No Evidence of Aloe Vera Found in the Aloe Vera at Wal-Mart, CVS (bloomberg.com)

From a Bloomberg report:The aloe vera gel many Americans buy to soothe damaged skin contains no evidence of aloe vera at all. Samples of store-brand aloe gel purchased at national retailers Wal-Mart, Target and CVS showed no indication of the plant in various lab tests. The products all listed aloe barbadensis leaf juice -- another name for aloe vera -- as either the No. 1 ingredient or No. 2 after water. There's no watchdog assuring that aloe products are what they say they are. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration doesn't approve cosmetics before they're sold and has never levied a fine for selling fake aloe. That means suppliers are on an honor system, even as the total U.S. market for aloe products, including drinks and vitamins, has grown 11 percent in the past year to $146 million, according to Chicago-based market researcher SPINS LLC. "You have to be very careful when you select and use aloe products," said Tod Cooperman, president of White Plains, New York-based ConsumerLab.com, which has done aloe testing. Aloe's three chemical markers -- acemannan, malic acid and glucose -- were absent in the tests for Wal-Mart, Target and CVS products conducted by a lab hired by Bloomberg News. The three samples contained a cheaper element called maltodextrin, a sugar sometimes used to imitate aloe. The gel that's sold at another retailer, Walgreens, contained one marker, malic acid, but not the other two.

Comments

Homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

If they can't even detect any, that stuff must be super potent!

Re: Homeopathy

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem with homeopathy is that it's so potent if you stop taking it you can overdose

Re: Homeopathy

[ShanghaiBill]

Is there any evidence that products containing aloe are better in any quantifiable way from non-aloe products? If the efficacy relies entirely on the placebo effect, then, by publicizing the absence of aloe, these researchers are actually making people less healthy. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Also, does the manufacturer really save money by leaving out the aloe? I have aloe plants in my backyard, and they grow like weeds, despite getting no water all summer.

Re:Homeopathy

[jandersen]

Indeed - just look at this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: Homeopathy

[sabbede]

+1 million points for funny!

Re: Homeopathy

[DEN_GUY]

I was badly sunburned as a kid on vacation in Florida. My grandma cut off an aloe plant leaf, split it open and rubbed it all over my shoulders. Worked like a champ and no more pain. The shit from the drugstore never works.

Unregulated

[darkain]

Unregulated product a sham, news at 11!

Re:Unregulated

[skids]

I loved this:

You have to be very careful when you select and use aloe products

...and have a degree in organic chemistry and access to an assay lab, he forgot to mention.

Re:Unregulated

[Falos]

That bugged me. Do you want me to lift it off the shelf gently? Do you want me to read the label slower? My bullshit meter is flickering, but it's not all because of aloe vera labels.

Re:Unregulated

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly!

Or you know, skip all that and get an actual Aloe plant and use the sap directly... of course, depending on the amount of lotion you're used to, you might need an entire garden. But if it's just for the occasional use, why not go to the source!

Re:Unregulated

[speedplane]

I loved this:

You have to be very careful when you select and use aloe products

...and have a degree in organic chemistry and access to an assay lab, he forgot to mention.

Not really. He's just saying you should buy name brand products. A brand is not going to risk the millions of dollars they put into advertising and goodwill to skimp a bit by using fake ingredients. Not saying it can't happen, but brand names have sufficient economic incentives to invest resources to ensure quality to a reasonable degree.

Re:Unregulated

[rtb61]

So pro regulation or anti-regulation because it seems pretty much guaranteed, no regulation and they will lie, cheat and steal in order to maximise their profits and pretty much screw over the customers not sometimes but all the time.

Re:Unregulated

[gl4ss]

but they were buying it in a brand store.

however, aloe vera works for some things.. ..when you apply it from the plant directly.

in drinks it's just a filler for example. I live in Thailand and there's plenty of drinks that use aloe vera as a kind of fake pulp.

that being said a fresh aloevera works somewhat on burns, at least if you take a fresh plant, snap it and apply.

it doesn't have _any_ beneficial proven effects if taken internally, quite the opposite it has proven non-beneficial effects(if taken too much, iirc liver doesn't like it). so maybe you should buy just fake aloe vera drinks.

Re: Unregulated

[MachineShedFred]

Unless that brand is Volkswagen. Oops.

Re:Unregulated

[operagost]

It's hard to say it's unregulated.

First of all, certain things are required on the packaging. Those are regulations.

The ingredients list is one of those things. It's supposed to reflect what is inside. If it doesn't, that's fraud.

If you want to ensure that every container accurately reflects its ingredients, you'll have to have FDA inspectors present at every production facility, just like USDA inspectors are present at every slaughterhouse.

You'll be sure there's aloe in the aloe gel. The only problem is, it will cost so much to manufacture that only megacorps will be able to sell any. Small businesses will be shut out. And the products will probably cost twice as much.

What we need are more studies like these, to catch the fraudsters-- not more regulations.

Re:Unregulated

[GLMDesigns]

It's not the regulation that is necessarily important but the consequences for lying and deceiving. You don't necessarily need a regulation. You need consequences for deception.

Re:Unregulated

[skids]

it doesn't have _any_ beneficial proven effects if taken internally

...for a strict definition of "proven", yes... there are benefits being researched due to preliminary evidence, as well as potential hazards with preliminary evidence. As with most plant products, there are a lot of chemicals in there and removing the most harmful or properly dosing the ones that are harmful at high quantity but beneficial at lower quantities is one of those things stuck in limbo between the people with an irrational distrust of "chemicals" and those with a healthy but sometimes overbearing distrust of the claims made by supplement producer/naturalists, with only a handful of scientists in the middle making progress on understanding it.

government regulations

[jriding]

If only they would remove government regulations than this would never happen.

Re:government regulations

[Anonymous Coward]

I love these sorts of comments. Did you read the article, by any chance? Tell me, exactly what government agency was it that discovered this fraudulent activity?

Re:government regulations

[MasseKid]

I see you didn't miss the sarcasm.

Re:government regulations

[Anonymous Coward]

For this exact case, regulation isn't necessary. You just need to make it illegal to describe a product as being a certain thing, and then it turns out it isn't that thing. We have a crime for this: Fraud. It's nice and simple. The unfortunate thing is that we probably have regulations that will limit the liability of WalMart when everyone sues them for this.

So you may actually be right. Get rid of those regulations and let WalMart experience the wrath of a million lawyers.

Re:government regulations

[grasshoppa]

I get the joke, but I wonder if you see what's significant here. Sans regulation, the fraud was discovered. In this day and age of instant publicity and faux outrage, you can bet your ass there's going to be a boost in "Real Aloe Vera" sales. In fact, I'm a little surprised some enterprising company out there didn't create a "real" product first, then expose the fraud afterwards. Because capitalism.

This entire situation proves, if nothing else, that in this industry, regulation obviously isn't needed.

Re:government regulations

[Motherfucking Shit]

Sans regulation, the fraud was discovered.

Yes, but after how long? How many consumers have spent how many millions of dollars buying something that was not what it claimed to be, because "proving our product contains the ingredients we say it does is burdensome and anti-American?"

Re:government regulations

[mysidia]

The unfortunate thing is that we probably have regulations that will limit the liability of WalMart when everyone sues them for this.

We need to get rid of such barriers and make sure that there is Unlimited liability for the fraud/fake products, and WalMart plus their suppliers can duke it out amongst themselves regarding what proportion of the damages belongs to each of them, as long as one of them who can pay makes good on it.

Re:government regulations

[ChrisMaple]

In all likelihood, WalMart is buying this goo from some other company which is claiming that it contains aloe. WalMart is not a manufacturer; Walmart is a retailer. Should someone be suing WalMart, or suing the supplier? Should WalMart be suing the supplier? What is WalMart's due diligence responsibility?

Re:government regulations

[The-Ixian]

You just need to make it illegal to [...]

So... a regulation?

Re:government regulations

[Anonymous Coward]

2016 is the year when reality and jokes became inexplicably intertwined. :(

Re:government regulations

[nine-times]

I get the joke, but I wonder if you see what's significant here. Sans regulation, the fraud was discovered.

It was discovered, but now who's going to make sure it doesn't continue? Even knowing this fraud has occurred, how do I know what's in the "Aloe" when I go to buy it? (assuming I don't have the resources or inclination to do my own testing)

Re:government regulations

[dgatwood]

Actually, in this case, assuming the manufacturers aren't lying, then the GP is right. Government regulations led to extreme processing of the Aloe Vera gel, which ends up destroying the acemannan that turns out to be the primary beneficial agent in aloe vera. So ironically, government regulations in this case made a product that otherwise would have useful health benefits into a useless blob of sugars and goo.

That said, those regulations do serve a purpose (preventing illness), so it seems likely that the regulations need to be tweaked rather than removed. Without the regulations, these products would probably be fully complete aloe vera laced with botulinum and other fun joys. :-D

Re:government regulations

[Anonymous Coward]

So... a regulation?

"Over-regulation" is the problem for conservatives. Nobody is suggesting there shouldn't be "regulations" prohibiting murder, or theft, or fraud.

They're saying that there shouldn't be a government agency dedicated to "ensuring that the content of products that bill themselves as aloe-vera products must contain at least 2% of their mass as aloe-vera derived chemicals, and file production process affidavits describing their production process, which must also include the consumption of raw, processed, or dried aloe vera plant leaves, roots, stems, flowers, and/or fruit."

What you can (and should) say are - "What you write on the label for ingredients must be an accurate listing of ALL of the components of the product, or you are defrauding the public, and you are liable for the financial impact of that fraud, plus damages."

You don't need to create a "Federal Aloe Vera Products Commission" which is charged with regulating the purity and production of Aloe Vera based products. THAT is over-regulation. A broadly applicable law saying that you can't claim your product "contains X," when it does not, in fact, contain any part of X, is perfectly legitimate regulation - just like we don't need a "Federal Murder Prevention Commission" which is charged with generating a new regulation prohibiting every possible circumstance for murder, it's easier to simply declare the killing of another human being to be a crime.

You don't have to have a specific law prohibiting each of these:
- shooting someone in the head;
- shooting someone in the foot but they bleed to death;
- shooting at someone but missing, but they have a heart attack and die anyway;

You can simply say that killing someone else - with a knife, with a gun, with your hands, or with a goddamned feather duster, is illegal.

Re:government regulations

[gtall]

Ah, so if it happens in this instance, Grasshopper, regulation must not be needed anywhere.

Re:government regulations

[Greyfox]

Damn straight! I'm sitting on a warehouse full of dioxin and DDT here and could have an "All Natural Aloe Vera" company started up in a matter of days if it weren't for those pesky regulations! It's totally a win-win! People pay you a fuck ton of money to take this stuff off your hands and after you've mixed it with a bit of corn starch, they'll pay top dollar for my "Dave's All Natural Organic Aloe Vera!" The FDA ought not to even complain as long as I put some things on the label in sarcastic quote marks!

Re:government regulations

[Chirs]

You don't...so you have to buy the plant and squeeze it yourself.

Re:government regulations

[bill_mcgonigle]

It was discovered, but now who's going to make sure it doesn't continue? Even knowing this fraud has occurred, how do I know what's in the "Aloe" when I go to buy it? (assuming I don't have the resources or inclination to do my own testing)

You look for the little "Certified By" logo on the bottle and buy one from a lab you trust. Like many people look for a 'UL' sticker on electrics.

Oh, do those products cost three times as much? Hrm, wonder why.

Re:government regulations

[Bookworm09]

In fact, I'm a little surprised some enterprising company out there didn't create a "real" product first, then expose the fraud afterwards. Because capitalism.

There is frequently a large gap between theory (how people think the market should react), and practice (how the market actually reacts).

This entire situation proves, if nothing else, that in this industry, regulation obviously isn't needed.

It does nothing of the kind.

Re:government regulations

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you missed the bigger point: you don't need the government to detect the "fraud", third parties can and just did. The nearly infinitely funded government didn't and we can have a detailed discussion about *why* but that gets us nowhere because they *didn't* and adding this product to the list of tested products is treating the symptom, not the problem. Should the government really be responsible for approving for sale every single product, regularly testing every single product and monitoring shelves for non-approved products? Surely no black markets would crop up if this were the case.

People forget that when government regulations decrease then consumers must be more vigilant when acquiring products and there is a larger market for people to do the checking and explain the results. This actually enhances the "premium" a company can charge for being ethical and providing good products. Generally it results in wins all around. Crappy products can still be sold to those who want the crappy product. Better products with established brands fetch a premium which promotes the idea that ethical businesses can actually make more money than unethical ones.

Today we are stuck with the lowest common denominator products because no one is concerned that a product might not be what it says it is. In other words, we got so comfortable that mommy government will protect us that we don't even try to protect ourselves which results in lower profits for ethical companies, which results in lower desire to be an ethical company, which results in more mommy government regulations that fix certain specific products but feed the above downward cycle.

Re:government regulations

[Carewolf]

For this exact case, regulation isn't necessary. You just need to make it illegal to describe a product as being a certain thing, and then it turns out it isn't that thing.

That IS illegal. But what does it help that it is illegal if no one enforces it.. But that would be regulators and big government?

Well, what do you want?

Re:government regulations

[Qzukk]

Did Wal-Mart put their name on it? Or is it just some brand they carry in the store?

If I sold something called "Qzukk's Thing" and it turned out to be bad in some way, who do you think would believe me if I said I had nothing to do with it when the buyer comes back to complain? At least if it's called "Bob's Thing" I can say that I just sell them for Bob, and they should take their complaints to Bob.

Re:government regulations

[Archangel Michael]

There is no need to over regulate this marketplace. A class action lawsuit serves just fine. Especially if they are marketed under store brand names, sue the store.

A non-profit testing group could be setup by all sorts of industries to verify these kinds of things. There is NO need for additional government regulations that already require products to label their ingredients properly.

The other option is to stop buying the cheap products that are rip offs of the real (more expensive) products, where you know they are already taking shortcuts.

https://www.amazon.com/Aubrey-...

vs

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Fru...

Literally six times more expensive for the real stuff.

Re:government regulations

[Tablizer]

A class action lawsuit serves just fine.

That doesn't work well for low-priced items. There's often no record of the purchasers, and it would be impractical to track them down even if such records are kept. Class-action suits generally are only practical on expensive or medically/safety-critical purposes.

If you don't like gov't monitors, please propose a decent alternative.

Re:government regulations

[Digicrat]

OTOH, to play devil's advocate, if customers can't tell the difference and the product on the shelves serves the advertised purposes, is it really fraud?

I predict that the manufacturer (I bet CVS/Walmart/Walgreens all rebrand the stuff from the same company) will come back and say "maybe we didn't use real Aloe Vera, but XYZ is an equivalent substitute" followed by updated packaging adding in fine-print the words "or equivalent". Step two will be legitimate manufacturers adding the word 'real' and upping their prices in exchange for claiming that their ingredients are verified by a so-called independent third-party lab.

Re:government regulations

[Jodka]

You just need to make it illegal to [...]

So... a regulation?

Not at all. Rule of law. Rule of law is the restriction of the arbitrary exercise of power by subordinating it to well-defined and established laws. Regulation is the granting of arbitrary power to bureaucrats by legislatures.

Re:government regulations

[Nethemas the Great]

To hell with regulations. The last thing we need is some government bureaucracy telling us luminescent green goo in a bottle with a picture of a leafy plant on it can't be sold as aloe. It captures the spirit of what Americans think aloe is and that should be good enough. This all comes down to personal responsibility, not more nanny state regulations. I say we let the markets sort this out. Next thing you know they'll be conducting raids on wasabi factories. Where does it end?

Re:government regulations

[grasshoppa]

This entire situation proves, if nothing else, that in this industry, regulation obviously isn't needed.

Which of those words didn't you understand?

Re:government regulations

[HornWumpus]

What's your limit?

Carbon dating has been done on snooty booze (300 year old cognac, 80 year old 'single barrel' scotch etc). It's ALL BULLSHIT. Every brand tested was a fraction (and not 7/8ths) of the claimed age.

Should the government protect rich morons from overpaying for oak barrel flavored booze? The stuff they get is going to taste much better than the genuine thing would have. Can you imagine 300 year old barrel aged booze? Nothing but oak. (truth for me: VS Grand Cru ++good, VSOP has too much barrel. XO blech.)

Going to start a trade war with the French if you start carbon dating all Cognac. They'll start carbon dating Bourbon.

Re:government regulations

[kimvette]

Right.. just like Rand Paul reputedly started his own certification board (National Ophthalmology Board) to get certified as an ophthalmologist. All a company needs to do is incorporate their own fraudulent lab and slap a certification on it, and conveniently "lose" the test data in a hard drive crash. But don't worry, the certification is valid. Trust us!

Re:government regulations

[HornWumpus]

I bought some. Was looking for sunburn lotion with lidocaine. All they had was Aloe Vera with lidocaine.

It's Aloe Vera content was, more or less, irrelevant to me.

Served it's purpose.

Re: government regulations

[theycallmeB]

The government didn't discover this because they are literally not allowed to. If it is not an FDA regulated product then the FDA can't just decide to test it of their own accord because their budget doesn't cover testing of products they don't regulate. It covers little enough testing of what they are charged with regulating as is. Complaining that the FDA didn't find this is pretty comparable to asking why Scotland Yard isn't catching bank robbers in Wyoming.

Re:government regulations

[breeze95]

For this exact case, regulation isn't necessary. You just need to make it illegal to describe a product as being a certain thing, and then it turns out it isn't that thing. We have a crime for this: Fraud. It's nice and simple. The unfortunate thing is that we probably have regulations that will limit the liability of WalMart when everyone sues them for this.

So you may actually be right. Get rid of those regulations and let WalMart experience the wrath of a million lawyers.

Isn't that the definition of regulation? In your example, the regulation is hard coded into law.

Re:government regulations

[CanadianMacFan]

Since these are store brands Walmart (and the other stores) are going to a manufacturer with a specification and getting them to make the lotion. What we don't know in this case is Walmart specifying a lotion without aloe and still having it listed as one of the two main ingredients or is Walmart specifying a lotion with aloe and the company making the lotion substituting cheaper ingredients. In the second case Walmart has to put better tests in place before accepting orders.

Either way Walmart is going to get named in the lawsuit along with the company making the lotion. If Walmart wanted the aloe lotion without the aloe then the contract company probably gets away without paying anything since it was just doing what Walmart wanted. If the contract manufacturer was trying to cheat than I could see them being found 95% at fault and Walmart being 5% at fault because they weren't thorough enough with their testing and just because they had the ultimate responsibility as their name was on it.

Re:government regulations

[russotto]

What makes you think it actually contained lidocaine?

Re:government regulations

[Anonymous Coward]

See this breaks down when it comes to things that are life and death. What if it used a maltodextrin source that was contaminated with arsenic somehow? Sure, you'd say "Well, the free hand of the market will naturally stop people from buying it" but there's that unspoken reason of WHY people would stop buying it-- death. This bullshit ideology necessitates people die for the market to correct itself-- its an entirely REACTIVE system. And how would people be assured that any self-done labwork would be done correctly rather than a rubber stamp to keep the business? Everyone staying alive would only be an indicator that the product is not lethal-- it says nothing about the veracity of the lab's work. Face it, this shit is unworkable unless you want people to die.

Re:government regulations

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no need to over regulate this marketplace. A class action lawsuit serves just fine. Especially if they are marketed under store brand names, sue the store.

A non-profit testing group could be setup by all sorts of industries to verify these kinds of things. There is NO need for additional government regulations that already require products to label their ingredients properly.

The other option is to stop buying the cheap products that are rip offs of the real (more expensive) products, where you know they are already taking shortcuts.

https://www.amazon.com/Aubrey-...

vs

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Fru...

Literally six times more expensive for the real stuff.

I have covered this in a previous post that the US needs to take a lesson from the supplement industry laws in Australia. They are required in short to correctly label ingredients and contents, are subject to random sample testing and if any health claims are made are required to show structure and function of th ingredients involved in the claim similar to FDA standards in Phase 1 trials. (Safety, Structure, function and Pharmacodynamics)

I am drafting a letter to President elect Trump concerning this as well as a copy to the FDA administration. I am not holding my breath though.

Re: government regulations

[AvitarX]

Wouldn't it still fall under the FTC, as it's false labelling?

Re:government regulations

[AvitarX]

Awesome, I'll sue them about the $2.00 bottle, that'll definitely be worth it.

Re: government regulations

[Miamicanes]

Probably, but someone would have to file an official complaint with the FTC.

The FTC's role is to keep companies honest, so wronged consumers won't have to personally seek recourse by individually suing companies that engage in wrongdoing.

If companies know the only recourse consumers have to being defrauded is to personally sue them (and probably spend more to do it than they can actually receive in damages), they'll increasingly come to regard fraudulent behavior as falling somewhere between "a norm" and "a best practice for maximizing shareholder value".

Just look at the practices of, say, the Cable TV industry, which has trained consumers to think it's OK for companies to advertise prices like "$19.95/month" even if the cheapest bill any real customer could EVER see is $36.47/month (after fees, taxes, and surcharges are added).

Or the way it used to be common for credit card companies to make your bill due on a Sunday, but treat payments received after 9am Friday as if they were made on Monday.

Or the way banks used to process the day's payments from largest to smallest, and process deposits AFTER payments (so they could charge more overdraft fees). A few years ago, either Chase or Citibank got nailed HARD for policies where you could deposit a thousand dollars cash into your checking account at 9am, then get dinged $30 in overdraft fees for a $7 debit card purchase at McDonald's or a $20 ATM withdrawal a few hours later EVEN THOUGH the "available balance" printed on your deposit slip might have been "$1003.47" (because they'd ALLOW you to withdraw $1003.47, but would charge overdraft fees if you withdrew more than $3.47 before the end of the day when they officially credited your cash deposit).

And yes, I do think there's abundant evidence from the past 10 years that large public corporations owned by institutional investors can EASILY become detached from things most people would regard as self-evident social norms (ie, openly sociopathic), and will BRAZENLY do things that are just plain EVIL unless the government makes it clear (with penalties) that it's not acceptable behavior and it's watching them.

Re:government regulations

[Whibla]

If it did wouldn't it then be classed as a medication, rather than a cosmetic, and be regulated (and presumably tested) by the FDA?

Re:government regulations

[Anonymous Coward]

Carbon dating has been done on snooty booze (300 year old cognac, 80 year old 'single barrel' scotch etc). It's ALL BULLSHIT. Every brand tested was a fraction (and not 7/8ths) of the claimed age.

Did they take into account that the stuff in the barrels is close to pure alcohol, and is diluted with water (presumably fresh, not 300 year old) before bottling? This applies to all cognac.

Re:government regulations

[houghi]

I buy it from WalMart, so I sue WalMart.
The fact that Wallmart was duped as well does not matter to me. The loss they have because they have to do a payback could be something they ask at their supplier who might even have bought ingredients that said it was Aloe Vera, but in reality wasn't.
One does not exclude the other.

  If I buy lousy Coke, I complain to my local dealer, not to some guy in Colombia.

Re:government regulations

[Friggo]

That makes no sense. The alcohol evaporates quicker than the water, so the older it is then the less alcohol it has.
Also, water contains no carbon to carbon date.

I find it more likely that they would use new pure ethanol to increase the strength of the cognac, which would incidentally put in a newly created source of carbon.

Re: government regulations

[MachineShedFred]

That's the kind of thing that comes out in legal discovery, when both the manufacturer and the retailer are named in a lawsuit.

Drop the hammer on everyone involved, and let them throw each other under the bus.

Re: government regulations

[MachineShedFred]

Sue them both and sort it out in discovery. If Walmart is not complicit, they will happily throw the manufacturer under the bus and join the suit as a plaintiff.

Re: government regulations

[MachineShedFred]

Incorrect.

Any barrel-aged spirit goes into the barrel at a higher proof than it comes out. The evaporated alcohol is referred to as the "angel's share".

After so long in a barrel, it's likely that all alcohol will have evaporated, so they likely add in fresh ethanol to bring the spirit back to being more than just oak oil, sugar, and water.

Re: government regulations

[MachineShedFred]

There's also the idea that a retailer who puts their own name on the packaging might want to have some accountability in their own supply chain, and keep their in-house brand manufacturing honest.

If you go to Wal-mart and buy Wal-mart branded products that are horseshit, Wal-mart gets some blame. If you go to Wal-mart and buy Lazarus's Snake Oil, then its's Lazarus that carries the liability and gets the legal fisting.

Re:government regulations

[Hognoxious]

Welcome to the post-factual world. If they believed it contained Aloe Vera, that should be good enough.

Re: government regulations

[MachineShedFred]

Who's going to make sure it doesn't continue?

I'm guessing a Federal judge, with a court order after dropping a hundred million dollar punitive judgement on the manufacturer.

Fraud is already illegal...

Re:government regulations

[arth1]

OTOH, to play devil's advocate, if customers can't tell the difference and the product on the shelves serves the advertised purposes, is it really fraud?

Yes, that is what is known as a successful fraud.
Another example that comes to mind is the horse meat scandal in Europe a couple of years ago. Would you argue that the people with taboos against eating horse weren't necessarily victims of a fraud because they didn't know?

Re:government regulations

[arth1]

For this exact case, regulation isn't necessary. You just need to make it illegal to describe a product as being a certain thing, and then it turns out it isn't that thing. We have a crime for this: Fraud. It's nice and simple. The unfortunate thing is that we probably have regulations that will limit the liability of WalMart when everyone sues them for this.

The problem is that laws are powerless without enforcement. Regulatory agencies are part of law enforcement in most countries, precisely for this reason.

It's unrealistic to think that Ermine Schwartz, 34, of Greenhills, ND is going to sue and win against Wal-Mart and a Chinese producer over being defrauded $4. (Yet if she had stolen the same bottle, police would be there in an instant.)

The signal we send by not having consumer protection with teeth, like most 1st world countries do, is that it's okay for corporations to break many laws as long as they target individuals, who are unlikely to be in a position to do something about it.

Re:government regulations

[digitig]

I don't know how it works in the USA, but in the UK if a store sells something that isn't what it claims to be (brand-name or not), the customer's contract is with the store and the store is liable. If the store was, in turn, defrauded by a supplier, the store can go after the supplier to recover whatever damages they had to pay the customer, plus legal costs, damages for loss of goodwill, and anything else they can throw at them.

The customer does have the option of taking the issue up with the supplier, but taking it up with the store saves the trouble of the customer having to work out where, in a supply chain that's probably invisible to them, the fraud took place.

Re:government regulations

[kimvette]

> This all comes down to personal responsibility, not more nanny state regulations. I say we let the markets sort this out. Next thing you know they'll be conducting raids on wasabi factories. Where does it end?

I dunno where regulation should end. Maybe where consumers are protected, where we have clean water and clean air, and aren't setting up the environment to make us and millions of other species to go extinct within the next couple of centuries? If regulation is what it takes to achieve that (it is), then I am all for it.

Regulating banking and getting banks OUT of selling investments and back to, you know, banking, and where people actually earned interest on their deposits (I used to get 8%-12% on my savings account in the '80s) would not be an entirely bad thing, either.

There is a lot to be said about the Democrats' desires rather than the Conservatives. Just what the heck are conservatives conserving, anyway, other than straight white male privilege?

Re:government regulations

[NotAPK]

Here here, Australia does a much better job of this.

Here is an interesting article from the ABC on supplements in Australia. Not directly related to this /. story, but may be of interest, and discusses the ethics of pharmacists selling supplements.

Absolutely off topic, but produced by the same excellent reporting team, this is what Australia thinks about the F-35.

Re: government regulations

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I wouldn't put much trust in the FTC given how many complaints I have filed about:
windows tech support
Rachel from card holder services
The warranty on my vehicle about to expire
The free cruise I won
Shitty debt collectors basically attempting to defraud me (thankfully I can rain hellfire on them in other ways)

That isn't to say I dislike government agencies, just ineffective ones. When it came to dealing with shitty debt collectors I got nowhere with the FTC, but the Minnesota Attorney General's Office, MN Department of Commerce and federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau got results and put the screws to one that was exceptionally bad. Personally there should be more fraud investigations done by agencies and private organizations all around as there sure seems to be a lot of it. Get it exposed and then fine or sue the hell out of companies and individuals committing it.

Re:government regulations

[HornWumpus]

Barrels are about 150 proof.

How much carbon is there in water?

Re:government regulations

[operagost]

So you want to test every container of every product that is made for consumption, right?

Re:government regulations

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Screw you I only make the best thing it is that ChrisMaple brand thing that is of questionable composition. /s
I do agree that it should be the owner of the brand who is responsible for the quality of the product. In this case the fact the store brand aloe vera contained no aloe vera would indicate that their quality control is questionable at best. If they were presented with a QA report from the manufacturer that provides different results then Target, Wal*Mart, CVS, etc. can go after the 3rd party manufacturer and get what ever they can out of them but as a consumer it would seem I should be well within my rights to go after the brand owner. I'd be pretty pissed if my bag Market Pantry (the only store brand I know of off the top of my head) brand of frozen corn instead contained chickpeas and it wasn't just some stupid one off mistake but instead every bag of corn in every store does and always had.

Re:government regulations

[Bob the Super Hamste]

For me I find that the quality is more affected by manufacturer than by age. Yes the are differences between VS, VSOP, and XO but I have had some really harsh XOs and some surprisingly smooth VSs. I have found this to be more true with Armagnac than with Cognac but it still happens there as well. I don't know much about Bourbon but from what little I have had it all seems like a slight step up from Silver Wolf Vodka and just all around vile so my advice to the French would be to just block it all. I don't know if this is because I haven't found a good one or not but I have tried Jim Beam, Wild Turkey, and Makers Mark and thought they were all vile but wouldn't mind a recommendation if I have just been scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

Re: government regulations

[nine-times]

Right, a federal fudge. A federal judge is going to run around gathering up bottles of aloe in the future, run tests, gather evidence, investigate who is actually at fault, prosecute the guilty party, as well as preside over the trial. Is that what we're saying?

Re:government regulations

[nine-times]

Who's to stop people from putting misleading logos on their bottles? If people can claim there's aloe in products that don't have it, they can also put a sticker on it that says, "contains aloe". Someone still needs to check up on those things, set standards, and enforce them.

Re:government regulations

[HornWumpus]

I wouldn't say Makers Mark is the top of the market, but if you don't like all those, you don't like Bourbon.

I'm not a big whiskey drinker. Irish when I go there. Occasional Bowmores scotch, which is a really different single malt, tastes a little like the sea smells, in a good way.

Keep a bottle of 'Old Grandad' on hand, inexpensive and decent enough for my Bourbon drinking friends and associates. Also good on beef.

Re:government regulations

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I'll accept that everyone has different tastes. Personally my favorite drink is some Chabot VSOP Armagnac, then probably some XO Martel Cognac, followed by either Glenlivet 21 or Glenlivet 12 French oak. Although I do like most Irish whiskeys I have had.

Re:government regulations

[khallow]

They know there actually isn't any, because they make them.

Odds are good IMHO that all of this is coming from the same one or two suppliers. The final brand owners probably didn't know that there wasn't any aloe vera in their products, but that's because they didn't look. So the emphasis should be that the brand owners didn't do due diligence rather than that they knew something was wrong.

Re: government regulations

[Miamicanes]

And your solution is likely to be far worse. Government regulations are what enable us to live without having to scrutinize every business transaction as if you were bargaining with the devil for your immortal soul.

Places like Denmark, Switzerland, Singapore, and California have fairly expansive regulations. Somalia has basically no government-enforceable regulations. By all accounts, Somalia should be the ultimate libertarian utopia. In reality, you'd have to be completely INSANE to choose life in Somalia over life in Denmark, Switzerland, Singapore, or California.

Re:government regulations

[HornWumpus]

I bought my mom a bottle of the XO Martel, good, but not worth the money. Better the the Remy XO. (Neither is the listed age).

I really like the Remy VS grand Cru. Better grapes make all the difference.

I'm really liking good tequila lately. Corzo poured in a snifter. Represada not Anejo, again less barrel is more IMHO.

Re: government regulations

[MachineShedFred]

No, but a Federal judge could order a company that continues operating against a court order to pay a daily fine until they stop, and could make that fine prohibitive to the company continuing to exist. Or they could order an import ban on the product should they exist outside the US. Or they could hold the officers of the company in contempt of court and throw them in jail.

There's a reason why companies don't fuck around in Federal court. A judge says you aren't allowed to do that, and you stop doing that. One way or the other.

Re: government regulations

[nine-times]

a Federal judge could order a company that continues operating against a court order to pay a daily fine until they stop

And then the company could say it stopped. Or it could stop temporarily. Or they could put a tiny little drop of real aloe into each bottle, say, "Fine it has aloe now," and call it a day.

Or they could order an import ban on the product should they exist outside the US.

And then the company can restructure a little, sell the same product under a different brand name, and hope no one notices. No matter what, you need something in the government that has the ability to monitor what's happening in the market, looking for fraud and abuse, setting some basic fair rules, and enforcing those rules. The federal judge cannot actively go looking for abuse, cannot proactively set rules (can only decide particular matters brought into court), and has no direct ability to enforce.

Re:government regulations

[Archangel Michael]

The idea of the Class Action isn't as much to compensate people for buying the cheap product, it is also to be a deterrent for people engaged in this sort of deception.

Re: government regulations

[Archangel Michael]

All the government regulations prohibitting selling of poison that already exists, and you think the solution to "possible" contamination is ... more of the same?

This is the problem with this sort of logic. There is no end to the amount of regulation being required, as there is always a possibility that "something might go wrong". In fact, I would suggest to you that because we are humans and not perfect, that something WILL go wrong, eventually. The real issue is to balance cost of regulation against the cost of loss when things do eventually go south.

Here is my suggestion for things like TSA screening. Take every cent of TSA screening and instead of doing invasive probing and put the money into a pool for victims of airline disasters (including Terrorism). Because it it is so infrequent, and all the security theater isn't really doing anything for "Security", lets just bypass the insanity and just pay people (which we do anyways) when something does go wrong. It would be more cost effective, and much simpler to maintain. Let the Airlines manage their own security. Eventually people will buy the right amount of security they are willing to pay for.

Re: government regulations

[MachineShedFred]

At some point it becomes easier for the company to just be a good faith actor rather than spending untold effort, treasure, and hassle on trying to scam people.

Lawyers, fees, and fines aren't free. And "we stopped" isn't good enough to make a judge's orders go away - often court orders of this variety will require independent 3rd party verification at the expense of the defendant.

Lawyers are smart, and thought of this stuff long before you came along. Yes, the judge won't go doing all that work himself, but he will use the power of the bench to compel already existing law enforcement to do it. Through what means? A COURT ORDER.

How about we use existing layers and departments of government that have dealt with these situations in the past, setting existing precedent before we run off creating new, redundant layers?

Regulation

[Punko]

Our government officials are screaming that regulation is killing our economy. And those of use that don't live in the USA are constantly told that in the future we will need to align our current regulations to that of the USA, regardless of how valuable they are, all in the name of the race to the bottom.

The supervolcano explosion or extinction-sized meteorite strike can't happen soon enough. We've proved beyond a reasonable doubt that we aren't worthy of surviving.

Re:Regulation

[khallow]

The supervolcano explosion or extinction-sized meteorite strike can't happen soon enough. We've proved beyond a reasonable doubt that we aren't worthy of surviving.

Because having fake aloe vera in aloe vera lotion is a really big deal.

Re:Regulation

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not but it goes to show that companies self-regulating themselves is bullshit.

Re:Regulation

[bondsbw]

Because having fake aloe vera in aloe vera lotion is a really big deal.

This is the relative privation fallacy. There are always more important problems in the world, but that doesn't mean that the value of the smaller problem is zero.

Re:Regulation

[JoeMerchant]

The defensive claim is that maltodextrin in gel "works like" or "works as well as" Aloe gel - they just put the Aloe name on the label because people want to see it and will buy Aloe gel before they will buy "soothing gel."

Rubbish, all rubbish, time for a class action lawsuit and free lollipops to everyone who ever bought "Aloe" gel from the fradulent outlets.

Re:Regulation

[Qzukk]

Consumers can't perform these tests but competitors likely can

Which competitor? The one who ALSO didn't bother to include aloe vera in their aloe vera?

If I was in the appropriate office, I'd be considering starting a collusion investigation since it's amazing to me that so many "competitors" all decided to cheat the same way at the same time. No different than the group of kids at the back of the class getting the same wrong answers.

In this case I guess what I'll get is a class action lawsuit resulting in a nonapology nonadmission of guilt and a coupon for a free trial-size aloe vera bottle while the lawyers make bank.

Re:Regulation

[another_twilight]

Which is cheaper;
a) testing a competitor's product and discovering that they are using a cheaper ingredient, then publicising same and defending claims in court/media whilst continuing to use authentic ingredients
OR
b) testing a competitor's product and discovering that they are using a cheaper ingredient and switching your manufacturing to the same ingredient and continuing to compete based on who has the best celebrity endorsement.

Hoping that competitors will spend money monitoring each other ignores a wealth of examples of collusion, kickbacks, price-fixing etc. and has the same sort of simplistic assumptions that a lot of 'free market will solve X' examples exhibit. Too much regulation is bad. That doesn't mean regulation is bad.

Re:Regulation

[wbr1]

Free market hand-wavium. It's the best. /Sarcasm

Re:Regulation

[Nethemas the Great]

So a competitor is going to spend {x} on the testing of competitors, {y} on a marketing campaign to convince the masses that their cheap commodity good actually has aloe and others don't, and {z} on defending libel suits brought against them by the competitors they just slandered? You sir have a peculiar sense of reality.

Re:Regulation

[yzf750]

Or c) buying the same stuff from the same Chinese manufacturer and putting your label on it and selling it for the same price.

Re:Regulation

[CanadianMacFan]

It's fake aloe vera for you which may not that be that big of a deal. A few years ago in the UK it was horse meat instead of beef. And the less said about the fish you buy the better.

It's about having the trust in your retail system that when you go to buy something that you are really getting that something.

Re:Regulation

[AvitarX]

More likely a coupon for half price of a bottle from the same company.

Re:Regulation

[khallow]

You didn't include the relevant quote in my post from the grandparent:

The supervolcano explosion or extinction-sized meteorite strike can't happen soon enough. We've proved beyond a reasonable doubt that we aren't worthy of surviving.

Because fake aloe vera gel, we must conclude that the extinction of humanity can't happen fast enough. There is a relevant concern here about the proportionality of the grandparent's concerns which a surprisingly large number of repliers to my post completely missed. I don't know about other posters, but I quote things for a reason and in this case, the quote explained why I wrote what I wrote.

Re:Regulation

[khallow]

Consumers can't perform these tests

Actually, consumers can perform these tests. Don't != can't. The real catch is not the capabilities of the consumer, but the vast number of products used.

This is where a non profit or regulator comes into play. It's vastly more efficient to have a few groups efficiently test the vast array of products we use than to have everyone test everything.

While I haven't investigated further, my suspicion is that this is probably a combination of a regulatory loophole about aloe vera-labeled products and a bunch of US-side resellers who aren't independently testing their products, which in this case may all come from one or a few lowest bid suppliers.

Re:Regulation

[khallow]

Left to their own devices, corporations would not provide a minimum wage, they would not limit work hours to 40 per week, safety would never be a concern, and they wouldn't bother with useless things like an employee's well-being.

Workers don't leave employers to their own devices. That is always the first line of defense against this sort of thing even in a regulated world.

Re:Regulation

[khallow]

If I was in the appropriate office, I'd be considering starting a collusion investigation since it's amazing to me that so many "competitors" all decided to cheat the same way at the same time. No different than the group of kids at the back of the class getting the same wrong answers.

My bet is that they have a common source rather than collusion. This has happened before. For example, in 2007 pet food in the US and Canada was found to be adulterated with a toxic compound which happened to pass a popular nitrogen content test (used by multiple pet food sellers).

The Wikipedia page claims that about a dozen different businesses were affected. The US FDA apparently traced the contamination back to two vegetable protein sellers in China.

Re:Regulation

[Big Hairy Ian]

The supervolcano explosion or extinction-sized meteorite strike can't happen soon enough. We've proved beyond a reasonable doubt that we aren't worthy of surviving.

I think its safe to say we've Trumped that one

Re: Regulation

[MachineShedFred]

Because there is no way that all this fake lotion came from the same no-account cheap shit manufacturer.

I guarantee all this shit comes from the same factory, and that company will be sued into oblivion shortly by these same retailers who will happily take the factories as payment, and then change the labeling to comply with fraud and labeling statutes.

Re:Regulation

[Bob the Super Hamste]

And the less said about the fish you buy the better.

So you mean I shouldn't wonder about that walleye I just ordered?

Man it seems like things just fall off the internet all the time as these old stories get harder to find. And yes the fish I get is what is claimed as I just pull them up out of my lake. The wife and kids love a big old fish fry of perch, sunnies, bass, and crappies, and the neighbor up there loves pickled norther so I let him have those when I catch one.

Re: Regulation

[khallow]

Why aren't you hoping the grandparent was joking? I quoted that post for a reason.

Re:Regulation

[khallow]

Why are you replying to me instead of the grandparent? I quoted that post for a reason.

Re:Regulation

[CanadianMacFan]

If you are going fishing then you aren't buying it.

Oh?

[powerlord]

No Aloe in non-regulated product? ... BURN

Makes you wonder

[nehumanuscrede]

Just how much of the stuff we buy / consume / use isn't what it claims to be.

Re:Makes you wonder

[93 Escort Wagon]

Just how much of the stuff we buy / consume / use isn't what it claims to be.

Actually, it makes me wonder - WHY IS THIS STORY ON SLASHDOT?

Re:Makes you wonder

[wonkey_monkey]

News for birds. Stuff that splatters.

Re:Makes you wonder

[JoeMerchant]

Nerds care when people lie to them.

Politinerds care about regulation/deregulation and the consequences.

Pasty white nerds are easily sunburned and Aloe gel is a product they have used before and will use again?

I don't know, I'm having real trouble coming up with a car analogy- but, wait: VW to the rescue!

Re:Makes you wonder

[Motherfucking Shit]

WHY IS THIS STORY ON SLASHDOT?

Come on, man, haven't you ever rubbed one out with some aloe vera lotion? This could potentially affect millions of nerds, it's definitely stuff that matters!

Re:Makes you wonder

[kimvette]

It's kind of like when you allow VW to test emissions on their own vehicles and provide the data to the government, never once mentioning the fact that the ECU has code to detect test conditions and adjust the fuel and ignition timing curves to cut emissions during those specific conditions, and not get caught because they validated their own results.. until a competitor happens to notice and calls shenanigans and then it's discovered that nearly every VW-affiliated brand has been doing this for years.... but government regulation is unnecessary because climate change is a sham, and besides, increased CO2 levels is good for crops, and aside from skiing, winter sucks, so it's all good. Let's get rid of regulation and let all manufacturers perform their own testing with absolutely no oversight or spot-checking of their honesty... because corporations naturally do what is right! /s

Re:Makes you wonder

[kimvette]

> Come on, man, haven't you ever rubbed one out with some aloe vera lotion? This could potentially affect millions of nerds, it's definitely stuff that matters!

If they have been buying Sprawl*Mart brand aloe vera lotion, then no they haven't.

Re:Makes you wonder

[Motherfucking Shit]

That settles it, I'm switching to maple syrup!

Re:Makes you wonder

[swalve]

Copy-pasting the Republican Platform will do no good.

Re:Makes you wonder

[Bob the Super Hamste]

That settles it, I'm switching to maple syrup!

I wouldn't trust that either.

When that story broke I like most people was surprised to find out that a Global Strategic Maple Syrup Reserve existed.

SO...

[argStyopa]

....let there be ACTUAL consequences, maybe?

Charge Wal-Mart with fraud for selling falsely-labeled products. One count per bottle on the shelves.

That's a big fine, yes? Well, Wal-Mart, if it didn't know about the fraud (and I expect they didn't actually) should be able to go after the producer for the fines they had to pay on their behalf.

Oh, I'm sorry: their producer is some untraceable company in some faraway land (because they were the cheapest, natch) that doesn't feel like it needs to behave according to laws and skips out on paying Wal-Mart back?

Huh. Almost like that's a reason one would want to buy from - I dunno - a DOMESTIC company where one has at least reasonable surety they they're going to behave within the law (or face consequences of same if they don't)?

Let me be clear: I'm a staunch Republican and free marketeer. But I recognize that the government DOES have a role in consumer protection and labeling, and needs to act aggressively to ensure that consumers in a capitalist marketplace can make free choices based on reliable information.

One might also notice that this exposure alone would either incentivize the spread of the rule of law, or bringing back more industry to the US. All without a new government agency, new powers, or a bevy of new laws - but instead government just DOING WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING in the first place.

Re:SO...

[Anonymous Coward]

Often the same people who claim that they want to release private industry from the heavy yolk of government regulation are the same people who support government regulations that prevent the courts from levying penalties that have a real effect. They want to remove the rule of law from the corporate board room altogether.

Re:SO...

[Pfhorrest]

This. We don't need some kind of special regulatory committee for aloe products specifically to address products like this. Claiming to sell one thing and then actually delivering something is already a crime, one of the most elementary crimes out there next to things like murder or theft: fraud.

Even without levying a specifically punitive fine for that crime, at the very least restorative damages would mean returning the money for everyone whose money was taken without delivery of the agreed-upon goods. Having to refund every fraudulently sold bottle is probably punitive enough even without adding specifically punitive damages on top of it. And like you say, Wal-Mart etc can go after the producers, and if for some reason they can't, then it sucks to be them and they should make sure that doesn't happen again, by whatever means necessary.

Re:SO...

[JoeMerchant]

I'm all for sticking it to WalMart, CVS, and Walgreens whenever possible, but in this particular case... shouldn't we be going after the supplier that manufactures the product and sticks their labels on it for these companies, too? Probably the same factory for all 3. Sure, Wally and friends should have better supplier controls in place, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Walton family and their employees simply didn't know, didn't care.

Re:SO...

[Anonymous Coward]

release private industry from the heavy yolk of government regulation

Eggsactly.

Re:SO...

[geekmux]

....let there be ACTUAL consequences, maybe?

Charge Wal-Mart with fraud for selling falsely-labeled products. One count per bottle on the shelves.

That's a big fine, yes?

No, actually, it's not, even with one count per bottle. Wal-Mart is a monster, and this would equate to a slap on the wrist.

Re:SO...

[Anonymous Coward]

This. We don't need some kind of special regulatory committee for aloe products specifically to address products like this. Claiming to sell one thing and then actually delivering something is already a crime, one of the most elementary crimes out there next to things like murder or theft: fraud.

Enforcing crimes need regulatory agencies. In this case, regulatory agencies that TEST these products. A law that has no enforcement isn't a law. Do you really want the enforcement of this to be based on someone bothering to test this stuff, and then writing a story about it in the hopes that it makes national news?

Re:SO...

[sjames]

Yes, they didn't know and didn't care. AKA a wanton disregard. So let them sue their supplier to cover their fines. They put their name on it, it's their responsibility to make sure they know what they're selling.

Next time they'll choose a more reliable supplier.

Re:SO...

[Nethead]

That would work if congress actually funded the agencies that are charged with policing the law.

Re:SO...

[Ramze]

I'm all for fining Wal-Mart IF their store-brand (which they themselves manufacture) is guilty of not including aloe. Going after retailers for selling what they believed to be perfectly good products is insane, though. You don't sue a retailer for carrying a bad product unless they were negligent in the event of a recall. What you prescribe would easily put lots of retailers out of business very quickly by making them personally responsible for the content of every product they sell.

You presume that every retailer could investigate each product at the molecular level -- and every batch, no doubt! -- to ensure quality. No, that's the manufacturer's responsibility! You also assume that just any retailer could take on a huge financial penalty and then simply get immediately reimbursed by a manufacturer -- yeah, right. Litigation can take years -- or even decades with appeals. They may not survive the judgement and legal fees before they're reimbursed.

Government sets regulations for products, retailers are just middle-men. If a product is bad, you go after the manufacturer. It's the manufacturer's responsibility to deliver what was expected and to have a reasonable return policy and warranty for goods. Don't buy crap from brands you don't trust! If it's a quality brand, they won't want to hurt their brand by being involved with scandals like fraudulent goods. I imagine if Nike sold asbestos shoes, they'd be out the class action lawsuit money and a great deal more for damaging their brand. It's not Wal-Mart, Payless, Footlocker, etc.'s fault if Nike uses asbestos instead of memory foam or polyester.

As for your domestic argument... yeah... good luck with that with ALOE VERA. The plant doesn't grow well enough for agricultural production anywhere in the USA outside of parts of Arizona and southern Texas. Even there, it's considered to be not a great use of the land for the expense. Much of it is grown overseas and in Mexico. It's generally processed close to where it's grown for many reasons, but you're generally going to be working with a foreign distributor that slapped a label on the farm's aloe vera juice no matter what.

As an aside, we don't even know what constitutes "real" aloe vera gel as an ingredient. The article mentions 3 possible ingredients (mostly sugars/starches), but there's nothing that says what's in the bottle didn't actually come from an aloe vera plant but had those sugars removed as part of the refinement process! Did anyone do a mass spec analysis of all the chemicals in it to see what WAS really in there? Maybe it's fake... maybe it's just been refined. This may be similar to arguments against calling something chocolate because it has no cocoa fat solids, but instead has oils and corn syrup, but it still has organic bits that came from the cocoa plant and still tastes similar to other chocolates.

Re:SO...

[mysidia]

at the very least restorative damages would mean returning the money for everyone whose money was taken without delivery of the agreed-upon goods

Return all money spent on the falsely labelled product, NEXT if the company has any money or ability to borrow left over, require
them to come up with money to pay for additional damages people might have incurred due to falsely believing they were applying the
treatment they had decided.

* Pain, suffering, and any additional medication and medical costs compensation for injuries the people believed may have taken longer to heal or that had further complications which real Aloe might have prevented

* Compensation for driving costs, time, and money, required to purchase new products equivalent to bogus Aloe products.

* Compensation for lost peace of mind / extra costs required for each consumer to be able to spend more time, money, and services more thoroughly researching products of this necessary to detect fakes.

* Approval process for future products. Mandatory full disclosure of the content of future products brought for sale and methods of production.

* Forced monitoring of the company and partners' future products.

* Forced payments of the company of fees for periodic analysis of their products.

Re:SO...

[ChrisMaple]

What part of Guatemala do you not understand?

Re:SO...

[JoeMerchant]

>Next time they'll choose a more reliable supplier.

Ya think? WalMart is known for leaning on all their suppliers, hard, to cut costs. I'm 99% sure the suppliers wouldn't have quit buying Aloe altogether for their formulation except that it costs more money than maltodextrin and they couldn't keep the WalMart contract without cutting that last 0.5% corner.

I suppose that WalMart et.al. are the labeling retailer and that the consumer is putting their faith and trust into these dubious corporate entities when paying $2.99 for some gel to smear on a sunburn - there should be liability there.

I also feel that there should be liability and accountability at the supplier level, if the supplier represented to WalMart that they were still supplying product "worthy" of the Aloe gel label, they should be held accountable for that, preferably at the same time that WalMart settles for their fraud and negligence.

Re:SO...

[nine-times]

This. We don't need some kind of special regulatory committee for aloe products specifically to address products like this. Claiming to sell one thing and then actually delivering something is already a crime, one of the most elementary crimes out there next to things like murder or theft: fraud.

I don't think anyone is claiming that we should have a special regulatory committee for aloe products. More like some people feel we should have a better regulatory framework in general for consumer protection, which might include testing of questionable products and some ability to apply punitive measures for bad actors.

Re:SO...

[Anonymous Coward]

from the heavy yolk of government regulation

Those people should beat it. Seriously, their wits must be scrambled!

If they'd come out of their shells, and let us see the whites of their eyes, we could really give them a carton of grief. But, as they say, these types are cheaper by the dozen!

Re:SO...

[nine-times]

One might also notice that this exposure alone would either incentivize the spread of the rule of law, or bringing back more industry to the US. All without a new government agency, new powers, or a bevy of new laws - but instead government just DOING WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING in the first place.

In order to investigate, test, and do something about these kinds of instances, there does need to be some kind of government agency with the resources and mandate to do it. They need to have an appropriate legal framework to empower them to do it effectively.

Frankly, the problem is your political party, the Republicans. (I'm not a Democrat. They're generally not focused on this kind of problem either, unfortunately, but at least they don't actively oppose consumer protection.) Anything that could be described as the big bad dirty "R" word (regulation!) gets quashed under the pretense that all regulation is communist and stupid, and designed to hurt America. "Poor Wal Mart. The reason they're forced to buy substandard aloe products is because they just don't have enough money! We shouldn't punish them or regulate them. Instead we should be giving them more tax breaks. I'm sure having more money in their pockets will force them to spend it on quality control and additional jobs for Americans!"

Consumer protection measures that allow consumers to make educated (and non-fraudulent) choices actually makes for a market that is more free. Empowering companies to manipulate market forces does not make the market more free.

Re:SO...

[kimvette]

They won't, because there is little profit to be had compared to warmongering, er, I mean liberating oil, er, I mean, "democratizing" other nations then awarding reconstruction and mineral rights to their corporate sponsors.

Re:SO...

[kimvette]

By slapping their name on it, they take on the responsibility of the manufacturer. There are PLENTY of "paper manufacturers" out there who do nothing more than relabel others' products with no changes to the product whatsoever.

Re:SO...

[HornWumpus]

Every liquor store is (knowingly/w willful ignorance) selling booze with false claims of age on the label.

It's just accepted that '12 years aged' means a small % is 12 years aged. Abracadabra, no problem.

Re:SO...

[Nethemas the Great]

Ironically, the product was manufactured in Texas with the aloe sourced from a company based in Florida. Natch.

Re:SO...

[sjames]

Ya think? WalMart is known for leaning on all their suppliers, hard, to cut costs.

You have a point. They'll insist on a detectable trace of something that could be aloe and paperwork that makes it look like actual corrective action has happened.

But yes, if the suppliers actually claimed they were using aloe, they are also guilty of fraud.

Re:SO...

[argStyopa]

I'm not going to argue that some Republicans aren't in the pocket of big business, certainly no moreso that Democrats are in the pocket of labor and trial lawyers. (shrug) We have a congress generally that - regardless of party or predilection - is venal, blindly tendentious, and frankly more than a little stupid.

I disagree that there "needs to be some sort of government agency" - we have PLENTY of government agencies under whose jurisdiction this COULD fall: FDA, Commerce, FTC, CPSC,
Per the US Gov't itself:
The FDA regulates products that are foods, drugs, cosmetics, or medical equipment.
FTC: As a general rule of thumb, every other consumer commodity that doesnâ(TM)t fall under FDA regulations is regulated by the FTC.
There, solved.

And before you claim "but...Republicans drain all the funding from these programs" - in a sense, yes. Republicans tend to try to take money out of government spending generally (save perhaps Defense - although GWB pre 9/11 had major plans for DoD downsizing. That's precisely why Rumsfeld got SecDef: he was a budget cutter) BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS TO HAVE EVERYTHING WE WANT. So yes, in the same sense your household might be cutting the breakfast cereal budget along with everything else because you're deeply in debt, Republicans regularly try to drain bloated and eternal programs.

I'll remind you, nevertheless, that something north of 53% of the US Fed budget goes to Health and Social Services, so if the Republicans are attacking non-defense programs, they're not winning...
https://lh5.googleusercontent....

Re:SO...

[Tom]

One might also notice that this exposure alone would either incentivize the spread of the rule of law, or bringing back more industry to the US. All without a new government agency, new powers, or a bevy of new laws - but instead government just DOING WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DOING in the first place.

Correct. The problem is that in the age of cheap-cheap-cheap, government agencies are short on resources and trapped between political bullshit.

Police looks the other way on a lot of smaller crimes on the streets not because they enjoy very much ignoring them, but because they don't have the men to do everything and it's better to focus on serious crimes.

Re:SO...

[strikethree]

from the heavy yolk of government regulation

Those people should beat it. Seriously, their wits must be scrambled!

If they'd come out of their shells, and let us see the whites of their eyes, we could really give them a carton of grief. But, as they say, these types are cheaper by the dozen!

Ummm, that yoke is not funny. ;)

Re:SO...

[nine-times]

I disagree that there "needs to be some sort of government agency" - we have PLENTY of government agencies under whose jurisdiction this COULD fall: FDA, Commerce, FTC, CPSC,

I didn't say there needed to be a *new* agency. Only there needed to be an agency with both the resources and mandate to do it.

BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS TO HAVE EVERYTHING WE WANT... in the same sense your household might be cutting the breakfast cereal budget along with everything else because you're deeply in debt, Republicans regularly try to drain bloated and eternal programs.

First, the federal government's budget is not the same as your personal budget. It doesn't work the same way, and it's just not a sensible comparison. Your decision to cut back on going out to eat doesn't effect the global economy in a way that might cause your salary to go down. But fine, let's admit to cut "bloated programs". I would just want to suggest that the best place for those cuts is not in the agencies that make sure that our food isn't poisoned or that toxic materials aren't being dumped into our water sources.

Maybe, just maybe, the Democrats are correct that ever-increasing corporate subsidies and tax cuts for billionaires aren't helping the budget either.

Wrong

[s.petry]

False advertising is a crime, it does not need additional regulation.

Re:Wrong

[dywolf]

you're talking about false advertising, ie, after the fact regulation.
when it comes to medicine and food, we've opted for the much saner, and safer, policy of before the fact regulation.

this time, yes, its aloe vera. hopefully no one is dying over its lack in these products.
but your logic is dangerous as others (including yourself if memory serves) have used it in the past as reasons why we shouldn't have the FDA regulating things before they kill people.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet here we are with millions of dollars worth of falsely labeled products being sold in major retain chains across the country. Tell us more about how well the existing regulations are working.

Re:Wrong

[s.petry]

My argument is that regulations are not necessary, which does not in any way claim that the current regulations are functioning. "More" regulation will not improve the broken system.

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Innocent until proven guilty is how our law works.

It's how criminal law works.

I'm all for taking China's approach to product adulteration by making cases like this criminal cases, then executing the CEOs and billing their families for the bullet.

I think you'll find that the CEOs will prefer the current regulatory approach instead of being held personally responsible for their actions.

Re:Wrong

[n8_f]

CompanyA sells a product that claims it contains magic. You find it has none, you sue them for false advertising.

So, I'm supposed to test the chemical makeup of every product I buy and keep some lawyers on hand so that I can sue and win... the few bucks I paid for the product. Sounds like a reasonable system. What seastead should I move to?

Re:Wrong

[Motherfucking Shit]

"More" regulation will not improve the broken system.

Consider this regulation:

Any product marketed for human consumption, or for application to the human body i) shall clearly and plainly list all constituent ingredients contained therein, and ii) shall be submitted for testing to not fewer than three independent assay laboratories for verification of such constituent ingredients prior to being sold to the public, and iii) shall undergo random quarterly testing by not fewer than three independent assay laboratories for ongoing verification of such constituent ingredients, iv) the sequential failure of any two random tests to verify the constituent ingredients are as advertised shall result in the product being recalled and really big motherfuckin' fines to the manufacturer [...]

You're saying if that was a law, it wouldn't help anything?

Re:Wrong

[s.petry]

You're saying if that was a law, it wouldn't help anything?

It would help all consumers never be able to afford a glass of Iced Tea or a bite of food. I don't call that "help" so the answer to your question is a resounding "NO". You should broadly consider your suggestions for broad regulations prior to posting them.

Re:Wrong

[Bookworm09]

CompanyA sells a product that claims it contains magic. You find it has none, you sue them for false advertising. Company has to pay you for court costs, loss of wealth in purchasing their good, and damages if any exist. CompanyA can go bankrupt in the process, and perhaps you end up owning CompanyA when all is said and done.

CompanyB sees that CompanyA did wrong, and suffered consequences for their actions. CompanyB advertises a product without magic, but instead what the product actually contains. CompanyB stays in business, and people buy their products as needed. Wow! We have just described a basic fundamental of Capitalism and how Western Law works! No need for the Department of Magic in Products which reduces the overall costs for goods. People can actually purchase _more_ of CompanyB's stuff and CompanyB can actually make more stuff, or even branch out into CompanyC.

I don't know if you're trolling or not, to expect that your average consumer is going to sue "CompanyA" over a $5 tube of aloe vera gel and somehow wind up owning said company. I couldn't convince a smart 12-year-old of that actually happening in the real world.

While your example sounds great in theory, here's what happens all too often in the real world:

CompanyA sells a product that claims it contains magic. You find it has none, but don't do anything because it is impossible for the average consumer to finance a lawsuit by themselves, and class-action lawsuits are extremely rare with a miniscule payout to everybody but the lawyers. Knowing this, 99.99% of the time people just shrug and move on with their lives. CompanyA may or may not have to pay some nominal fine which doesn't come close to the money they made through their lies.

CompanyB sees CompanyA make lots of profit and get away with it, and decides that they want a seat at the table.

And how do we know that that last part happens? Because if you had bothered to read even the summary, you would have seen that that is what actually happened.

I find it ironic that you are the one making snarky comments about cognitive dissonance.

Re:Wrong

[s.petry]

As I stated in a separate post, honesty in consumers is just as important in honesty in manufacturing. While I don't disagree with your statements in summary, I will again express that regulation does not fix those types of issues. Regulation increases consumer costs and makes consumers less likely to act under a false belief that some entity is looking out for them.

Re:Wrong

[Nethemas the Great]

Meet Bob, gross annual income $0, net -$50,000 (medical bills). He took a product promoted by the producer of some of his favorite videos promising to add an extra 3 inches. Now he's suffering from an embolism and renal failure and is unable to work due to his condition. Meet company Long Member LLC., gross annual income $250M, net $180M makers of the product Bob took.

Care to guess what'd happen should Bob decide to get frisky in between dialysis visits and try to lawyer up.

Re:Wrong

[s.petry]

There is zero constitutional separation between Criminal and Civil law.

Re:Wrong

[TheCarp]

Although, being after the fact legislation alone isn't really the whole issue.

To my mind, a much bigger issue, is that there is no incentive to catch them and, its been established time and again, that false advertising is profitable because the fines are seldom peanuts compared to the profits.

Some prime examples, Activia, not even cosmetics but food, with its fda regulation.... they have been slapped with tens of millions in fines at the same time they had multiple billions in sales.

Hard to chaulk it up to the type of regulation when its just widely accepted that the fine is worth paying; if anyone even notices.

Re:Wrong

[AvitarX]

Yes there is. For example amendment V for example.

Re:Wrong

[swalve]

More like Long Member, LLC is a subsidiary of Sheinhart Wigs, and has no assets or income to attach when Bob wins his lawsuit.

Re:Wrong

[swalve]

So you are arguing that laws requiring products actually be what they claim to be will cripple business and consumers??

Re:Wrong

[mjwx]

False advertising is a crime, it does not need additional regulation.

They've already got that one covered.

They never claimed the product contained aloe vera, it was just called Aloe Vera(TM). As aloe vera is a common term, there's no issue against using it for a product. I.E. there are no real windows in Microsoft Windows, not are there required to be.

Its the same with vitamin supplements, they are under no obligation to demonstrate any health benefits in order to say "If you take BrandX(R) Snake Oil Multi-Vitamins you'll feel better" because "feel" is too ambiguous to infer anything. It explains why multi-vitamins are worth as much to pharma companies as dick pills.

Re:Wrong

[operagost]

The ingredients list included "aloe vera", idiot.

FDA Regulation

[bano]

Article implies the FDA has no jurisdiction over this based on that they don't test cosmetics by default, but they do regulate based on it being a "misbranded" cosmetic product.
  http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/G...

The courts, the FTC, and states are watchdogs

[davidwr]

Absent other regulations, it's up to the federal trade commission, similar state-level bodies, and disgruntled customers filing lawsuits to keep companies from using deceptive advertising.

Where the FTC and state regulators don't act, it's up to consumers to sue or their advocates such as the press or Consumer's Union to shame them into honesty.

So, will we be seeing regulatory action soon, or will the land sharks be filing class-action suits, or will this be just a case of public shaming?

Or, will nothing happen at all?

Re:The courts, the FTC, and states are watchdogs

[bano]

Absent other regulations, it's up to the federal trade commission, similar state-level bodies, and disgruntled customers filing lawsuits to keep companies from using deceptive advertising.

Where the FTC and state regulators don't act, it's up to consumers to sue or their advocates such as the press or Consumer's Union to shame them into honesty.

So, will we be seeing regulatory action soon, or will the land sharks be filing class-action suits, or will this be just a case of public shaming?

Or, will nothing happen at all?

The FDA can regulate here and work with the Department of Justice to enforce in this case as this is a cosmetic that is "misbranded".
http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/G...

Re:The courts, the FTC, and states are watchdogs

[JoeMerchant]

They can, but will they? They barely inspect small medical device manufacturers once every 10 years, and even then it's not the kind of visit that would detect this kind of issue.

Throw 'em to the lawyers, it'll hurt more.

Careful?

[TWX]

How exactly are we supposed to be careful, as the summary suggests, if we cannot trust the ingredients list on the packaging to be accurate?

Re:Careful?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you see the words "Made in China" on the package you can assume it's not what you are paying for.

Re:Careful?

[doconnor]

Just remember to always bring your mass spectrometer when you go shopping.

Re:Careful?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well sure but the trick is getting it calibrated :P

Re:Careful?

[JoeMerchant]

Don't buy cosmetics and toiletries from Dollar General and the like?

Really, these places should be like "off license" restaurants in England, everybody knows they sell crap, but there's not really an official notice posted anywhere.

Re:Careful?

[AthanasiusKircher]

How exactly are we supposed to be careful, as the summary suggests, if we cannot trust the ingredients list on the packaging to be accurate?

Well, I guess in this case, you should do an internet search for the report and check whether your chosen product has been found to be legit or not.

Frankly, I'd say if you trust the ingredients list "at face value" for almost any product, you're likely to be deceived. The ingredients list is often another place for advertising tactics. Take most "natural" products. Do you pay double for that "natural" soap? Chances are that some of the vague "vegetable and plant-sourced" gobbledygook listed in the "ingredients" list is basically the same chemicals you'd find in NORMAL ("bad chemical!") soap. Yes, there are exceptions, but I figured this out several years ago when a family member came home with some a few different cleaning products that cost 3 times the regular ones. In some cases, you didn't even have a complete ingredient list on the container, so I had to go to the product website to actually find out what some of it meant... and in most cases, it was the same old crap, just packaged with a bunch of "natural" and "vegetable" and "plant-based" in front of the words.

It doesn't surprise me at all that some manufacturers go the next step and don't even include those "natural" "plant-based" ingredients at all. And who would know in some cases? In the cases of the soaps I'm talking about, there's really no easy lab test to distinguish X chemical refined from plants vs. the same produced chemically in a lab.

Sorry to be the cynic here, but it wouldn't surprise me if many "natural" products are slightly diluted versions of the same chemical crap sold for a much different price, peppered with a little "grapefruit lavender" essence to make you feel all "earthy crunchy" when you spray it.

Re:Careful?

[TWX]

The article talks about suppliers at drugstores and at Walmart. The conventional drugstores are certainly not discount places, and while Walmart is, they're not exactly scraping the bottom of the barrel like a 99-cent store is.

Re:Careful?

[JoeMerchant]

That's the fun thing about retail in America, just because they're selling "house brand" Aloe at $7.99 for a 6 oz bottle doesn't mean that it isn't, literally, sugar water.

Branding doesn't mean anything anymore... any good brand will eventually sell out to someone who is willing to devalue that brand in exchange for some quick profit.

CVS and Walgreens reputation isn't for quality, it's for convenience, and ripping you off - ask anyone walking into one of those places "do you expect to get good value for your money here?" Anyone who says "yes" is just jerking your chain - markup of a minimum of 100% is expected there, I guess they're so crowded because people are just too time/attention poor to bother buying their products from more consumer friendly outlets - even the local monopoly ripoff grocery chain sells virtually everything you can find in a CVS/Walgreens and at better prices.

Re:Careful?

[HornWumpus]

My dad actually has an obsolete mass spec in his garage.

Anybody want it? IIRC it's from about 1990.

He would love for it to go to a good home but I'm pretty sure it's just junk. Bad era for capacitors, plus years in the damp. In Missouri. I know, not craigslist...

Re:Careful?

[wildstoo]

Really, these places should be like "off license" restaurants in England

What? I live in the UK and I don't know what you're referring to. In the UK, an "off license" is an establishment that sells alcohol for consumption elsewhere. It has nothing to do with restaurants.

Restaurants do need a license to sell alcohol, but they are not called "off licenses". Some restaurants - particularly small ones - don't bother with the license, so they cannot sell alcohol, but people are allowed to BYOB if they want (albeit usually with a corkage charge). These are still not called "off licenses".

Apart from that, restaurants must adhere to the Food Standards Agency hygiene regulations. If they fail, they can be temporarily or permanently shut down. No license needed here either.

Think you might be getting your terminology confused.

Re:Careful?

[houghi]

Well, I guess in this case, you should do an internet search for the report and check whether your chosen product has been found to be legit or not.

I did that last month and I did not find it. I did a search for products this month and they are not on the list NOW.

Frankly, I'd say if you trust the ingredients list "at face value" for almost any product, you're likely to be deceived.

You can remove the almost as long as companies are not getting punished in a serious way. That means to me:
1) Remval of the product from the market for a month for the first time, a year for the secons time and indefinatly for the third time. This will include similar products that are the replacement of said product.
2) Payment of 25% sales price since the product came out. 100% for the secons time and 250% for the third time. Sales price to the customer, not their sales price.
3) Criminal charges to the directors starting with the second time.

Re:Careful?

[mjwx]

Frankly, I'd say if you trust the ingredients list "at face value" for almost any product, you're likely to be deceived.

Where I live, the ingredients list is legally required to contain the ingredients listed on the packet... in order of quantity, largest to smallest.

Yes, companies have been fined before for ignoring this law, in fact there are government organisations set up for the express purpose of finding companies who are lying on their packaging. This is how we found the Tesco horse meat scandal.

If the situation is different in your country, that's your problem to deal with.

Sorry to be the cynic here, but it wouldn't surprise me if many "natural" products are slightly diluted versions of the same chemical crap sold for a much different price,

Here I agree.

However not much can be done as it's not dangerous or even that deceptive. The same as "Organic". Because natural and organic have very vague definitions, there are no requirements for government certification with these labels. "Organic" is any product containing organic molecules, likewise in Australia, for products, the legal definition of "natural" is any product made using natural processes (yes, the definition of the word references itself). As it's not dangerous, it's not really any of the governments business though.

So absolutely terms like "natural" and "organic" are abused to market more expensive products, absolutely are many of these "natural" and "organic" products are the same as their unbranded counterparts and absolutely the only difference is that the "natural" one costs a few $ more...

But it's an exercise of caveat emptor, not under-regulation.

Check out this segment from an Australian show called The Checkout

Re:Careful?

[JoeMerchant]

When I was in London (early 1990s) out in the 'burbs like Golders Green and such, there were restaurants with placards clearly posted on them notifying of the fact that the place hadn't passed food safety standards... these were often ethnic restaurants, but could be of any type.

I was only there for a week, didn't really dig into the issue, but when I asked people I was staying with what it was about, that's what they told me.

Re:Careful?

[TWX]

Changing capacitors is not that difficult to do...

As much as I want one I already have that space set aside for the Bridgeport mill...

Re:Careful?

[TWX]

It's been done before.

Re:Careful?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

the only time I end up in a CVS or Walgreens is when I am picking up a prescription as their pharmacies are open 24/7 and at that point anything else I would buy there at 3AM when dealing with a sick child would cost just as much at a gas station which is also open 24/7.

Re:Careful?

[AthanasiusKircher]

None of this is remotely relevant to a product that lists Aloe Vera as the main ingredient and contains no Aloe Vera at all.

Ingredients lists are frequently misleading for unregulated products. While it may not be exactly like the case here, I'm pretty sure that's a fairly similar issue to what we're talking about.

That extends even beyond cases where an ingredient is actually missing. And note that I DID actually discuss cases where an ingredient might be missing -- due to the way manufacturers disguise similar chemicals by making the ingredient listed more vague and putting "natural" or "vegetable-based" in front of it. But even a basic lab test might not be able to tell you whether they had actually used a "natural" version of that chemical... HENCE there may be plenty more examples of things out there that say "contains X" but actually what you're getting is something different.

(P.S. Of course I recognize in such a case that there would no functional difference between the chemicals. My point is that some consumers apparently WANT the "plant-based" version of something, and often are willing to pay a significant premium for it. So if they aren't getting it, it's a similar scam to what's going on here.)

Re: Careful?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Not sure what the point to that rant was. You claim the ingredients list can't be trusted. Then, as an example, you use a time that you read the ingredients list and it proved to be a handy resource.

I said an ingredients list is used for ADVERTISING and thus frequently contains distortions of what is actually there, intended to fool consumers.

Some people are scared of certain chemicals. In many cases, such fears may be irrational, but that's beside the point. They've decided that certain chemicals are things they'd prefer to not have in stuff they buy. Let's say there's a chemical they don't like called X.

So they go to a store, and they know most of the "regular" stuff contains X. They see it in the ingredients. So, they look for the "natural" product alternatives. They look at the ingredients. It does not say X in the ingredients. Instead, it says "plant-based Y," where Y is a superset of things that might contain X... but they don't know that, because they're not chemists. They're just looking for ingredient X.

So, what I did when a family member brought this home -- since I have some knowledge of chemistry -- was to say, "Huh... what's this Y stuff anyway?" And I couldn't tell from the ingredients list, so I needed to go to a corporate website and dig through several layers of links to find the REAL ingredients list... and guess what... X was there!

If you'd call that a "handy resource," I suppose you have a different definition from me. I'd call that deliberate deception and distortion to try to market items that a company knows are disliked (however irrationally) to unsuspecting users for three times the price of the "normal" stuff. Maybe you think people interested in "natural products" are often irrational wackos and deserve to be parted from their money... as apparently these corporations do. I may think these folks are irrational, but I don't subscribe to the view that cheating them out of money through deceptive advertising is morally okay (even if legally okay).

Re:Careful?

[HornWumpus]

My priorities as well. Actually I need to build the shop first. Current garage is #1 priority item on capital improvements list.

Even if I had the space, a mass spec would be right out. Clean used Haas toolroom mill and lathe on the other hand. I could build a monster...damn surly villagers.

Maybe they'll find Aloe in maltodextrin products

[JoeyRox]

See, just some zany mix-up at the factory!

UCC

[OrangeTide]

FDA doesn't really matter. It's not necessary for them to regulate these products for consumer protection, as there are other laws and agencies that can help.
FTC, Universal Commercial Code and U.S. Code Title 15 already cover Truth in Advertising and Fair Labeling and Packaging.

IANAL but here's one possible example that could allow consumers and attorneys to go after these guys: Title 15 Chapter 39 Section 1452.

(a) Nonconforming labels

It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in the packaging or labeling of any consumer commodity (as defined in this chapter) for distribution in commerce, or for any person (other than a common carrier for hire, a contract carrier for hire, or a freight forwarder for hire) engaged in the distribution in commerce of any packaged or labeled consumer commodity, to distribute or to cause to be distributed in commerce any such commodity if such commodity is contained in a package, or if there is affixed to that commodity a label, which does not conform to the provisions of this chapter and of regulations promulgated under the authority of this chapter.
(b) Exemptions

The prohibition contained in subsection (a) shall not apply to persons engaged in business as wholesale or retail distributors of consumer commodities except to the extent that such persons (1) are engaged in the packaging or labeling of such commodities, or (2) prescribe or specify by any means the manner in which such commodities are packaged or labeled.

Re:UCC

[Anonymous Coward]

Not surprising given the stories in Poorly Made in China

Re:UCC

[OrangeTide]

One reason I hate buying stuff made in other countries is that it can be very difficult to hold companies overseas accountable (ex: sue them for damages). If a cheap tool from Harbor Freight breaks and takes out my eyes, can I sue Harbor Freight? They'll probably point the finger at the overseas manufacturer (and rightly so). But I really doubt I'll have any luck suing a Chinese company in a Chinese court or International court. (nevermind the tremendous expense for initiating such a case).

Re:UCC

[Orgasmatron]

Why complicate things?

18 USC 47 - Fraud and False Statements

Re:UCC

[OrangeTide]

I couldn't find anything there that might apply. Most of the chapters on fraud seem to be about ripping off the government, the title doesn't seem to concerned about private entities ripping one another off. If I make false documents then a lot of things apply in title 18. But the printing on a package of hand soap is not a document in this context. And while the FDA nutritional information label might be considered a document or have some official regulated status, hand lotion doesn't require such a label.

Re:UCC

[Digicrat]

Exactly, companies are sued for false advertising all the time. Now that the game has been exposed, I'm sure the lawyers are running in circles to be the first to file such a lawsuit and up it to class-action status. Of course, at best the average customer will end up getting a coupon to exchange any partly used bottle of false Aloe Vera for a free bottle of "real" Aloe Vera while the lawyers get another mountain of $$$ and the manufacturers continue milking consumers on other undetected falsehoods.

(I sure am optimistic today, aren't I?)

Re:UCC

[HornWumpus]

You should always assume every tool will break and protect yourself accordingly.

No tool company will be able to replace your eye.

Re:UCC

[Anonymous Coward]

But make sure you buy protective gear made in.... eh wait a minute, we'll keep going around in circles with this argument, won't we?

Re:UCC

[Bob the Super Hamste]

You should always assume every tool will break and protect yourself accordingly.

I do assume that but the failure mode of cheap tools is very different from good ones. For example good sockets will just snap and have a big crack in them, I've had this happen hundreds of times from everything from Craftsman up to nice Snap-On and MAC tools, as something will break when you put an 8' steel pipe on the end of a breaker bar. Now with shitty sockets (or shitty tools in general) they will instead shatter. What is interesting is looking at the broken part the good tools had nice tiny grains, the cheap ones that shattered had grains larger than what I have see on brake disks and rotors.

Re:UCC

[HornWumpus]

An old, high quality tool can be work hardened and surprise you.

Unless you owned it since it was new, you can't know if some moron used a regular socket on an impact and it's now ready to shatter. There are usually marks but not always.

I just try to keep my safety glasses on when wrenching. Own a couple of decent ones.

Re:UCC

[Bob the Super Hamste]

My tools have all been new when I got them and I don't have an impact driver so I know it isn't that. The Snap-On and MAC sockets that I have broken were all impact sockets (when I worked at U-Haul) so it isn't like they were the regular ones. It seems a lot of the cheap tools were likely cast instead of forged, or cooled and hardened improperly either way the difference in the grain structure was dramatic when looking at the broken cross section. Like I said the cheap ones had grains larger than what I have seen when I have broken up brake drums and rotors.

I actually always wear safety glasses since getting some nice prescription glasses that are also safety glasses isn't too difficult and since I need safety glasses so often it just simplifies things.

Re:UCC

[HornWumpus]

I love the H-13 tool steel, pain in the ass that it might be.

But I can't afford or want to make all my own tools. I've seen the best steel turn brittle in punishing environments. An impact socket is punished (still not an injection mold ejector).

Wish there was a tom's hardware or anadtech for old school tools. The market would justify it. I'd love to know the chinese company making _great_ tools, and I know that company is having a hell of a time being noticed more than 100 km from home.

Re:UCC

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I would as well as there really is a lot of cheap crap out there that looks well made even if it isn't but there are still some companies that aren't making crap. My general rule of thumb is to now only buy tools new from a store that will handle the return right there on the spot. If it requires mailing in some busted tool I won't trust it but if the store will take it and give me a new one I will likely buy it. As Ace now carries Craftsman and Stanley tools and will do the lifetime replacement in store I buy most from them now. I do however like Estwing and Vaughan striking tools, and my Hobart wire feed welder (basically Miller's consumer line) you would have to pry out of my cold dead hands.

Screw the industry. Go Native.

[geekmux]

"You have to be very careful when you select and use aloe products,"...

Or, you could just go buy a damn aloe plant and say screw it to the entire industry and the pathetic controls they've (not) implemented to prevent this kind of consumer abuse in the first place.

Most people are using aloe gel for a specific purpose that the aloe plant itself can easily fulfill.

Ripe for Biohackery...

[Terrin2k]

By that I mean simply grow your own. :) Aloe is a hardy plant and is perfectly content for you to leave it alone with just a bit of water now and then. It is also happy to give up a branch/frond/whateveryoucallit whenever you need a bit of the sap to soothe a burn. ~ T

Doesn't matter anyway

[edxwelch]

There's no evidence that Walmart gel has Aloe Vera, but there's also no evidence that Aloe Vera has any cosmentic value in the first place.
This is from the Wikipedia:
"There is little scientific evidence of the effectiveness or safety of Aloe vera extracts for either cosmetic or medicinal purposes. A research study finding positive evidence[7] is frequently contradicted by other studies."

Re:Doesn't matter anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Positive correlation with healing:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7561562
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10808702

Negative correlation with healing:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2047051

Review:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17499928

Also Troubling

[Anonymous Coward]

In other related news, there is no evidence of babies in samples of Baby Oil, nor of motors in Motor Oil!

Re:Also Troubling

[tysonedwards]

Or Girl Scouts in Girl Scout Cookies. This is some weapons grade bull shit deceptive advertising at its best!

Re:Also Troubling

[Scarletdown]

In other related news, there is no evidence of babies in samples of Baby Oil, nor of motors in Motor Oil!

That is a really bad comparison. In the case of baby oil and motor oil, the ingredients listed on the bottles don't say there are babies or motors in the oil. The Aloe bottles actually did list Aloe as one of the top ingredients.

If you are going to try to make a comparison joke, at least have some factual basis for comparison.

Re:Also Troubling

[Scarletdown]

Or Girl Scouts in Girl Scout Cookies. This is some weapons grade bull shit deceptive advertising at its best!

The ingredients mention nothing of girl Scouts. The aloe bottles in question do indeed declare there is aloe in them.

Still, that was still a great gag in the Addams Family movie. Wednesday pulled off the punchline perfectly.

Re:Also Troubling

[HornWumpus]

Wednesday had all the good lines.

Re:Also Troubling

[AmiMoJo]

I remember the pro-life "ban baby oil!" campaign from the 90s...

Re:Also Troubling

[strikethree]

I don't know where you get your Girl Scout cookies at but mine come with real Girl Scouts inside.

Yes, we do need regulation

[Pollux]

Criminal litigation or civil lawsuits alone don't solve the problem. There are lots of criminals looking to capitalize on short-term opportunity, then close up shop before Lady Justice brings the pain. We need regulators who can actively sniff out fraudulent activity.

Otherwise, any fly-by-night company looking to make a quick profit will be happy to sell counterfeit Copper Clad Aluminum data cables, which can easily catch and spread fire, or cheap batteries that are also more fire prone, or toys with lead paint, or counterfeit medicines, and so on. It's like the snake oil salesmen of yore...by the time the townsmen realize they were sold an empty promise, the salesman has already packed the wagon and moved onto the next town.

Lawsuits only work on the Walmarts, business who aren't going away anytime soon.

Re:Yes, we do need regulation

[Pfhorrest]

If "the salesman has already packed the wagon and moved onto the next town", why do the lawmen not follow them to the next town over? This isn't ancient Greece where you just leave the city and you're in a different country. When some fly-by-night company springs up, sells a bad product, and then "closes up shop", whoever did that is still around somewhere, and we can find them and punish them. If for some reason we're not finding them and punishing them, well, there's the problem right there.

Prior restraint of action is the literal antithesis of liberty, where you're not allowed to do anything without getting permission first, effectively presumed guilty until proven innocent. But to make sure that liberty does not become anomie, we have to make sure that if your actions bring negative consequences, they are suffered by you only, not an innocent party. If we're letting people cause harm and get away with it scot free, the solution is to not let them get away with it, not to make everyone ask permission first and prove themselves innocent before they attempt to do anything.

Re:Yes, we do need regulation

[swalve]

There is a big difference between individual liberty to visit bookstores, churches and social clubs as we wish, and business's "liberty" to just put sawdust on the shelf and call it food. When this fly-by-night company is incorporated, the individuals are by law not responsible. You SHOULD have to prove your product is what the label says it is before you can offer it for sale. If that is prior restraint, then I'm all for it.

Re:Yes, we do need regulation

[Bob the Super Hamste]

and business's "liberty" to just put sawdust on the shelf and call it food

They do that already. Just look for the word cellulose in any form on food labeling. It could be worse, they could be deliberately mixing bugs into food. Well shit, at least it isn't as bad as haggis sounds.

Mod parent up

[rsilvergun]

Mod them up so f'n hard. Where are my Mod points when I need 'em.

Only about 60 million proved that

[rsilvergun]

and they used a massive, decades (centuries?) long campaign of voter suppression to do it (did you know voting increases your odds of Jury duty? Every poor person I've ever met does).

How about enforcement?

[rsilvergun]

Something I wish we could get folks to understand. The best law in the world is useless without enforcement. Here in Arizona we've got labor laws but the dept of labor is unstaffed (not understaffed, it's just not staffed). The right wing long since learned that trick, pity nobody else did...

Re: Ironic that "aloe vera" means "true aloe" !

[Anonymous Coward]

No, aloe vera means "green aloe". It was discovered and named by an Italian botanist, Marcello di Berghi, and in Italian green=vera.

Moronic

[s.petry]

Hyperbole much? No, you are supposed to have faith that a company sells you what you they claim to be selling you. If you find out that they are not, you take the appropriate legal action. Or perhaps you simply don't purchase their products and tell other people about your bad experience, which in the market means that they lose business. Honesty as a consumer is just as important as honesty as a manufacturer.

The FDA does not know how much acetaminophen is in every single pill for every single brand of pain reliever. They collect money to test samples at specific frequencies. You purchase your Tylenol on faith that Tylenol is not going to screw you, not that the FDA is not going to screw you. For all you know, except for inspection day Tylenol could be loading every pill in line with a placebo to save a few bucks. The reason they don't has nothing to do with the FDA, and everything to do with maintaining consumer confidence in their products.

Re:Moronic

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I would say that Tylenol is one brand that proved it should be trusted. There the company took the over cautious step or recalling all products nationwide while trying to figure out what it had done wrong, hint they weren't at fault. For those that don't know about the incident or won't bother to read the article the incident was someone who poisoned some bottles on store shelves but Tylenol went to great lengths to figure out what they might have done wrong.

less regulation == GOOD!

[tekrat]

And remember that our new president wants less regulation on business, so expect more of this bait and switch in the future.

Hell, you will be lucky if your food contains food. Remember how the chinese were selling cardboard as food? That's us in the future, being "competitive" -- we must close the cardboard as food gap.

I for one, welcome our fake aloe bearing overlords.

The Chinese way

[liquid_schwartz]

Is it just me or if there are 3 marker chemicals does everyone expect those three to be in the next batch. Until a fourth marker chemical proves these fraudulent also. The baby milk poisoning that happened in Chine (citation below) was covered up for a while because they only tested for a marker chemical.

Citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

The next big thing on smart phones.

[seoras]

I recently wrote an App for a company that's building AI models of organic and non-organic substances.
The App works over bluetooth with a pocket sized, battery powered, NIR spectrum analyser made by Texas Instruments.
TI DLP® NIRscan Nano

This technology will be the next big thing on smart phones which are crying out for something new to revitalise the market.
Pick a time frame. I'd go for 5->7 years from now that right next to the camera on all smart phones we'll see an NIR scanner.

Imagine being able to scan anything and get a report of it's contents and make up?
Fake, or out of date pharmaceuticals, will be a thing of the past.
Nut allergy? Scan the meal you've just be served before eating it.
Consumer products like Aloe Vera Gel not containing Aloe Vera? Your phone can tell you that it's a fraud.
The list of applications is endless.

Here's a demo video of the App identifying real and fake viagra pills.

Tricorder Trekkies? :)

Re:The next big thing on smart phones.

[Yvan256]

Imagine being able to scan food for allergens, vegetarians, vegans, things to avoid for religious reasons, etc.

Re:Screw the industry. Go Native.

[freeze128]

I have a brown thumb. Plants die around me.

Coding to the benchmarks

[Tablizer]

Aloe's three chemical markers -- acemannan, malic acid and glucose -- were absent in the tests

If you limit your tests to 3 markers, and tell everybody about them, the producers will put artificial versions of them in to fake the tests. It's Volkswagen all over again.

Non-profit inspectors [Re:government regulations]

[Tablizer]

A non-profit testing group could be setup by all sorts of industries to verify these kinds of things.

Has something comparable been set up that actually works? It's not only a lot of products to periodically test, but seems ripe for collusion if the industry itself sets it up.

Good labs and lab technicians are not cheap. It's going to need substantial funding.

It's an interesting idea on paper, but I'm skeptical it can fly for this kind of thing.

Here is the crux of the entire story

[p51d007]

Several law firms, including Bloomfield Hills, Michigan-based Barbat, Mansour & Suciu PLLC, have filed lawsuits against the four retailers after separate testing failed to find aloe in the companies’ private-label products. They’re seeking class-action status and restitution for all the customers who they say were misled. Also, some testing using the method used, will not detect aloe. My guess is there will be testing by the supplier.

Re:Screw the industry. Go Native.

[HornWumpus]

How do you get the plant to grow containing lidocaine?

Censorship

[s.petry]

There is nothing redundant about this post. Censorship is evil!

Fake products

[dhalsim2]

This reminds me of an article I read saying that most people in the U.S. have never actually tasted cinnamon, that the product sold in the U.S. is actually cassia a relative of cinnamon, but not actually cinnamon. Supposedly, once you try the real stuff, you'll never want this fake stuff again.

Another similar issue: I grew up putting what I thought was maple syrup on my waffles and pancakes. It was only after I got married that my wife told me that she's not down for that corn syrup and that we needed to get real maple syrup. Once I tried the real stuff, yeah, it's hard to go back.

Great idea, but how would that work?

[drew_kime]

How would I demonstrate that the product is falsely labeled? I still don't have a lab.

How would I pay for the experts to testify against Wal-Mart? They might hire a lawyer to disagree.

How would I establish standing? My actual damages are limited to the amount I've personally spent on the fraudulent products. Oh, maybe I get a class action certified! Now I need dozens of lawyers.

Who does Wal-Mart pay the damages to? If the answer is "the class members" you really mean "mostly the lawyers".

Without an agency funded and tasked to do this, it's not worth anyone's time and effort to do it themselves.

Re:Screw the industry. Go Native.

[Yvan256]

This only means you haven't mastered toilet paper yet.

Re:Maybe Read the Ingredients Twice

[Yvan256]

http://geekologie.com/2012/02/...

Why do people buy this?

[ArylAkamov]

Just grow the plant. I've got three of them and just rip off a vine/leaf/tentacle when I need it.

Great for 4th of july burns from DIY fun and roman candle fights, I've yet to find anything better for burns.

Re:Why do people buy this?

[green1]

Better yet, buy something that actually works.

I've tried Aloe (from the plant itself) and while it's certainly better than nothing, it is nowhere near as good as a proper lidocaine cream or gel. I tend to use SolarCaine (not their Aloe version, the original one) As an added bonus, you don't end up all sticky afterwards.

Re:Why do people buy this?

[ArylAkamov]

Oh? I'll try that next time then. That was always the annoying part about aloe.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Screw the industry. Go Native.

[geekmux]

How do you get the plant to grow containing lidocaine?

How do you know lidocaine is actually in the product you're buying?

(Ironically, that's why we're here discussing this.)

I for one am shocked!!! (not)

[SpiralBound]

So... consider these two things:
1) Aloe Vera isn't an abundant or fast growing plant compared to something like... grass or dandylions.
2) The amount of "aloe vera" products in mass production is, well, massive.
We shouldn't really be surprised. Now, the lack of any labelling oversight... Why is there ANY category of product where labelling isn't legally required to be honest and accurate? Does the product type really matter? Why DOESN'T government just state that ANYTHING sold for ANY usage must contain full and accurate ingredient labelling? This is the more important concern IMO.

Re:Screw the industry. Go Native.

[HornWumpus]

Because lidocaine is a topical anesthetic, you can feel the effect.

Re:Non-profit inspectors [Re:government regulation

[Archangel Michael]

UL