No Evidence of Aloe Vera Found in the Aloe Vera at Wal-Mart, CVS (bloomberg.com) 333
From a Bloomberg report:The aloe vera gel many Americans buy to soothe damaged skin contains no evidence of aloe vera at all. Samples of store-brand aloe gel purchased at national retailers Wal-Mart, Target and CVS showed no indication of the plant in various lab tests. The products all listed aloe barbadensis leaf juice -- another name for aloe vera -- as either the No. 1 ingredient or No. 2 after water. There's no watchdog assuring that aloe products are what they say they are. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn't approve cosmetics before they're sold and has never levied a fine for selling fake aloe. That means suppliers are on an honor system, even as the total U.S. market for aloe products, including drinks and vitamins, has grown 11 percent in the past year to $146 million, according to Chicago-based market researcher SPINS LLC. "You have to be very careful when you select and use aloe products," said Tod Cooperman, president of White Plains, New York-based ConsumerLab.com, which has done aloe testing. Aloe's three chemical markers -- acemannan, malic acid and glucose -- were absent in the tests for Wal-Mart, Target and CVS products conducted by a lab hired by Bloomberg News. The three samples contained a cheaper element called maltodextrin, a sugar sometimes used to imitate aloe. The gel that's sold at another retailer, Walgreens, contained one marker, malic acid, but not the other two.
Homeopathy (Score:5, Funny)
If they can't even detect any, that stuff must be super potent!
Re: Homeopathy (Score:4, Funny)
Problem with homeopathy is that it's so potent if you stop taking it you can overdose
Re: (Score:3)
Is there any evidence that products containing aloe are better in any quantifiable way from non-aloe products? If the efficacy relies entirely on the placebo effect, then, by publicizing the absence of aloe, these researchers are actually making people less healthy. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Also, does the manufacturer really save money by leaving out the aloe? I have aloe plants in my backyard, and they grow like weeds, despite getting no water all summer.
Re:Homeopathy (Score:4, Funny)
Indeed - just look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Unregulated (Score:5, Funny)
Unregulated product a sham, news at 11!
Re:Unregulated (Score:5, Interesting)
I loved this:
You have to be very careful when you select and use aloe products
...and have a degree in organic chemistry and access to an assay lab, he forgot to mention.
Re:Unregulated (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly!
Or you know, skip all that and get an actual Aloe plant and use the sap directly... of course, depending on the amount of lotion you're used to, you might need an entire garden. But if it's just for the occasional use, why not go to the source!
Re: (Score:3)
I loved this:
You have to be very careful when you select and use aloe products
...and have a degree in organic chemistry and access to an assay lab, he forgot to mention.
Not really. He's just saying you should buy name brand products. A brand is not going to risk the millions of dollars they put into advertising and goodwill to skimp a bit by using fake ingredients. Not saying it can't happen, but brand names have sufficient economic incentives to invest resources to ensure quality to a reasonable degree.
Also Troubling (Score:2, Funny)
In other related news, there is no evidence of babies in samples of Baby Oil, nor of motors in Motor Oil!
Re:Also Troubling (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
So pro regulation or anti-regulation because it seems pretty much guaranteed, no regulation and they will lie, cheat and steal in order to maximise their profits and pretty much screw over the customers not sometimes but all the time.
Re: (Score:3)
government regulations (Score:5, Insightful)
If only they would remove government regulations than this would never happen.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For this exact case, regulation isn't necessary. You just need to make it illegal to describe a product as being a certain thing, and then it turns out it isn't that thing. We have a crime for this: Fraud. It's nice and simple. The unfortunate thing is that we probably have regulations that will limit the liability of WalMart when everyone sues them for this.
So you may actually be right. Get rid of those regulations and let WalMart experience the wrath of a million lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
The unfortunate thing is that we probably have regulations that will limit the liability of WalMart when everyone sues them for this.
We need to get rid of such barriers and make sure that there is Unlimited liability for the fraud/fake products, and WalMart plus their suppliers can duke it out amongst themselves regarding what proportion of the damages belongs to each of them, as long as one of them who can pay makes good on it.
Re:government regulations (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Did Wal-Mart put their name on it? Or is it just some brand they carry in the store?
If I sold something called "Qzukk's Thing" and it turned out to be bad in some way, who do you think would believe me if I said I had nothing to do with it when the buyer comes back to complain? At least if it's called "Bob's Thing" I can say that I just sell them for Bob, and they should take their complaints to Bob.
Re:government regulations (Score:4, Interesting)
Since these are store brands Walmart (and the other stores) are going to a manufacturer with a specification and getting them to make the lotion. What we don't know in this case is Walmart specifying a lotion without aloe and still having it listed as one of the two main ingredients or is Walmart specifying a lotion with aloe and the company making the lotion substituting cheaper ingredients. In the second case Walmart has to put better tests in place before accepting orders.
Either way Walmart is going to get named in the lawsuit along with the company making the lotion. If Walmart wanted the aloe lotion without the aloe then the contract company probably gets away without paying anything since it was just doing what Walmart wanted. If the contract manufacturer was trying to cheat than I could see them being found 95% at fault and Walmart being 5% at fault because they weren't thorough enough with their testing and just because they had the ultimate responsibility as their name was on it.
Re: government regulations (Score:3)
That's the kind of thing that comes out in legal discovery, when both the manufacturer and the retailer are named in a lawsuit.
Drop the hammer on everyone involved, and let them throw each other under the bus.
Re:government regulations (Score:5, Insightful)
You just need to make it illegal to [...]
So... a regulation?
Re: (Score:3)
There is no need to over regulate this marketplace. A class action lawsuit serves just fine. Especially if they are marketed under store brand names, sue the store.
A non-profit testing group could be setup by all sorts of industries to verify these kinds of things. There is NO need for additional government regulations that already require products to label their ingredients properly.
The other option is to stop buying the cheap products that are rip offs of the real (more expensive) products, where you know
Re: (Score:3)
What's your limit?
Carbon dating has been done on snooty booze (300 year old cognac, 80 year old 'single barrel' scotch etc). It's ALL BULLSHIT. Every brand tested was a fraction (and not 7/8ths) of the claimed age.
Should the government protect rich morons from overpaying for oak barrel flavored booze? The stuff they get is going to taste much better than the genuine thing would have. Can you imagine 300 year old barrel aged booze? Nothing but oak. (truth for me: VS Grand Cru ++good, VSOP has too much b
Re: (Score:3)
For this exact case, regulation isn't necessary. You just need to make it illegal to describe a product as being a certain thing, and then it turns out it isn't that thing.
That IS illegal. But what does it help that it is illegal if no one enforces it.. But that would be regulators and big government?
Well, what do you want?
Re: (Score:2)
I get the joke, but I wonder if you see what's significant here. Sans regulation, the fraud was discovered. In this day and age of instant publicity and faux outrage, you can bet your ass there's going to be a boost in "Real Aloe Vera" sales. In fact, I'm a little surprised some enterprising company out there didn't create a "real" product first, then expose the fraud afterwards. Because capitalism.
This entire situation proves, if nothing else, that in this industry, regulation obviously isn't needed.
Re:government regulations (Score:5, Insightful)
Sans regulation, the fraud was discovered.
Yes, but after how long? How many consumers have spent how many millions of dollars buying something that was not what it claimed to be, because "proving our product contains the ingredients we say it does is burdensome and anti-American?"
Re: (Score:3)
What makes you think it actually contained lidocaine?
Re:government regulations (Score:5, Insightful)
I get the joke, but I wonder if you see what's significant here. Sans regulation, the fraud was discovered.
It was discovered, but now who's going to make sure it doesn't continue? Even knowing this fraud has occurred, how do I know what's in the "Aloe" when I go to buy it? (assuming I don't have the resources or inclination to do my own testing)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't...so you have to buy the plant and squeeze it yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
It was discovered, but now who's going to make sure it doesn't continue? Even knowing this fraud has occurred, how do I know what's in the "Aloe" when I go to buy it? (assuming I don't have the resources or inclination to do my own testing)
You look for the little "Certified By" logo on the bottle and buy one from a lab you trust. Like many people look for a 'UL' sticker on electrics.
Oh, do those products cost three times as much? Hrm, wonder why.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, so if it happens in this instance, Grasshopper, regulation must not be needed anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, I'm a little surprised some enterprising company out there didn't create a "real" product first, then expose the fraud afterwards. Because capitalism.
There is frequently a large gap between theory (how people think the market should react), and practice (how the market actually reacts).
This entire situation proves, if nothing else, that in this industry, regulation obviously isn't needed.
It does nothing of the kind.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, in this case, assuming the manufacturers aren't lying, then the GP is right. Government regulations led to extreme processing of the Aloe Vera gel, which ends up destroying the acemannan that turns out to be the primary beneficial agent in aloe vera. So ironically, government regulations in this case made a product that otherwise would have useful health benefits into a useless blob of sugars and goo.
That said, those regulations do serve a purpose (preventing illness), so it seems likely that t
Mod parent up (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:government regulations (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I see you missed the bigger point: you don't need the government to detect the "fraud", third parties can and just did. The nearly infinitely funded government didn't and we can have a detailed discussion about *why* but that gets us nowhere because they *didn't* and adding this product to the list of tested products is treating the symptom, not the problem. Should the government really be responsible for approving for sale every single product, regularly testing every single product and monitoring shelve
Re: government regulations (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: government regulations (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably, but someone would have to file an official complaint with the FTC.
The FTC's role is to keep companies honest, so wronged consumers won't have to personally seek recourse by individually suing companies that engage in wrongdoing.
If companies know the only recourse consumers have to being defrauded is to personally sue them (and probably spend more to do it than they can actually receive in damages), they'll increasingly come to regard fraudulent behavior as falling somewhere between "a norm" and "a best practice for maximizing shareholder value".
Just look at the practices of, say, the Cable TV industry, which has trained consumers to think it's OK for companies to advertise prices like "$19.95/month" even if the cheapest bill any real customer could EVER see is $36.47/month (after fees, taxes, and surcharges are added).
Or the way it used to be common for credit card companies to make your bill due on a Sunday, but treat payments received after 9am Friday as if they were made on Monday.
Or the way banks used to process the day's payments from largest to smallest, and process deposits AFTER payments (so they could charge more overdraft fees). A few years ago, either Chase or Citibank got nailed HARD for policies where you could deposit a thousand dollars cash into your checking account at 9am, then get dinged $30 in overdraft fees for a $7 debit card purchase at McDonald's or a $20 ATM withdrawal a few hours later EVEN THOUGH the "available balance" printed on your deposit slip might have been "$1003.47" (because they'd ALLOW you to withdraw $1003.47, but would charge overdraft fees if you withdrew more than $3.47 before the end of the day when they officially credited your cash deposit).
And yes, I do think there's abundant evidence from the past 10 years that large public corporations owned by institutional investors can EASILY become detached from things most people would regard as self-evident social norms (ie, openly sociopathic), and will BRAZENLY do things that are just plain EVIL unless the government makes it clear (with penalties) that it's not acceptable behavior and it's watching them.
Re: (Score:3)
windows tech support
Rachel from card holder services
The warranty on my vehicle about to expire
The free cruise I won
Shitty debt collectors basically attempting to defraud me (thankfully I can rain hellfire on them in other ways)
That isn't to say I dislike government agencies, just ineffective ones. When it came to dealing with shitty debt collectors I got nowhere with the FTC, but the Minnesota Attorney General's Office,
Regulation (Score:5, Insightful)
The supervolcano explosion or extinction-sized meteorite strike can't happen soon enough. We've proved beyond a reasonable doubt that we aren't worthy of surviving.
Re: (Score:2)
The supervolcano explosion or extinction-sized meteorite strike can't happen soon enough. We've proved beyond a reasonable doubt that we aren't worthy of surviving.
Because having fake aloe vera in aloe vera lotion is a really big deal.
Re:Regulation (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not but it goes to show that companies self-regulating themselves is bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Which competitor? The one who ALSO didn't bother to include aloe vera in their aloe vera?
If I was in the appropriate office, I'd be considering starting a collusion investigation since it's amazing to me that so many "competitors" all decided to cheat the same way at the same time. No different than the group of kids at the back of the class getting the same wrong answers.
In this case I guess what I'll get is a class action lawsuit resulting in
Re:Regulation (Score:5, Insightful)
Which is cheaper;
a) testing a competitor's product and discovering that they are using a cheaper ingredient, then publicising same and defending claims in court/media whilst continuing to use authentic ingredients
OR
b) testing a competitor's product and discovering that they are using a cheaper ingredient and switching your manufacturing to the same ingredient and continuing to compete based on who has the best celebrity endorsement.
Hoping that competitors will spend money monitoring each other ignores a wealth of examples of collusion, kickbacks, price-fixing etc. and has the same sort of simplistic assumptions that a lot of 'free market will solve X' examples exhibit. Too much regulation is bad. That doesn't mean regulation is bad.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Because having fake aloe vera in aloe vera lotion is a really big deal.
This is the relative privation fallacy. There are always more important problems in the world, but that doesn't mean that the value of the smaller problem is zero.
Re: (Score:2)
The defensive claim is that maltodextrin in gel "works like" or "works as well as" Aloe gel - they just put the Aloe name on the label because people want to see it and will buy Aloe gel before they will buy "soothing gel."
Rubbish, all rubbish, time for a class action lawsuit and free lollipops to everyone who ever bought "Aloe" gel from the fradulent outlets.
Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
False advertising is a crime, it does not need additional regulation.
Re: (Score:3)
you're talking about false advertising, ie, after the fact regulation.
when it comes to medicine and food, we've opted for the much saner, and safer, policy of before the fact regulation.
this time, yes, its aloe vera. hopefully no one is dying over its lack in these products.
but your logic is dangerous as others (including yourself if memory serves) have used it in the past as reasons why we shouldn't have the FDA regulating things before they kill people.
Re: (Score:2)
CompanyA sells a product that claims it contains magic. You find it has none, you sue them for false advertising.
So, I'm supposed to test the chemical makeup of every product I buy and keep some lawyers on hand so that I can sue and win... the few bucks I paid for the product. Sounds like a reasonable system. What seastead should I move to?
Moronic (Score:2)
Hyperbole much? No, you are supposed to have faith that a company sells you what you they claim to be selling you. If you find out that they are not, you take the appropriate legal action. Or perhaps you simply don't purchase their products and tell other people about your bad experience, which in the market means that they lose business. Honesty as a consumer is just as important as honesty as a manufacturer.
The FDA does not know how much acetaminophen is in every single pill for every single brand of
Re: (Score:2)
CompanyA sells a product that claims it contains magic. You find it has none, you sue them for false advertising. Company has to pay you for court costs, loss of wealth in purchasing their good, and damages if any exist. CompanyA can go bankrupt in the process, and perhaps you end up owning CompanyA when all is said and done.
CompanyB sees that CompanyA did wrong, and suffered consequences for their actions. CompanyB advertises a product without magic, but instead what the product actually contains. CompanyB stays in business, and people buy their products as needed. Wow! We have just described a basic fundamental of Capitalism and how Western Law works! No need for the Department of Magic in Products which reduces the overall costs for goods. People can actually purchase _more_ of CompanyB's stuff and CompanyB can actually make more stuff, or even branch out into CompanyC.
I don't know if you're trolling or not, to expect that your average consumer is going to sue "CompanyA" over a $5 tube of aloe vera gel and somehow wind up owning said company. I couldn't convince a smart 12-year-old of that actually happening in the real world.
While your example sounds great in theory, here's what happens all too often in the real world:
CompanyA sells a product that claims it contains magic. You find it has none, but don't do anything because it is impossible for the average consumer to
How about enforcement? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"More" regulation will not improve the broken system.
Consider this regulation:
Any product marketed for human consumption, or for application to the human body i) shall clearly and plainly list all constituent ingredients contained therein, and ii) shall be submitted for testing to not fewer than three independent assay laboratories for verification of such constituent ingredients prior to being sold to the public, and iii) shall undergo random quarterly testing by not fewer than three independent assay laboratories for ongoing verification of such constituent
Re: (Score:2)
You're saying if that was a law, it wouldn't help anything?
It would help all consumers never be able to afford a glass of Iced Tea or a bite of food. I don't call that "help" so the answer to your question is a resounding "NO". You should broadly consider your suggestions for broad regulations prior to posting them.
Only about 60 million proved that (Score:2)
Oh? (Score:5, Funny)
No Aloe in non-regulated product? ... BURN
Makes you wonder (Score:4, Insightful)
Just how much of the stuff we buy / consume / use isn't what it claims to be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just how much of the stuff we buy / consume / use isn't what it claims to be.
Actually, it makes me wonder - WHY IS THIS STORY ON SLASHDOT?
Re: (Score:2)
News for birds. Stuff that splatters.
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Nerds care when people lie to them.
Politinerds care about regulation/deregulation and the consequences.
Pasty white nerds are easily sunburned and Aloe gel is a product they have used before and will use again?
I don't know, I'm having real trouble coming up with a car analogy- but, wait: VW to the rescue!
Re: (Score:3)
It's kind of like when you allow VW to test emissions on their own vehicles and provide the data to the government, never once mentioning the fact that the ECU has code to detect test conditions and adjust the fuel and ignition timing curves to cut emissions during those specific conditions, and not get caught because they validated their own results.. until a competitor happens to notice and calls shenanigans and then it's discovered that nearly every VW-affiliated brand has been doing this for years.... b
Re: (Score:2)
WHY IS THIS STORY ON SLASHDOT?
Come on, man, haven't you ever rubbed one out with some aloe vera lotion? This could potentially affect millions of nerds, it's definitely stuff that matters!
SO... (Score:5, Insightful)
....let there be ACTUAL consequences, maybe?
Charge Wal-Mart with fraud for selling falsely-labeled products. One count per bottle on the shelves.
That's a big fine, yes? Well, Wal-Mart, if it didn't know about the fraud (and I expect they didn't actually) should be able to go after the producer for the fines they had to pay on their behalf.
Oh, I'm sorry: their producer is some untraceable company in some faraway land (because they were the cheapest, natch) that doesn't feel like it needs to behave according to laws and skips out on paying Wal-Mart back?
Huh. Almost like that's a reason one would want to buy from - I dunno - a DOMESTIC company where one has at least reasonable surety they they're going to behave within the law (or face consequences of same if they don't)?
Let me be clear: I'm a staunch Republican and free marketeer. But I recognize that the government DOES have a role in consumer protection and labeling, and needs to act aggressively to ensure that consumers in a capitalist marketplace can make free choices based on reliable information.
One might also notice that this exposure alone would either incentivize the spread of the rule of law, or bringing back more industry to the US. All without a new government agency, new powers, or a bevy of new laws - but instead government just DOING WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING in the first place.
Re:SO... (Score:5, Insightful)
This. We don't need some kind of special regulatory committee for aloe products specifically to address products like this. Claiming to sell one thing and then actually delivering something is already a crime, one of the most elementary crimes out there next to things like murder or theft: fraud.
Even without levying a specifically punitive fine for that crime, at the very least restorative damages would mean returning the money for everyone whose money was taken without delivery of the agreed-upon goods. Having to refund every fraudulently sold bottle is probably punitive enough even without adding specifically punitive damages on top of it. And like you say, Wal-Mart etc can go after the producers, and if for some reason they can't, then it sucks to be them and they should make sure that doesn't happen again, by whatever means necessary.
Re: (Score:2)
at the very least restorative damages would mean returning the money for everyone whose money was taken without delivery of the agreed-upon goods
Return all money spent on the falsely labelled product, NEXT if the company has any money or ability to borrow left over, require
them to come up with money to pay for additional damages people might have incurred due to falsely believing they were applying the
treatment they had decided.
* Pain, suffering, and any additional medication and medical costs compensatio
Re: (Score:2)
This. We don't need some kind of special regulatory committee for aloe products specifically to address products like this. Claiming to sell one thing and then actually delivering something is already a crime, one of the most elementary crimes out there next to things like murder or theft: fraud.
I don't think anyone is claiming that we should have a special regulatory committee for aloe products. More like some people feel we should have a better regulatory framework in general for consumer protection, which might include testing of questionable products and some ability to apply punitive measures for bad actors.
Yes, we do need regulation (Score:2)
Criminal litigation or civil lawsuits alone don't solve the problem. There are lots of criminals looking to capitalize on short-term opportunity, then close up shop before Lady Justice brings the pain. We need regulators who can actively sniff out fraudulent activity.
Otherwise, any fly-by-night company looking to make a quick profit will be happy to sell counterfeit Copper Clad Aluminum data cables [cccassoc.org], which can easily catch and spread fire, or cheap batteries [wired.com] that are also more fire prone, or toys with lead [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
If "the salesman has already packed the wagon and moved onto the next town", why do the lawmen not follow them to the next town over? This isn't ancient Greece where you just leave the city and you're in a different country. When some fly-by-night company springs up, sells a bad product, and then "closes up shop", whoever did that is still around somewhere, and we can find them and punish them. If for some reason we're not finding them and punishing them, well, there's the problem right there.
Prior restrain
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for sticking it to WalMart, CVS, and Walgreens whenever possible, but in this particular case... shouldn't we be going after the supplier that manufactures the product and sticks their labels on it for these companies, too? Probably the same factory for all 3. Sure, Wally and friends should have better supplier controls in place, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Walton family and their employees simply didn't know, didn't care.
Re:SO... (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, they didn't know and didn't care. AKA a wanton disregard. So let them sue their supplier to cover their fines. They put their name on it, it's their responsibility to make sure they know what they're selling.
Next time they'll choose a more reliable supplier.
Re:SO... (Score:5, Insightful)
>Next time they'll choose a more reliable supplier.
Ya think? WalMart is known for leaning on all their suppliers, hard, to cut costs. I'm 99% sure the suppliers wouldn't have quit buying Aloe altogether for their formulation except that it costs more money than maltodextrin and they couldn't keep the WalMart contract without cutting that last 0.5% corner.
I suppose that WalMart et.al. are the labeling retailer and that the consumer is putting their faith and trust into these dubious corporate entities when paying $2.99 for some gel to smear on a sunburn - there should be liability there.
I also feel that there should be liability and accountability at the supplier level, if the supplier represented to WalMart that they were still supplying product "worthy" of the Aloe gel label, they should be held accountable for that, preferably at the same time that WalMart settles for their fraud and negligence.
Re: (Score:3)
Every liquor store is (knowingly/w willful ignorance) selling booze with false claims of age on the label.
It's just accepted that '12 years aged' means a small % is 12 years aged. Abracadabra, no problem.
Re: (Score:2)
....let there be ACTUAL consequences, maybe?
Charge Wal-Mart with fraud for selling falsely-labeled products. One count per bottle on the shelves.
That's a big fine, yes?
No, actually, it's not, even with one count per bottle. Wal-Mart is a monster, and this would equate to a slap on the wrist.
Re: (Score:2)
That would work if congress actually funded the agencies that are charged with policing the law.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for fining Wal-Mart IF their store-brand (which they themselves manufacture) is guilty of not including aloe. Going after retailers for selling what they believed to be perfectly good products is insane, though. You don't sue a retailer for carrying a bad product unless they were negligent in the event of a recall. What you prescribe would easily put lots of retailers out of business very quickly by making them personally responsible for the content of every product they sell.
You presume that ev
Re:SO... (Score:5, Informative)
One might also notice that this exposure alone would either incentivize the spread of the rule of law, or bringing back more industry to the US. All without a new government agency, new powers, or a bevy of new laws - but instead government just DOING WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING in the first place.
In order to investigate, test, and do something about these kinds of instances, there does need to be some kind of government agency with the resources and mandate to do it. They need to have an appropriate legal framework to empower them to do it effectively.
Frankly, the problem is your political party, the Republicans. (I'm not a Democrat. They're generally not focused on this kind of problem either, unfortunately, but at least they don't actively oppose consumer protection.) Anything that could be described as the big bad dirty "R" word (regulation!) gets quashed under the pretense that all regulation is communist and stupid, and designed to hurt America. "Poor Wal Mart. The reason they're forced to buy substandard aloe products is because they just don't have enough money! We shouldn't punish them or regulate them. Instead we should be giving them more tax breaks. I'm sure having more money in their pockets will force them to spend it on quality control and additional jobs for Americans!"
Consumer protection measures that allow consumers to make educated (and non-fraudulent) choices actually makes for a market that is more free. Empowering companies to manipulate market forces does not make the market more free.
Re:SO... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Those people should beat it. Seriously, their wits must be scrambled!
If they'd come out of their shells, and let us see the whites of their eyes, we could really give them a carton of grief. But, as they say, these types are cheaper by the dozen!
FDA Regulation (Score:5, Informative)
Article implies the FDA has no jurisdiction over this based on that they don't test cosmetics by default, but they do regulate based on it being a "misbranded" cosmetic product.
http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/G... [fda.gov]
Careful? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Just remember to always bring your mass spectrometer when you go shopping.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't buy cosmetics and toiletries from Dollar General and the like?
Really, these places should be like "off license" restaurants in England, everybody knows they sell crap, but there's not really an official notice posted anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the fun thing about retail in America, just because they're selling "house brand" Aloe at $7.99 for a 6 oz bottle doesn't mean that it isn't, literally, sugar water.
Branding doesn't mean anything anymore... any good brand will eventually sell out to someone who is willing to devalue that brand in exchange for some quick profit.
CVS and Walgreens reputation isn't for quality, it's for convenience, and ripping you off - ask anyone walking into one of those places "do you expect to get good value for you
Re:Careful? (Score:5, Interesting)
How exactly are we supposed to be careful, as the summary suggests, if we cannot trust the ingredients list on the packaging to be accurate?
Well, I guess in this case, you should do an internet search for the report and check whether your chosen product has been found to be legit or not.
Frankly, I'd say if you trust the ingredients list "at face value" for almost any product, you're likely to be deceived. The ingredients list is often another place for advertising tactics. Take most "natural" products. Do you pay double for that "natural" soap? Chances are that some of the vague "vegetable and plant-sourced" gobbledygook listed in the "ingredients" list is basically the same chemicals you'd find in NORMAL ("bad chemical!") soap. Yes, there are exceptions, but I figured this out several years ago when a family member came home with some a few different cleaning products that cost 3 times the regular ones. In some cases, you didn't even have a complete ingredient list on the container, so I had to go to the product website to actually find out what some of it meant... and in most cases, it was the same old crap, just packaged with a bunch of "natural" and "vegetable" and "plant-based" in front of the words.
It doesn't surprise me at all that some manufacturers go the next step and don't even include those "natural" "plant-based" ingredients at all. And who would know in some cases? In the cases of the soaps I'm talking about, there's really no easy lab test to distinguish X chemical refined from plants vs. the same produced chemically in a lab.
Sorry to be the cynic here, but it wouldn't surprise me if many "natural" products are slightly diluted versions of the same chemical crap sold for a much different price, peppered with a little "grapefruit lavender" essence to make you feel all "earthy crunchy" when you spray it.
Maybe they'll find Aloe in maltodextrin products (Score:3)
UCC (Score:5, Informative)
FDA doesn't really matter. It's not necessary for them to regulate these products for consumer protection, as there are other laws and agencies that can help.
FTC, Universal Commercial Code and U.S. Code Title 15 already cover Truth in Advertising and Fair Labeling and Packaging.
IANAL but here's one possible example that could allow consumers and attorneys to go after these guys: Title 15 Chapter 39 Section 1452.
(a) Nonconforming labels
It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in the packaging or labeling of any consumer commodity (as defined in this chapter) for distribution in commerce, or for any person (other than a common carrier for hire, a contract carrier for hire, or a freight forwarder for hire) engaged in the distribution in commerce of any packaged or labeled consumer commodity, to distribute or to cause to be distributed in commerce any such commodity if such commodity is contained in a package, or if there is affixed to that commodity a label, which does not conform to the provisions of this chapter and of regulations promulgated under the authority of this chapter.
(b) Exemptions
The prohibition contained in subsection (a) shall not apply to persons engaged in business as wholesale or retail distributors of consumer commodities except to the extent that such persons (1) are engaged in the packaging or labeling of such commodities, or (2) prescribe or specify by any means the manner in which such commodities are packaged or labeled.
Re: (Score:2)
Why complicate things?
18 USC 47 - Fraud and False Statements [cornell.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
I couldn't find anything there that might apply. Most of the chapters on fraud seem to be about ripping off the government, the title doesn't seem to concerned about private entities ripping one another off. If I make false documents then a lot of things apply in title 18. But the printing on a package of hand soap is not a document in this context. And while the FDA nutritional information label might be considered a document or have some official regulated status, hand lotion doesn't require such a label.
Re: (Score:2)
One reason I hate buying stuff made in other countries is that it can be very difficult to hold companies overseas accountable (ex: sue them for damages). If a cheap tool from Harbor Freight breaks and takes out my eyes, can I sue Harbor Freight? They'll probably point the finger at the overseas manufacturer (and rightly so). But I really doubt I'll have any luck suing a Chinese company in a Chinese court or International court. (nevermind the tremendous expense for initiating such a case).
Screw the industry. Go Native. (Score:2)
"You have to be very careful when you select and use aloe products,"...
Or, you could just go buy a damn aloe plant and say screw it to the entire industry and the pathetic controls they've (not) implemented to prevent this kind of consumer abuse in the first place.
Most people are using aloe gel for a specific purpose that the aloe plant itself can easily fulfill.
Ripe for Biohackery... (Score:2)
less regulation == GOOD! (Score:2)
And remember that our new president wants less regulation on business, so expect more of this bait and switch in the future.
Hell, you will be lucky if your food contains food. Remember how the chinese were selling cardboard as food? That's us in the future, being "competitive" -- we must close the cardboard as food gap.
I for one, welcome our fake aloe bearing overlords.
The Chinese way (Score:2)
Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
They can, but will they? They barely inspect small medical device manufacturers once every 10 years, and even then it's not the kind of visit that would detect this kind of issue.
Throw 'em to the lawyers, it'll hurt more.