Suggestion Box

[forsythia1]

Oops!   Sorry, everybody.

Thank you to those who pointed out that sugar is indeed the first ingredient. 

I apologize for making that mistake.

[Marp]

---

@MalteseMomma wrote:

---

@kittyloo wrote:

im a little confused.  you are sensitive to sorbitol, it's listed in the ingredents, and you still thinking that q is doing you a disservice? 

should the host and the vendor spend several minutes going over every ingredent in every product, to make sure that people are aware that there MIGHT be SOMETHING that they are sensitive to?

that's why they provide the ingredient list.  

ALL the facts are there. YOU just have to look at them. 

---

@kittyloo

ABSOLUTELY ,YES  THEY CERTAINLY SHOULD. I AM SHOUTING BECAUSE IT COULD VERY WELL KILL SOMEONE!!!!

What if an old person ,or a blind person ,or a person  without a computer,was buying it and has no way of "checking  ingredents" and was allergic to a product in any food item sold here, is it so hard for therm to comment on ingredents? I for one never knew they even listed the ingredents on the item ,they are not easily accessable. Do we have to call CS to find out whats in a food item?  Does CS even have that answer?

Just like it is just too much trouble to announce the total price of an item too ,instead of saying  for " $5 " you can get it home.  I for one cannot see the price on my screen,i have eye problems

IMO ,some people here have more love for,"The Q"  than they do for humanity. Judging from some of the responses to complaints that get posted over this board!WOW!

---

If Q or a manufacturer or vendor tried to list everything that might cause an allergic reaction there would be no time to give information about the product.  It is the individual with the allergy/sensitivity that is responsible for checking.

Beyond the "most common" food allergies according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 160 foods have caused food allergy reactions, demonstrating that many people react to foods that are outside the realm of the usual food allergens.

[Lipstickdiva]

Some of you aren't getting it at all.  If you are one that suffers the adverse affects from any of the artificial sweeteners ending in "tol" you wouldn't be so quick to say if you only eat a serving size you will be okay or it's the 12th ingredient on the list so it's alright.   It's not.

Would you tell someone who is lactose intolerant that they can have a serving size of milk?  Or someone that has a peanut allergy that it would be okay if they just have a few peanuts? 

While I'm not sure that eating sorbitol can kill someone, it's miserable if you have an issue with it and you eat it.  I know because I have an issue.  And eating "just a serving size" is enough to cause me a great deal of being extremely uncomfortable.

I would always check ingredients if I was going to order a food product.  I don't like the fact that there is no sorbitol in the product on the company's website but there is in the Q product.

I have more of an issue with the fact that QVC sells that 8 Greens product and tout it as so healthy, blah, blah, blah and it has sorbitol in it.        

[dooBdoo]

            I understand the concern, yet I can't think how it's reasonable to expect QVC or any on-air presenter to read the entire ingredient list for all consumable products.   Even if they did, there's no guarantee we wouldn't miss hearing one or more of them.   Also, there are so many different things to which we might be sensitive or allergic, so it wouldn't make much sense for them to try and pick out which ones to mention.   

            I have extreme sensitivity to several ingredients that trigger dreadful, disabling migraines -- and I am highly allergic to crab meat, so believe me I know about being concerned and alert.    It's just that I feel it's our responsibility as consumers to be watchful and vigilant.   The info is available online to read (or on a package, if we're buying in person), and if no computer is at hand we could phone customer service and ask them.   Honestly, I don't trust promoters to go out of their way to provide all the info I need, especially with something I'm going to ingest.   

          I do think it's very, very odd that the product sold on QVC isn't the same recipe as that of the actual company's site.    Sketchy activity, in my opinion. 

          Makes me wonder if this is a dumbed-down version of the product, cheaper to make and with a bigger profit margin, as has been done many times before with other merchandise.   

          That seems like misrepresentation to me and another example of the unwelcome changes we see in QVC -- it's not the "quality and value" company I trusted 'way back when I was first introduced to them.  

[cbrite]

-----

[NickNack]

---

@cbrite wrote:

QVC's list also states "chocolate liquor" which IS alcohol... 

But on the store/vendor list, it's not there. So if you cannot have alcohol .... you're sol....I suppose.

---

@cbrite  Chocolate liquor is not alcohol.  Here is what I found:

Chocolate liquor is comprised of about half cocoa butter and half cocoa solids (cocoa solids are what remains when the bean is ground and the cocoa butter is removed). Chocolate liquor is also called unsweetened baking chocolate. Chocolate liqueur, on the other hand, does contain alcohol.

[faeriemoon]

If they can't manage to give ALL the  important information (specifically the ingredients) during the on-air presentation, perhaps they should throw in the towel and just sell on line.

I agree that the real crime here is the price.