Once upon a time, there was a health-conscious thirty-something named Sarah. Sarah read that catechins and flavonoids are Very Good For You. (You can find these – let’s call them Catchies and Flavos – in green tea.) Sarah wanted to make sure she consumed lots of catechins and flavonoids. Instead of brewing and drinking lots of green tea, Sarah bought her catechins and flavonoids in a bottled product labeled Honest Tea. Sarah knew exactly how many Catchies and Flavos she was getting because the label told her: 247 mg. It also tasted yummy.
Sarah said to herself, “They have to be telling the truth because the company name is Honest Tea.” Sarah felt very clever, and very safe, and very much too busy to make herself a delicious cup of fresh, green tea. Sarah didn’t mind spending two dollars for twelve ounces of Honest Green Tea because she knew she was getting all those Catchies and Flavos.
One day Sarah heard a very upsetting rumor about her beloved Catchies and Flavos. Sarah learned that she was getting just 76% (a C+) of what the label promised. “Egad!” Sarah exclaimed, “I might be missing a few Catchies, and be short a couple Flavos! What ever will I do?” Sarah did not make herself a delicious cup of green tea. (I suggest you do so right now; it will give you the strength you need to read the rest of this not-fable.)
Sarah lived in the United States of America, where silly lawsuits are so prevalent that the terms “silly” and “lawsuit” have been deemed a redundancy. So, instead of drinking a cup of tea, Sarah filed a class action lawsuit. (This doesn’t mean “classy,” like drinking a cup of inexpensive and delicious tea a few times a day. No, ma’am: A class-action lawsuit is like when the whiniest kid at recess gets a hangnail on the jungle gym and “they” remove the jungle gym.)
Even though Honest Tea revised the information contained on the label, Sarah went ahead with her lawsuit, saying if she had known that the product contained fewer antioxidants than what is listed on the label, she would not have purchased it and would have alternatively purchased tea leaves or a tea bag of green tea and paid much less. As a result, she suffered injury and has lost money, so she can sue Honest Tea.
The facetious little fable above (moral: drink lots of green tea), comes from a recent article in World Tea News. As part of my research regarding America’s predilection toward litigation, I came across this interesting article from 1977. Almost forty years ago sociologists noted that Americans were more inclined to call a lawyer than to call their neighbors. The old-fashioned chat about the problem dog or the loud music or the messy mulberry tree has all but disappeared, and taking its place is a legal Summons. What ever happened to “Join me for a cup of tea, neighbor?”
Although I am not a fan of bottled teas – homemade is a tenth of the cost and ten times the quality, I’ve enjoyed Honest Tea and I am appalled that any judge would allow this class action suit to proceed. Every cup of brewed tea has a different level of catechins and flavonoids, dependent upon too many variables to list here. Therein lies the mutual responsibility in this situation: Honest Tea should not have listed a “guaranteed” or minimum level of antioxidants on the label. Sarah Salazar should have been making her own tea. Honest Tea is not culpable for her sloth; and therefore not at fault for the absent nutrients.
Too bad people are placing more value on the health benefits than the actual pleasure of drinking good quality tea.
If Sarah only cared about those components, she could have bought green tea extract pills instead : )
I think it’s both. There are, in my opinion, profound health benefits of tea AND there can be tremendous pleasure from drinking a cup of fresh brewed tea. And I agree with Regena – if you’re an ice tea drinker, brew it yourself and reap the benefits both financially and from a health stand point.
Yes, we have become a litigious society. It’s a sad statement about us which I hope will begin to change as people become more mindful of who they are and who they want to be.
I think there is nothing wrong with this picture since the product label is blatantly misleading. It would be easy to indicate which components drastically change over time or make an expiration date that reflects the when there would be less than the minimum amount when the label indicates. I suspect this may not be so good for the product marketing though. I am under the impression that many of the antioxidants and purported beneficial compounds decompose rather quickly when stored in solution. If the nutrition content labels are to be considered trusted and not just numbers that are randomly chosen this seems a completely legitimate lawsuit.
BR, thanks for your comment. Isn’t it ironic that the FDA (see yesterday’s post on T-Ching) denies that tea has medical benefits, but the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are alleging that they were harmed because of the mislabeling; i.e. if the claims made on the label were true, then the plaintiffs wouldn’t have a case. Ironic, no?
It is sad that Sarah was unfortunately too ignorant to understand that *GASP* ANY natural, homemade tea or other food is going to be be more healthful AND tasty than anything that is processed and sitting on a shelf at the store. TSK TSK. Entitled Americans. I’ve had Honest Tea. It’s fine. However, I certainly don’t expect it to be chock full of the same vitamins and antioxidants and whatnot that can be found in natural, home-brewed tea. There are so many preservatives that anyone who believes it will do their body more good than harm is not the sharpest tool in the shed.
I do not know if this has much to do with the FDAs stance on tea. Maybe that is the way they are taking the case, but it easily seems like fraud. A person buys a product based upon something that is promised in labeling/advertising, the product was not delivered. It would be like paying someone $1,000,000. for a really nice car and they deliver you a 1990 Chevy Celebrity or some other low end car and claim it is still a car so there is no problem. Nutrition labels are regarded as reasonably trustworthy and this seems a blatant misuse of that for marketing/sales purposes.
BR, your analogy about the car is spot on. My point is that I don’t see how the plaintiffs can prove harm given the fact that the FDA – the body regulating label claims – refuses to acknowledge any benefit.