Now, this seems berry ridiculous.
A new lawsuit is claiming that strawberry Pop-Tarts — the sugary breakfast pastry from Kellogg’s — actually has very few actual berries inside its filling.
The food corporation is being sued in a new class-action suit, according to TMZ, over claims that they’re misleading buyers about what’s in the pastry.
Elizabeth Russett, a woman from New York, is leading the charge against the company, TMZ reported, and alleged that the fruit filling in the Whole Grain Frosted Strawberry Toaster Pastries is mostly comprised of other fruits.
The suit claims that the sweet filling of the breakfast item is filled with pears and apples more so than strawberries. Russett alleged in the suit that it’s not enough to provide the berry’s nutritional benefit and to elicit a strawberry taste.
Russett is urging Pop-Tarts to be labeled in a more accurate fashion and claims the damages exceed $5 million, per TMZ.
Strawberry Pop-Tarts were released in 1963 and is one of the original flavors, alongside iconic flavors blueberry, brown sugar cinnamon and apple currant.
Originally, it came unfrosted, as the company believed that the frosting would melt off. But alas, in 1967, the frosting was found to be able to stay on the cookie as it toasted in the toaster.
If this situation sounds all too familiar, it’s because it is. Earlier this year, two California women claimed that Subway’s tuna sandwich doesn’t contain tuna and that they were duped by the fast-food joint. Karen Dhanowa and Nilima Amin filed the $5 million lawsuit after they ordered the sub at locations near their home in Alameda County.
“Independent testing has repeatedly affirmed, the products are made from anything but tuna,” the court papers said. “The filling in the products has no scintilla of tuna at all.”
The suit also alleged that Subway’s tuna is “made from a mixture of various concoctions that do not constitute tuna, yet have been blended together by defendants to imitate the appearance of tuna.”
The filling clained that Subway has done this in an effort to save money since the blended non-tuna product costs less. “Aware that consumers place a heightened value on tuna as an ingredient, defendants deliberately make false and misleading claims about the composition of the products to increase profits at the expense of unsuspecting buyers,” the suit charges.
Dhanowa and Amin “were tricked into buying food items that wholly lacked the ingredient they reasonably thought they were purchasing,” the court papers alleged.
Published on: Article source