In my opinion this is definitely a shonky product i doubt many of those slices even seem to get bought and no wonder why if they contain fake ingredients. Im sure there are far worse tings out there that worthy being shonky. I have heard before about some food manufacturers doing shoddy or bad practices like if they drop the products the staff just pick it back up and reuse it like there is nothing wrong with it. just letting you know about that.
I’ve been reading comments against this post with interest.
I’ve just written an article for CHOICE on how much food is in canned food, and while it doesn’t address all of the different issues about misleading food labels that have been raised in this discussion, I thought there was a good chance it might be of interest to some of you
I’d love to hear your thoughts on the results!
Wow, that’s unreal @passerbye123. Thanks so much for the photo - I’ll add it into the Shonkys 2018 pile and flag it with my colleagues. Feel free to send through any others you notice
That’s pretty outrageous - coconut yes, but where are the cherries and chocolate?! Presumably in the ‘flavours’ at the end of the ingredients list. Not good enough!!
Maybe the cherry relates to the colour…however the package does say a ‘perfect combination of cherries, coconut and chocolate’.
Maybe their idea of a perfect combination is coconut with artifical cherry and chocolate flavours.
Yes i totally agree with what you are saying there about the product.actually as i complained to iga on facebook they messaged me saying what store i bought it from etc it shows complaining on social media can effect these business. I still think it is pretty bad especially when they are selling the product and a consumer is paying for it.I must admit most food items i buy i wouldn’t usually go to all that extreme in complaining. I have noticed another product i have purchased from iga but it is not a iga item they just happen to sell it there, it is a banana bread which had no bananas in it either.It was some kind of artificial or type of flavor.but as i say usually i just buy things i guess like most people and it tastes normal enough. but that cherry slice really is a shocker for taste and considering they used a red colored food dye to give the effect of cherries.Im suprised it actually had coconut in it and i could taste the desiccated coconut so that seemed real from what i could tell.
Go and purchase the product it is supposed to be a premium label so it says the chocolate is not even real its like they are trying to fool people with this kind of advertising.?and the color was a pinkish reddish color.
If i go back and find the other non iga brand of banana bread i would send that through to. i was totally blown away with that product also had no bananas listed in the cake.the banana bread didn’t taste anywhere near as bad as the cherry slice at least the banana cake was a cake still. i find it still misleading saying it is banana bread when its not.
That would be great. Thanks again for the effort so far
I was looking at a banana bread packet from aldi ok and the one they sell there has banana in it well i looked at the ingredients to make sure and it says it has it in it. So at least that is a positive rather than a negative. I can take a picture next time i go there just to prove it. The cake slices from aldi are certainly moist i am not to sure how banana goes in a store bought cake opposed to if you make it yourself.?
The picture at the top right corner of the front of packaging, and on the top left of the back, clearly states that there is ONLY the ingredients listed below ‘Smooshed’ together to make the product.
Yet according to the text next to the bar code, the product contains tree nuts (OK the cashews are listed), but it may also contain traces of gluten containing cereals, milk solids, egg, sesame seeds, peanuts, soy, and sulphites. How does this occur if only the ingredients listed are in the mix?
This other pack is the same boldly claiming it contains only the listed ingredients, but on the back, we have the same story that the product contains tree nuts (In this case the peanuts are listed), but may also contain traces of gluten containing cereals, milk solids, egg, sesame seeds, peanuts, soy, and sulphites.
Your average consumer who just looked at the nice pictures would think these are ‘pure’ foods. But, couldn’t they potentially cause anaphylaxis if that consumer didn’t read the fine print?
Giving the benefit of doubt and the legal requirements for labelling in many jurisdictions, if a product is made on a line where other products are made, the potential cross contamination ingredients must be listed, hence ‘traces’. Obviously I cannot authoritatively state if that is the case for any particular product and its ingredient list, but that is how it goes for labelling.
I believe the original reason was to flag potential allergies and the requirement got general cased. Apparently just having (eg) peanuts prominently displayed is often insufficient, even on a bag of peanuts.
Yes, those with life threatening allergies need to read the ingredients, but in the context of ‘traces’ how prominent is prominent enough?
Edit: A bag of unsalted peanuts amazingly is 98% peanuts, with a warning it contains peanuts and possibly tree nuts. Such is labelling.
My understanding on labelling is:
- line cross-contamination can come down to mitigation processes the company might use in the manufacturing process. As an example, if the company sees no specific advantage (profit) in having a totally clean product in some respect, the package labelling listing all possibilities might be the most shareholder-practical way of going to market. Alternatively the integrity of the product might be part of the companies marketing strategy so the process is worth implementing.
- there are some claims that for certain raw materials that product purity cannot be guaranteed. Speak to many people on wheat or gluten intolerant diets it is often said that oats cannot be trusted for this reason.
- I once heard from a small scale producer that even though they didn’t use peanuts anywhere in their process, they listed them as a possible allergen to cover their posterior. I’d have thought product testing in the event of a reaction would clear the product, but I’m sure the lawyers see things differently …
I am aware of the production line issue. Is it too much to expect that if they are promoting their food as ‘pure’ they should prevent cross contamination?
Also, perhaps someone should explain to the manufacturer of your peanuts that they are legumes, NOT tree nuts? I know that people with tree nut allergy may react to peanuts, but lets get the facts right!
If the mix they used required peanuts I really hope it wasn’t just a case of “may” contain peanuts but actually did contain peanuts and at a level greater than a trace amount.
I do not know how easy or difficult it might be to 100% sanitise a production line against other ingredients that might have passed through, but as was written the lawyers see things in their own special way and like ‘warning labels’ for anything that could theoretically happen, just in case.
We have two peanuts laden products in the thread, your Tasti and my Woolies.
Since you write
I assume you mean mine but neither I nor the label suggests peanuts are tree nuts as I read it.
Ingredients: Peanuts (98%) Peanut Oil
Allergy Advice: Contains Peanuts (Yah!)
–May be Present: Tree Nuts
It also contains ‘a hint of natural favour’ which in theory could be anything. This could be the source of potential allergens.
My partner has a severe allergy to eggs which can cause her airways to close and even a trace amount is enough to do the trick. We have to actively avoid anything that may have been prepared using equipment that has also been in contact with eggs, so it’s vitally important that these warnings are in place should there be even the slightest, remote possibility that a microscopic particle of egg may be present in the product. For people with peanut allergies it can be an even greater life or death situation if these types of warnings aren’t present on the packaging. It doesn’t mean they are an active ingredient. It just means that there may be some cross contamination in the product due to other products that have been made recently. Nothing misleading about it at all.
I have used this same product on a few occasions. Different amount every time.
A more lighthearted case: Someone on our Facebook page just shared this ‘interesting’ labelling for chicken nibbles that are ‘Made in Australia with at least 100% Australian ingredients.’
Have you come across anything like this?