When making comparative claims, how close does a substitute have to be to the product it is referencing?
Would it matter if I was comparing my Reduced Salt Original Potato Chips to the leading brand of Original Potato Chips or my own brand's? Would I have to note who I was comparing to on my label? (20% less salt than the leading brand! or 20% less salt than our original flavor!)
How about if I was comparing my Reduced Salt Spicy Potato Chips to my own brand's Regular Potato Chips? In this case, is flavoring important to the identity of the comparison? Would I have to compare to another brand's Spicy Potato Chip?
From 21CFR101.13
(d) A "substitute" food is one that may be used interchangeably with another food that it resembles, i.e., that it is organoleptically, physically, and functionally (including shelf life) similar to, and that it is not nutritionally inferior to unless it is labeled as an "imitation."
Where I get confused is the use of "organoleptically... similar to." because I have seen vegetarian burgers compared to beef burgers as "reduced fat" options but since organoleptics implies taste, the similarity between the burgers seems arbitrary. In the burger case, is it because they would use language like "Vegetarian burgers contains 30% less fat than 80/20 beef burgers" ? Would that format be applicable to the potato chips example?
Thank you for any insight/thoughts about this.