[URL="http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/today-food-finance-nutella-not-broccoli-162956191.html"]Today in Food Finance: Nutella Is Not Broccoli (source)[/URL]
[IMG]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1847874/300px-Nutella-1.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE]Have you bought a jar of Nutella in the past four years? Were you under the impression, as you slathered the creamy hazlenut spread onto your crackers or scooped large spoonfuls of it from the jar directly into your mouth, that you were indulging a health food craving? Well, you could soon find yourself at least $4 wealthier.
Yes, that's right. Ferrero, the company that manufactures the highly addictive yet apparently not terribly healthy spread, has settled a $3 million lawsuit filed in February 2011 by San Diego mom Athena Hohenberg. Hohenberg, it seems, believed that Nutella was a great dietary choice for her four-year-old daughter. She claimed the company's advertising -- particularly giving TV-ad viewers the idea that Nutella was part of a nutritious breakfast (see ad below) -- led to her erroneous perception.
But when she realized the spread is about as healthy as your average Snickers bar, she decided it was time to get even -- and get cash.
While the total award sum is a not-too-shabby $3.5 million, $2.5 million of that (for the nationwide class action suit) will be spread out among claimants that could include you. If you want in on this money train, go here to fill out your claim. It seems that you don't even have to have a receipt, and for now you can get reimbursed for up to five jars if you bought them between Jan 1, 2008, and Feb 3, 2012 (or Aug. 1, 2009, and Jan. 23, 2012 in Hohenberg's home state).
Along with now being $3 million poorer, Ferrero will have to change its marketing and labeling to clear up any possible misconceptions about the health benefits of its product.
All of this brings to mind the obesity lawsuits lodged against McDonald's (MCD), in which the filers claimed to be utterly stunned that chicken McNuggets and frosty shakes could expand their waistlines. While a major obesity suit against the company was thrown out back in 2003, a man in Brazil -- a McDonald's franchise manager, no less -- actually managed to win $17,500 after he packed on 65 Big Mac pounds over 12 years.
What do you think? Was the Nutella lawsuit ridiculous? Or did it have merit?[/QUOTE]
Here's the ad cited by the article:
[video=youtube;RpNLUFA34iw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpNLUFA34iw[/video]
It was long ago since I had some nutella. I should get myself some.
But yeah, she's fucking stupid. Is she really expecting something like that to be even remotely healthy?
Guys
GUYS
GUYS GUESS
guys LISTEN
GUYS LISTEN
TO THIS
GRASS
IS [B][U]GREEN[/U][/B]
[QUOTE=Red scout?;35736279]It was long ago since I had some nutella. I should get myself some.
But yeah, she's fucking stupid. Is she really expecting something like that to be even remotely healthy?[/QUOTE]
Well if it's advertised as such, then I can't really blame her in the same way I'd blame someone for trying to sue because there was no warning on the cup of hot coffee they were burned by.
Why does everyone have to sue for money, if she really gave a shit about the health she would have sued to force them to change it not for money;.
[QUOTE=Sgt. Lulz;35736293]Guys
GUYS
GUYS GUESS
guys LISTEN
GUYS LISTEN
TO THIS
GRASS
IS [B][U]GREEN[/U][/B][/QUOTE]
WHAT THE FUCK I'VE BEEN LIED TO ALL THESE YEARS?!
No shit?
Anyone who thought Nutella was healthy deserves to weigh more than a car.
[editline]27th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=n0cturni;35736318]Well if it's advertised as such, then I can't really blame her in the same way I'd blame someone for trying to sue because there was no warning on the cup of hot coffee they were burned by.[/QUOTE]
In that woman's defense, she did suffer third degree burns. McDonald's didn't need to be making their coffee the temperature of the fucking sun.
I bet she is some kind of landwhale.
[QUOTE=n0cturni;35736318]Well if it's advertised as such, then I can't really blame her in the same way I'd blame someone for trying to sue because there was no warning on the cup of hot coffee they were burned by.[/QUOTE]
yeah except if you look on the back and it says this
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9hlRJ6TAISA/TVQwJMADCgI/AAAAAAAAALU/9_0gzSY1L1Q/s1600/Nutella-label-550x412.JPG[/IMG]
then it clearly says "Not healthy at all". Unless you're REALLY dumb of course.
IMHO it's the same as being mad because you spilled hot coffee on yourself, it doesn't matter if you didn't know how much, you still had to have known or checked and easily could have
The key word here is PART of a healthy breakfast.
Can people get off the bandwagon of criticizing the McDonald's coffee lawsuit already? The lawsuit was entirely valid and reasonable, restaurants can't be allowed to serve food at ridiculously unsafe temperatures (the woman received [b]third degree burns[/b], for fucks sake).
[QUOTE=J!NX;35736429]yeah except if you look on the back and it says this
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9hlRJ6TAISA/TVQwJMADCgI/AAAAAAAAALU/9_0gzSY1L1Q/s1600/Nutella-label-550x412.JPG[/IMG]
then it clearly says "Not healthy at all". Unless you're REALLY dumb of course.
IMHO it's the same as being mad because you spilled hot coffee on yourself, it doesn't matter if you didn't know how much, you still had to have known or checked and easily could have[/QUOTE]
oh god i put waaay more than 2tbsp on my toast
[QUOTE=GameDev;35736731]oh god i put waaay more than 2tbsp on my toast[/QUOTE]
dump contents on bread; apply to face
[QUOTE=J!NX;35736429]yeah except if you look on the back and it says this
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9hlRJ6TAISA/TVQwJMADCgI/AAAAAAAAALU/9_0gzSY1L1Q/s1600/Nutella-label-550x412.JPG[/IMG]
then it clearly says "Not healthy at all". Unless you're REALLY dumb of course.
IMHO it's the same as being mad because you spilled hot coffee on yourself, it doesn't matter if you didn't know how much, you still had to have known or checked and easily could have[/QUOTE]
holy shit from now on when i have a hankering for nutella i'll just make a reese's cup sandwich
As much as I dislike her suing out of our own stupidity, I don't exactly want to defend a company that calls 18% saturated fat per serving 'Healthy' in the slightest.
So, fuck em' both.
[QUOTE=Sgt. Lulz;35736293]Guys
GUYS
GUYS GUESS
guys LISTEN
GUYS LISTEN
TO THIS
GRASS
IS [B][U]GREEN[/U][/B][/QUOTE]Pretty sure it isnt
[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;35736322]Why does everyone have to sue for money, if she really gave a shit about the health she would have sued to force them to change it not for money;.[/QUOTE]
Uh, they'd have to do that regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit, because more would follow if they didn't. She's smart enough to make some green off of this, so stop ragging on her.
[editline]27th April 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Killer900;35736886]Pretty sure it isnt[/QUOTE]
The way the human eye perceives color, it is.
[editline]27th April 2012[/editline]
This lawsuit is just nuts.
I find Nutella's campaign also quite misleading. They act as if it's a glass of orange juice.
[QUOTE=Sgt. Lulz;35736293]Guys
GUYS
GUYS GUESS
guys LISTEN
GUYS LISTEN
TO THIS
GRASS
IS [B][U]GREEN[/U][/B][/QUOTE]
Oh really?
[IMG]http://css.wsu.edu/research/images/barley_field.jpg[/IMG]
You know Nutella is made with shittons of hazelnuts. It has almost the same health value of just eating hazelnuts. A bit more sugary, but meh.
Anyone noticed their advertising on the package? It's something like 98 hazelnuts or something I think.
A lot of nuts ain't great for ya either. They are fatty.
[QUOTE=Sgt. Lulz;35736293]Guys
GUYS
GUYS GUESS
guys LISTEN
GUYS LISTEN
TO THIS
GRASS
IS [B][U]GREEN[/U][/B][/QUOTE]
My grass is brown.
I am a shit gardener.
You know, that would be ok if she had a good diet...
You have got to be kidding me.
It's her fault for not reading further than "Part of a healthy breakfast". I swear to god if this passes I will be so pissed.
[QUOTE=n0cturni;35736318]Well if it's advertised as such, then I can't really blame her in the same way I'd blame someone for trying to sue because there was no warning on the cup of hot coffee they were burned by.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=J!NX;35736429]yeah except if you look on the back and it says this
[IMG]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-9hlRJ6TAISA/TVQwJMADCgI/AAAAAAAAALU/9_0gzSY1L1Q/s1600/Nutella-label-550x412.JPG[/IMG]
then it clearly says "Not healthy at all". Unless you're REALLY dumb of course.
IMHO it's the same as being mad because you spilled hot coffee on yourself, it doesn't matter if you didn't know how much, you still had to have known or checked and easily could have[/QUOTE]
woman got third degree burns on her genitals because mcdonalds was brewing their coffee at above regulation temperatures to save money because it requires fewer beans if you brew it hotter
most of these "ridiculous" lawsuits you hear about are given media attention and spun by conservative thinktanks that sponsor corporate interests, btw. the way they're presented is directly purposed for persuading the public against corporate liability.
both of these decisions were the right ones. the previous caused medical injury for corporate profit. this one is part of false advertising that a lot of companies have been getting away with for years.
The first ingredient listed is sugar. How stupid do you have to be to accept ANY advertising/tagline/quote/etc over the actual ingredient list on the item itself? Then assuming you did read the ingredient list, how stupid do you have to be to believe it when anyone tries to tell you that a 'food' item with sugar as its main ingredient is in any way, shape, or form healthy?
As stupid as this woman, it's not a trick question.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;35737282]My grass is brown.
I am a shit gardener.[/QUOTE]
That's how all grass is here in Southern California.
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;35737959]woman got third degree burns on her genitals because mcdonalds was brewing their coffee at above regulation temperatures to save money because it requires fewer beans if you brew it hotter
most of these "ridiculous" lawsuits you hear about are given media attention and spun by conservative thinktanks that sponsor corporate interests, btw. the way they're presented is directly purposed for persuading the public against corporate liability.
both of these decisions were the right ones. the previous caused medical injury for corporate profit. this one is part of false advertising that a lot of companies have been getting away with for years.[/QUOTE]
fair
[QUOTE=Kabstrac;35738188]And honestly, a glass of orange juice isn`t that great either. You`d be way better off with a real orange and water. Or maybe like 3 oranges. But, whatever....[/QUOTE]
Home juicers are amazing
I'm totally filing a claim.
[QUOTE=Sgt. Lulz;35736293]Guys
GUYS
GUYS GUESS
guys LISTEN
GUYS LISTEN
TO THIS
GRASS
IS [B][U]GREEN[/U][/B][/QUOTE]
I can 100% without a doubt confirm this is true. Mine used to be brown but then I made a virgin sacrifice to a rain god, and now my grass is green.
Do you think if we put a giant label on everything that is unhealthy that says "YO, THIS SHIT IS UNHEALTHY AND YO KIDS ARE GONNA GET FAT", do you think people would still buy it and try to sue companies?
[QUOTE=Sgt. Lulz;35736293]Guys
GUYS
GUYS GUESS
guys LISTEN
GUYS LISTEN
TO THIS
GRASS
IS [B][U]GREEN[/U][/B][/QUOTE]
This thread needs some good ol' fashioned Bluegrass.
[video=youtube;iy_CZDtIuz0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy_CZDtIuz0[/video]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.