Response from Evergood Fine Foods

First, I’m impressed that I received a response so quickly. I didn’t think I’d hear anything back from the company. I wrote to them yesterday afternoon (read it here) and received a response last night.

Second, I’m disappointed with his response.

Third, my first instinct was to respond: “Thank you for the timely yet condescending response to my valid concern. I will remember that the next time I buy sausages and go with Johnsonville.” But I calmed down and took a step back to sleep on it before I respond.

” Lisa, I will have our QC department follow up with your complaint.  However, we are following USDA regulations as it pertains to Nutritional Labeling.  Serving size is all related to the size of the “LINK” …. our link size is   4 links to 1 pound. Therefore, we are allowed to use the 2 oz. serving size.  Our retail products are all 16 oz. (4 links per package).

Our competition for the the most part are 12-13 or 14 oz. with the same price per package as (16oz.).  Paying more for less.   Maybe, it is time for our Company to down size from   16 oz.  then that would require us to make nutritional information… relative to each link?? (less than 4/1).

My question is, when others have done this why has the price per package  stayed the same???  Food for thought!   Congratulations on the weight loss.  That is a tremendous accomplishment!!

Signed, “

So yeah. I got a response. I knew if I ever got a response that it would start out with “We are following FDA regulations.”  Sure, that’s fine. But my complaint was about misleading labels. Why not just print on there “1 link” is a serving size and it’s “350 calories” or something? And why not address that issue in your response?

QUESTION: What’s your take on this response?

16 Responses

  1. I’m reading the middle paragraph sorta snarky and defensive so I’m not very impressed. Maybe you should go with Aidell’s. I haven’t checked their packaging but the cheeseless links have good stats (are 4 WW PP+).

    Yes, they do get points for ANY response. Also, check the sausages I reviewed. They may be worth ordering.

    1. I felt like his response was rude and condescending….glad I’m not the only one. And of course, the fantastic snotty remark about my weight loss after he kindly refused to answer my question. THIS guy is in charge of their PR?? Wow.

      I need to check out those sausages you recommended. After this package is gone I will not be buying Evergood products.

  2. What a bunch of snarky a$$holes.

    He obviously didn’t really understand how to address the point you actually raised, so he deflected (typical PR move!) to a point about price per link… WTF?

    Ugh…

  3. I didn’t think it was *that* bad. It could be taken different ways. What I’m most surprised about – like you – is that they even took the time to respond. I give them credit for that much 🙂 Cheers, Rick

  4. I know that I will not buy products from them. The response was rude and condescending. They did not address the issue at all and their customer service sucks. I work in hospitality and if I treated a guest that way I would no have a job.

    A polite answer of “we are following the FDA regulations, yada, yada, yada. We are sorry this is confusing but we don’t plan on changing it, yada, yada, yada.” would have been a lot better and at least you would have left me with a better impression of the company. Now I just think their attitude sucks and they don’t care whether I buy their product or not. So I won’t.

    1. I felt the same way. While I might have liked the product, it was really nothing special compared to the other sausages that are out there. Since the guy was so rude I just won’t purchase anything from them in the future. Problem solved!!!

  5. Ohhh, doesn’t that just tick you off?!! Grrr…totally did not answer your question. I’d be ticked. It always kills me when a can of soup is 284ml and a serving is something like 250ml…what are you supposed to do with the other 34ml? throw them out? save all your extra bits in an icecube tray? Crazy label law makers!

  6. I felt like he totally missed your point. The last two paragraphs spend more time talking about the money and cost, which wasn’t an issue at all! And when he says “more for less”, it’s like, well, you’re talking about fiscal cost….I’m talking about nutritional cost (read-“how do you THINK I lost 110 lbs in the first place?)! Whatever…he didn’t get your point, and though he did respond, the company should maybe think of paying for some etiquette classes so he can learn to be polite in his responses.

  7. My comment is that the response is not well-written and is difficult to understand.

    Is he saying that if they had a smaller package they would be able to (or have to) provide the nutrition information per link?

    Now I can’t write about “smaller sausage packages” without my mind going elsewhere . . . .

  8. Ugh, that is an annoying response! I agree with Bethany: great, it’s cheaper, but the nutritional info is still confusing! I recently found Al Fresco sausages (I bought the Italian Chicken Sausage) and each link is 130 calories. It says right on the package: serving size, 1 link. Makes it so much easier! Can you find that brand near you? Here it’s sold at Publix supermarket.

Leave a Reply

CommentLuv badge