Products Jeopardizing Public Health - Coursework Example

In recent times, several theories have taken an explicitly critical orientation towards advertising as a means of reproducing the existing capitalistsociety. This school of thought argues that advertising carries out the crucial economic functions of managing consumer demands and aiding capital accumulation. Critics of advertising put forth the astronomical amounts invested in advertising and the commercial control of network television.Furthermore, advertising is alleged to be misleading to the extent of false and unsubstantiated claims made by companies-especially in case of products that tend to jeopardize public health and cause environmental hazards. However, another view is that most companies value their reputation and would not endanger their goodwill by making false claims.Moreover,action by enforcers like regulatory bodies or private lawsuits by competitors-even if penalties and damages are not ordered-are costly. Investigations by regulatory bodies or private lawsuits can easily exceed the profits derived from deceptive marketing. Such suits distract company execuitives, further increasing the cost of an ad already challenged as deceptive. These costs damage the reputation and goodwill, result in exorbitant legal fees and distract company executives.Therfore such repercussions induce the marketers to carefully review their ad claims and ensure that they are true and fully substantiated. Products Jeopardizing Public Health Anti tobacco campaigns accelerated in the late eighties when litigation exposed a long history of deceit carried out by industry officials regarding their knowledge about the damaging health effects of tobacco use including the deliberate use of new ingredients to enhance the addictive power of cigarettes. This revelation adversely affected the credibility of producers and marketers and brought to light their fallacious claims about the informed and free choice of customers.Likewise, allegations have been leveled against the fast food industry about inadequate disclosures and misleading advertising. Innumerable lawsuits have contended that the fast food marketers do not provide adequate or accurate information about the fat, sugar and the chemical contents of their products. It was also the core point of the argument by Cesar Barber, who filed legal claims challenging McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy's and KFC for his excessive, life threatening weight.(source) In this context, it will be pertinent to examine the marketing policies of largest beverage company in the world. Coca Cola, a very assertive and uncompromising advertiser. Historically cola has been seen as a harmful product, inextricably linked with obesity and rapid bone loss. Like most FMCG companies, Coca Cola is an aggressive marketer with colossal ad budgets, usually roping in celebrity spokespersons. The Case of Coca Cola Another noteworthy aspect is marketing targeted by companies at young impressionable children. Besides conventional advertising, Coca Cola had rolled out ad campaigns aimed at young children. In 1998, Coca Cola came under criticism for its efforts to secure exclusive vending contracts with public schools across America. The promotional campaigns included contests like 'Team up with Coca Cola contest'. The event involved lectures by Coke executives. The company came under fierce criticism for targeting schoolchildren and commercializing school hallways to make them just another place to sell soft drinks. It was also revealed that the Company had promised under funded public schools for the possibility of cash or sporting equipments in exchange of exclusive rights to sell Coke. Such marketing policies of aggressively pursuing the youth as the potential customers seriously undermine and threaten public health. The concern over public health has mobilized a number of groups to hold Coke accountable for its unsavory practices of targeting youth. Opponents of Coke's marketing campaign cite rapidly increasing obesity and diabetes among the US students. Insecticide contents and Environmental Hazards In September 2006, The Supreme Court in India ordered Coke along with rival Pepsi Co, to furnish details of their ingredients and the chemical contents. This ordinance came after a study conducted by a private NGO, claimed that Coke contained unacceptable levels of insecticide. Depletion of water resources in India. The Coca Cola Company has dreary record of protecting water resources. The company is guilty of denying thousands of people access to water in India by contaminating the quality of water and rendering it undrinkable and by affecting the quantity-through its massive water extraction. Its operations in India are affecting the very lifeline of India-where nearly 70% of the population relies in agriculture for a living. The company extracts vast amounts of water, in some cases upto a million litres of water per day from some facilities in India, and turns 75% of the freshwater into wastewater.Globally,the company extracted 283 billion litres of water in 2004 and turned two third of it into waste water. Coca Cola's abuse of water is particularly striking in a world where lack of access to clean drinking water is a reality for over 1.2 billion people. Ground Water Depletion. Coca Cola operates fifty-two bottling plants in India. In the Southern Indian village of Plachimade in Kerela state, persistent droughts have dried up ground water and local wells. Many believe that the lack of groundwater is related to the arrival of the company's bottling plant there. Similar ground water problems have surfaced in the state of UP. The Central Pollution Control Board found in 2003 that the sludge form Coca Cola's Uttar Pradesh factory was contaminated with high levels of cadmium, lead and chromium. Impact of Advertising Advertising primarily performs fundamental functions.Firstly, it introduces a product and creates new consumers for it.Secondly, it tries to convince people to switch from one brand to another.Lastly, it aims at sustaining and stimulating consumption. A marketing survey pertaining to India in 2001, revealed that advertising has a direct influence on the consumption habits of 431 million people in India and an indirect impact on 275 million which chiefly constituted 'aspirants from the low income group'.Parag Paul Choudhary of Voluntary Organization in the Interest of Consumer Education (VOICE), a Delhi based NGO, was asked if it was possible that advertising influenced people to the extent of inducing them to smoke and drink He cited the example of Rajnikant, a popular movie actor who had a certain style of flipping the cigarette to his lips. Young boys in his imitation tried to flip the cigarette in the same manner and many took to smoking through this playful act. In this light, it would be pertinent to examine the issue of regulations on advertsing, especially of products that jeopardize public health and are potentially harmful. Empirical evidence also asserts that majority of prospective consumers perceive advertising as 'misleading'. A mail survey that interviewed 314 people from two cities of California measures the consumer perception of the prevalence of misleading advertising. Information was obtained regarding the extent of misleading advertising in various media for thirty products. The sample included three age groups. The findings indicated that: Over half of the sample viewed 'most' or 'all' of the mail and advertising as deceptive.38% agreed that 'most' or 'all' of the television advertising is also disingenuous. Two out of ever three respondents believed that 'most' or 'all' of the advertising directed at children was seriously misleading. (http://blackwell-synegry.com) Advertising directed at children. The US Departments of Agriculture has warned the Congress that children's appetite for sugary drinks, salty snacks and other junk food are established before they reach the school age.Furtehrmore,The UK food watchdog, The Food Standards Agency in its Hastings report has confirmed that ads for food and drinks have a profound influence on children.Fooad advertising primarily aimed at children promotes bad dietary habits and therefore it should be regulated if the trend of the past decade must be changed, when obesity in adolescents tripled. The chief reasons, which advocate regulation of advertising, in this case food and drink advertising meant for children, are enumerated below: The snacks that are marketed are potentially harmful for health, containing high levels of sugar, fat and salt. Nearly 95% of the food advertisements are for products that can lead to the development of bad dietary habits. Advertising Age had reported the findings of a study conducted by the US health research institute, The Kaiser Family Foundation. The findings revealed that the epidemic of obesity in America has a direct correlation to the ads children are exposed to. In US, the metabolic syndrome-a cluster of obesity related disease factors, affects nearly a million teenagers. In the UK, sizeable chunks of children are developing type two diabetes at an alarmingly early age. Obesity has trebled over the past decade. Given these facts, it can be safely concluded that unregulated advertising can be perilous. "It is difficult for parents to control their children's food choices as advertisers, fast food chains, food manufacturers and schools are explicitly encouraging the consumption of unhealthy foods."-British Medical Journal 2005. Food marketers have adopted shrewd, contemptuous strategies for strengthening brand loyalty and shaping consumption habits before the children approach the age of reason. Exposure to sustained brainwashing programmes inevitably shows its effects on their consumption choices. Marketers have been increasingly successful in targeting children with popular cartoon characters on their products. Regulations on Advertising. The UK has legally enforceable controls on advertising which reflect the EU Regulations. According to AdAge, "UK's recent ban on TV ads for junk food has been expanded to magazines, internet, newspapers, billboards and cinema. A UK self-regulatory body has announced rules that cover ads in non-broadcast media for all food and drinks except fresh fruits and vegetables."(http://reasonablebasis.com) Sweden has prohibited advertising to children at certain viewing times as a prerequisite for the establishment of its only terrestrial commercial channel. In US, however children are exposed to ads while watching educational broadcasts. In January 2005, Ireland imposed a ban on advertising for junk food. Strict regulations were imposed on selling sugary confectionaries and stringent rules were introduced that forced manufacturers to mention the contents of the products on the wrappers with a warning that they must be taken in limited quantities and that excess consumption could lead to ailments like tooth decay. Norway, Austria and Luxembourg have banned television advertising to children.Belgium; France and Portugal have debarred junk food marketing in schools. Conclusion More than 30 years ago, cultural theorist Marshall McLuhan had pointed out that we perceive media's effect on us as poorly as fish perceive the water they swim in. The American Psychiatry Association (APA) warns that attention must be paid to the pervasive effects of advertising on children's mind. An average American child sees more than 40,000 commercials a year and advertisers spend more than $12 billion-double the amount spent a decade ago. A growing body of researchers suggests a link between ads directed at children and problems like obesity, parent-child conflict, violence and aggression. Later in life, it can lead to tobacco and alcohol use and brittle self esteem based on possessions.Advertsing should be more strenuously regulated according to media and product type. The APA taskforce has formally approved to restrict advertising to children less than eight years of age.Enviromental media tend to be the most regulated, which includes-billboards, wall postings and graffiti. Sustained efforts must be made to ensure that the urban and natural environment is not cluttered with commercial messages. There has been a growing acceptance of socially responsible marketing by Big Corporations lately. Some have initiated voluntary measures to curb their aggressive pursuit of young impressionable consumers. McDonald's Corporation announced its milk and apples campaign, which seeks to entice children to try new, heathier kids' meal by tying up a promotion with "Shrek the third". Liquor makers in US like Bean Global Spirits and Wine have declared that it will voluntarily adopt stricter rules to keep messages away from young people. The company makes brands like-Maker's Mark bourbon and Canadian Club Whiskey. Read More