# Weasel words in advertising/packaging **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 6, 2017, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564 "2017-03-06T18:52:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/61 "2017-03-07T20:12:22Z")
> [@JackieLikesVariety](#): > > last time I was in the Everything 99 Cents store (it’s at the opposite side of town from Family Dollar Store) I noticed toiletries were packaged differently than you would find at walmart _for the same brands_. > > I suspect this is deliberate - so you can’t easily compare if you are getting a deal or not.:dubious: There are also a _lot_ of faked knock-offs of name brand products in these stores. Buyer beware. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/62 "2017-03-07T20:15:05Z")
> [@RealityChuck](#): > > No. > > In order to call something the best, you must provide the FTC with documented proof that you’re better. That’s a difficult standard, so few companies do it. > > The major exception is Hellmann’s Mayonnaise. They market it as Best Foods Mayonnaise in the west, so they can say “bring out the Best” because they argue they aren’t making a claim it’s best, but that it’s Best Foods. [The Language of Advertising Claim](http://home.olemiss.edu/~egjbp/comp/ad-claims.html) > [@](#): > > The reason so many ad claims fall into this category of pseudo-information is that they are applied to parity products, products in which all or most of the brands available are nearly identical. Since no one superior product exists, advertising is used to create the illusion of superiority. The largest advertising budgets are devoted to parity products such as gasoline, cigarettes, beer and soft drinks, soaps, and various headache and cold remedies. > > The first rule of parity involves the Alice in Wonderlandish use of the words “better” and “best.” In parity claims, “better” means “best” and “best” means “equal to.” If all the brands are identical, they must all be equally good, the legal minds have decided. So “best” means that the product is as good as the other superior products in its category. When Bing Crosby declares Minute Maid Orange Juice “the best there is” he means it is as good as the other orange juices you can buy. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/63 "2017-03-07T20:20:11Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > One I’m curious about is ‘Get your _second_ [product] _free!_ Just pay an additional fee.’ > > If you have to pay an additional fee, then it isn’t free, is it? I was in a supermarket a couple of days ago and I noticed they were having a “buy one, get one free” sale on avocados. The price on them was $2.99. The normal price for avocados in this area is around $1.50. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_T](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Gary\_T](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_T)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/64 "2017-03-07T20:32:07Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I was in a supermarket a couple of days ago and I noticed they were having a “buy one, get one free” sale on avocados. The price on them was $2.99. The normal price for avocados in this area is around $1.50. Yeah, but you would be getting those high-falutin’ _three-buck-a-piece_ avocados instead the ordinary _buck-and-a-half-a-piece_ variety. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/65 "2017-03-07T20:57:45Z")
> [@jjakucyk](#): > > The whole point of organic farming is that it “features practices that strive to cycle resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity. Organizations regulating organic products may restrict the use of certain pesticides and fertilizers in farming. In general, organic foods are also usually not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents or synthetic food additives.” How can that not be construed as more responsible? **Derleth** mentioned that “organic” has a _legal_ definition. Does this definition guarantee that a cucumber labeled “organic” will “cycle resources, promote ecological balance, and conserve biodiversity” any better than the half-price cucumber on the next rack? Organic products _may_ restrict the use of _certain_ pesticides and fertilizers, but where is the evidence that the substitute pesticides and fertilizers are more responsible? “_In general,_ organic foods are also _usually_ not processed using irradiation, industrial solvents, or synthetic food additives.” That sentence is meaningless because 1) _in general_ and _usually_ are added to make the claim unmeasurable and unenforceable, and 2) _irradiation_, _industrial_, _solvents_, _synthetic_, and _additive_ are just scary-sounding words that you have not proven to be less “responsible”. Your post is filled with many of the same weasel-words that have been pointed out as misleading throughout the thread. I’m not certain whether organic methods are more responsible or not, but your post can be paraphrased as “Organic foods may-or-may-not avoid words that some customers don’t like to see on food packaging. How can that not be construed as more responsible?” ---
**Author:** ![jjakucyk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3d9bf3/32.png) [@jjakucyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjakucyk)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/66 "2017-03-07T21:48:37Z")
Ok then how about this? > [@](#): > > USDA certified organic foods are grown and processed according to federal guidelines addressing, among many factors, soil quality, animal raising practices, pest and weed control, and use of additives. Organic producers rely on natural substances and physical, mechanical, or biologically based farming methods to the fullest extent possible. > > Produce can be called organic if it’s certified to have grown on soil that had no prohibited substances applied for three years prior to harvest. Prohibited substances include most synthetic fertilizers and pesticides. In instances when a grower has to use a synthetic substance to achieve a specific purpose, the substance must first be approved according to criteria that examine its effects on human health and the environment (see other considerations in “Organic 101: Allowed and Prohibited Substances”). > > As for organic meat, regulations require that animals are raised in living conditions accommodating their natural behaviors (like the ability to graze on pasture), fed 100% organic feed and forage, and not administered antibiotics or hormones. > > When it comes to processed, multi-ingredient foods, the USDA organic standards specify additional considerations. Regulations prohibit organically processed foods from containing artificial preservatives, colors, or flavors and require that their ingredients are organic, with some minor exceptions. For example, processed organic foods may contain some approved non-agricultural ingredients, like enzymes in yogurt, pectin in fruit jams, or baking soda in baked goods. [http://blogs.usda.gov/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-the-usda-organic-label-means/](http://blogs.usda.gov/2012/03/22/organic-101-what-the-usda-organic-label-means/) The full regulations are lengthy, but that still pretty much sums up what I said earlier. ---
**Author:** ![markn\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@markn\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markn_1)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/67 "2017-03-07T21:49:19Z")
> [@Colophon](#): > > Not true. There are legal definitions of “natural” flavourings etc, vs “artificial” ones. Your cite is talking about the phrase “naturally flavored”. Consumer Reports, in talking about the label “natural” in general, says “the ‘natural’ labels offer no clear meaning and are misleading consumers” and “the inconsistent labels are not illegal … because the FDA has ‘nothing on the books’ to give a clear definition of what ‘natural’ means.” ([cite](http://www.cbsnews.com/news/natural-food-labeling-misleading-consumer-reports-fda-lacks-regulations/)) The FDA itself says “From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is ‘natural’ because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth. That said, FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives.” ([cite](https://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm214868.htm)) ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/68 "2017-03-07T22:04:43Z")
I snapped this photo a few years ago: [One for the price of two](http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m305/llaaksonen/Freefishandchips.jpg). Second one is _free!_. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/69 "2017-03-07T22:11:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Annie-Xmas** : > > “According to one study”…Yeah, one study that we funded and told the researches the results we wanted and gave them big bucks to get them. And is we do that twice, we can say “Studies show…” And if you can’t even afford to bribe the researchers for one study, you can say “Contains a clinically-studied ingredient”. I’ve seen that on a cold snake-oil. And while there is definitely a market for products which treat animals, the environment, etc. better, that market is poorly served because too many people don’t know what the words mean. Often, the products bearing the magic words are even worse than the standard ones. I know of a couple of examples for chickens: One, I’ve seen eggs that advertise that the chickens are fed a 100% vegetarian diet, but that’s a terrible diet for a chicken. Buy the ones that don’t say that, and there’s at least a chance that the hens are allowed to scratch for bugs. Another is “cage-free”, which means that instead of putting each chicken in a cage that’s too small for it, you put all of the same number of chickens in the exact same space but without bars between them, so now they’re not only cramped, but they’re pecking each other to death, too. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/70 "2017-03-07T22:40:18Z")
> [@jjakucyk](#): > > Not saying sugar and those other things aren’t bad, but HFCS is the worst kind of sugar because of the way it’s metabolized, and in processed foods it doesn’t come with the natural fiber you get with fruits that otherwise tempers its intake. It also doesn’t taste very good. So many assertions, so few facts. > [@](#): > > You realize they’re packaged that way to prevent the contents from getting crushed in transport, right? Yeah it looks like you’re getting a lot less than you should, but that air cushion is important. The way they package them now certainly helps give the illusion of bulk, which is what matters. > [@](#): > > I never understood why some people get so upset about organic foods. Same with the pro-GMO “all foods are genetically modified” crowd. There’s a market for food that’s raised more responsibly than you get from the factory farming system. Sure it’s not perfect, maybe far from it, but can you really argue it’s not better? It’s not even necessarily about nutrition per se, but being more responsible with land and livestock, not soaking the ground in chemicals, not indiscriminately injecting hormones, and not putting control of our food supply into the hands of some demonstrably reprehensible corporations. So if some people want that, and others are willing to supply it, more power to them I say. The problem is that it’s all being sold on lies. They claim that GMOs are bad. Who? The people who profit from selling Non-GMO foods. Never mind that we know GMOs are not bad. They say they are, and that’s what matters. It’s lying. They claim that “Organic” produce is better. Who? The people who sell “Organic” product. Never mind that it isn’t better. They say it is, and that’s what matters. It’s lying. It isn’t technically fraud, because fraud has a legal definition, but it’s still profiting from lying. ---
**Author:** ![markn\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@markn\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/markn_1)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/71 "2017-03-07T22:44:29Z")
As [this article](http://www.itsmomsense.com/the-unintended-consequences-of-organic/) points out, conventional farming is about 25% more productive than organic farming. In other words, it takes more land and more resources to produce organic food. This is supposed to be good for the environment? Also, organic food is grown with pesticides. A LOT of pesticides. Just different ones. According to [Scientific American](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/), organic pesticides are no better and may be worse for the environment than conventional pesticides. Personally, I buy organic food only when there is no alternative. If I have a choice, I buy non-organic food, because I care more about the planet than I do about my feelings of smugness. The choice to buy organic food is only available to first world countries where people are rich enough to pay the premium and uncaring enough not to worry about the global consequences of their choice. ---
**Author:** ![jjakucyk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/3d9bf3/32.png) [@jjakucyk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjakucyk)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/72 "2017-03-07T23:29:55Z")
Derleth, where are your facts showing “it’s all being sold on lies”? Regarding GMOs, it’s entirely legitimate to not want GMO food simply because you do not want to support companies like Monsanto, or don’t like the idea of one or a few companies holding the keys to food production through things like terminator seeds, lawsuits, corporate lobbying, and engineering crops to be resistant specifically to your own patented herbicide. It’s no different than saying you want free-range grass-fed beef because you believe conventionally raising livestock is animal cruelty, or that you don’t want shoes made in a Chinese sweatshop, even if the end product is the same as one made in Seattle. Like I said before, that doesn’t mean it’s perfect, and may be far from it, but I would argue it’s still an improvement over the status quo. As for markn+'s comments, I have little doubt that traditional farming is 25% or even more productive than organic, at least in the short term. The question isn’t dependent only on yearly yields however. You must also look longer term at things like topsoil loss, risks of insect or fungal infestations to monocultural crops, and poisoning of aquifers and soils from fertilizer and pesticide contamination. Also consider that the most common chemical fertilizers and pesticides are petrochemicals, which have farther-reaching impacts from things like oil well drilling and fracking, military protectionism, tanker and pipeline spills, etc. Those are all externalized costs, as is the growing problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in livestock. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2017, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/73 "2017-03-07T23:59:42Z")
> [@](#): > > Regarding GMOs, it’s entirely legitimate to not want GMO food simply because you do not want to support companies like Monsanto… No, it’s not, because not all Monsanto products are GMO, and not all GMO products are Monsanto. Ask for what you actually want, not for something vaguely related to what you actually want. If you want to avoid supporting Monsanto, then push for Monsanto-free labeling. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/74 "2017-03-08T03:45:32Z")
> [@jjakucyk](#): > > Derleth, where are your facts showing “it’s all being sold on lies”? [The WHO says](http://www.who.int/foodsafety/areas_work/food-technology/faq-genetically-modified-food/en/): > [@](#): > > GM foods currently available on the international market have passed safety assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous application of safety assessments based on the Codex Alimentarius principles and, where appropriate, adequate post market monitoring, should form the basis for ensuring the safety of GM foods. Saying some food is “Safe” or “Unsafe” as a blanket assessment is pointless. People are allergic to different things, some foods are only safe if cooked (beans are notorious for this), and some foods have unsafe portions (rhubarb, for example), so a blanket assessment is meaningless. However, I daresay that GMOs are actually _studied_ more than cross-bred foods, where genes are mixed randomly and the result is _assumed_ to be safe. So the people screeching about how GMO foods are evil and frankenfoods and so on are being dishonest. They are lying. They might not know they’re lying, but they are, and it’s hurting our ability to deliver foods such as golden rice, which could do a world of good if anti-GMO zealots weren’t standing in the way by literally destroying fields. In short, anti-GMO zealots want to be morally superior more than they want poor people to get sufficient vitamin A. [_Slate_ has a long article on this.](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2015/07/are_gmos_safe_yes_the_case_against_them_is_full_of_fraud_lies_and_errors.html) ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/75 "2017-03-08T14:23:10Z")
And let’s not forget the “might maybes.” This medication (never ever call it a drug) might maybe make you feel better. This food might maybe be better for your pet. And my favorite “Abortion might maybe make people homosexual.” Might maybe don’t mean shit. ---
**Author:** ![TimeWinder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@TimeWinder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TimeWinder)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/76 "2017-03-08T14:57:28Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > No, it’s not, because not all Monsanto products are GMO, and not all GMO products are Monsanto. Ask for what you actually want, not for something vaguely related to what you actually want. If you want to avoid supporting Monsanto, then push for Monsanto-free labeling. Further, a little research will show that an awful lot of the horrible things attributed to Monsanto aren’t actually being done by them. ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/77 "2017-03-08T22:17:21Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > And of course, “Gluten Free!!!”… water, corn chips, meat, and candy. … the Gummi Bears that are sitting on my desk… Fat free, gluten free. Still bad for you. As noted, check portion sizes. That’s where they really screw with your head. Anything that says “New” in relationship to packaging is _highly_ likely to mean “less product inside.” ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 8, 2017, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/78 "2017-03-08T23:01:53Z")
“Clinically recommended”. Unless you name the research organizations in question and the relevant published papers, pro and con, what it really means is “we gave a guy a white lab coat, and he recommended this product”. Another one is calorie count or percent of recommended daily intake of some ingredient. On a 500-ml bottle it might say “per 100 ml”. On a bag of potato chips it might say “per two average chips” or something. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![nightshadea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ba0ec/32.png) [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/79 "2017-03-09T00:47:03Z")
> [@Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](#): > > I’ve always loved “4 out of 5 dentists recommend sugarless gum to their patients who chew gum” line. > > So, 80% of dentists aren’t recommending Trident, or even really sugarless gum in general, unless you are a chewer already. And 20% just don’t care. wow that was the first question to cecil I ever read on the old aol sd site … it was "if 4 out of 5 dentist suggest trident gun what does the fifth recommend " the answer of course was "don’t chew gum " ---
**Author:** ![nightshadea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ba0ec/32.png) [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2017, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564/80 "2017-03-09T00:58:19Z")
> [@JackieLikesVariety](#): > > last time I was in the Everything 99 Cents store (it’s at the opposite side of town from Family Dollar Store) I noticed toiletries were packaged differently than you would find at walmart _for the same brands_. > > I suspect this is deliberate - so you can’t easily compare if you are getting a deal or not.:dubious: not really its just that some companies make deals to dollar/discount stores to make specific packs for then so they aren’t going to the sell off auctions and buying the full product for less Like say you see glad sandwich bags at big lots in a bag of 15 for a dollar look at the bottom you’ll see “manufactured by big lots inc under license from glad llc” like coke tried making a deal where they sold 10 oz bottles for 99c from coke its self instead of the 20 ounce bottles they’d get from a jobber but people noticed the difference and they began stocking the 20 oz bottles again [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/weasel-words-in-advertising-packaging/781564.md?page=5)