| Display title | Lite Creme |
| Default sort key | Lite Creme |
| Page length (in bytes) | 33,838 |
| Namespace ID | 0 |
| Page ID | 81607 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Number of subpages of this page | 0 (0 redirects; 0 non-redirects) |
| Page image |  |
| Edit | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Move | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Delete | Allow all users (infinite) |
| Page creator | prefix>Import Bot |
| Date of page creation | 21:27, 1 November 2013 |
| Latest editor | Derivative (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 01:46, 29 November 2016 |
| Total number of edits | 16 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 180 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
| Transcluded templates (5) | Templates used on this page:
|
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | The implication of qualities or ingredients in a product that aren't there because of certain words or spellings of words that vary from the standard. This is usually done to get around government regulations on truth in advertising laws. This is how you end up with products like fruit/citrus "punch" when something contains no actual fruit, "choc" or "choco" when something contains little to no actual chocolate, and "creme" spread that contains no dairy cream. The intent of the law was to prevent advertisers from using words like "chocolate" and "cream" to describe products that didn't contain the ingredients mentioned, but the feds didn't count on consumer illiteracy; too many people now assume that "froot with choco creme" is the same thing as "fruit with chocolate cream", and assume they're getting vitamins and minerals they really aren't. And advertisers happily take advantage of it. |
