North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio

[Lisa Almarode <lisaalmarode@yahoo.com>]

How about "Better-than-Jam"?

Actually, if you're looking for the customers who are doing web 
searches, you might just add a couple of products to your lineup 
that are proper Jam and Jelly, so get it on the web page and in 
searches.  When the customer arrives, then they can see the range of 
products you have, and the text should make it clear the advantages 
of a lower-sugar product.  You can even educate the customer that you 
can't call these other products Jam, that legally Jam must have 65% 
sugar (yuck, by the way), but these fruit spreads are just like Jam 
otherwise.  And maybe some customers will buy the high-sugar 
products...

While some might call this bait-and-switch, it's really just a process
of education - I would have no idea what to look for if I wanted to 
find a jam that was lower in sugar. 

Lisa in Ashland Oregon


--- Jim Fruth <jfruth@uslink.net> wrote:

>    As many of you know, we make jam, jelly and preserves for sale
> commercially and we grow all of the fruit that is in it.
>    We were recently dealt a blow from the USDA.  We have always
> strove to
> make a low-sugar product which most folks really appreciate.  Then,
> one day,
> not long ago, our inspector sent samples of our products to the
> USDA's lab.
> When the results came back, we were told that we are in violation of
> federal
> law in that we are mis-labeling our products:  In order to call any
> of our
> products "jam," "jelly" or "preserves," they MUST contain 65% sugar,
> by
> weight.  If it contains less sugar, we have to call it something
> else.
>    That would not be a problem if we just sold at farmers' markets
> but we
> also sell on-line.  Let's say that we called it "spread."  Does
> anyone go
> on-line and google the word, "spread?"  Obviously not!  So, in order
> to sell
> on-line we must comply with USDA's ruling and increase our sugar
> content.
>    Next, alot of NAFEXers, et. al., are going to think the sugar
> companies
> are behind the 65% law.  Not so!  I've taken enough coursework in
> Bacteriology to know that Clostridium botulinus cannot grow in a
> medium that
> contains 65% sugar.  The USDA didn't say why the law exists but there
> is no
> doubt that it was enacted to protect the public from botulism
> poisoning.
>    Henceforth, to comply with the law, our jams, jellies and
> preserves will
> contain 65% sugar.  Oddly, there is no legal standards for no-sugar
> products
> and we do make several to serve our diabetic customers.
> -- 
> 
> Jim Fruth
> Brambleberry Farm
> Pequot Lakes, MN
> www.bberryfarm.com 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com