RFK Jr: Americans ‘Can’t Trust What’s On the Ingredient Label’. Can Kiwis, Either?
Jordan Kelly • 25 August 2024

If You Knew What He Knows, You'd Be A LOT More Inquisitive About Names Used On Ingredient Labels

Ever so slowly, people across the globe (in Western societies, at least) have been waking up to the fact that "the government" doesn't protect their interests to anything like the degree they have long-assumed it does, and most especially when it comes to issues such as the ingredients in the food products that are permitted to enter the market.


But like so many subjects where transparency is often hard-won, it's part of a much broader issue that's akin to the proverbial peeling back of the many layers of an onion.


One of those layers beyond food labeling per se, is the language and terminology used on the labels . . . the issue being that highly deceptive names are historically, routinely and persistently used by food processors and manufacturers (actually, not just food, either) to bamboozle the consumer and/or to lull them into a false sense of security.


And unfortunately, as high-profile environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy (a current runner in the U.S. Presidential elections race) explains in this prime time Fox News segment (with an extremely daring host), in the case of many highly health-damaging ingredients, a name is given to them that, contrary to their actual and very negative impacts, gives consumers the impression these components are actually healthy.


Why You CANNOT Trust Government Regulatory Agencies to 'Have Your Back', As A Consumer


This is precisely why consumers simply cannot assume government agencies "have their back". The reality is, the more the health-conscious consumer digs into the hornet's nest of vested interests and revolving doors between Big Ag, Big Food, and government regulatory agencies, the more it becomes evident that "the back" those agencies "have" is the back of the commercial interests, not "the people".


Is New Zealand's government agency regulatory scene any different? I've done no deep dive (or any dive, YET) into the matter . . . but suffice to ask this question:  Why would it be?


The below Fox News / RFK Jr segment represents a highly worthwhile investment of 7 minutes and 5 seconds of your time.


One thing I would particularly like to highlight from the segment is the deceptive use of the descriptor, "natural flavour". I've known since the 1990s that this is a real demon in disguise. I was alerted to it by the horse's mouth (I use that term, in this instance, with great respect) of Australian food technology.


I "went out on my own" (in marketing communications consulting) as quite a young sprout, and managed to score, as a client, Australia's largest beverages producer and related foods mega-conglomerate, Berrivale Orchards Ltd (far more commonly known in the marketplace by its umbrella brand name, Berri Fruit Juices).


"Jordan, there's NO SUCH THING as a 'natural' additive!"  (Chief food tech, to me, during my time servicing Australia's largest beverages manufacturer)


One day, in a private conversation centred around my health-consciousness re additives and my stated preference for products containing only "natural flavours", BVO's (as the company was referred to in internal communications) chief scientist / head of food technology confided in me:  "Jordan, there is NO SUCH THING as a 'natural' additive. If it's ADDED to a product, it's a CHEMICAL. There's no difference between just 'flavour' and 'natural flavour' on a label. They're ALL CHEMICALS."


I've never forgotten, and I've never since (knowingly) bought a THING with "natural flavour" or any "flavour" listed on the ingredients. Although I have certainly thrown a fair few products into the garbage, that I HAVE bought, and I'm sure they DID have flavour additives and didn't list them in the ingredients.


And just before I close my commentary and let you get to the below 7-minute and 5-second Fox News / RFK Jr segment, just so you can see the deceptiveness of the food and beverage manufacturing industry, here's an action that got leveled at Berrivale by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission back in September of 1996, relating to alleged misleading labeling:


BVO's premium brand, The Daily Juice Company, was positioned in the market as "fresh-squeezed daily". Its front labels sung it out, as did its multi-million dollar national advertising and promotional campaigns. Yeah, well - as the ACCC discovered - a good proportion of that "fresh-squeezed, daily" juice was actually reconstituted juice (not the same thing by a looong shot). I'd seen the "reconstituting" thereof during my factory visits to the company's South Australian Riverland-located primary manufacturing plant . . . and it wasn't a particularly healthy-looking sight - IMHO.


So you get the point. When it comes to food labeling, it's not only an issue of making sure food is labeled - but making sure it's not labeled deceptively. Which it is in very many cases . . . and the manufacturers, marketers, and not-very-neutral government regulatory "watchdogs", are NOT there to have YOUR back. Believe me. As lauded environmental lawyer (first and foremost, before being a politician), Robert Kennedy Jr, explains in this fast-paced, with examples, segment:

Other News, Reviews & Commentary

by Jordan Kelly 4 June 2025
Hey PowerCo: I Do NOT Appreciate You Giving Out My Email Address to Research Companies . . . Especially Those Who Treat YOUR Customers with Utter Contempt (& Spam Them)
by Jordan Kelly 3 June 2025
Why You Should Teach ALL Employees to Value Your Brand
by Jordan Kelly 26 May 2025
Ministry of Social Development Employee Sprays Around A Client's Private Information, then Sends It to A Journalist 
by Jordan Kelly 25 May 2025
Learn the Plays & Ploys of New Zealand Government Agencies to Beat Them At Their Own Sordid Game Since starting 'The Customer & The Constituent' back in January 2024, I've been learning things about the New Zealand political scene as it relates to Ministers and their Ministries (or agencies or bureaus), and also the behind-the-curtain Parliamentary machinations related to them. Things I almost wish now that I didn't know. But they're things that, for better or for worse, ALL New Zealanders should know, about the way the New Zealand Government and its "public service" really operates. If you don't know how things operate in reality (not just the PR fluff on their websites) in some of these big-name agencies that we are forced to deal with in one way or another, at some time or another, depending on the need or issue you're attempting to have solved or resolved, you could go around in ever-increasing frustrating circles for weeks, months and even years. Before getting absolutely nowhere . And the worst part is: That's the intention . The 5 D's 1) Delay 2) Defer 3) Deny 4) Defend 5) Dismissed They're largely self-explanatory, but it's an absolute playbook that they stick to, and apparently senior agency bureaucrats and Ministers and their staff are taught this as a rite of passage into parliamentary and career public "roles" . . . and then are sworn to secrecy over it, in a manner that almost has "Eyes Wide Shut" secret society overtones to it. You NEVER refer to the '5 D's' outside of the walls of inner sanctums. However, I'd add two more "D"s to their list: The sixth: Deaf (as in, Ignore). The seventh: Dumb .. And oh my goodness, let me count the ways (which I will do in further articles in this Series, in specific, detailed and named examples). So between your introduction herein to the 'D's', and my ongoing and, I hope, enlightening, series for your continuing and essential edification regarding How Wellington Really Works, I trust that you'll end up knowing how to deal with this sordid scene in a more strategic manner, for a less infuriating time, and maybe even with an outcome. Although there's no guarantee that any "outcome" won't be no outcome. Because that's almost always their intention. Oh, and I do hope that my pieces actually do become an ongoing series, because they do "hit men" (of sorts), too. Yeah, really. Paid generously (with your money, by the way) to "remove" "difficult" ( their words; not mine) individuals. Like me. Stay tuned. See you again shortly. I hope. (PS: I think a feel a book coming on.) COMING NEXT : A drill-down on each of the 'D's. And next up after that: The detailed argument I'll put to the private sector on why hiring an ex-bureaucrat is a very bad idea ( Hint: You might think it gives you in-house lobbyist power and back-door influence, but the price you'll pay is the '5D' customer service anti-culture they'll foster throughout your organisation. Even IF you keep them away from the frontline, it will happen by osmosis anyway. And faster than you think. The worst part? The longer you keep them, the more irreversible the damage they'll seed in your culture. Which then hits your brand. And so on. So, to C-suites everywhere, this will be a read you NEED .
by Jordan Kelly 25 May 2025
Thousands Sign Up to 'Better Wellington' Movement, Seeking Urgent Cessation to Unaffordable Rates, Economic Decay and 'Wrong Direction' of City Council
by Jordan Kelly 20 May 2025
To the Silly Old Placard-Waving (& Terrorist-Supporting) Fools . . . As Seen Daily On the Corner of Chapel & Perry Streets in Masterton
by Jordan Kelly 18 May 2025
** READERS: SEE UPDATE AT END OF ARTICLE. - The Ed. ** Dear MDC Management, Do You Have Any Standards for Your Call Centre Contractors?
by Jordan Kelly 15 May 2025
Being Known As the Woman Who Introduced 'C---' into the New Zealand Parliament, Wasn't A Smart Long-Term Strategy
by Jordan Kelly 14 May 2025
Cheap Trumps Standards, Ethics & Compassion . . . Apparently
by Jordan Kelly 13 May 2025
A Massive Upside IF It's Done Right . . . and An Unrecoverable Downside It It's Not
Show More