Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Big Daddy Largepants

From Food companies use humor as defense in ads:

The food-industry group will spend another $50,000 to run 30-second radio ads next week on several FM stations and WMAL-AM. The parodies start with "According to the latest study," and continue with absurd claims such as "If you eat a wheelbarrow full of cheese fries each week, the cheese fries are to blame when people call you Big Daddy Largepants."

I'm glad to see that the food industry appears to have a sense of humor about the possibility of being sued and regulated to death like the tobacco industry. This sort of regulation is completey inappropriate. People need to take responsibility for their own behavior. If you do something that results in unpleasantness, you should bear the unpleasantness. Don't try to shift it around to someone else!


( 3 comments — Leave a comment )
Jun. 27th, 2003 12:29 pm (UTC)
Jun. 28th, 2003 06:15 am (UTC)
Interesting topic! I agree that when someone gains 500 pounds, they can't sue McDonald's because they ate fast food for breakfast, lunch and dinner. But I don't believe that the field of psychology is total nonsense either (although there may be a lot of nonsense in that field), so some regulation of the advertising industry makes sense. For example, subliminal advertising was prohibited years ago because it was considered to have an unfair impact on the viewer/listener. I also think that there's a difference between advertising liquor by, for example, just presenting a picture of the bottle of liquor, and advertising it by showing a woman with large boobs in a bikini holding the bottle of liquor in a certain position.

What do you think of the whole Joe Camel/cigarette ads aimed at kids argument?
Jun. 30th, 2003 07:22 am (UTC)
I have a tough time understanding my position on this kind of advertising. I'm rather conservative in my views, so in general, I am not a fan of overregulation. And I consider most regulation to be overregulation.

So the conservative bent in me says that it's not a good ide to have regulated Joe Camel. However, it's rather clear that Joe Camel was designed to sell cigarettes to a segment of the population that is not allowed to buy cigarettes. Kinda makes you go "hmmmm." So with Joe Camel, I'm still torn.

What I'm not torn about however, is the ridiculous big tobacco settlements that we've seen in recent years. Along the same lines of the fast food stuff -- if you smoke, you might get sick. Assume the risks yourself. If you get sick, deal with it -- don't sue the tobacco folks. If you don't get sick, then good for you! All of this hinges on people having the opportunity to freely engage (or not) in all sorts of behavior, some of which could be considered risky, and then having the people who engage in the behavior (not the supplier) be responsible for the outcome.
( 3 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

June 2013
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow