Hampton Creek, the company behind an eggless product called “Just Mayo,” has responded to the Food and Drug Administration’s warning that its product isn’t mayonnaise, and thus, shouldn’t be called “mayo.” That seems just fine by Hampton Creek, which recently responded to the FDA by agreeing with it.

The company acknowledges in a response obtained by Business Insider through a Freedom of Information Act request that the FDA is right — its product isn’t mayonnaise, it’s mayo. And “mayo” is not a regulated term, so its label is completely correct.

“The term ‘mayo’ should not now be held to the regulatory standard for ‘mayonnaise,'” wrote the company’s lawyer, Josh Schiller.

See, mayonnaise is defined by the FDA as a mixture of vegetable oil, vinegar, egg yolk, and lemon juice. Which means if you’re going to put a product on the shelf with the word “mayonnaise” on the label, it had better contain those ingredients.

But Hampton Creek argues that there’s no definition for mayo, because the FDA excluded that word in its definition when the federal regulations governing labels went into place in 1976:

“While there is a food standard of identity for ‘mayonnaise,’ there is no current standard for ‘mayo,'” the company wrote in its reply to the FDA. “Hampton Creek does not use the term ‘mayonnaise’ on any of its products or any of its marketing materials … If FDA had intended to cover products that use the term ‘mayo’ in its standard for mayonnaise, it could have done so, yet it did not.”

The FDA had also taken issue with Hampton Creek’s use of the word “Just” on the label, saying that it implied that the product contained only mayonnaise. But the company said that on that front, the “just” pertains to how it manufactures its products, reducing land use, water use, and carbon emissions while creating an allergy-free product. In this case, “Just” means “fair,” not “only.”

Hampton Creek also urges the FDA to consider expanding its definition of mayonnaise — not that its product is mayonnaise! — to include new and more ecologically sustainable food production methods, thereby putting eggless products in the same category.

The company did acknowledge one change it’s making in light of the FDA’s August letter: it has updated Just Mayo labels to move its cholesterol-free claim to the appropriate location and will no longer imply on the label that its products can reduce the risk of heart disease.

The case is not listed as resolved on the agency’s website, BI notes, though communications between the two parties through Oct. 12 showed that the FDA and Just Mayo planned to meet.

Hampton Creek’s response to the FDA: Mayo is different than mayonnaise [Business Insider]

An Arizona woman who worked as a Starbucks barista for seven years has filed a lawsuit against the company for allegedly discriminating against her because she’s deaf. She claims she repeatedly asked for reasonable accommodations to help her on the job and was repeatedly denied, and that she was finally fired because of her disability.

According to the lawsuit [PDF], the worker asked multiple times between March 2007 and January 2014 — when she was fired — for reasonable accommodations, such as sign language interpreters for staff meetings, training, and other important work events, and was denied in most instances.

“Between 2007 and 2014, [she] repeatedly requested reasonable accommodations to enable her to ensure effective communication, to perform the essential functions of her job, and to enjoy the benefits and privileges of employment,” the complaint states. “With these reasonable accommodations, [the plaintiff] would have been able to perform the essential functions of her job, such as taking customers’ orders at the front counter and at the drive-thru.”

After meeting with management and insisting on interpreters, she claims she was later fired as retaliation for filing a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. She says she was told she was fired having visible tattoos — which she’d had for the duration of her employment. Other workers also had visible tattoos, the lawsuit claims. And months later, Starbucks changed its anti-tattoo policy for employees.

The lawsuit alleges that the worker was a qualified individual with a disability who could perform the essential functions of her job with reasonable accommodations, but Starbucks refused to provide those reasonable accommodations to her.

“Defendant fired her in retaliation for participating in protected activities and on the basis of her disability,” the lawsuit claims, accusing Starbucks of violating the Americans with Disability Act.

She’s seeking compensatory damages, a permanent injunction to keep Starbucks from “engaging in unlawful employment practices that discriminate on the basis of disability in violation of the ADA,” and from engaging in retaliation against its employees for participation in protected activity. The lawsuit also wants Starbucks to create policies, practices and programs that provide equal employment opportunities “for individuals who are deaf and hard of hearing and which eradicate the effects of its past and present unlawful employment practices.”

It seems she’d also like to work for Starbucks again, as the complaint seeks a judgment that would reinstate her at her position, as well as pay her back pay and accrued sick leave or annual leave that she didn’t receive when she was fired.

“This case is not just about issues of accommodation; it’s about having the right to be treated fairly and equally in society,” attorneys for the ex-worker said.

Consumerist reached out to Starbucks for comment on the lawsuit, and will update this post if we hear back.

Says Lem in Queensland, Australia: “Everyone at my local council always says they’re super busy. I figure it’s because they’re ‘busy’ creating extra signs to put up around the office.”

related: More passive-aggressive flowcharts

How dare they not be open whenever you want them!

(Ben Schelling)

The thing about wild bison is, they’re wild, and as such, very unpredictable, park officials are now reminding visitors. The fifth person to be injured this year in the park after a confrontation with wild animals was trying to take a selfie with one of the huge beasts near a trail on Tuesday, reports CNN.

She and her daughter turned their backs on the bison, which was about six yards away, in order to grab a photo with it, the National Park Service said.

“They heard the bison’s footsteps moving toward them and started to run, but the bison caught the mother on the right side, lifted her up and tossed her with its head,” the park service said in a statement Wednesday. The woman had minor injuries.

Despite the fact that they’d read warnings about getting too close to wild animals, the family saw other people close to the bison so they decided that meant it was safe, a ranger said.

“The family said they read the warnings in both the park literature and the signage, but saw other people close to the bison, so they thought it would be OK,” the ranger said. “People need to recognize that Yellowstone wildlife is wild, even though they seem docile. This woman was lucky that her injuries were not more severe.”

Park authorities tell visitors to keep at least 25 yards between themselves and large animals like bison, and a full 100 yards away from bears and wolves.

“Bison can sprint three times faster than humans can run and are unpredictable and dangerous,” park officials warn.

Bison attacks woman who was trying to take selfie with it in Yellowstone Park [CNN]