Are Advertisements Misleading?

Quote

Although I understand that all firms want to sway every potential consumer to go buy their product or use their service, however, that does not mean that  they should be allowed to make misleading advertisements, depicting things that are only half the truth.

A question that I would like to raise is if organic-labeled produce in the supermarket, are actually as organic as you think it is. To answer this question, ABC15 investigators conducted a test to see if these organic products are truly organic. The test contained of 33 different organic produce from 11 different countries.

Firstly, according to Will Sumner, a chemist who conducted the test stated that “by definition, organic does not mean chemical-free. It just means it is grown without the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers, it doesn’t mean that they are not toxic”. Isn’t that shocking? Well that’s not all. After the results of the test came out, Sumner found that many organically grown produce has been cross-contaminated with other chemicals and pesticides, and that 12 percent of the produce had pesticide residues, and another 10 percent had trace amounts.

Here is a video of ABC’s investigation:


Not only are the pesticides worrisome, but “studies that have been done to see if organic produce is safer, healthier or more nutritious. They have not proven that to be the case”. After reading about their results of their tests, I feel that the way firm’s portray their products can be very deceiving. They purposely throw in words like “organic”, a word that is perceived to be healthy by many people, when marketing, to attract the more health-conscious consumers. I feel like this kind of marketing is unethical, and that firm’s have the responsibility to tell consumers that their produce might not be 100 percent organic.

Sources: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/is-organic-produce-really-chemical-free-abc15-investigation-puts-organics-to-the-test

Re: The Cost of Fast Food – America’s Waistline?

Kevin brought up a good point on his blog: blog:https://blogs.ubc.ca/kevinsong/

I want to emphasize on Kevin’s point on how fast food chains are fueling obesity, and for the most part I will focus on McDonalds. Many people blame fast food chains for their influence on a child’s diet, however, many fast food chains turn the blame around and push the responsibility back to the parents. Yes, ultimately, parents are able to somewhat control what their child eats, but realistically, no parent wants to endure endless whining from their child for naively wanting to complete their Happy Meal toy set.

With McDonalds flawless marketing strategy, it is very hard for kids to resist such temptations.

Which child can resist a happy meal like the one above? To children, parents are just taking away their happiness by not giving them their ‘happy meal’. They don’t see that parents are trying to protect them and their health. When marketing, McDonalds often fail to give full details of how their food was made.

With commercials like these, kids can be instantly attracted to McDonalds and engrossed on how to get the complete set of the very popular Despicable Me characters. How much longer can fast food chains take advantage of innocent kids who know no better? I understand that McDonalds is a profit-maximizing company, but isn’t it time for McDonalds to change their ways? With so much money going into advertising Happy Meals, can’t they invest in using healthier ingredients to make their food? This is an opportunity! If McDonalds used healthier ingredients, and properly communicated this to the public, it will be no surprise that parents will become more lenient in letting their kid buy happy meals, while improving their public image.