|
On April 28 2012 18:32 fearus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 18:27 Talin wrote:On April 28 2012 18:14 gruff wrote:
How many people actually read the labels on what they eat? Sure it should be fairly obvious that nutella is not good for you but I wonder if the "she should have read the label" people do the same on everything they eat. If a company uses advertisements that is very misleading or just factually incorrect they should have lawsuits coming their way, I don't get why people are opposed to this.
If I wasn't so lazy I'd probably try to do the same based on some retarded ads I've seen in my life. Thank fuck, finally someone GETS IT. It's impossible to double-check everything and run a background search on every product you ever come across. The only rational way to keep people informed is to put accurate information (the good and the bad) within the ad itself. Besides, it's not like it's something unheard of in advertising. In a lot of countries, medicine and cigarette ads (as well as the product containers) have to display a message that the product may be harmful for you, and specify how/why exactly. Food industry has been getting away with far too much crap lately, and they've not been held accountable for it. Given that the quality of food we eat is deteriorating by the day, it's ridiculous to be opposed to lawsuits like this - at least until food advertising is properly regulated and put under control. So you read the part where it says it is a healthy treat? But somehow not read the nutrition label telling you how much saturated fat and sugar is it in... Selective reading maybe? Sure you may not be able to double check everything for an item you buy once in a while or in the spur of the moment, but if you buy something on a weekly basis for 2 straight years with it sitting on your kitchen counter, don't you think it is more than reasonable to assume you would have had a closer look at it?
The point is that it's a LOT more rational and reasonable to force companies to say something like - in Nutella's case - "product contains X% fat / specific harmful substances and excessive consumption may be bad for you" or something along those lines at the end of each advertisement.
|
<xterm> The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
On April 28 2012 09:27 MilesTeg wrote:
What's sad is people's reactions here. We got so used to bullshit marketing that we expect companies to get away with anything. I'm sorry, if your product is a fat greasy chocolate paste (which I absolutely love by the way, I eat it with a spoon), you shouldn't be allowed to advertise it as something healthy. If this sort of lawsuit punishes blatant marketing lies then it's a good thing.
This is my feelings, including the eating with a spoon. That shit's tasty, even if I feel guilty about it for the rest of the day,
|
On April 28 2012 18:40 Krissam wrote:
<xterm> The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be a capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
Judging by the number of posts like this, that problem is hardly specific to America.
|
On April 28 2012 18:38 yandere991 wrote:
I don't get the argument that people with no nutritional knowledge deserve to get screwed over by these advertisements.
By that same logic people about to retire with no financial knowledge deserve to lose their life savings if they get manipulated into putting their super into a high beta investment when clearly it wasn't wise to do so.
...well yeah...you live by your decisions, and if they're shitty decisions then you either:
a. live with it
b. fix it
c. hope someone cares enough to help out/make it go away.
Most people get stuck with "A". Not sure that's a bad thing all the time. Certainly unfortunate and quite sad, but not "bad".
|
On April 28 2012 18:45 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 18:38 yandere991 wrote:
I don't get the argument that people with no nutritional knowledge deserve to get screwed over by these advertisements.
By that same logic people about to retire with no financial knowledge deserve to lose their life savings if they get manipulated into putting their super into a high beta investment when clearly it wasn't wise to do so. ...well yeah...you live by your decisions, and if they're shitty decisions then you either: a. live with it b. fix it c. hope someone cares enough to help out/make it go away. Most people get stuck with "A". Not sure that's a bad thing all the time. Certainly unfortunate and quite sad, but not "bad".
You can care enough yourself and take action against it, or at least publicize it in some way if you can't do anything else (which I guess is 'b', although it's not quite fixing it).
Kind of like the woman dozens of people here described as dumb/retarded did. Ironic that we apparently have to rely on "stupid people" to actually do the correct thing, because the rest of us are somehow too "smart" for it. 
|
On April 28 2012 18:40 MCDayC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 09:27 MilesTeg wrote:
What's sad is people's reactions here. We got so used to bullshit marketing that we expect companies to get away with anything. I'm sorry, if your product is a fat greasy chocolate paste (which I absolutely love by the way, I eat it with a spoon), you shouldn't be allowed to advertise it as something healthy. If this sort of lawsuit punishes blatant marketing lies then it's a good thing. This is my feelings, including the eating with a spoon. That shit's tasty, even if I feel guilty about it for the rest of the day,
I agree about the bullshit marketing. But why should anyone be able to sue for money? Money has nothing to do with this case. Suing someone for money is stealing, except you have the law on your side. You may be entitled to something, like an apology, but definitely not money.
|
On April 28 2012 18:27 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 18:14 gruff wrote:
How many people actually read the labels on what they eat? Sure it should be fairly obvious that nutella is not good for you but I wonder if the "she should have read the label" people do the same on everything they eat. If a company uses advertisements that is very misleading or just factually incorrect they should have lawsuits coming their way, I don't get why people are opposed to this.
If I wasn't so lazy I'd probably try to do the same based on some retarded ads I've seen in my life. Thank fuck, finally someone GETS IT. It's impossible to double-check everything and run a background search on every product you ever come across. The only rational way to keep people informed is to put accurate information (the good and the bad) within the ad itself. Besides, it's not like it's something unheard of in advertising. In a lot of countries, medicine and cigarette ads have to display a message that the product may be harmful for you, and specify how/why exactly - both in the ad itself and make it very visible on the product container (and in clear and simple language, not something as obscure as "nutrition tables"). Food industry has been getting away with far too much crap lately, and they've not been held accountable for it. Given that the quality of food we eat is deteriorating by the day, it's ridiculous to be opposed to lawsuits like this - at least until food advertising is properly regulated and put under control.
I don't read the label on everything I eat, but on the rare times that I don't read the label I also don't blame other people for my inability to read the label.
|
Technically, in small amounts, Nutella is in fact healthy. Just like chocolate, in small amounts and moderation, is healthy.
(Also, I feel forced to point out that Nutella is in fact mostly hazelnut.)
A glass of wine is healthy. The entire bottle at once is not.
There's nothing untrue about the advertising - it's a healthy *TREAT*, not a fucking full time meal replacement. (Although it might be like a plumpy bar, which IS a full time meal replacement emergency ration.)
I guarantee, this ruling will probably get overturned on appeal in 4 years of more lawyer filled action, just like that stupid McDonald's coffee lawsuit. (Yeah, the lady that spilled the coffee on herself? Never got a dime.)
|
On April 28 2012 18:51 Animzor wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 18:40 MCDayC wrote:On April 28 2012 09:27 MilesTeg wrote:
What's sad is people's reactions here. We got so used to bullshit marketing that we expect companies to get away with anything. I'm sorry, if your product is a fat greasy chocolate paste (which I absolutely love by the way, I eat it with a spoon), you shouldn't be allowed to advertise it as something healthy. If this sort of lawsuit punishes blatant marketing lies then it's a good thing. This is my feelings, including the eating with a spoon. That shit's tasty, even if I feel guilty about it for the rest of the day, I agree about the bullshit marketing. But why should anyone be able to sue for money? Money has nothing to do with this case. Suing someone for money is stealing, except you have the law on your side. You may be entitled to something, like an apology, but definitely not money.
An "apology"? Yeah, that is such a deterrent. -_-
Companies get fined money because it's only reasonable that they lose a fraction of income they gained by selling the product under false pretenses (in this case), or by doing something else unethical or illegal. Why would they be allowed to keep that money? If you go as far as to see the fines as "stealing", then one could also say that the company "stole" that money to begin with.
Besides, if you read the thread, you'll notice that nobody actually gets the bulk of $3.5 million.
|
On April 28 2012 18:38 fearus wrote:For anyone who cares, I have a nice jar of nutella right next to me. It says on the back label Show nested quote +"Kids do a lot of living in the day, providing them with a balanced breakfast can make a difference" Show nested quote +Example of a balanced breakfast
+ Two slices of high fibre whitebread with 10g of delicious Nutella per slice
+ One glass of reduced fat milk
+ One piece of fruit I really don't see anything wrong with this labelling, this lawsuit is retarded.
I am going to quote this again for people who may have missed it. I typed out the labeling and 'advertisement' on my own Nutella jar.
Please feel free to tell me where in there is false advertisement.
|
I actually have no sympathy for Nutella here. They stock this poo alongside peanut butter instead of in the candy section where it belongs and advertise it as a part of a balanced diet. ![[image loading]](http://nerdnirvana.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/nutella-500x375.jpg)
|
This reminds me of an incident in USA a long time ago.
This woman put her cat in the microwave oven to dry it, and then the cat died because well.. isn't it obvious?
She then filed a lawsuit and won.
If every single little retarded detail isn't on the box in the US, companies can get sued.
|
On April 28 2012 19:08 YourOldBuddy wrote:
I actually have no sympathy for Nutella here. They stock this poo alongside peanut butter instead of in the candy section where it belongs and advertise it as a part of a balanced diet.
There is not a single food/drink product in the world (that i have heard of) that cannot be a part of balanced diet. Everything is good in moderation.
|
|
|
On April 28 2012 19:12 Mondieu wrote:well i watched the ad, http://www.youtube.com/embed/ThIrw_LpuRA ; they never say it's healty, just an easy, quick breakfast. I guess they must have had 3.5$ sitting around.
Or there was some dirt/part of the case that they wanted to go away. 3.5m is not much to Nutella but I doubt they just wanted to give it away.
|
First of all, I doubt Ferrero is even going to notice the missing 3.5 million (their revenue for 2010 was 7.2 billion). And while I don't think anyone deserves a million for feeding their children unhealthy food, it still serves them right to lose this lawsuit. Advertisement is disgusting enough as it is, but blatantly lying (or implying) really earns you no sympathy points whatsoever.
|
On April 28 2012 19:11 Sea_Food wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2012 19:08 YourOldBuddy wrote:
I actually have no sympathy for Nutella here. They stock this poo alongside peanut butter instead of in the candy section where it belongs and advertise it as a part of a balanced diet. There is not a single food/drink product in the world (that i have heard of) that cannot be a part of balanced diet. Everything is good in moderation.
Everything is not "good" in moderation. It's just that some things won't be as bad if it's in moderation.
|
On April 28 2012 19:10 Hiea wrote:
This reminds me of an incident in USA a long time ago.
This woman put her cat in the microwave oven to dry it, and then the cat died because well.. isn't it obvious?
She then filed a lawsuit and won.
If every single little retarded detail isn't on the box in the US, companies can get sued.
Source?
Sounds familiar... urban legend perhaps?
The legend about the microwaved pet has been with us since 1976, but its antecedents were around long before that. If lore is to be believed, foolhardy old ladies have been attempting to dry wet pets in clothes dryers and conventional ovens long before the invention of the microwave oven.
A related Russian legend tells of a mother whose custom was to bathe her child in a tub of warm water. She places the tub (with the child in it) on top of the unlit wood stove, and goes to speak to a neighbor. The gossip session stretches out longer than anticpated. Upon return to her kitchen, she discovers a draft through the open back door has caused the fire to rekindle under the child and her baby now lies dead in the tub.
Source
Keep spreading that tort reform propaganda though lol.
|
I just watched the add and they never say its "healthy" for you. They sate its "balanced" but in the end you need to be able to jude for your self what is balanced for you. One of the kids even pulls out one of his teeths!! How can you miss something that obvius? "It takes alot of energy to be a kid" = the energy value is very high. I wish someone could punch that women in her face, she is obviously not fit for taking care of children.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
