Calorie-Counters Duped by Costa Mesa-based Galeos Salad Dressing May Be Entitled to a Full Refund

Categories: News
​Those who purchased a bottle of Galeos Salad Dressing got more than they asked for. Like love handles and a double chin.  
In a real-life version of the Seinfeld frozen yogurt episode, the Costa Mesa-based manufacturer was sued last year for allegedly misstating nutrition facts. An independent laboratory found that the company's miso caesar salad dressing contained nearly 10 times the calories and fat content that it listed on its label, shocking weight watchers who'd been devouring the stuff ever since it was plugged by Jillian Michaels and contestants on The Biggest Loser.

Galeos denies the claims and contends that the labels were and are accurate, but a settlement has been reached in the case, and those who purchased Galeos salad dressings from Nov. 29, 2006 to May 3, 2011 can get their money back. Those with proof of purchase can get a full refund, and those without may still be able to get the retail value of three bottles, which is about $10.50. More details here

Follow Stick a Fork In It on Twitter @ocweeklyfood or on Facebook! 

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help

its a shame when a news reporter has the facts wrong, see the truth in the web site their fat was always correct and still is i wish people read the whole story first before making a comment you reporter really suck

Squid Ink Guys
Squid Ink Guys

Galeos is an AMERICAN sucess story. Andre and his wife are wonderful people that work hard and employ local kids.

They drive a hard bargain (and complain) but are truly good folks with a great product. Shit, they even have my kid eating salad!


Wow... That sucks I knew the man that owns this company. They used to have a restaurant on pch... A really nice hardworking couple, I think from Russia. They used to make a potato salad with their dressing before it was available in stores, it was so good.

I would still buy it, I need to put on some weight :)

Bill T.
Bill T.

Well, like their defense, your comment is lacking in substance. Michelle includes links to Galeos' website and to an LA Times story, what other story you may be referencing is you leave to the imagination of the reader. I see specific references to support the allegations, only vague allusions to "... a different laboratory .." in defense. No links to any reports citing different results, not who the "different laboratory" might be. On the web site I see a statement that they deny the allegation, but no evidence appears to be presented to support the denial.  I have to go with the side that provides actual facts. As far as the aritcle is concerned, Michelle presented the facts as stipulated, properly credited sources of quotes and even included a link to Galeo, yah, right, terrible reporting.

Now Trending

From the Vault