Customer surprised to find Pop-Tarts is not a health food, files lawsuit over lack of strawberries

Oct 25th

In other news, fans were astonished to find that the men who participate in "Iron Man Triathlons" are not actually made out of iron:

If you're anything like me, you are almost certainly outraged to discover that you do not have any Pop-Tarts in the house because man could you ever go for one right now.

Also, something about justice and fair play.

Why would someone spend time and money to file such a trivial lawsuit?

Yes, it's real.

Someone filed a lawsuit because a mass-produced toaster pastry with a shelf life spanning decades, has insufficient strawberry content.

Plaintiff bought the Product because she expected it would have more of the named fruit ingredient.

I think this would be a good time to pause for a moment and remind readers that we are talking about Pop-Tarts.

Plaintiff wanted more than a "strawberry taste," which she nevertheless failed to receive, due to the relatively greater amount of pears and apples.

I have a solution for when you are disappointed in a product that costs a few bucks. Stay with me here, because I know it's a little strange.

Stop buying that product.

Plaintiff wanted a relatively greater amount of strawberry ingredient, which was not received due to the unexpected and relatively significant amounts of pears and apples.

Did I mention we're talking about Pop-Tarts? I feel like I mentioned that already.

Harris deftly illuminates the deceit:

To give consumers the false impression that the Product contains a greater absolute and relative amount of strawberries than it does, it contains red 40...

But it gets worse.

Red 40, a common food coloring used widely throughout the industry is:

...a synthetic food coloring made from petroleum.

Kellogg's hates the Earth, too, it would appear.

Red 40 makes the strawberry-pear-apple combination look bright red, like it is only strawberries or has more strawberries than it does. According to one website...

Did they note the site? No, no they did not.

Apparently, "I saw it on the internet" is the new evidentiary standard.

In fairness, it's not as if we're dealing with an esteemed national institution with years of credibility on the line (like Reddit). It's just the United States Court in the Southern District of Illinois.

"Artificial dyes are also used to help hide the fact that many processed foods don't contain much (or any) of the nutrients or foods they claim to have." Without the added coloring, consumers would be suspect of a product labeled as "Strawberry," because the filling would be a more subdued tone instead of the bright red.

These are Pop-Tarts. I am personally delighted to know they have any strawberry content at all. I'd be delighted if any of the factory workers ever once in their lives ate a strawberry or at least could identify one in the produce aisle.

Defendant sold more of the Product and at higher prices than it would have in the absence of this misconduct, resulting in additional profits at the expense of consumers.

Had Plaintiff and proposed class members known the truth, they would not have bought the Product or would have paid less for it.

They literally provide graphs and charts on this:

I can feel the IQ points slipping away the longer I'm exposed to this lawsuit.

But, wait, there's more!

The evidence is right there! A half-eaten strawberry!

With a bite of the product!!!!

I'm thinking the culprit was Colonel Mustard in the Library.

Gasp!

The Product's website even shows consumers how to make a strawberry shortcake.

What?! The product's website even shows consumers how to... okay, I don't get that one, but I'm sure it's penetrating in some manner.

Interestingly, the lawsuit uses evidence demonstrating that Kellogg's Pop-Tarts have relatively low strawberry content and uses artificial coloring by citing information from a whistleblower, and by whistleblower I mean whoever prints the ingredients list on millions of packages a year.

The gist of their argument rests on emphasis and where the information is on the box.

Whether a toaster pastry contains only strawberries or merely some strawberries and a significant amount of other, less valued fruit ingredients, is basic front label information consumers rely on when making quick decisions at the grocery store.

Is Kellogg's in some technical violation of regulations? Maybe. Is there anyone with half a brain on the face of the earth who thinks, really thinks, that Pop-Tarts are the equivalent of a bowl of freshly cut strawberries? And is there a court in this land that would award damages here?

Could be that be the case?

(Thanks to @gbeemer and @gwen42 for the tip!)


Comments

There are 95 comments on this article.

Ready to join the conversation? Start your free trial today.

Access comments and our fully-featured social platform, completely free of charge.

Sign up Now
App screenshot

You must signup or login to view or post comments on this article.