Unilever suing Hampton Creek to get Just Mayo removed from shelves

[flyingsnail]

If you want to know what is in a food, you really have to read the label anyway.

If I want to know the details yes, but not if I want to know the basics. For example when I buy a bar of dark chocolate I don't need to inspect the ingredients information to make sure what I'm buying is actually chocolate.

Do people by mayo just specifically so they can ingest egg? Or do they just buy something to put on their salad etc?

I would doubt it....but I really have no idea. But the important factor is whether the label and name confuse consumers.....Hampton even put an egg shape on their packaging! I wonder to what degree they thought of the legal ramifications. This was, I think, an obvious vulnerability......but perhaps they thought it would generate marketing buzz? But if they have to pull the products....I can't imagine what value that would have.

 

[Blobbenstein]

But if they have to pull the products....I can't imagine what value that would have.

All they need to do is change the label, name etc.

 

[Calliegirl]

There are other vegan mayo's on the market that they aren't targeting. If they were really upset about it not containing egg they would be suing all companies that were using the word mayo. I think that alone will show they aren't serious about their claims. Besides, it's been around for awhile. They're only upset because it's costing them money now that the market for it has grown. If they were so worried about the consumer, why didn't they sue years ago when it first came on the market?

 

[shyvas]

The following link has some interesting information concerning some top brands of vegan mayonnaise.

Vegan Mayonnaise Taste Test Produces Surprising Results | Serious Eats

 

[Calliegirl]

The following link has some interesting information concerning some top brands of vegan mayonnaise.

Vegan Mayonnaise Taste Test Produces Surprising Results | Serious Eats

I love Vegenaise and really want to try the Just Mayo. At Dollar Tree they have small jars for 99 cents but they're always out. Hampton Creek is offering a $1/$2.50 off coupon on Just mayo. It's $1.00 off unless you 'share' it, then you get $2.50 off. I got one for $2.50, I guess I'm getting a free jar at Von's.
Get the coupon here > Hampton Creek | Just for You
It prints up huge, so you may want to reduce it before printing.

 

[shyvas]

I love Vegenaise and really want to try the Just Mayo. At Dollar Tree they have small jars for 99 cents but they're always out. Hampton Creek is offering a $1/$2.50 off coupon on Just mayo. It's $1.00 off unless you 'share' it, then you get $2.50 off. I got one for $2.50, I guess I'm getting a free jar at Von's.
Get the coupon here > Hampton Creek | Just for You
It prints up huge, so you may want to reduce it before printing.

Those prices are fabulous compared to the ones over here. The cheapest eggless mayonnaise costs € 3.30 plus the p&p.

Plamil: Egg Free Mayonnaise

 

[flyingsnail]

There are other vegan mayo's on the market that they aren't targeting. If they were really upset about it not containing egg they would be suing all companies that were using the word mayo.

The packaging on the other brands make it clear that its egg-free so the case wouldn't be as strong. But two wrongs don't make a right and they may have to stop using the word "mayo" as well.

They're only upset because it's costing them money now that the market for it has grown. If they were so worried about the consumer, why didn't they sue years ago when it first came on the market?

They aren't worried about the consumer, they are protecting their business and the people at Hampton should have anticipated this sort of action. I think the combination of the brand name "Just Mayo" with an egg shape on the packaging makes unilever's case strong. Why put an egg shape on a spread that has no egg?

 

[shyvas]

The packaging on the other brands make it clear that its egg-free so the case wouldn't be as strong. But two wrongs don't make a right and they may have to stop using the word "mayo" as well.


They aren't worried about the consumer, they are protecting their business and the people at Hampton should have anticipated this sort of action. I think the combination of the brand name "Just Mayo" with an egg shape on the packaging makes unilever's case strong. Why put an egg shape on a spread that has no egg?

Good point, especially as the vast majority of consumers don't read the labels.

 

[flyingsnail]

All they need to do is change the label, name etc.

That would be a huge blow to their brand.....hard to see how they'd recover from it. But unilever is also suing for damages.....though I would be surprised if they won that part.

 

[RascalsMom]

"Mayo" is short for mayonnaise so it isn't like "cheeze" and other such terms. But they called it "just mayo".....which, I think, makes the case against them even stronger. I looked at the packaging at the store today and you really have to read the fine print to figure out that it doesn't contain egg.

Fine print? You just have to read the ingredients. Consumers should read the ingredients of everything they buy. That's on them if they don't.

 

[RascalsMom]

Why? Would you prefer it if food manufactures could put whatever they want on a label and you'd have to rigorously read every label to make sure you're buying what you think you're buying?

I already read ingredients to see what I'm buying.

 

[Calliegirl]

The packaging on the other brands make it clear that its egg-free so the case wouldn't be as strong. But two wrongs don't make a right and they may have to stop using the word "mayo" as well.


They aren't worried about the consumer, they are protecting their business and the people at Hampton should have anticipated this sort of action. I think the combination of the brand name "Just Mayo" with an egg shape on the packaging makes unilever's case strong. Why put an egg shape on a spread that has no egg?

Unilever isn't complaining about the label, they are complaining about it being egg-free. I think the court will look at the fact that eggless mayos have been on the market for years and they didn't file a suit when the first one came out, or the second, or the third, etc, which shows implied consent with the term mayo being used. Also, the other eggless mayos state they are eggless right on the label while using the word mayo and Unilever isn't complaining, which shows an inconsistency in their complaint of fraudulent labeling. They can't pick one company out and say they can't use the term mayo because it lacks eggs, while allowing others to do so.

The egg shape has a plant in it, representing that the egg is being replaced by a plant. But it doesn't matter, the complaint is based on the lack of eggs.

 

[Calliegirl]

All the publicity seems to be good for them, they're selling out all over the place. People are reporting that their local Costco's are all sold out, and now it's being reported that Target is starting to sell out too.

For those of you in the UK, Hampton Creek said they would be in Tesco's within 10 weeks.

 

[flyingsnail]

Unilever isn't complaining about the label, they are complaining about it being egg-free. I think the court will look at the fact that eggless mayos have been on the market for years and they didn't file a suit when

Unilever isn't suing because someone created an egg-free spread they are suing because Hampton's product, due to the labeling, gives a false impression that the product contains eggs.

Also, the other eggless mayos state they are eggless right on the label while using the word mayo and Unilever isn't complaining, which shows an inconsistency in their complaint of fraudulent labeling. They can't pick one company out and say they can't use the term mayo because it lacks eggs, while allowing others to do so.

Actually they can pick one company.......there is no reason why they would have to sue all the companies. But the other companies aren't doing the same thing while they do use the word "mayo" on the front of their packaging makes it clear that they are egg-free products. Also this is likely the first time that Unilever has felt it was worthwhile to pursue legal action.

Fine print? You just have to read the ingredients. Consumers should read the ingredients of everything they buy. That's on them if they don't.

Consumers shouldn't have to read the ingredients to find out the true nature of a product. What you be okay if the shoe was on the other foot, for example, if some manufacture labeled a product "vegan" yet included eggs in it? But manufactures pay games with the ingredients lists too.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I would doubt it....but I really have no idea.

If someone is consuming mayonnaise in order to ingest egg, and that is important to them, then they should probably check the ingredients list.
Putting an egg shaped pattern on there is a bit underhand, I agree, though.

 

[RascalsMom]

Unilever isn't suing because someone created an egg-free spread they are suing because Hampton's product, due to the labeling, gives a false impression that the product contains eggs.


Actually they can pick one company.......there is no reason why they would have to sue all the companies. But the other companies aren't doing the same thing while they do use the word "mayo" on the front of their packaging makes it clear that they are egg-free products. Also this is likely the first time that Unilever has felt it was worthwhile to pursue legal action.


Consumers shouldn't have to read the ingredients to find out the true nature of a product. What you be okay if the shoe was on the other foot, for example, if some manufacture labeled a product "vegan" yet included eggs in it? But manufactures pay games with the ingredients lists too.

There's no legal definition of vegan in my country so I still read ingredients of every item.

 

[flyingsnail]

If someone is consuming mayonnaise in order to ingest egg, and that is important to them, then they should probably check the ingredients list.

Or....we can enforce labeling laws. I like being able to shop without rigorously analyzing the ingredients list of everything I buy.

Anyhow, vegans will understandably root for Hampton but I think Unilever's case is pretty strong. I guess we will have to see what happens! It will be interesting for sure.

There's no legal definition of vegan in my country so I still read ingredients of every item.

Don't you think it would be preferable if there was a legal definition and one could just look at the front of the packaging without analyzing the ingredients list?

 

[Blobbenstein]

Or....we can enforce labeling laws

is there a definition for 'mayo'?
Does 'mayo' legally mean 'mayonnaise', and does mayonnaise have a legal definition?

 

[flyingsnail]

is there a definition for 'mayo'?
Does 'mayo' legally mean 'mayonnaise', and does mayonnaise have a legal definition?

Mayonnaise, at least in the US, has a legal definition and "mayo" is short for mayonnaise. I think its the combination of the name "Just mayo" and a packaging that includes and egg shape that makes it so problematic.

 

[RascalsMom]

Or....we can enforce labeling laws. I like being able to shop without rigorously analyzing the ingredients list of everything I buy.

Anyhow, vegans will understandably root for Hampton but I think Unilever's case is pretty strong. I guess we will have to see what happens! It will be interesting for sure.



Don't you think it would be preferable if there was a legal definition and one could just look at the front of the packaging without analyzing the ingredients list?

I would still analyze the ingredients. I like to know what I'm buying. The fact that people buy things without reading every ingredients is mind boogling to me. No idea what they're putting in their own bodies.