Goliath fought with a javelin. Unilever, producer of Hellmann’s
mayonnaise, fights with a decades-old Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) definition.
The consumer goods company thinks that Hampton Creek, maker of
Just Mayo, shouldn’t be allowed to call its eggless vegan spread
“mayonnaise” because there ain’t no such thing as mayo without
eggs. According to an FDA definition for mayo made holy
back in 1957, that is. The Washington Post
reports:
The global food giant argues that Hampton Creek’s Just
Mayo is not, as Unilever lawyers wrote, “exactly,
precisely, only and simply mayonnaise,” as defined by the
dictionary and the Food and Drug Administration, which
says mayo must include “egg yolk-containing
ingredients.”
Just Mayo uses Canadian yellow peas in lieu of eggs.
Not one to stand idly by as a scourge of faux mayo threatens
benighted American consumers, Unilever has taken it upon itself to
sue its upstart rival for false advertising and fraud. Unilever
argues that Hampton Creek is misleading customers into thinking
they’re buying traditional mayo filled with eggy goodness because
the product’s logo resembles an egg.
But money tells a more creditable tale. Unilever is also upset
that this wanton deception is cutting into its profits:
The Just Mayo identity crisis, Unilever lawyers said, has
hurt Hellmann’s market share, “caused consumer deception and
serious, irreparable harm to Unilever” and the mayo industry as a
whole.
The multinational corporation valued at $60 billion and boasting
45 percent of a $2 billion mayo market is out for blood,
reports The New York Times:
Unilever wants Hampton Creek…to pay three times its profit in
damages plus the legal fees of the plaintiff…It also is asking the
court to require Hampton Creek to stop using the egg on its label;
recall all products, ads and promotional materials that might
confuse consumers; and stop claiming that Just Mayo is superior to
Hellmann’s.
In other words, Unilever wants Hampton Creek to go out of
business and forget about the whole thing.
Analysts, pointing out the obvious, opine that this move
reflects entrenched industry’s fear of competition from
nontraditional startups. Particularly scary are startups with
substantial financial support making market inroads: Hampton Creek
counts Bill Gates and Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing among its
investors.
This isn’t the first time the FDA’s protectionist regulations
have been wielded by food industry leaders to whack-a-mole
competitors. Earlier this year, candlemakers
Mediterranean food company Sabra
petitioned the FDA to establish rules defining what constitutes
“real” hummus. The biggest hummus manufacturer in the United States
claimed that, in total contravention of the laws of gods
and men, renegade hummus producers were
using black
beans or lentils instead of the traditional
chickpeas.
In its 11-page petition, Sabra
demanded that “hummus must be comprised…predominately of
chickpeas, and must be no less than 5% tahini.” The company cited
the standing definitions for other foodstuffs—including
mayonnaise—as justification for codifying a hummus definition.
Count these as two more examples of protectionist regulations
guaranteeing that industry leaders
will defend their market
positions within the halls of federal
bureaucracies—and not on the
battlefield of consumer preference.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/1sAlCim
via IFTTT