Yeah, thought so.
And yet, the principle is not much different from someone who buys the pack and expects to get the “serving suggestion” shown in the picture. And is disappointed with the colourless mush that lands on the plate.
Buy fresh food and cook it. It looks and tastes real. And usually costs less.
Gerber has now gone to multiethnic baby images to better represent their products. there is likely a product line in the works for free range babies as well.
I bet if you took the inner bag out of the box, even on a just filled, non-settled box of cereal, it would like like the box was under filled. The bags are bigger than the box. In the box, the contents is constrained by the box, rather than the bag, and fills the box up higher. Take the bag out and put it on the countertop, and the bag will expand and the contents settle to the bottom.
Yeah, but what about organic free-range babies? Can they find enough babies that haven’t consumed any biphenol-A from their baby bottles?
Unless, as stated above, it includes the words “serving suggestion”, in which case it can legally show toppings that are not included in the package. (The serving suggestion in this case is to add a whole load more toppings…)
Well, that was the obvious reference–to literal expectations of consumers regarding labels, be it the OP or the people of a mythical country in Africa. I mean, it was shouting to be referenced, wasn’t it?
[QUOTE=Colophon]
Unless, as stated above, it includes the words “serving suggestion”, in which case it can legally show toppings that are not included in the package.
[/quote]
You know, we’re tossing around the term “legally” here, but I don’t think the law spells out the exact phrasing you have to use. It says the package can’t be “false, misleading, or deceptive” and (as I asserted above in post #16), the “misleading” part can be a very subjective thing.
In one part of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act of 1966 it says, regarding the packaging of a product:
[QUOTE=15 U.S.C. §§ 1451-1461]
The specification of identity shall not be false, misleading, or deceptive in any respect. Ingredients or components which are not present in the commodity in a substantial or significantly effective amount may not be mentioned in the specification of identity; except that a component present in a formulation in substantial and effective amounts, but not present in the final product due to conversion or transformation into a different entity (which different entity is present in the final product), may be mentioned in the specification of identity.
[/quote]
I interpret this as saying that if most people put milk in their cereal, showing a bowl of cereal in milk is okay. It isn’t false or deceptive in and of itself. They might say, “Serving Suggestion” just to be safe, but they’re more likely to say “Enlarged to show texture,” because that it much more likely to be “misleading” for a reasonable consumer than the milk.
The OP’s question all boils down to whether something on the package is “misleading,” more than “deceptive,” and this is open to all kinds of interpretation of legal finding by way of a civil suit. If he goes to a judge or jury and says, “I was promised milk with my cereal!” they’ll point to the above passage as an allowable exception.
But if he says, “That cereal is not a delicious as it looks on the package,” they’ll just laugh at him.