# False Food Ads.



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

This is one of the things that makes ag a struggle.....fake news.

Regards, Mike

https://www.drovers.com/article/jaw-dropping-grape-dishonesty


----------



## endrow (Dec 15, 2011)

The other day I bought a gallon of Tropicana orange juice. It said four places on the bottle made with non-GMO oranges. So I guess that would tell me that there is some other orange juice made with GMO oranges right???


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

endrow said:


> The other day I bought a gallon of Tropicana orange juice. It said four places on the bottle made with non-GMO oranges. So I guess that would tell me that there is some other orange juice made with GMO oranges right??


It won't be long until if you want a glass of OJ it will be from engineered/virus modified trees. Orange groves will soon be a thing of the past in Florida if something is not done very soon.

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/save-floridas-famous-oranges-scientists-race-weaponize-virus/

Regards, Mike


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

Them grapes is good, have some in the fridgedair right now......didn't know they was non-gmo, what a bonus


----------



## Farmerbrown2 (Sep 25, 2018)

Wife was given some dog treats the other day by a friend. Duck flavored there retriever would not eat them now that’s funny . Anyways said on the package meat was source from non gmo ducks raised in a cage free environment. I didn’t know ducks where raised in individual cages .


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, is GMO'ed. Think back to Indian maize and how humans have modified it into corn.

Now, if you use the term GMO to mean that non-plant genes have been implanted into the plant, then they are technically correct. Full of crap, but technically and legally correct.

Ralph


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

I guess I am missing the part that makes the ad "false" advertising or even deceptive or "fake news" or whatever...

First thing I thought of when I read that they were able to make grapes taste like cotton candy is "what kind of unGodly crap are they doing to the grapes to do that?" The fact that they were able to do it with a hybrid of a few different sorts of grapes made sense, BUT, they can't get all of that on the package in enough of an eye-grabbing print to keep a lot of people from just discounting it wholesale and walking right past it in the stores. The NON-GMO thing might make an otherwise non-buyer into a buyer of their product.

I can't tell from the package where they are claiming that the OTHER grapes are GMO (they only stated that THEY are; it might be implied in some people's minds, as they don't see it on the other's packages, that the others are GMO....so now this company is responsible for schooling the whole market? Marketing companies have been making claims or pointing out things for years that are naturally occurring within their products. One of my personal favorite chuckle-lines was "genuine plastic; don't settle for imitation". Now, whose fault is that, if "non gmo" is a portion of the market share into which they wish to tap, they state that they are?

This company is merely making a claim that ANY of the others could have made, and can STILL make. Right in lock-step with most media, this article takes a liberal slant that everyone should get equal results (everyone gets a trophy and standouts should be put down) and throws mud when someone thinks outside of the box and 1) comes up with a product that will make them money (we herald the same idea as "finding a niche" here on this site) and 2) comes up with a marketing strategy to sell their one-of-a-kind product while addressing the concerns associated with such a novel product that is not evidently "natural".

Seems to me like ONE group has made grapes that taste like cotton-candy and offered them to the market in a way while stating the obvious (the non-gmo part) on the package; engaging in is pure honest capitalism of selling sweet grapes;

The OTHER group (the media) is dripping with jealousy and SOUR grapes. The article is ripe with the socialistic idea that everyone should get the same results no matter how much they apply (or don't) themselves.

I have worked with a lot of people who will try to get ahead by cutting down others instead, because it is far easier than elevating themselves through work ethic or work-product that is superior to that of their counterparts.

From the article * "Doesn't your marketing team have enough of an advantage over your competitors? For heaven's sake, they taste like COTTON CANDY!"*

Pure unadulterated socialism...basing their distaste in their opinion that they already have "enough of an advantage"...WHO made that the author so smart as to decide that they have "enough" of an advantage?...the same kind of people that claim you take "enough" (or too much) of your paycheck home when others that sit on the couch don't have as much as y'all that work 80 hours a day, THAT'S WHO!!!

That was nothing but a slam-article against someone who found a way to get ahead of the competition.

Skip A Rope, Mark


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

Idk, I kinda agree with the writer in some respects.....by labeling anything Non-GMO, you are essentially establishing an agreement (or not) with the consumer that this product is better because it is Non GMO....in some instances, especially ones that have competition from GMO and non GMO alternatives, I see it as informative for the idiots that believe the GMO products are unsafe. But for a product that has no GMO competition, it seems like it's fueling the idiots mindset. I think the reason that they did it was not to be ahead of the market, but because if folks claim a damn grape tastes like cotton candy, they must be modifying the Genetics of the plant.....in essence they are, much like pecan trees and everything else as Ralph eluded to above.
I think the comment about the them tasting like cotton candy was "tongue in cheek" in an attempt to get a laugh.....I chuckled. 
I will say this, the first batch I bought last year, tasted just like cotton candy.....this batch not quite as much, it's still there but just not like it was last year....still very good and seedless


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

somedevildawg said:


> , I see it as informative for the idiots that believe the GMO products are unsafe. But for a product that has no GMO competition, it seems like it's fueling the idiots mindset.


Idiots have money, too; this company not only figured how to make a kick-ass product aimed at kids and people with a sweet tooth, they also planned for the money-extraction from the "idiots." That's good business.

My point is that I don't see that it's fake or false or whatever. They might piss of the folks that take offense to others ("idiots", I guess would be the agreed-upon proper term) preferring non-gmo's. Like it or not, there is a big market share that want non-gmo crowd...why leave it on the table?

I could care less about the GMO/Non GMO craze, but there an undeniable market share there and to ignore that is bad business....or good business depending. I seen that my wife had something (tea, if I remember) that said "Vegan" and "Gluten Free" on the package. I told her that we need not buy that brand anymore if the company is catering to those nutjobs. Now, that's just me and MY views of those a$$holes who claim to only eat stuff that doesn't harm animals...Putting yourself in direct competition for THEIR food doesn't harm them??!!

That company aimed to garner more of the market share by appealing to the Vegan and Gluten crowd, but lost my family's dollars. It's pure capitalism and I want them to have the choice to showcase any of their products qualities and claims which are truthful. There's was truthful; it is true for everyone in the grape business according to the article.

I won't argue with you about whether or not GMOs are nutjob-related hoodoo, because I was only looking at the article from a "false", "fake news" etc V clever product/marketing standpoint.

I still don't see any false claims

Mark

PS, There is a big legal difference between GMO and Hybrid as far as making an advertising claim goes. The term "GMO" either tends to mean or DOES mean that the genes were modified in a lab rather than through cross pollinating. FWIW


----------



## glasswrongsize (Sep 15, 2015)

Just 'cause I got interested in the product and google is always handy

...turns out there ARE gmo grapes out there (mostly in winemaking). So, I guess the author of the article was factually incorrect as well

Moot point for me, just hate seein the "little guy" takin it in the shorts by media

Mark


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

I still think they did it because most probably would think they have been genetically modified, because something has to be amiss.....after all, they had to do something to them to make them taste like cotton candy  although I'm sure some would be convinced that it is a hybrid of the cotton plant and sugar cane....
But I agree, it doesn't rise to the level of "fake" news....perhaps deceptive, but what advertisement is not deceptive on all counts. That is just marketing....


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

Heard an ad from Bole and branch.com? I think, something like that.....their linens were made with organic or non-GMO (can't remember which) cotton 
Again, not false....just catering to a niche
Done got me to wondering however, I wonder if that cotton feels any different from RR cotton  I'm bettin not


----------

