URL: https://blogs.ubc.ca/xinma/2013/01/13/vitaminwater-healthy-beverage-in-name-ethical-issues/

While I am not a consumer of vitamin water, I have read about the controversies over this line of Coca Cola product. CocaCola is a mega company and have a whole range of different products to cater to different customers’ preference. After reading XinMa’s blogpost, it struck me on the contraversy that GSK faced in its Ribena product. GSK hit the headlines when it was reported that NZ students find almost no vitamin C in drink
and thus GlaxoSmithKline could face up to £1.1m fine. Two New Zealand schoolgirls humbled one of the world’s biggest food and drugs companies after their school science experiment found that their ready-to-drink Ribena contained almost no trace of vitamin C! FYI, Ribena’s advertising claims that “the blackcurrants in Ribena have four times the vitamin C of oranges!

GSK said the girls had tested the wrong product, and it was concentrated syrup which had four times the vitamin C of oranges. But when the commerce commission investigated, it found that although blackcurrants have more vitamin C than oranges, the same was not true of Ribena. It also said ready-to-drink Ribena contained no detectable level of vitamin C. This is a case of pure deceit and misrepresentation when the facts presented are contracdictory.This is a case of pure deceit and misrepresentation when the facts presented are contracdictory.

GSK is in court in Auckland today facing 15 charges relating to misleading advertising, risking fines of up to NZ$3m (£1.1m).

Thus, I do not agree fully that CocaCola is out to deceive consumers by any means of misrepresentation. The name “vitaminwater” could possibly mean that it is a liquid beverage that contains the vitamins that humans’ require. Generally speaking, “water” has different meanings – in this case, it is probably meant to be interpreted as “liquid” or “aqeous” solution. Given that the nutritional content was stated the product, consumers has the choice on whether to read it or not before purchase. There was no misrepresentation on the facts and the company should not be penalised for the “ignorance or carelessness of the consumers”.