Don’t Believe Anything You Read About Pomegranate Juice

"SUPER HEALTH POWERS!" Or not.<a href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-151419575/stock-photo-pomegranate.html?src=cTjAwRCgr9t8M2mpzLfnTA-1-7">Orlio/Shutterstock


In ancient Greek mythology, pomegranates symbolized death. They were certainly a source of grief for Coca-Cola on Thursday morning, when the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the pomegranate juice company POM Wonderful can sue Coke for marketing a product that contains 99.4 percent apple and grape juice as “Blueberry Pomegranate.”

And like many Greek myths, the Supreme Court decision is also rich with irony: POM is currently locked in a separate court battle over allegations that its own pomegranate juice marketing misleads consumers.

Both companies have relied on some pretty questionable rhetoric. Coke claimed that because the Food and Drug Administration had approved its juice label, it couldn’t be sued under other trademark laws for misleading consumers. “We don’t think that consumers are quite as unintelligent as POM must think they are,” Coke’s lawyer Kathleen Sullivan told the Court in April—an argument that fell flat when Justice Anthony Kennedy responded, “Don’t make me feel bad because I thought that this was pomegranate juice.”

But as HBO’s John Oliver has pointed out, POM isn’t exactly a hero here. In September 2010, the Federal Trade Commission charged POM with falsely claiming that its products could prevent or treat a variety of medical conditions. According to the FTC, claims that POM juice has “SUPER HEALTH POWERS!… Backed by $25 million in medical research [and p]roven to fight for cardiovascular, prostate and erectile health” have no basis in reality.

POM has contested the FDA’s complaint, but so far, judges have sided with the federal agency. The case has made its way to federal appeals court in Washington, where the judges don’t seem particularly sympathetic. At a hearing in May, Judge Merrick Garland read one of POM’s ads aloud and said, “I don’t understand if you look at those two paragraphs how you can say that it’s not misleading.”

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.