What's new
What's new

"Manufacturing" Snake Oil in 2002 ?

  • Thread starter D. Thomas
  • Start date
  • Replies 13
  • Views 2,545
D

D. Thomas

Guest
Been on the road a few days of late, listening to various radio stations, and it struck me how odd it is how to this day, absolutely worthless medications are allowed to be freely advertised on the radio, print media and TV. Various diet pills are one example ("burn fat while you sleep with Carbo-Rip!") , another are hair restoring products. From what I've read about the few ~patented~ products that actually do grow new hair, like Rogain, their effectivees is minimal or none, so any non patented hair regrowth products I figure have a 99.9 percent change of being absolutely worthless. And yet radio stations advertise the heck out of this stuff. What's next, electric belts for arthritis ??
 
I guess the problem with letting the market decide is that this is quite difficult to do when the market is being lied to. I was under the impression that false advertising was illegal, and just wondering how the heck the radio stations get off scott free putting this rubbish over the air waves. It is somewhat entertaining at first but gets old after the tenth commercial. In this case what is worthless to some, is almost certainly worthless to all.

Speaking of radio entertainment value, ever heard the "Delilah" show ? I keep thinking this is really Saturday Night Live on the radio, but apparently it is for real
smile.gif




[This message has been edited by D. Thomas (edited 11-16-2002).]
 
D were you fooled? I bet not judging by your comments and you seem to be of ordinary wit so I would imagine others were not fooled either. Infact I would guess that the vast majority of the folks are not fooled, so what you are seeming to imply is that we need some supernumerary to protect us because there are a few dim bulbs out there. No I think the market does just fine with out outside help and if protecting the dim ones is important to you do it through a private institution. That is still market based because it is done through private voluntary efforts without the force of government.
 
I hear where you're "coming from" NAM in that I'm one of those folks whose not real thrilled with endless government intervention either. Although I can see the arguements for it, I'm not comfortable with it being a "law" that one ~has~ to wear a seat belt when driving for one example.

But by your logic ~anything~ goes it seems, even if it involves potential death to the dimwit.

The below I copied from the FTC website and is relevant to existing regulation of advertising. So it's not like we need new laws, just better enforcment of what we already have.

=====================================

The Commission's principle and most visible role is its "traditional " advertising law enforcement function. The FTC is charged with protecting consumers from "unfair methods of competition" and "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" in the marketplace.(1) Although the Commission seeks to foster a national advertising environment that is both competitive and creative, at the same time, it requires that all claims be nondeceptive and substantiated. This is true regardless of whether you use print or broadcast ads or whether you advertise on the Internet.

In my view, it is essential that we maintain the current market-oriented system of advertising regulation that has developed under the FTC Act. The Commission is very active in this and, I must also say, very successful in our law enforcement efforts. We currently have a number of matters in part III adjudication before Administrative Law Judges. Although I am not at liberty to talk about any of these cases in detail, I can say that some of the other alleged unsubstantiated claims that are the subject of litigation involve a wide range of products -- weight-loss programs and services,(2) engine treatment additives,(3) after-market brake products,(4) and back-pain remedies(5) -- and a wide range of issues from traditional ad interpretation and substantiation issues, to questions of what remedies are appropriate from trade name excision(6) to corrective advertising.(7)

In addition to our litigation, we continue to be very active in investigating potential deceptive advertising cases. As in the past, the focus of these investigations is on claims that involve the potential for substantial consumer harm -- those involving health and safety -- and where there is the greatest economic injury. In the past year the Commission resolved alleged charges involving dietary supplement advertising,(8) advertising for high octane gasoline claims,(9) computers,(10) toys,(11) and allegedly deceptive environmental marketing.(12) In the food area, we have challenged a number of claims regarding the levels of "fat,"(13) "cholesterol"(14) and "calories."(15) We continue to bring cases involving alleged deceptive product demonstrations(16) and cases where advertisers allegedly deceptively used survey data.(17) Moreover, in cases where an advertising agency helped create advertising that it knew or reasonably should have known was deceptive or unsubstantiated, we have held advertising agencies accountable.(18)

In determining the appropriate remedy, the Commission first seeks to protect consumers from future false and unsubstantiated claims by prohibiting the false claim and requiring substantiation. Moreover, the Commission almost always imposes some degree of fencing-in relief that covers claims or products that go beyond the alleged complaint. For example, in the Stouffer case where Stouffer was found to have made deceptive low-sodium claims, the order prohibits the misrepresentation of the existence or amount of sodium or salt or any other nutrient or ingredient.(19) The factors we consider in crafting fencing-in relief include the seriousness and deliberateness of the violations, the respondent's past history of violations, and the transferability of the violations to different products. We try to phrase the claims coverage broadly enough so that it cannot be evaded by simply changing a few words. Injunctive relief may also require that specific disclosures be made where they are necessary to correct deception. In rare but appropriate cases, the Commission seeks corrective advertising,(20) and in situations where the Commission has alleged dishonest and fraudulent conduct, redress or disgorgement may be ordered.(21)

When a company violates an existing administrative order the Commission refers the matter to the Department of Justice and seeks civil penalties for violations of that order. In the past several years, we have obtained the highest civil penalties ever for violations of administrative orders. In Dahlberg, we alleged that misrepresentations were made regarding the Miracle Ear Clarifier in violation of a 1976 order which prohibited misrepresentations regarding the performance of the company's product. We obtained a $2.75 million civil penalty -- the largest ever in a consumer protection case.(22) In 1994, the Commission obtained $2.4 million in civil penalties from General Nutrition Corporation for its alleged violation of an existing order.(23) Just recently, Hasbro, Inc., agreed to pay $280,000 in civil penalties to settle charges that it violated a 1993 consent order by representing that children can operate the "Colorblaster" paint sprayer with little or no effort.(24) You will, I think, continue to see a trend toward larger civil penalties for order violations.
 
Fellas,

Ahhh, I'm glad to see this come up again, but under a different topic. A couple of months ago I got going on a thread about how Wal-Mart is driving jobs to China, big-time. And about how if anything is to change this, then somebody in the government will have to weigh in and change the ground rules.

This contributed to a big row, and I ended up making some heated replies I later regretted. I wish I hadn't done that and will be more mannerly tonight, out of repect for the board.

Yet here is the same thing again, and it's still an important issue. The whole debate about the rightness of using the power of government to get involved and throw its weight around. Or more normally the un-rightness of it. The arguements weren't/aren't following a debate about what the government might do to help skilled jobs remain in the U.S. but whether the government should do anything. Tonight, it's a thought which suggests that maybe the government ought to do something about people hawking snake oil, and another that proposes it to be a worse offense against the public to have the gov' step in. Next time it might well be an issue about finding some way to sue your HMO when (not if) it denies treatment just to meet arbitrary financial goals. Not much luck on that one in the current pro-business, anti-regulation climate. Or maybe somebody found 'too much' money in the pension fund and redirected it to some new scam that leaves you nearly pensionless. And on and on and on. Who you gonna call when the fatcats have got your money and don't do what they said they would? Where might the public turn for justice and protection on any account at all?

This isn't an altogether useless debate. Granted, this type of discussion always gets folks hot-n-bothered, as there are seemingly a million instances in which the regulations got it wrong. Still, I tend to think that smart, finely-crafted government intervention helps in a whole range of affairs. And in some situations it is absolutely neccessary. (We desperately need the Bush administration to step in and split stock evaluating firms apart from stock underwriting firms. The very health of the stock market depends on having stock raters independent from persuasion.) Some programs fail, others make things worse, but trusting in the efficacy of 'no-regulation' is a giant leap over some edge I'm not prepared to make. The history of the world simply doesn't indicate that we'll all be better off by letting anybody do anything they want. Does it? What's wrong with having the voice of the people stand against some things? By the way, aren't the conservatives all for just that whenever one of their favorite issues is in play? Right now the Attorney General is pulling out every legal manuever in the books to stall the state of Oregon from enacting its twice-passed public referendum allowing assisted suicide. The federal regional appellate court has reprimanded Ashcroft for plainly using cheap tricks in this, but he says he has to do it by conscience. I mean, what gives? Where's the dividing line between conscience for him and conscience for the rest of us? If yanking these scummy ads looks good to my sensibilities then how might one argue that it's 'wrong' to try? With respect, I say. Using the power of government to curtail some act has a long history in this country and I say we'd be much worse off without this redress.

These low-brow commercials suckering people into ingesting God-knows-what kind of bathtub-and-radiator concoctions for a better erection, keeping a full head of hair, and losing weight while we sleep are all lies. C'mon, it's all BS, and that's important. We all knew there would be a slew of herbal cocktails being offered for this crap as soon as Viagra hit the market. And fat burners while you sleep? Please! What about a sense of decorum on the radio station? We should all be bathed in these ads 24/7/365 just to protect the 'right' to make an easy buck off desperately fat women and guys who've lost their stiffy? I don't know about that. And what's in this stuff anyway?

So why do anything about it? Well, why not? Isn't that the real issue? Why does a bunch of crooks, who predictably say they believe in their own nonsense, have a reasonable expectation of using the publicly-owned broadcast spectrum to draw people into using this stuff? Has anyone checked on the medical effects of using these drugs? Doubtful, and it doesn't seem likely that they are all harmless. That's one of the reasons the FDA insists that companies selling medications do some d*mn labwork. To avoid making people sicker instead of better. Or maybe sick when they were well to begin with. They really should have to prove it before they can sell it. Third world countries don't protect their citizens from this crap. Can't we do better than Bangladesh?

I say haul the commercials down. The odds are that they are bunk, and this being so the sellers of such crap are the ones who should have to 'do something' in order to ping their wares off the public's ears. I know this is going to sting, but to insist that the public is actually better off being pelted by these lies rather than pro-actively kept from them isn't a position that takes as its first priority the safety of the public. My suspicion is that an abhorence of government action is part of a satisfying ideological stance which says the government screws up everything it touches and that if people want to happily eat poison then let 'em. So what if others make a pile of cash selling the poison, and drag us all a little deeper into the gutter. Who is anyone to say no? Hmmmmm.....I'm not so sure this is an altogether defensible position, is it? Really, taken as a whole, what might be the reasoning which says that these fake medications should better be left on the market?

There is a strong undercurrent of thought these days which hates government, plainly and completely. We'll all be a lot worse off in the end if this way of operating runs a full course. Remember, back in '95 or so Gingrich and Co. actually tried to do away with the FDA. What?! Do you want to have some pharmaceutical giant with ten million dollars to spend on an advertising campaign snooker you into eating something that will destroy your spleen? Oh, later on they say that only .72% of respondents had that problem. Well, bad luck I guess to those 7200 people if a million used it.... We simply have to have the assistance of a functioning beauracracy, working under reasonable legislation, to haul us up out the mud. Maybe that sucks, but that's the way it is. I have yet to hear of a country which has no rules that is anything other than a hellhole. Of course, it's all in the specifics. Too much regulation is almost as bad. But bottom-line, we just can't give ourselves over to falling for the false promise of no-regulation. And don't think the no-reg crowd will restrain themselves too often when they want to put an end to something they don't like themselves.

In all fairness, some kind of respectful nod needs to be given the smart folks who feel that we do, in fact, live in a country over-wrought with regulation. Surely this is partly true. Some big gov' programs have hurt, such as welfare. Others are a wash but still cost a lot of money, moving neither forward nor back. Some seem to hamper innovation and trade for little good reason, as we all know the business-haters have had their hand in the cookie jar too. I acknowledge all this, and am all out for indentifying the lemons. But this particular topic isn't about wasting taxpayer money so much as restricting private parties from engaging in commerce. I think it's this interference in making money any ol' way that is the actual offending part. There is some sense of ultimate freedom wrapped up in this, and also the aggravation of being expected to explain yourself. Hey, it offends me too to think of OSHA shutting me down for some obscure rule, but there are worse things in life than personal aggravation, you know?

Whether or not the peddlers of these useless and quite possibly harmful 'remedies' should be allowed to sell them is a matter ripe for public discussion. I say that unless they can prove the stuff they are encouraging people to eat can be shown to be both useful and safe they ought to be forced out of business. And the sooner the better, for us all. And if that puts an end to some bottom feeding commercials, well... too bad. They can all get real jobs and do some work that has value. Amassing a mountain of money by playing on the fears of people in a bad way is no good in my book. I mean, how many old ladies' social security checks does it take to buy a TV preacher a private jet? Anyone here got Flawwell's phone number? I'm a little tired of the time-honored Southern tradition of hoo-dooing poor people myself. And I don't feel too bad about trying to stop it either.


I started by saying I'd be respectful to other people this time 'round. I hope I'm doing that, while at the same time lobbying for access to ending some things by law. To my eye, that's the thread here. To counter the current wave of thinking which tells us we can abandon regulation altogether, even though no one has said such a thing. But can anyone here say exactly why the peddlers of these potions should have unfettered access to the public? Just this one example will shed a lot of light on regulation, all the way from Enron to Worldcom to Adelphia and back again. Tell me all those fifty-somethings who have lost their retirements don't want to find someone to do something for them now. And maybe even to prevent such brazen stock manipulations in the future. Well, how? I wonder how many of 'em voted for Bush....

Trust and progress come in funny places. I fully understand the impulse to say, "To hell with government." Just show me something that works better and I'm in.


Making lots of friends again,
J. Elliott
 
D my position is that what ever is peaceful and free of coercion it is the right of an individual to do as he pleases. Who am I to step in and tell a dimwit what to do, in fact how am I to know who is a dimwit? If I can not do this how can a politicized agent do it except by abitrary rules and force. We are individuals with God given rights to be free agents which means we will make mistakes but we do not have the right to stop others from making their own mistakes. We do have rules to guide us in the sense as to not harm others, like rules of the road, which I do support. If others cause us harm we do have a means to redress the situation through the courts.

It is interesting how some people can run off and contradict themselves e.g. want government to protect them and then when government does it they complain.

Government has its place but it is limited in its scope to protecting us from our enemies and to adjudicating our differences, any thing else can be better served through the open and free market.
 
Now lets get back to advertising. There is a person on this board who advertises a tank monitoring gage and there is a fair amount of hype and facts in his copy. A little short on the details e.g. does it pass a salt spray test, meet any MIL-SPECs etc. But the person has a good reputation as an inventor and business man so I would certainly check out the product if I had a need. By the same token there was mentioned in another post a device for cutting grass which has a fancy web site with sound et al but as soon as you enter the site it says "AS SEEN ON TV". Now there is a big red flag warning you of snake oil. Now what is the point? The point is I do not need government to protect me from either ad, the free market has already done that for me.
 
I'm very familiar with that person and the Tank Monitor and can say it doesn't need to pass a salt spray test as it's always mounted inside the cabin
smile.gif
 
In my other life I designed a lot of stuff that saw ship born duty and that salt spray test was a real pesky test. But then again salt would get every where, a real pain. Also desert dust was a problem which threw people because they could not conceive of it on a war ship.
 
"What's next, electric belts for arthritis ??"

Well, there are magnetic belts being sold for arthritic, and copper bracelets. Even "Dr. Scholls" is in on the scam.

We're witnessing a profound shift in public thinking on this issue. It used to be until about twenty years ago that medicinal products were expected to be effective for what they claimed. Today, advertisers can lie with impunity. It's open season on suckers in America. Incidentally, it's no better in the New Zealand, where I'm currently working. Pharmacists individually own drug stores in New Zealand. You would think professional ethical standards would keep them from promoting worthless devices and "alternative" - ie quack - medicines in their stores. Not so. Pharmacists in New Zealand and in the USA are as enthusiastic about selling bogus medicinals as the worst snake-oil salesman of old.

In economic terms, it's a failure of the marketplace. I normally don't like government intrusion, but in this case there is an imbalance of information between producer and consumer which is not self-correcting. This came about legislatively in the USA because of an unholy alliance between crackpot counter-culturalists on the left and rabid "free-market" nitwits on the right. In my view, Government has a legitimate duty to step in and declare that medicinals and quasi-medicinals hiding under the "food supplement" label, must demonstrate efficacy.

It is not only manufacturers. The medical professions are also sliding towards superstition. Large numbers of Registered Nurses think they can draw out "disease energies" by waving their hands above a patient. Here in New Zealand all kinds of worthless quack ideas flourish among physicians - irridology, reflexology, cranial manipulation - it's all common and unchallenged. In New Zealand, a general practitioner can be struck off the rolls, not for practicing quackery but for not having the correct quack credentials from bogus schools.

It's a major problem throughout the Western world. We are rapidly abandoning the scientific method of inquiry in favor of "intuition" and the supposed primacy of "individual experience".

[This message has been edited by Nait (edited 11-28-2002).]
 
From today's NYT

December 6, 2002
U.S. and 2 States File Suit Over Claims in Diet Ads
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


WASHINGTON, Dec. 5 — A company that says its weight-loss product burns away fat while dieters sleep was sued today by the federal government and two states, which accused it of deceptive advertising.

The company, Mark Nutritionals Inc., based in San Antonio, used radio disc jockeys on more than 650 stations in 110 cities to sell its Body Solutions Evening Weight Loss Formula, the Federal Trade Commission said.

The agency said the false claims included statements that the product would "cause substantial weight loss even if users eat substantial amounts of high-calorie foods such as pizza, beer, tacos, nachos, cheese grits and doughnuts."

The agency is not suing the disc jockeys who read the advertisements, which were broadcast in English and Spanish.

"This was bilingual deception," said Howard Beales, leader the agency's consumer protection bureau.

The federal lawsuit was filed in Federal District Court in San Antonio. Texas and Illinois officials filed similar lawsuits today.

The company, which filed for bankruptcy protection in September, has taken in $190 million since 1999 selling its Body Solutions products, the Federal Trade Commission said. The company still sells the weight-loss product on its Web site.

Larry Cochran, acting chief executive of Mark Nutritionals since the bankruptcy, said the company has agreed to change its advertising to address the government's concerns.

"We are moving forward with a new way to promote and advertise our product," Mr. Cochran said.

The weight-loss formula is a liquid that consumers are instructed to drink before going to bed and at least three hours after eating or drinking. The ingredients have changed over time, the Federal Trade Commission said, but most recently included aloe vera gel and various herbs.

The agency said there was no scientific proof that any of the ingredients promoted weight loss.

Copyright The New York Times Company
 
Sometimes it isn't so much that government has to "do something" (i.e. make a law) as it is that they should STOP doing something.

Example:
Not so many places make transformers here anymore, and they are often very expensive when made here. Pricing has gone up a lot in the last 10 years.

Import duty on a transformer is around 8%.

If you import a complete power supply assembly (which includes a transformer, most likely) the duty on THAT is only 3%.

So, if you bring in parts, and make the power supply here, it costs you more percentage (and maybe overall)in tariff duty than if you fire your workers, and outsource to off-shore. This on top of the lower costs of the latter course to start with.

Do we need a new law? NOPE, we need a stupid tariff to be removed to level the playing field.
 

Similar threads

D
Replies
37
Views
4K
D. Thomas
D








 
Back
Top