Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site moncol.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!drutx!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!petsd!moncol!john
From: john@moncol.UUCP (John Ruschmeyer)
Newsgroups: net.misc.coke,net.consumers,net.legal
Subject: False advertising on Old Coke cans?
Message-ID: <455@moncol.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 11-Aug-85 00:49:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: moncol.455
Posted: Sun Aug 11 00:49:40 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Aug-85 12:12:05 EDT
Followup-To: net.misc.coke
Organization: Monmouth College, West Long Branch, NJ 07764
Lines: 27
Xref: watmath net.misc.coke:209 net.consumers:2764 net.legal:1985

Something is confusing me:

When Coca-Cola Classic hit the shelves, everybody (including me) complained
that it wasn't really Old Coke since Old Coke's ingredient list listed
"sugar" while Classic's list mentioned "high fructose corn syrup and/or
sucrose".

Now, a number of people have come out and sid that since 1980 or
thereabouts, Old Coke had corn syrup in it.

How can this be? Shouldn't it have said so on the label? If corn syrup were
being used and the label only listed sugar, wouldn't this be violating some
law or FTC rule or something??


[Forgive my cross-posting this to net.legal; I figured someone there might
be familiar with the laws concerning ingredient lists.]

-- 
Name:		John Ruschmeyer
US Mail:	Monmouth College, W. Long Branch, NJ 07764
Phone:		(201) 222-6600 x366
UUCP:		...!vax135!petsd!moncol!john	...!princeton!moncol!john
						   ...!pesnta!moncol!john
Silly quote:
	DM:	I'm going to take the car into a bank.
	Col. K:	Don't do it, DM. It'll never fit through the door.