Consumer advocate: Under the current absence of government standards for food product labeling, manufacturers are mis...

Irina August 9, 2019

@Patricia,

For the point at issue questions, it is helpful to note the key points each of the speakers is making.

Let's briefly look at the argument.

CA: Manufacturers are deceiving consumers in the absence of food labeling standards.
"Fresh" orange juice label is on a product that is made from water and concentrate.
Fresh is commonly understood as pure and unprocessed.
Labeling such juice "fresh" is unquestionably deceptive.

M: Using words differently than they are commonly used is not deceptive.
Company is not at fault for not complying with nonexistent standards.
When the government sets clear labeling standards, we will comply with them.

The CA argues that food manufacturers are deceiving consumers, and the M responds by saying the practice is not deceptive as words have more than one meaning.

Let's look at (A) & (C).

(A) says "In the absence of the government standard, common understanding is the arbiter of deceptive labeling practices."

This accurately reflects CA's position, he is saying the label must match a common understanding of the word, i.e. "fresh" product must be pure and unprocessed. M disagrees saying "using words ..differently than they are commonly used/ understood" is not deceptive."

(D) says "Terms that apply to natural foods can be truthfully applied to packaged foods."

(D) requires us to make inferences that go beyond the scope of the passage. Would the CA argue that natural is commonly understood as unpackaged? Or would the CA consider such label not deceptive since "natural" and "packaged" refer to distinct properties of the product?
The other issue with (D) is that it says "terms apply," which is too broad as opposed to a more narrow issue of product "labels" rather than "applicable terms."

Does this make sense?

Let me know if you have any further questions.