• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What do you consider false advertising? Is this?

True or False?


  • Total voters
    4
  • Poll closed .

SlevinKelevra

Sage
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 16, 2014
Messages
6,639
Reaction score
1,487
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There's a popular (I guess) ad on local radio (yeh , I listen), and they advertise their product to be "preservative free".

Lo and behold, you look at their website, and the ingredients list, entry #4 is salt.

I personally don't care; I'd buy their product (dietary concerns), but I hate the idiocy of the marketing campaign. What say you.
 
Last edited:
Is the salt being used as a preservative, or is it in for flavour, or something else?
 
There's a popular (I guess) ad on local radio (yeh , I listen), and they advertise their product to be "preservative free".

Lo and behold, you look at their website, and the ingredients list, entry #4 is salt.

I personally don't care; I'd buy their product (dietary concerns), but I hate the idiocy of the marketing campaign. What say you.

*puts on nerd hat*

In all likelihood, the salt is not acting as a preservative. The concentration of salt required to have any meaningful preservative effect is absolutely enormous (over 10% for bacteria, and even higher for mold), and it would destroy the edibility of just about any food. It'd be worse than drinking soy sauce straight (only 6% salt).

Not even traditional salted meat is being preserved with salt. It's being preserved with a combination of dehydration (which the salt does aid with) and acid.

So, they are not being dishonest. It is basically impossible for them to be using enough salt to preserve the food. If it is dehydrated, salt may have aided in the process of drying, but it is not salt in and of itself that is preserving it. In all probability, the salt is mostly there for taste.

*takes off nerd hat*
 
So, they are not being dishonest. It is basically impossible for them to be using enough salt to preserve the food. If it is dehydrated, salt may have aided in the process of drying, but it is not salt in and of itself that is preserving it. In all probability, the salt is mostly there for taste.

*takes off nerd hat*

nerd hat noted.

should they proclaim the food to be preservative free, or not?


//// not that I disagree with you?
 
In other words, what if the product had 1 ppm benzene.

Could they call it "organic solvent free"
 
nerd hat noted.

should they proclaim the food to be preservative free, or not?

//// not that I disagree with you?

I'd say so. They are not using anything that is predominantly for the purposes of preservation. It's a silly thing to avoid, but that's trendy these days.

There are dozens of mundane ingredients that, in high concentrations, may have some kind of preservative effect: all acids, oils, salts, etc. But they are not there for preservation. They are there for taste, consistency, or whatever. They are not being used in the quantity required for preservation (if they were, believe me, you'd know -- and probably spit it out because it would taste so horrible). Therefore the food is not being preserved.

Of course, where this becomes semantically questionable is that they're aiming that kind of marketing at uninformed people who believe it's possible to eat "chemical free" food (you know, the sorts who fell for that "dihydrogen monoxide" joke and started freaking out over water just because some people were referring to it by a more science-y sounding name). When most people hear "preservative," they think "semi- or fully-synthetic preservative." They don't even realize some unadulterated ingredients can be used as preservatives.

It is not true the food is absent of ingredients that can -- at least in theory -- preserve things. However, it is true (at least I'm assuming so for the sake of argument) that it does not contain anything that will preserve it in practice, and it does not contain any semi- or fully-synthetic preservative.

It's worded badly, because they're aiming it at uneducated people. But it's not wrong.
 
Those would be some salty meatballs if they were preserved with salt. So no, it is not false advertizement.
 
Many companies flat out lie about what's in their product. For those who might be sensitive to certain ingredients, buyer beware.
 
This (your post) is very difficult (annoying) to (attempt to) read.

Salt has some preservation qualities but unless it is actually used for preservation, it could just be a seasoning. Now if they advertised sodium free and still used NaCl, then that be (obviously) wrong.
 
It should say "no artificial preservatives"
 
Of course, where this becomes semantically questionable is that they're aiming that kind of marketing at uninformed people who believe it's possible to eat "chemical free" food…

I'm fairly sure that at least in my life, I've come across an advertisement for something that was touted as “chemical-free”. This is, of course, quite absurd. All matter is chemical. Even an “empty” container, full of plain air, would be full of chemicals, as air itself is a mix of chemicals. The only way you could have a container of chemical-free product would be if that container contained a complete vacuum.
 
In other words, what if the product had 1 ppm benzene.

Could they call it "organic solvent free"

One thing that I learned during my time in the food industry is that a product can be billed as “100% X even if it has up to 2% of stuff in it other than X. Take a look at the “ingredients” section of the label of any juice or juice blend product that says, on the label that it is 100% juice. You'll see a list of the juices that it contains, and then after that, you'll probably find wording to the effect of “Contains less than 2% of the following…”, and then a list of vitamins, additives, preservatives, and such, that collectively are less than 2% of the entire product.
 
Many companies flat out lie about what's in their product. For those who might be sensitive to certain ingredients, buyer beware.

Any company that did that with a chemical to which there are any substantial number of people who are sensitive would be begging to get sued into oblivion. Anyone who had a bad reaction to a chemical in a product that the label clearly denied was present would have a very solid case for such a lawsuit against the manufacturer of that product.

On that basis, I am going to call solid digestive waste from a male bovine on your claim. I think any company that did engage in the practice which you allege would not be able to remain in business around all the lost lawsuits that would result.
 
*puts on nerd hat*

In all likelihood, the salt is not acting as a preservative. The concentration of salt required to have any meaningful preservative effect is absolutely enormous (over 10% for bacteria, and even higher for mold), and it would destroy the edibility of just about any food. It'd be worse than drinking soy sauce straight (only 6% salt).

Not even traditional salted meat is being preserved with salt. It's being preserved with a combination of dehydration (which the salt does aid with) and acid.

So, they are not being dishonest. It is basically impossible for them to be using enough salt to preserve the food. If it is dehydrated, salt may have aided in the process of drying, but it is not salt in and of itself that is preserving it. In all probability, the salt is mostly there for taste.

*takes off nerd hat*

nice... I learned something new today...well done :)
 
I highly doubt the salt is a preservative.

I assume it is there to enhance the taste.


I NEVER take the word of the packaging. I ALWAYS look at the ingredients/nutritional content label and judge for myself.
 
Any company that did that with a chemical to which there are any substantial number of people who are sensitive would be begging to get sued into oblivion. Anyone who had a bad reaction to a chemical in a product that the label clearly denied was present would have a very solid case for such a lawsuit against the manufacturer of that product.

On that basis, I am going to call solid digestive waste from a male bovine on your claim. I think any company that did engage in the practice which you allege would not be able to remain in business around all the lost lawsuits that would result.

Unless said company is in China. :\

Here's an example of chemicals use by many food companies where all they did was change the name. [I happen to be sensitive]

Hidden Sources of MSG
 
Back
Top Bottom