…for some sort of deception because the food in the box never looks as good as the food on the box cover? I have no plans to pursue such a thing, I’m just curious.
Probably not. Food companies have legal staffs that know how far they can go without breaking the law. So the box may be deceptive - but it’s deceptive within legal limits.
Doesn’t it always say “Serving suggestion” on the box? I think that clears them of any responsibility for the bland macaroni & cheese you (read: I) come up with.
I always thought the “serving suggestion” thing made it okay the show the food with other foods (like cereal in milk, or boxed pizza with wings) without making it necessary for the company to include that other food with the product.
there are times the photos and videos shown are not even food, just what looks like food for the purpose of creating the advertisement.
Product manufacturers are very careful to use their actual product in the ads. They will be prepared under ideal conditions, carefully arranged with ideal lightimg. You would not have a case.
Cite? I’m sure that this is actively illegal today.
My food always looks 100% exactly like the food on the box. Often times the lady on the box, will knock on my door and serve it to me as well.
Don’t blame the box if you can’t follow their directions 
So, when you buy a jar of Gerber’s, you expect only the cutest baby meat inside? You’re going to complain if you get that tough, cry-baby stuff instead?
A hurr durrr durr, that’s clearly not what I meant. The product being advertised on the Gerber jar is not the baby, is it?
No. However, when I buy a frozen pizza if the amount of toppings would at least be half of what it shows in the picture, that would be good.
It’s always been illegal as misleading to some degree, but companies have messed with the food in order to make them look more appealing. In 1970, Campbell’s Soup was fined by the FTC for putting marbles in their clam chowder for advertisements (making it seem thicker). There were also instances of companies using Elmer’s glue to mimic the look of milk (it may still be done, but cereal companies prohibit it). And most food photography tends to enhance things with techniques to make the food look better than it would normally.
Enhancing to make food look better, sure. But what Campbell’s did in 1970 wasn’t allowed then and no firm would even attempt it today. Firms have to use the equivalent of the actual food in the package. I know a lot of people believe it’s all fake. It isn’t. It’s art, and probably less photoshopped than pictures of celebrities.
I have really got to stop opening the microwave when there’s still two or three seconds left.
I’ve never actually compared the amount of toppings shown on the package to the amount on the actual pizza, but I’d bet if there were less then half, you’d have a case. But, IIRC, that’s actual illegal. When they take the picture, they may cook them better, light it better, make sure all the pepperoni hasn’t slid to one side. They might even use a heat gun to make sure it’s cooked perfectly evenly, but I believe what you see on the package has to be able to be made from what’s inside the package.
Clearly not what I meant, either. (Do I have to put a smilie on everything?) This is a question of case law and literal vs. *subjective *representation in labeling. I use an extreme case of the literal to make a point: Where will a judge or jury draw the line on the subjective interpretation of “looks as good as the food on the cover”? How on earth is a judge or jury going to establish any kind of objective criteria for how something on the cover of a package appears to you personally–subjectively? Sure, if it shows a four-legged table and inside there’s a three-legged one, that’s one thing. But “looks as good as” is something completely different.
Gerber’s doesn’t have to tell you: “There is no actual baby in this jar.” And just as no one reasonably expects there to be a baby in the Gerber’s jar, a manufacturer cannot reasonably be expected to meet all or your subjective expectations for an image on a package. You might see a photo of a hotdog or something on a package and, perhaps even sincerely, conjure in your mind expectations of the greatest tasting hotdog in your life–a hotdog to surpass all hotdogs. If they don’t put on a warning label saying, “May not taste as good as it seems,” who would find them liable, by any kind of precedent?
If you do, though, that’s on you. Go ahead and sue. Good luck.
IT ISN’T! All this time I thought I was buying baby-meat, and instead I’ve been buying “strained peas”. I’m bummed. :smack:
This isn’t exactly the same issue but I thought I would share this bit of packaging. But it’s sold by weight, not by volume so it’s OK!
Are you saying they should or shouldn’t sell it by volume? The problem is, it settles as it’s transported. So if they fill the box all the way up (as they probably did to begin with), you can see what happens by the time it gets to you. It’s just easier to sell it by weight.
What damages would you be suing for? The cost of the product in question? Pain and suffering? I’m pretty sure the company would refund you the cost of the Kraft dinner if you planned to take it that far. You’d have better luck making a complaint to the FTC. But I imagine most food companies know what they can get away with with their packaging. Now if Marie Callender would only show me what kind of magic she uses to evenly cook a frozen pot pie. . .