Health

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

That 100% Lemon Juice May Not be 100%!

We have all bought quart bottles of lemon juice, and probably assumed we were getting 100% lemon juice, just as the label specifies. Well, a little birdie tipped off the National Consumers League that they may be in for a surprise if they tested some of the bargain brands.

And that’s what they did for these four bottles found at discount and dollar stores:

lemon juice

It turns out that all four products were watered-down substantially.

*MOUSE PRINT:

“NaturaLemon 100% Lemon Juice from concentrate – Natural Strength” contains only about 35 percent lemon juice.

“Lira 100% Lemon Juice from concentrate” contains only about 25 percent lemon juice.

“Lemon Time Lemon Juice from concentrate” contains about only 15 percent lemon juice. The product states on its front label, “Contains 100% Lemon Juice with added ingredients.”

“Pampa Lemon Juice from concentrate” contains only about 10 percent lemon juice. The product states “Made with 100% Juice.” The label also includes the statement “Natural Strength.”

Right now, the average consumer has no way of knowing whether they are buying a diluted product or the real thing. We can only hope that by bringing this issue to the attention of the FDA, the government will move to remove these and other adulterated products from the market.

To view a video report about diluted lemon juice, click here.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Pom (Not So) Wonderful Fights Back

The Federal Trade Commission recently sued the maker of Pom Wonderful pomegranate juice contending that it did not have reliable evidence to back up the health claims it made.

A federal administrative law judge two weeks ago ruled in favor of the FTC, issuing a cease and desist order against the company because it did not have sufficient evidence to support its claims that its juice reduced the risks of heart disease, prostate cancer and impotence. (Full decision)

Turning their defeat on its head, the company took out full page ads in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times like this:

Reading the advertisement, you’d think that the company won the lawsuit. What they did instead was cleverly excerpt out-of-context quotes from the judge that seemingly supported their case.

Look at the first claim in the advertisement above, where the company quotes the judge as saying that scientific studies support the claim that pomegranate juice supports prostate health including by slowing the rate of increase in a man’s PSA level. What they failed to tell you was the following, that the judge said immediately after that.

*MOUSE PRINT:

“However, the greater weight of the persuasive expert testimony shows that the evidence relied upon by Respondents is not adequate to substantiate claims that the POM Products treat, prevent, or reduce the risk of prostate cancer or that they are clinically proven to do so. Indeed, the authors of the Pantuck Study and the Carducci Study each testified that their study did not conclude that POM Juice treats, prevents, or reduces the risk of prostate cancer. And, as Respondents’ expert conceded, no clinical studies, research and/or trials show definitively that the POM Products treat, prevent, or reduce the risk of prostate cancer.” — Judge D. Michael Chappell, page 282.

Looking at the company’s third claim in the ad above about promoting erectile health, the company conveniently omitted the judge’s conclusion in the very next sentence:

*MOUSE PRINT:

“There is insufficient competent and reliable scientific evidence to show that pomegranate juice prevents or reduces the risk of erectile dysfunction or has been clinically proven to do so.” – page 188

What chutzpah this company has. It will be interesting to see if the FTC goes after Pom for the deceptive nature of these misleading ads.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Fruit Roll-ups: Their “Strawberry” is Really…

Decades ago, General Mills introduced us to Fruit Roll-ups, a supposedly healthy snack “made with real fruit.” Indeed, below is a picture of an older box of strawberry Fruit Roll-ups, with the claims that it is “made from real fruit” and that it is “naturally flavored.”

Well, it seems that at least one consumer actually read the ingredients statement and was surprised by what she found.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Annie Lam was shocked to find that the strawberry snack she bought not only had no strawberries in it, it was actually made with pears, and a bunch of other additives and chemicals. And unlike most consumers who would shrug off this afront, she filed a class action lawsuit against the company.

General Mills asked that the suit be dismissed, but the judge ruled last week that it could go forward because:

“Reasonable consumers might be misled by packaging that claimed the snacks are ‘made with real fruit,’ and would not read the fine print.” — U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti