where to look.

              1. Would you be happy if they called the product 'egg-less mayo'? Is that really the hill you're charging up?

                1. They can call it whatever,they want to call it. That doesn't make it true.

                  Like you could call yourself a libertarian.

                  1. I'm not the one advocating a government role in the 'rectification of names'

                    1. Show me where I am, dickface.

                    2. I'm not the one advocating a government role in the 'rectification of names'

                      Actually, you are. You keep pointing out that the government says that 'ketchup' has tomato. Over and over again you use that to pound us with governmental authority as the final arbiter--even as we point out the very real and commercially available other ketchups that are out there.

                      You even seem to want the government to ok this eggless mayonnaise.

      2. i actually quite like veggie burgers, especially the mushroom base ones (which is odd because i don't like mushrooms as food that much in general), but they are definitely their own thing and not a substitute for a hamburger. They are especially good with some bacon, even better if you fry them in bacon fat.

  2. Is the "nothing left to cut" meme still okay to use? I don't want to wear it out, but...well, at least it hurts a little less than nutpunches.

    1. That one never gets old.

  3. Donald Trump is talking sense on the CNN. I'm scared.

    1. FM, are you sure you're not sober?

      1. I don't know what to think anymore!
        *breaks down sobbing*

    2. He was saying mental health was the issue and not the gun in the news shooting, but mental health is tricky because so many mentally ill aren't violent.

        1. Well, yes, but he's right. Mental health is one of those things that can easily be twisted by the state and used to lock you up - for your own good, of course, as well as the good of society.

          It's a win-win for statists of every stripe.

          1. Yeah, that drift by conservatives is alarming. It's right in a technical sense and bears consideration, but nothing is less considered than legislating a thing away. So we'll either get beefed up reporting requirements placed on mental health workers, or a registry of some sort, or stricter mandatory confinement laws a la California, all of which will deter or prevent the sick people from getting help.

      1. It's been interesting, if outraging, to see the response of various Democrats from Virginia's governor to Hillary on this. 'We need to do something about guns because of this shooting.' They don't say what, of course, because anything that would have prevented this would have been a very significant infringement of second amendment rights.

        And you have to like Walmart's insane response: guy shoots someone with handgun, we'll stop selling something totally different in response.

        1. I don't expect anything else from them, but I was surprised by how rational the response was from Trump.

          1. I'm no fan of Trump, but no one gets to where he is by being a total idiot, and he's got enough momentum and courage to say things counter to the expected usual tripe by politicians now and then.

      2. Well, I guess no one can be completely nuts all the time.

      3. People will still think that the 100/1 solution is the answer. 100% of mentally ill people will need to suffer because of 1? of mentally ill people's potentially violent actions.

  4. ENB - I keep thinking that article picture is a self-portrait, but then I realize the girl in it would never let go of the jar long enough to type up an article. Or slink though the comments section.

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

    That's just stupid, words have meanings, and mayonnaise has eggs.

    1. Well, she said the definition was outdated (without much backing behind that bald assertion), therefore you are wrong!

  6. Actually, the main issue is that we pay people at the FDA to conduct these kinds of investigations.

    1. I thought we paid them to impede drug research until any unforseen negative side effects are discovered in Europe first.

    2. Hey, we pay the people at DHS to keep the gay-for-pay at bay, vegan mayo-like sandwich spread is far more an abomination than guys paying for sex with other guys so maybe we should get them involved. (It's not in your Bible, but in the King James Beard version of the Bible: "And, yea, the Lord wast sore wroth and didst smite them with great smotings for they didst smear upon the bread that which wast not natural for a Man to put into his piehole yet didst they not wipest the knife clean upon the bread before tossingest it into the sink, and being assholes in the eyes of the Lord didst they deserve the smotings smitten upon them.")

    3. I'd much rather have them police food label meanings, even those I might disagree with, than most of the other things they're paid to do! With other products labeled by FDA, you're not allowed to re-establish choice by changing the name you give a product or what you say it's for on the label, because FDA imputes certain intended uses of products, disclaimers to the contrary. They've seized tanks of oxygen, just labeled as tanks of oxygen, by imputing their use to be for generation of ozone in devices with unlicensed medical uses. Then the lack of instructions on the tanks for making ozone for medical use is the technical reason for the seizure, i.e. that they don't have adequate instructions for safe use. Of course if they did have such instructions, then FDA would have much more direct evidence of their being unlicensed medical devices!

      By contrast, FDA's not going to say a product clearly labeled as not being mayonnaise is actually intended to be understood as mayonnaise, & hence illegal. So this sort of enforcement is fairly benign.

  7. 8 comments and nothing about Artisinal Mayo...the ineptitude demonstrated this morning is appalling even for your species

  8. I don't have a problem with truth-in-labeling laws (AKA laws against fraud) so I really don't see how telling somebody they can't call something that ain't mayonnaisse mayo is a problem. Have you looked closely at all the 'frozen dairy dessert product' packages in the ice cream aisle of your supermarket lately? Everybody still calls it ice cream (and they still call the 56 ounce box a 'half-gallon of') but that's not what the label says it is - if the label says it's a half-gallon of ice cream it damn well better not be a quart-and-a-half of some frothy fat-free lactose-free sugar-free soy-based frankenfood concoction. (If the label says 'Ice "Creem"' than you are fairly warned that it's something out of the "cheez" food group.)

    1. I have a problem with a) The *FDA* doing this, and b) with the government mandating and locking in definitions for consumer products.

      Should they call it mayo - no, its not mayo.

      Should they be *allowed* to call it mayo - yes. Look at the *label*, not the name of the product to tell what's in it.

      And they should be laughed at for calling it mayo.

      1. Yeah, this. Caveat emptor. If they label it "mayo" and a consumer actually feels defrauded by the labeling, let them take it to court. There's already a mechanism in place for dealing with fraud.

      2. Otherwise you go down the EU road. They have maximum curvature rules for bananas that can be sold to consumers. They have rules for the maximum size difference between tomatoes packaged together. They have rules *legally* defining what is a fruit jelly, jam, and preserve - including region specific exceptions for tomatoes, cucumbers, rhubarb, and carrots.

        Council Directive 79/693/EEC, 24 July 1979

        Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2257/94

        1. I'm not a total anarchist - I'm not saying the government doesn't go way too far in the nitpickyness department, but I don't think there's not a place for the government to set some basic ground rules and I would say 'no lying' is a pretty basic rule. A banana is still a banana whatever it's size or shape so it's stupid to say a banana has to fit certain guidelines to legally be called a banana but if it's red and round and you picked it off an apple tree, it ain't a banana and you can't call it a banana. Whether or not anybody is hurt by the lie or whether or not you can easily tell they're lying or whether or not it's a 'lie-lie' is beside the point. You can make damn near anything out of soybeans these days but calling it what it imitates rather than making it plain it's an imitation is a lie. (I grew up on Miracle Whip and don't have a preference either way for mayonnaise or salad dressing but here in Georgia people make a big deal out of the issue. Miracle Whip ain't mayonnaise. And whether it's 'Lite' mayonnaise or 'Lite' Miracle Whip, either way it's just disgusting.)

          1. Going down that road is a quick route to the destruction of freedom of speech.

            Courts have been pretty adamant that protecting a 'right to lie' is essential - its why you can get away *legally* with dressing up as a soldier and pretending to be a veteran. Its why you can still tell the drunk chick at the bar that you are so a doctor and have a Mercedes. Its why you can say shit about a politician without facing a long legal battle to prove its 'truthfullness'.

            *Civil courts* and arbitration are the champions of consumers, not the FDA.

      3. Should they be *allowed* to call it mayo - yes. Look at the *label*, not the name of the product to tell what's in it.

        So requirements for full disclosure of ingredients are okay, but the line falls somewhere short of defining what certain combinations of ingredients are.

        1. Sure, I can live with that compromise.

        2. Ingredient labeling requirements aren't libertarian either. Consumer pressure rather than force of law should have been the mechanism by which most food producers began disclosing ingredients. I would think most would have adopted a policy like that to fend off potential lawsuits anyway.

          1. How about, "you lied on the label and I bought your crap so I am bringing a class action suit against you for fraud"? Now, pay 1,000,000 people $6 plus expenses, and yes, you must track them down and cut each one of them a check.

            Oh and "you lied on the label and in advertising so you have to advertise to correct your lie"

            THAT is a real deterrent!

            1. So, all that is really needed is a law forbidding fraud and providing for damages and compensation.


            2. Exactly my point. That's precisely the mechanism by which issues of fraud (mislabeling/misleading labeling) should be resolved. There is no reason for a labeling mandate of any kind on food producers.

              1. This.

      4. They should be laughed at for calling it 'just' mayo. Being vegan, the just means 'righteous' in this case.

        Fuck vegans.

        1. NOOO, leave the Vegans beeeee!
          (besides, crazy might be contagious)

        2. I hadn't considered that. If that's their intended meaning, they really should be laughed at.

        3. I've found that omnivores spend a lot of time worrying (and getting indignant about) what herbivores might potentially say to them at some far off point in the future. People need to learn to mind their own business and not get so angry at people for things that they haven't done yet.

  9. Under federal law, only foods 1) containing at least 65 percent vegetable oil, 2)vinegar and/or lemon juice, and 3) some sort of egg-yolk product may be labeled mayonnaise . . . Any other ingredients are forbidden.

    I'm no constitutional scholar, so forgive my ignorance, but does this fall under "general welfare," "necessary and proper," or "interstate commerce"?

      1. Its necessary and proper for the general welfare of interstate commerce.

  10. These ingredients are in violation of federal mayonnaise law.

    Federal. Mayonnaise. Law.

    1. That stood out to me too. This is the world we live in now. Federal Mayonnaise Law.

  11. Yeah, I agree with a number of others here, I actually want words to mean something and Mayo is oil, egg and spices. Wanting to call something Mayo, that has none of those things in it is just an attempt to lie about the product. How about "Hampton Creek Fake Mayo" or "Hampton Creek Mayo Substitute"?

    Further, studies are not showing NO relationship between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol, so those claims are not only a violation of FDA regs, they are pretty much bald-faced lies.

    Wait, a pattern is developing here, call it something it isn't (Lie), make health claims that are not true (Lie). Golly, I am SO glad that the health food cranks are looking out for us.

    1. "Hamtpon Creek White Vegetable Shit"

      1. Hmmm, I like it, honest, accurate, descriptive

      2. "We beat a turnip until it got an erection. You can guess the rest."

    2. I know you didn't say it but somebody else on this thread said that words mean whatever we decide they mean so mayonnaise doesn't have to contain eggs if people decide to call something that doesn't contain eggs 'mayonnaise'. I would like to point out that Hampton Creek doesn't call their stuff mayonnaise and the federal regs on mayonnaise are specific to mayonnaise. The problem is that Hampton Creek calls their stuff 'mayo' and enough people have decided that 'mayo' means 'mayonnaise' that the feds are extending the regulations for 'mayonnaise' to 'mayo'. You can laugh at the lady who sued because Froot Loops don't contain fruit, but if enough people decide that froot and fruit mean the same thing she would have a case. Words do mean what we decide they mean and we decided that 'mayonnaise' means something that contains eggs and that 'mayo' means mayonnaise. When enough people stop caring whether or not Miracle Whip is mayonnaise then we can say the rule is stupid, but it's not up to Kraft to decide whether or not they can call Miracle Whip mayonnaise.

  12. I gave Vagenaise a chance. It ruined a turkey sandwich.

    1. The problem is failure to adopt full vegan. You need to put your Vagenaise fake Mayo on your sandwich containing Vurkey fake Turkey.

      That way, the nasty taste and texture of the Vurkey will take your mind off the nasty taste and texture of the Vagenaise.

      And don't forget the the Vegan, gluten free bread. You won't much care how the inside tastes when the outside tastes like compressed sawdust,

      1. We joke but there are Americans who "eat" like that. And I'm not talking about poverty-level have-no-choice foodbank-visiting poor parents with multiple mouths to feed. They at least get pasta and canned meat sauce. No, I'm referring to the subhuman vegan scourge. You can tell them by their bony protrusions and pale, anemic, translucent skin. /shudder

      2. You idiot, Vagenaise isn't fake mayo, it's fake tartar sauce. It's meant to go with fish. Try some Vagenaise with a nice piece of snapper.

      3. There is shitty vegan food just as there is shitty meat food. I don't think I've ever met a vegan of over a year or older than 25 who eats meat analogues more than a couple times a year (usually by awkwardly bringing some veggie burgers to a BBQ)

  13. Is there such a thing as vegan Miracle Whip?

    1. Well, I'm pretty sure Meriacle Whip is made from petrochemical waste distillates, so either there are no animal products, or it's all very old animal products.

    2. Only if you want a singularity at the Earth's core.

    3. Miracle Whip is as vegan as Spray Cheez. I mean, you can't get much more vegan than 'made out of plastic'.

    4. Is there such a thing as vegan Miracle Whip?

      Miracle Whip is a brand owned by Kraft, so hopefully if someone tried to market something as obscene as "vegan Miracle Whip," they would be sued into oblivion - or perhaps sent to prison where, in a cruel twist of irony, they would be forced to consume meat-based prison foods.

    5. It might be vegan as is. I think it is made of sugar and vegetable oil, mostly.

  14. What does Miracle Whip call their shit? Salad dressing? We already have a generic term for not-mayo.

    1. But that's not accurate - who puts miracle whip on salads?

      1. Mein Gott! We need to get the FDA on this right away!

      2. It's a crazy consequence of a silly law.

      3. ah, but on of the major uses of Mayo (and Miracle Whip) is in salads.
        Potato Salad
        Pasta Salad
        7 layer Salad
        Cole Slaw

        See, the line should be...."Mayo, salads are out business, sandwiches are just a sideline!"

        1. our business, damn typos! 😉

        2. Flag on comment - Cole Slaw is not food but wall reinforcement medium.

          1. You're eating the bad stuff. There's not much good cole slaw out there but if you find it, slap it on your pulled pork and walk the Elysian Fields.

            1. You would ruin pulled pork with a mayonnaise product? Savages.

              1. Did you stick an orbital sander in your mouth as a small child and have since discovered your palate was irreparably destroyed?

              2. Cole slaw is best made without mayo.

            2. I see someone is from Memphis.

            3. I've only recently started making my own cole slaw, & even using just a knife to slice the cole, it comes out very good. I started with red cole slaw, made from red (purple) cabbage, carrots, & red (French) dressing (sometimes even the kind w artificial color), + sometimes raisins. However, conventional white/green cabbage, mayonnaise, & mustard powder, + sometimes cloves is if anything even better.

              1. You just have to make sure to let it sit, chilled, for several hrs.

          2. Dude!

            You NEED cole slaw with your fried catish and hush puppies!

            1. It's the cabbage that's the problem. But since that is ingredient 1 in slaw...

          3. 1. You are completely wrong about cole slaw.

            2. I've never, and do not uderstand why you would, put MW on potato or pasta salad. Honestly - I didn't even know people put mayo or MW on pasta salads. A little olive oil and a little vinegar.

            1. Pasta with olive oil and vinegar is just pasta - not a pasta salad. If the pieces can't stick to each other when you try to spoon them onto a plate, it doesn't qualify as a pasta salad.

              1. Olive oil, vinegar, olives, peppers, feta, zucchini - chilled.

              2. You've been working for the government too long. You think about food like an FDA enforcer.

            2. OK, I see I was wrong about pasta salad - looking it up, its put on the type of pasta salad that you eat when there's absolutely nothing else left in the 'fresh' foods case at Circle K.

            3. I actually use Asiago Peppercorn salad dressing for my cole slaw mix. It's the bomb.

            4. Why would you even allow MW in your home? It's one of those incredibly stupid products that substitutes sugar for fat because of the misguided low-fat dietary guidelines.

              1. I grew up on it - it's cheaper than real mayo.

                After not tasting it for around 20 years, I bought a jar recently. Big mistake.

            5. The reason to put mayonnaise on pasta salad is as glue. Not absolutely needed on potato salad if you press it hard enough, but do that too much & you have mashed-potato salad.

      4. 7 layer salad.

        Although I would question calling that salads.

        Of course, I think olives are an integral ingredient in salads. Without olives, its a collection of weeds and greens.

        1. Olives are only good for producing lamp oil. If they're in my salad, I have to send it back.

          1. May God have mercy on your soul because I shall not.

          2. Olives were a staple of ancient Greek society, which was the foundation of Western Civilization. Why do you hate Western Civilization?

            1. The Greeks were wrong about many things - in fact they were wrong about most things. The fact that we had to spend two thousand years correcting them is what built what we have today doesn't make what they did any less wrong.

            2. Man-boy love was also a staple of ancient Greek society - I ain't digging on that either.

              1. It was somewhat socially acceptable, but not as universal or completely accepted as some would suggest. Except maybe the Spartans.

          3. What an awful, dreary life you must have. If you don't like olives (or olive oil), you don't like life and should really consider just ending it all. There, I said it.

        2. robc, are you by any chance in Mich.? When I visited there a decade ago, salads & most everything else had sliced black olives, taco chips, shredded cheese, & anything else they could put on it to make it salty?which I guess is justified by the etymology of the word "salad".

    2. The vegan-fraudsters won't call their product "animal free salad dressing" because their entire business model is based on fraud and deception.

      1. You'd think they would be proud to label it as such in order to cater to the attention-whoring of their customer base.

        Spirit: "Look Hunter, they have that animal free salad dressing we were looking for to use on our tofurkey and vegetarian cheese substitute sandwiches!"

        Hunter: "Wonderful news, Spirit. Put it in the reusable burlap shopping bag beside the animal free egg substitute. But be careful not to bruise the quinoa breakfast sausages!"

        1. They want to call it mayo so chicks will buy it, thinking it IS mayonnaise just more healthy, local, organic and pure. The business model is pure fraud. They wouldn't need to lie on the label just to sell to the niche vegan market. They want this shit filling the shelves at eye level duping everyday normal American mayonnaise consumers, who don't have an eating disorder, into buying their fraudulent, ersatz, adulterated pea protein "substitute food".

          1. Or maybe they want to call it mayo for reasons similar to why the first guy who made a tomato based ketchup called it ketchup instead of something totally new.

            1. Jesus Christ. He,labeled,it Ketchup because that's what condiments were widely called. All of them. He called his product Tomato Ketchup. Because all.ketchups at that time had identifiers describing them.

              1. "because that's what condiments were widely called"

                There were quite a few more names for condiments than 'ketchups.'

                1. But not the types made by fermenting things in a combination of vinegar, sugar and spices. That fermentation process is what got you a 'ketchup', Bo

    1. Artisanal not-mayo Justin Bieber found dead

      A sad life and a sad death. I feel bad for the guy.

  15. I noticed the "I Can't Believe it's not Butter" container proudly claims it is "Non-GMO sourced."
    So if a food manufacturer can say so on its label...to reassure and attract a certain type of consumer, presumably...why do some demand that all food products say "Contains GMO" if that's the case? Other than that they are petty tyrants, of course.

    1. Because people who don't care about an issue must be made to care.

      1. and that is what petty tyrants do

        1. Which is most of what government is

  16. If it's not an emulsion of egg yolks and oil, then it's not mayonnaise. However I don't think it's the government's place to proactively prevent them from selling it as such. Rather I think consumers should be able to sue them for fraud.

    1. ^THIS^

      Is dead on. Bill Gates should have to give them another cash infusion to pay all the poor suckers who bought it because it said mayonnaise on the label.

      1. No he shouldn't. Because that stuff is sold in the vegan aisle. And if you're shopping there its like wandering into the wrong part of town - you either belong or you got what was coming to you.

        1. Victim blamer!

        2. We don't have "vegan aisles" in NYC. This stuff is sold next to actual mayo everywhere I go.

    2. So they should sue them because they can't be bothered to read the ingredient list? Oh right this is America. Carry on.

      1. It's like selling tomato sauce that doesn't have any tomatoes in it. Come on.

        1. Again label! If you're that worried about what goes in your body why are you eating mayo out of a plastic bottle and why are you not reading the label. Does, it taste like mayo? Cause I've bought ketchup that doesn't taste like ketchup but it did have tomato's in it. Don't buy it. It's not not that difficult.

          1. For conservatives, a major purpose of government is to make sure what they see as traditional understandings and labels (even if that's nonsense historically) are official ones. Marriage *just is* a man and woman, so government should put it's official stamp on that and not allow something different. And ketchup *just is* this tomato based condiment and mayonnaise *just is* this egg based condiment. The world as they understood it growing up has to be taken as *the way things are* and the official imprimatur of the government is needed to stave off an anxiety that might surface that the world is actually a more fluid, messy place at times.

          2. As I said in my original comment, I don't think the government should proactively go after manufacturers, though I do think consumers should be able to sue them for fraud. That's all. If it says mayo on the label, and it doesn't contain an emulsion of egg yolks and oil, then a consumer should be able to sue for fraud. Just as if a can says tomato sauce on it but has no tomatoes. Yes, I know, buyer beware. But sellers should also beware when they falsely label something.

            1. There is still the ingredient label.. If they were falsifying that then I would agree with you about fraud.

              1. So everyone should be expected to look at the ingredients to verify that the contents match what the label says? What's the point of having a label then?

                1. Marketing

                  1. Marketing

                    Shouldn't a consumer be able to sue if a product is marketed as something that it isn't? Isn't that false advertising?

                    1. So if I advertise my product as less filling and taste great and you either get full or don"t like it you will sue?

                2. "So everyone should be expected to look at the ingredients"

                  The inner progressive inside every conservative rears it's head. We can't expect them to read the ingredient label when they've been bamboozled by the title label of the product! They need help!

                3. It would be different if it said "does not contain" some ingredient that it did contain or if it had toxic ingredients in it. If it taste good and taste like mayo who gives a fuck if it contains eggs except the egg farmers. If you don't like it, don't buy it again like any other product. There are plenty of shitty tasting products out there. We try or we learn from others. Hell with the internet to you even need a consumer protection agency.

                  1. If it taste good and taste like mayo who gives a fuck if it contains eggs except the egg farmers.

                    As sloopy said in an above comment, chefs are a finicky bunch. Being that I've got some culinary training under my belt, I can agree with that. Mayonnaise is a culinary term. It means an emulsion of egg yolks and oil. It is from that point of view that I object to something that is not an emulsion of egg yolks and oil being advertised as mayonnaise. Call it something else, or be prepared to be sued. That's all.

                    1. It's a stack of arguments from authority, all the way down. Dictionaries, cookbooks and 'chefs' have set this for all time.

                    2. As sloopy said in an above comment, chefs are a finicky bunch. Being that I've got some culinary training under my belt, I can agree with that. Mayonnaise is a culinary term.

                      Yet chefs will call a tomato, cucumber, or pepper a vegetable. Being that I have botanical training under my belt, I insist that that the USDA do something about this outrage.

                    3. Tomatoes, cucumbers, & peppers aren't animal or mineral, are they? Fruit is a subset of vegetable, not a category exclusive of the other.

                    4. Fruits are not a subset of vegetables. Fruits are reproductive organs, vegetables are all other parts of the plant.

                    5. No. All parts of all plants are vegetable, whether they grow "vegetatively" or otherwise.

                  2. This!

                    I personally prefer and am more comfortable with my mayonnaise having eggs in it. But unlike sarcasmic and others here I'll express that preference by voting with my dollars, not calling on men with guns to enforce it.

                    1. But unlike sarcasmic and others here I'll express that preference by voting with my dollars, not calling on men with guns to enforce it.

                      Holy shit you're stupid. I never said I would sue, nor did I say that the government should proactively go after someone who mislabels their product. I only said that someone should be able to sue. Get a brain, moron.

                    2. And where do people go to sue, genius? And how does that decider enforce it's decision, ultimately?

                  3. I am in absolute amazement that a bunch of 'libertarians' are adamantly arguing that the government has a roll in the choice of proper noun that the manufacturer choices to call his product. It is some shit that glues a sandwich together; who gives a literal fuck what it's called.

                4. I always look at the ingredients of a new product before I buy it. It's not that hard.

                  1. Exactly. People can, and do, have different ideas about what a thing is (what makes it what it is) that should be not be the subject of government force, but what would be fraud would be misrepresenting what it's in the thing.

    3. Exactly.......but if there's nothing that says what mayonnaise is, where's the fraud?

      I could sell jars of the putrescent slime Bo uses as a brain and call it 'mayonnaise'--and not be lying if there's nothing that says what mayonnaise is.

      1. Exactly.......but if there's nothing that says what mayonnaise is, where's the fraud?

        Find any cookbook that has a recipe for mayonnaise. Well, any cookbook that caters to normal people that is.

        1. I tried the 'recipe' thing already--apparently the recipe is the same as some kind of state authority to Bo.

          1. Bo must have a really difficult time communicating with people. Words just mean whatever he feels like they mean at the time that he uses them, rather than the common understanding that makes communication possible. No wonder he's so frustrated all the time. No one understands him. Poor little retard. If I was capable of sympathy I might consider pitying the little moron.


            1. It's transparently pathetic trotting out this line when I'm one of many who are disagreeing with you here. I guess that kind of mindless parroting blind of all context is to be expected from someone who thinks that arguments from authority carry so much weight here.

              1. Oh freddled gruntbuggly,
                Thy micturations are to me,
                As plurdled gabbleblotchits,
                On a lurgid bee,
                That mordiously hath blurted out,
                Its earted jurtles,
                Into a rancid festering confectious organ squealer. [drowned out by moaning and screaming]
                Now the jurpling slayjid agrocrustles,
                Are slurping hagrilly up the axlegrurts,
                And living glupules frart and slipulate,
                Like jowling meated liverslime,
                Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turling dromes,
                And hooptiously drangle me,
                With crinkly bindlewurdles,
                Or else I shall rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon,
                See if I don't.

                1. Shoot. That was Vogon, not Vegan. Whatever. Doesn't matter. Words mean whatever you feel at the time, right?

                  1. Your pants crapping over the idea that words could evolve over time is hilarious. Don't worry lil' sarc, the change won't harm you!

      2. "if there's nothing that says what mayonnaise is."

        You see? This is the conservative mindset writ small. If we don't have some authority deciding what's what, anarchy follows. Men marry men and then dogs marry men, and if mayonnaise can be something without eggs then cannibalism will follow!

        The world, even the social world, must fall into the neat and fixed categories they are comfortable with, and the government must see to it, or chaos erupts.

      3. And stores would not sell it. And no one would buy it and you would be out of business in 5 minutes. No FDA required.

  17. Thank you FDA! I'm so glad I help pay your salaries. I know understand why we need to keep increasing the federal budget. Imagine the horror of finding out my vegan mayo didn't contain eggs!

    1. Keeping a fraudulently labeled food product off our store shelves, out of consumer's pantries, and out of the little mouths of our most precious resource is what the FDA is supposed to do. I'd prefer the FDA be abolished but think of this as a necessary government evil. Like re-trying racist murderers who were acquitted by a corrupt local jury.

      1. The real purpose of the federal government is to enforce the rectification of names!

      2. Racist murders and vegan "mayo". OK. Can we stop there?

  18. No problem with the mayo label rebuke as it is not what is generally accepted as "mayo". Agree the FDA might be a bit too precise, isn't enough to just say eggs oil and vinegar? The cholesterol rule is stupid and should be revoked.

  19. The elders of Mayo Beach should enforce their trademark ,just as the elders of Champagne and Parma have done.

    1. What about the Mayo Clinic?

      1. I don't think even thay could save this vegan sandwich spread.

      2. Somebody should file a complaint against the Mayo Clinic. If "Mayo" now means "mayonnaise", why not.

        If I were defending the vegans, that would be my first line of defense "The word "mayonnaise" has a federal definition, which we do not dispute. However, that word appears nowhere in my client's labelling or marketing. IF the FDA wants to adopt that definition for the word "mayo", then I suggest they amend their regulations in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act. The complaint should be dismissed, and costs awarded. Thank you, your honor."

  20. Miracle Whip should not be called fit for human consumption.

    1. I wouldn't go that far. I definitely prefer mayonnaise though

      1. When I was a boy my father picked up Miracle Whip instead of the Kraft Mayo we wanted. I still cannot get the horror of the resulting sandwich from my memory.

        1. Yeah, I could see if your weren't expecting it. I don't care for the sweetness of it I don't like sweet pizza sauces either.

  21. About 13-14 years ago, I ate a 16 oz jar of mayonnaise at a bar on a $100 bet. The bartender, a friend of mine, spooned the entire jar into a salad bowl and I proceeded to eat the entire thing with a soup spoon until the bowl was cleaned. Two people watching actually became ill and threw up.

    I collected the money. But I shit grease for a week.

    1. You needed to step on it with a little tomato aspic.

  22. You know what one of the easiest things to make yourself at home is. Fucking Mayonnaise that's what.

    1. It's not too hard, but I don't know that I would say "one of the easiest". There are a whole lot of foods that are easy to prepare. One of the easiest emulsified sauces, perhaps.

      1. Emulsified sauces are really easy... to screw up.

    2. Baking bread is easy too. Doesn't mean I want to waste my time on it.

      1. I agree but if people really want to be purist about it then they have a pretty easy way to do that.

  23. The very existence of this misbranded poison violates the non-aggression principle. It's fraud.

  24. The phrase "federal mayonnaise law" gives a tidy summary all by itself of why things are so fouled up in Washington.

  25. This is what you choose to play with the troll about?

  26. Shit like this is happening in every industry in the country. Instead of protecting people from actual harm, regulators are punishing companies for extremely technical and ultimately meaningless violations of regulatory definitions. When even the incumbent players in an industry can't meet the requirements anymore, doesn't that say something?

  27. I can see how if you don't think "spouse" should keep its customary, albeit old, meaning, then neither should mayonnaise, in law.

  28. Thank God we have the FDA to protect us from the scourge of eggless mayo. Without them, we wouldn't even be able to feed ourselves. Truly they're doing God's work. If only the Teathuglikkkans would give them a bigger budget and a SWAT team. /sarc

    1. LMFAO

  29. Anything that harangues a vegan is okay by me.

    I have firsthand experience with this bunch and have come to loathe their existence.

    If you're a young male starting out in life, and you begin dating a pretty, intelligent girl that also calls herself a vegan OR vegetarian, run away from her as fast as you can. You have no idea the pain and misery you'll be avoiding.

    1. You have no idea the pain and misery you'll be avoiding.

      Avoiding ersatz "mayo" is reason enough

    2. Yeah, can't argue with that advice.

  30. Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...

  31. Elizabeth Nolan Brown brings the "sponsored content" to tReason.

    How much did the Silicon Valley vegan-conspiracy pay for this P.R.?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.