Claims extracted
14
sentences that state something as happening or true
Uncertain
21%
3 of 14 hedged
("reportedly", "may", "according to")
Leaning
Leans left
of the writing, not the subject · beta estimate
Publisher signals
66/100
New York Post's corrections and
hedging, across everything collected from it. Not a measure of accuracy.
Outlets on this story
1
Other
Same framing elsewhere
1
articles that frame the event the way this one does
Grocery giant Trader Joe’s and fruit-snack titan Welch’s are facing a barrage of federal class action lawsuits claiming their “sugar-free” and “no sugar added” treats are sweet little lies.
asserted
treats → face → lawsuits
The legal onslaught centers on a trendy low-calorie sweetenerallulose — which plaintiffs argue is, legally and chemically speaking, pure sugar.
asserted
plaintiffs → center → sweetenerallulose
Sign up for the California Morning Report newsletter
The biggest news, opinion and culture shaping California right now.
Thanks for signing up!
asserted
Sign → sign → California
A proposedclass-action lawsuit filed against Trader Joe’s in Illinois federal court claims the cult-favorite grocer misled shoppers with its “no sugar added” dark chocolate chips because the product is sweetened with allulose.
uncertain
product → file → allulose
Meanwhile, four separate lawsuits filed in California, Illinois, and New York this month takes aim at Welch’s Zero Sugar Fruity Bites, including its Mixed Fruit, Berries ‘N Cherries and Island Fruits varieties.
asserted
lawsuits → file → varieties
Those lawsuits similarly allege the snacks are marketed as sugar-free even though allulose is used as a sweetener — luring shoppers in to buy the product based on the promise of zero sugar.
asserted
allulose → allege → sugar
Filed on Sept. 16, the complaint against Trader Joe’s argues that allulose is a monosaccharide, or simple sugar, and therefore falls within the regulatory definition of sugar.
asserted
allulose → file → sugar
The claims state that it’s hardly a trace ingredient, either, and it’s actually listed second in the chocolate chips fine print — behind unsweetened chocolate and ahead of cocoa butter.
The Illinois consumers who filed the complaint, Erin Alexander and Hailey Worthy, accuse the California-based grocery chain of “health washing” to cash in on health-conscious shoppers looking to trim their waistlines.
uncertain
who → state → waistlines
“Defendant made its Representations about ‘No Sugar Added’ to its Product in order to induce health-conscious consumers, like Plaintiffs, to purchase the Product,” the complain reads.
asserted
complain → make → Product
The consumers maintain that they relied on the “no sugar added” representation, and if they had known it contained allulose, they either would not have purchased the chocolate chips or would have paid substantially less.
asserted
they → maintain → less
Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters
The proposed suit seeks to represent consumers who bought the product in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Washington.
asserted
who → download → Illinois
The plaintiffs are asking for compensatory, statutory and punitive damages as well as restitution and attorney’s fees.
asserted
plaintiffs → ask → damages
The lawsuits don’t necessarily claim that allulose has the same nutritional or metabolic effects as ordinary sugar.
uncertain
allulose → claim → sugar
Rather, they argue that companies cannot advertise foods as containing no sugar or no sugar added while using an ingredient that meets the regulatory definition of one.
asserted
that → argue → one
The Aporia
