Epistemic status: amused. Labels read, court records checked.
AI use: research (more examples and context), grammar and light phrasing.
We've already looked at marketing claims that are unnecessary because they are the default, in Gluten-free water. However, the landscape of weird marketing tricks in the US is far from exhausted, and today we will look at marketing mimicry:
Is this butter or not? Let's get closer and have a better look:
The same tub, up close.
Oh, it is not butter, it is "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!". I remember seeing this product in a store myself and finding it extremely amusing and clever. At first I thought it was some variation of margarine. However, you won't believe it's not MARGARINE either! In the US margarine must be at least 80% fat, and this is a "buttery spread, 45% oils" whose first ingredient is water.[1]
Anyway, the claim is that whatever this is, you cannot distinguish it from butter. I find it funny that the logo may suggest to an inattentive customer that this is butter, while at the same time managing to say that it is not butter and that it is indistinguishable from butter. The number of layers of meaning here is impressive.
Does Froot Loops cereal contain fruit? It does not, only "natural fruit flavors". In 2007 the box also had small drawings of a lime, an orange slice, a lemon, cherries, a raspberry and a blueberry around the "natural fruit flavors" banner, and there was a court case, McKinnis v. Kellogg USA, on whether this was misleading.[2]The claim was that:
Froot sounds like fruit.
Brightly colored cereal rings suggest fruit.
Illustrations of fruit surround "Natural fruit flavors", which is written in a disproportionately small font.
The court dismissed the case with prejudice. "Froot", it said, "might be a fanciful take on the word F-R-U-I-T", but it sits inside a trademark, not in the ingredient list: "No reasonable consumer would view the trademark 'FROOT LOOPS' name as describing the ingredients of the cereal."
The court also found that the rings "in no way resemble any currently known fruit" and, more usefully, that pictures of fruit on a box are not a claim that fruit is inside: FDA rules allow fruit illustrations to indicate a "characterizing flavor" even when the product contains nothing derived from that fruit (21 CFR 101.22(i)).
The situation here is a mess. So these are "Bac'n Pieces", which are BACON FLAVORED? This already strongly suggests that Bac'n is not bacon. Moreover, if you keep digging deeper, they are also artificially flavored, and they are bits. Can you guess what this is? (The answer "not bacon" is not accepted.) Walmart calls them "McCormick Kosher Imitation Bacon Bits", and the top ingredient is TEXTURIZED SOY FLOUR.
While researching this post I discovered that this design is legally required: if a food contains artificial flavor simulating the characterizing flavor, the name must be accompanied by the flavor name ("bacon flavored") and by "artificially flavored", each in letters at least half the height of the line above.[3]
Also, the design in the image is from before 2024; the latest design shows only "Bac'n Pieces / BITS" on the front, and the rest moved to the back.
This one I find less confusing and less good at mimicry, since it does not look like a true lemon at all. It is still funny to call something True Lemon when it is clearly not a lemon. At the same time, it does have lemon-based ingredients[4]and it does taste good - extremely good for backpacking!
Crab Classic
This post wouldn't be complete without an imitation crab example.
To their defense, "Imitation Crab" is reasonably prominent, and they even name the main ingredient. I was surprised by "Real Crab Meat added", but technically that's correct: "Contains 2% or less of: Golden King Crab Meat".[5]
The name here does not suggest to me that this is whipped cream, but the illustrations and the product itself pass Python duck typing. The first time I saw this thing I had to check the ingredients to make sure it wasn't whipped cream.[6]
This example is not mimicry anymore, it is just substitution, and selling NotMilk is more fun than selling a "Plant-based milk alternative" (which is what the small print says). They don't even say "I can't believe it's not milk" - I wonder whether that would be trademark infringement.[7]
This one does not do mimicry at all and is very direct ("Eggs from plants"). JUST is the brand name, and it would be very hard to think that this was a normal egg.
While researching this post I discovered that the same company used to sell "Just Mayo", without any eggs. FDA's definition of mayonnaise requires egg, so Unilever (the owner of Hellmann's) sued in 2014, then dropped the case under public pressure. FDA then wrote to the company that "the use of the term 'Just' together with 'Mayo' reinforces the impression that the products are real mayonnaise by suggesting that they are 'all mayonnaise' or 'nothing but' mayonnaise." This was resolved in 2015 by keeping the name, but the label got a dictionary definition of "just" ("guided by reason, justice, and fairness"), the words "Spread & Dressing", a smaller egg logo and a bigger "egg-free".[8]
Gardein describes these as "designed to look, taste, and bake up just like real chicken tenders." Does naming them chick'n make it obvious that they are not chicken? To their defense, "plant-based" is quite prominent, but the "vegan" label can barely be seen.
Krab mix
Does the k in krab make it not crab? While researching this post I stumbled on Kang v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., No. 20-55138 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2021).[9]The claim was that "krab mix" listed in the sushi-roll ingredients suggested that the roll contained crab. The case was allowed to proceed, and part of the argument was that "mix" suggested a mix of real crab and imitation (when I google "krab mix" I see imitation crab mixed with mayo; I don't know whether that was the case here). Back in the district court the plaintiff missed the deadline for class certification, the class claims were struck, and in July 2021 the whole case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, each side paying its own lawyers. So we never found out what reasonable consumers think "krab mix" means.
Conclusion
THIS POST IS not THE BEST POST ON LESSWRONG, but if you squint hard enough...
Margarine: "not less than 80 percent fat", 21 CFR 166.110. The brand's own FAQ says "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! is not margarine"; ingredients: water, oils (soybean, palm kernel, palm), salt, lecithin, natural flavors, lactic acid, vitamins, beta carotene. ↩︎
McKinnis v. Kellogg USA, No. CV 07-2611 ABC (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2007): order (scanned), docket. Current ingredient list: no fruit, only "natural flavor". ↩︎
21 CFR 101.22(i)(2). The "imitation" part is a separate rule, 21 CFR 101.3(e): a substitute that resembles a food but is nutritionally inferior must be called "imitation" plus the name of the food. McCormick's own site calls the product "McCormick Imitation Bacon Bits"; the jar does not. ↩︎
Ingredients: "Crystallized Lemon [citric acid, lemon oil, lemon juice]" (True Citrus). The box also says "Made from Real Lemons". ↩︎
Ingredients. "Imitation" is not entirely voluntary: FDA policy says a fish-protein product that resembles crab and is nutritionally inferior to it "must be labeled 'imitation crabmeat'" (CPG Sec. 540.700). ↩︎
Ingredients: water, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated vegetable oil (coconut and palm kernel oils), skim milk, less than 2% of light cream, sodium caseinate... The tub says "whipped topping" because FDA reserves the name "whipped cream" for products made by whipping cream (21 CFR 131.25). ↩︎
The butter people must have wondered too. Unilever, then the owner of the brand, filed "I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S NOT MILK!" as a trademark for a milk substitute in 2002, kept the application alive until 2007 and never launched anything. An unrelated "I Can't Believe It's Not Milk!" powdered milk substitute existed in 1984. ↩︎
Epistemic status: amused. Labels read, court records checked.
AI use: research (more examples and context), grammar and light phrasing.
We've already looked at marketing claims that are unnecessary because they are the default, in Gluten-free water. However, the landscape of weird marketing tricks in the US is far from exhausted, and today we will look at marketing mimicry:
Source: Walmart
Is this butter or not? Let's get closer and have a better look:
The same tub, up close.
Oh, it is not butter, it is "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!". I remember seeing this product in a store myself and finding it extremely amusing and clever. At first I thought it was some variation of margarine. However, you won't believe it's not MARGARINE either! In the US margarine must be at least 80% fat, and this is a "buttery spread, 45% oils" whose first ingredient is water.[1]
Anyway, the claim is that whatever this is, you cannot distinguish it from butter. I find it funny that the logo may suggest to an inattentive customer that this is butter, while at the same time managing to say that it is not butter and that it is indistinguishable from butter. The number of layers of meaning here is impressive.
Froot Loops
Froot Loops, Mega Size. Source: Walmart
Does Froot Loops cereal contain fruit? It does not, only "natural fruit flavors". In 2007 the box also had small drawings of a lime, an orange slice, a lemon, cherries, a raspberry and a blueberry around the "natural fruit flavors" banner, and there was a court case, McKinnis v. Kellogg USA, on whether this was misleading.[2]The claim was that:
The court dismissed the case with prejudice. "Froot", it said, "might be a fanciful take on the word F-R-U-I-T", but it sits inside a trademark, not in the ingredient list: "No reasonable consumer would view the trademark 'FROOT LOOPS' name as describing the ingredients of the cereal."
The court also found that the rings "in no way resemble any currently known fruit" and, more usefully, that pictures of fruit on a box are not a claim that fruit is inside: FDA rules allow fruit illustrations to indicate a "characterizing flavor" even when the product contains nothing derived from that fruit (21 CFR 101.22(i)).
Bac'n Pieces
Bac'n Pieces. Source: Walmart
The situation here is a mess. So these are "Bac'n Pieces", which are BACON FLAVORED? This already strongly suggests that Bac'n is not bacon. Moreover, if you keep digging deeper, they are also artificially flavored, and they are bits. Can you guess what this is? (The answer "not bacon" is not accepted.) Walmart calls them "McCormick Kosher Imitation Bacon Bits", and the top ingredient is TEXTURIZED SOY FLOUR.
While researching this post I discovered that this design is legally required: if a food contains artificial flavor simulating the characterizing flavor, the name must be accompanied by the flavor name ("bacon flavored") and by "artificially flavored", each in letters at least half the height of the line above.[3]
Also, the design in the image is from before 2024; the latest design shows only "Bac'n Pieces / BITS" on the front, and the rest moved to the back.
True Lemon
True Lemon, 100 packets. Source: Walmart
This one I find less confusing and less good at mimicry, since it does not look like a true lemon at all. It is still funny to call something True Lemon when it is clearly not a lemon. At the same time, it does have lemon-based ingredients[4]and it does taste good - extremely good for backpacking!
Crab Classic
This post wouldn't be complete without an imitation crab example.
Crab Classic, flake style. Source: Trans-Ocean
To their defense, "Imitation Crab" is reasonably prominent, and they even name the main ingredient. I was surprised by "Real Crab Meat added", but technically that's correct: "Contains 2% or less of: Golden King Crab Meat".[5]
Cool Whip
Cool Whip Original. Source: Walmart
The name here does not suggest to me that this is whipped cream, but the illustrations and the product itself pass Python duck typing. The first time I saw this thing I had to check the ingredients to make sure it wasn't whipped cream.[6]
NotMilk
NotMilk. Source: Walmart
This example is not mimicry anymore, it is just substitution, and selling NotMilk is more fun than selling a "Plant-based milk alternative" (which is what the small print says). They don't even say "I can't believe it's not milk" - I wonder whether that would be trademark infringement.[7]
JUST Egg
JUST Egg. Source: Walmart
This one does not do mimicry at all and is very direct ("Eggs from plants"). JUST is the brand name, and it would be very hard to think that this was a normal egg.
While researching this post I discovered that the same company used to sell "Just Mayo", without any eggs. FDA's definition of mayonnaise requires egg, so Unilever (the owner of Hellmann's) sued in 2014, then dropped the case under public pressure. FDA then wrote to the company that "the use of the term 'Just' together with 'Mayo' reinforces the impression that the products are real mayonnaise by suggesting that they are 'all mayonnaise' or 'nothing but' mayonnaise." This was resolved in 2015 by keeping the name, but the label got a dictionary definition of "just" ("guided by reason, justice, and fairness"), the words "Spread & Dressing", a smaller egg logo and a bigger "egg-free".[8]
Chick'n Tenders
Gardein Chick'n Tenders. Source: Gardein
Gardein describes these as "designed to look, taste, and bake up just like real chicken tenders." Does naming them chick'n make it obvious that they are not chicken? To their defense, "plant-based" is quite prominent, but the "vegan" label can barely be seen.
Krab mix
Does the k in krab make it not crab? While researching this post I stumbled on Kang v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., No. 20-55138 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2021).[9]The claim was that "krab mix" listed in the sushi-roll ingredients suggested that the roll contained crab. The case was allowed to proceed, and part of the argument was that "mix" suggested a mix of real crab and imitation (when I google "krab mix" I see imitation crab mixed with mayo; I don't know whether that was the case here). Back in the district court the plaintiff missed the deadline for class certification, the class claims were struck, and in July 2021 the whole case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, each side paying its own lawyers. So we never found out what reasonable consumers think "krab mix" means.
Conclusion
THIS POST IS not THE BEST POST ON LESSWRONG, but if you squint hard enough...
Margarine: "not less than 80 percent fat", 21 CFR 166.110. The brand's own FAQ says "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! is not margarine"; ingredients: water, oils (soybean, palm kernel, palm), salt, lecithin, natural flavors, lactic acid, vitamins, beta carotene. ↩︎
McKinnis v. Kellogg USA, No. CV 07-2611 ABC (C.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2007): order (scanned), docket. Current ingredient list: no fruit, only "natural flavor". ↩︎
21 CFR 101.22(i)(2). The "imitation" part is a separate rule, 21 CFR 101.3(e): a substitute that resembles a food but is nutritionally inferior must be called "imitation" plus the name of the food. McCormick's own site calls the product "McCormick Imitation Bacon Bits"; the jar does not. ↩︎
Ingredients: "Crystallized Lemon [citric acid, lemon oil, lemon juice]" (True Citrus). The box also says "Made from Real Lemons". ↩︎
Ingredients. "Imitation" is not entirely voluntary: FDA policy says a fish-protein product that resembles crab and is nutritionally inferior to it "must be labeled 'imitation crabmeat'" (CPG Sec. 540.700). ↩︎
Ingredients: water, corn syrup, high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated vegetable oil (coconut and palm kernel oils), skim milk, less than 2% of light cream, sodium caseinate... The tub says "whipped topping" because FDA reserves the name "whipped cream" for products made by whipping cream (21 CFR 131.25). ↩︎
The butter people must have wondered too. Unilever, then the owner of the brand, filed "I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S NOT MILK!" as a trademark for a milk substitute in 2002, kept the application alive until 2007 and never launched anything. An unrelated "I Can't Believe It's Not Milk!" powdered milk substitute existed in 1984. ↩︎
Unilever's suit and retreat: Fortune, Dec 18, 2014. FDA warning letter, Aug 12, 2015: archived copy. Resolution: NYT, Dec 17, 2015. ↩︎
Ninth Circuit memorandum (unpublished, 2-1). District court dismissal, Jan 9, 2020. After remand: docket and dismissal order, July 21, 2021. ↩︎