Hellmann’s maker declares war of words on Just Mayo |

Hellmann’s maker declares war of words on Just Mayo

WASHINGTON — A big-money war is brewing over the meaning of America’s best-selling condiment: mayonnaise.

Food giant Unilever, the maker of Hellmann’s mayo, has sued the San Francisco startup behind Just Mayo, an egg-free, mayonnaise-like sandwich spread giving Big Mayo a run for its money.

The global food giant argues that Hampton Creek’s Just Mayo is not, as Unilever lawyers wrote, “exactly, precisely, only and simply mayonnaise,” as defined by the dictionary and the Food and Drug Administration, which says mayo must include “egg yolk-containing ingredients.”

The Just Mayo identity crisis, Unilever lawyers said, has hurt Hellmann’s market share, “caused consumer deception and serious, irreparable harm to Unilever” and the mayo industry as a whole. The firm wants Hampton Creek to stop calling its product Just Mayo, yank it off store shelves and pay Unilever damages worth three times the startup’s profits.

It is a strangely defensive stance for Unilever, a Big Food titan that made more than $64 billion last year selling foodstuffs in nearly 200 countries (including I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter, a spread that is not butter). Hellmann’s, which is called Best Foods on the West Coast, dominates 45 percent of the mayo market, data from industry researcher Euro­monitor shows.

But market watchers say it highlights the fears of traditional food conglomerates experiencing unexpected competition from crafty startups. It is perhaps no coincidence that the biggest battleground is mayonnaise: Americans buy $2 billion of the stuff every year — more even than ketchup, salsa or soy sauce.

“It’s not about using the ‘mayo’ word,” said Michele Simon, a public health lawyer who wrote about the suit. “It’s about the fact that this company is taking market share away. And now it’s like they’ve awakened the giant.”

That the plant-based Just Mayo is a new type of food will lend an interesting dimension to the legal proceedings: Brand disputes typically quibble over words, not the definition of the product itself.

But the very modern legal battle will be fought on regulatory territory that is decades old. The FDA’s definition of mayo was set in 1957, decades before the phrase “vegan mayonnaise” ever made sense. (Maintaining that “standard of identity” is important: Kraft Foods’ Miracle Whip, which doesn’t meet the FDA’s standard, is technically a salad dressing.)

Unilever doesn’t just call out Just Mayo for what it calls confusing branding — advertisements have called the stuff “mayo,” and its logo resembles an egg — it also says the company has no proof of its claims of beating Hellmann’s in a taste test.

Just Mayo has fought back with the help of celebrity chefs, including Andrew Zimmern, who launched a petition, “Stop Bullying Sustainable Food Companies,” that has more than 11,000 signers.

Tetrick, the startup’s chief executive, said his firm is looking at the lawsuit as a chance to not just expand its corporate profile but to lift up its egg-free sandwich spread as the touchpoint for a larger food-based cultural movement.

“A lawsuit gives us the opportunity to talk about the things that matter,” he said. “So we’ll take it.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.