Only what is written on it is included. But is it always what it says on the inside? In the case of Starbucks, customers say: No. There is no mango in the mango dragon fruit lemonade. And you won’t find passion fruit in the pineapple passion fruit lemonade. Instead, the drinks consist primarily of sugar, water and grape juice concentrate. So far, so normal, you might think. But no: the customers got upset, complained – and are now successful. A US judge actually approved the lawsuit on Tuesday. Even though Starbucks had tried everything to prevent it.
The coffeehouse chain argued that “reasonable” consumers were not at risk of being misled. But is that really true? Are only “unreasonable” consumers confused when there is not a single gram of woodruff in the woodruff mousse, as was the case in Germany a few years ago? What if the caramel in the caramel bar can only be found on the packaging? And what if the fruit gums with a ginger-lemon flavor have very, very many ingredients, but neither ginger nor lemon?
The opposite is probably the case: a rational person can certainly assume that a company at least makes an effort to do what it says on the tin. Simply because most companies adhere to it. However, it is becoming increasingly common in this country that only small amounts of a certain ingredient are contained. The basil and rocket pesto from the Barilla brand, for example, did contain rocket, but only 1.5 percent. Parsley was significantly more present. The consumer protection agency sued, but lost the case. Arugula or parsley, the main thing is a herb.
Starbucks sees it all – of course – completely differently
For a few years now, there has been an online platform where outraged customers can report such cases. There are now thousands of complaints about misleading names, images or additives on thesmittelklarheit.de website. Consumer advocates also describe the legal situation there. Most of this is regulated by the Food and Feed Code (LFGB) and the EU Food Information Regulation (LMIV). The principle: Information about food must not deceive. There are additional regulations for individual areas. For example, in order to be called chocolate in the EU, the total cocoa mass must be at least 35 percent. Guidelines like this seem meticulous, but they exist for competitive reasons. After all, providers with cheaper substitute materials would otherwise have an economic advantage.
Starbucks sees it differently. The manufacturer continues to defend itself against the accusation of deceiving customers. There is no mango in the lemonade, but it still tastes like mango, so the argument goes; Thanks to flavorings. Starbucks believes it’s about the taste, not the ingredients. The only question is: who ultimately decides what a mango lemonade should taste like? And what would it mean in general if taste decided on the name instead of ingredients? Imagine if vegan meat substitutes were referred to by their manufacturers as chicken nuggets or veal liver sausage. Markus Söder would most likely jump in a triangle.