|
?:reviewBody
|
-
On 23 September 2016, Facebook users began sharing an article which claimed that the pumpkin typically used in pumpkin pie is in fact a multi-squash blend containing little to no pumpkin: Although many readers expressed surprise and horror at the concept, the claim was not new. At least two food blogs spilled the beans (or seeds) in 2014, alerting the world to the fact that the pumpkins used in canned pumpkin were of a type largely unsuitable for jack o'lantern carving. Earlier versions of the claim were less reliant on shock factor and included more detail about the purported makeup of canned pumpkin: According to botanists, however, asserting a clear distinction between pumpkin and squash is difficult because there is no strict botanical definition for pumpkins. Semantically, pumpkins are a type of squash, and the Dickinson cultivar is listed as a pumpkin, as are other c. moschata varietals: Naturally, the thought of a butternut squash (typically dressed in a savory manner, though not always) in pie or cheesecake is perceived as less appetizing, and the consternation on social media has been more immediate than it was in 2014 when the matter was approached in a less alarmist fashion. In November 2013, High Plains Public Radio did a profile — not an exposé — on Libby's, Dickinson pumpkins, and the aesthetic factor, and they noted that the information they collected no secret: Although that article compared Dickinson cultivars to butternut squash, it included a photograph a field of the former looking like pumpkins — perhaps not doorstep-worthy pumpkins, but recognizable pumpkins nonetheless: The label for Libby's canned pumpkin also naturally lists pumpkin and not squash as an ingredient: Agricultural trade groups have definitively deemed the C. Moschata cultivars as pumpkin and not squash: A UK-based source for agricultural information noted that the extensive range of varietals under the pumpkin umbrella are also sometimes known by either description (i.e., pumpkin or squash): Some critics have cited lax Food and Drug Administration (FDA) standards as the culprit behind the purported pumpkin perfidy, but those guidelines (in effect since 1938) don't appear to be predicated on squash subterfuge. Nor does the existence of a rule permitting the use of the terms squash and pumpkin interchangeably constitute evidence that the primary brand of canned pumpkin engages in a misleading practice: Predictably, Libby's (the primary manufacturer of canned pumpkin, and a Nestle brand product) was besieged by legions of concerned holiday bakers on social media shortly after the article referenced above began circulating. Many consumers asked if their canned pumpkin was a blend of other squashes, to which a representative for Libby's answered: Nestle maintains that Libby's is responsible for the manufacture and sale of 85 percent of pumpkin worldwide (as high as 90 percent in the U.S.), and their use of a proprietary Dickinson cultivar was well-established prior to the Great Pumpkin Panic of 2016. Although pumpkins and squash are very closely related, the company denied that they ever used a blend of various squashes in their popular canned pumpkin. It is true that Dickinson pumpkins are less photogenic than common decorative varieties, but it is false that the bulk of canned pumpkin is a blend of winter squashes such as butternut. It is also true that the FDA allows for sweet squash blends to be sold under the label of pumpkin, but that doesn't appear to be the case with Libby's, who use Dickinson pumpkins. In short, pumpkin pie aficionados can rest assured their canned pumpkin of choice is indeed a pumpkin and not a blend of other squashes masquerading as such — although perhaps not a type that could double as a carving pumpkin.
(en)
|
![[This page as RDF]](http://data.gesis.org/claimskg/static/rdf-icon.gif){kind=icon}