Fines on the way for Heinz after the courts have found their ‘Shredz’ snacks, aimed at toddlers were misleadingly labelled as healthy when in the fact the product is mostly sugar.
Read more:
3 Likes
“Heinz is disappointed with the outcome”
You’ve got to be kidding! Not as disappointed as the parents they duped.
5 Likes
Incredibly Shonky behaviour from Heinz! 
4 Likes
I cannot understand how a company like Heinz would deliberately market such a product aimed at children then deliberately deceive their consumers (customers are their lifeblood) with their packaging.
It seems that the board and sales departments have no moral or ethical compass whatsoever with no one having the courage to say no this deceptive behavior.
Heinz will be last on my shopping list.
4 Likes
Only part of the case was upheld and others were dismissed as reported on the ABC site:
"Justice White dismissed claims by the ACCC that the packaging implied the products had the same nutritional value as the natural fruit and vegetables pictured on the box.
“The consumers would, in my opinion, have readily understood that the berries product was a processed product and would have understood that a representation was being made that it was derived, at least principally, from the depicted ingredients,” he said.
“They would not have understood the product to be in the form of fresh fruit and vegetables.”
He also dismissed accusations that Heinz suggested “it would encourage the development of healthy eating habits” for young children and that the products were not nutritious."
Still a good win though.
3 Likes
2.25 big ones!
5 Likes
Really just a pittance in many ways. I really hoped for more than that but our Courts seem to be conservative in their fines when large businesses are concerned. We have as a community on this Choice site have often pointed out what seems to be inadequacy in the amount of fines.
7 Likes
I have come to learn that most of our systems are designed to educate rather than punish, from business practices to lout’s behaviours, probably because of long ago historical reasons based on our original population. Fines for business are often levied to make a point rather than to be punitive. Business knows this and takes advantage knowing there is huge upside potential with usually little-to-no downside even when caught out.
See how well it works? Right it does 
There does need to be a functional mid-point balance but ours seems to be just a bit off one end of the balance beam so we have increasingly lost respect for how it goes.
We routinely see individuals done over for minor infractions while businesses get mere slaps on the wrist. Government knows who can fight back and who cannot. Funny that.
7 Likes
@SarahAgar was in the SMH recently highlighting that “previous penalties for breaches were not high enough.” Let’s hope the changes make some headway into the issue.
7 Likes
I can’t help but feel that we also need to hold individuals in businesses personally accountable.
We have legislated harsh personal penalties for verbal actions that may do not much more than cause offence. For actions that do not pass moral muster and encourage poor consumer outcomes the individuals that approve the same are not subject to similar personal liability.
The corporate identity protects individuals and their actions in too many ways. Consider also the Royal Commission into Banking.
5 Likes
