KFC Lawsuit: Too Much Trans Fat

Off Topic
121

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

chinadoll wrote:
What about television commercials that imply that girls will jump your bones if you use Axe body spray? Should we then be allowed to SUE that big corporation if guys use it and never get laid and subsequently suffer a poor self esteem? Is it the FAULT of the company that a certain segment of the population believes those ads? And if this is false advertising that is misleading such a helpless public, then we really REALLY REALLY need to step up our game as a large number of products falsely advertise in this way day in and day out.

Totally agreed, China. It’s only when companies are misleading to a degree that a rationale, reasonable person can’t see through their spin that they should be liable[/quote]

sorry js, but that is backward.
the ftc standard is what a reasonable person could infer from an implied claim. not what they couldn’t.

<<<<<<“The FTC looks at both “express” and “implied” claims. An express claim is literally made in the ad. For example, “ABC Mouthwash prevents colds” is an express claim that the product will prevent colds. An implied claim is one made indirectly or by inference. “ABC Mouthwash kills the germs that cause colds” contains an implied claim that the product will prevent colds. Although the ad doesn’t literally say that the product prevents colds, it would be reasonable for a consumer to conclude from the statement “kills the germs that cause colds” that the product will prevent colds. Under the law, advertisers must have proof to back up express and implied claims that consumers take from an ad.”>>>>>>

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.htm

interesting you’d think it’s the other way around though. do you treat your friends like that or just the folks you do business with ?

122

[quote]swivel wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

chinadoll wrote:
What about television commercials that imply that girls will jump your bones if you use Axe body spray? Should we then be allowed to SUE that big corporation if guys use it and never get laid and subsequently suffer a poor self esteem? Is it the FAULT of the company that a certain segment of the population believes those ads? And if this is false advertising that is misleading such a helpless public, then we really REALLY REALLY need to step up our game as a large number of products falsely advertise in this way day in and day out.

Totally agreed, China. It’s only when companies are misleading to a degree that a rationale, reasonable person can’t see through their spin that they should be liable

sorry js, but that is backward.
the ftc standard is what a reasonable person could infer from an implied claim. not what they couldn’t.

<<<<<<“The FTC looks at both “express” and “implied” claims. An express claim is literally made in the ad. For example, “ABC Mouthwash prevents colds” is an express claim that the product will prevent colds. An implied claim is one made indirectly or by inference. “ABC Mouthwash kills the germs that cause colds” contains an implied claim that the product will prevent colds. Although the ad doesn’t literally say that the product prevents colds, it would be reasonable for a consumer to conclude from the statement “kills the germs that cause colds” that the product will prevent colds. Under the law, advertisers must have proof to back up express and implied claims that consumers take from an ad.”>>>>>>

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/ad-faqs.htm

interesting you’d think it’s the other way around though. do you treat your friends like that or just the folks you do business with ?

[/quote]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here. What standard are we asking businesses to meet? Claims should be true, yes. But the majority of products ‘imply’ things that are not really true. It’s not actual false information though and you don’t see successful lawsuits against these companies.

123

We only need to look to the political world to see how easy it is for otherwise smart people to find it difficult to find the truth.

Part of the problem is that there is legitimate disagreement about what the truth might be. As in politics, corporations are very happy to twist facts in their favor.

It’s fine to argue that people should be smart, or that people should spend more time educating themselves about every topic that influences their lives, but it’s not possible.

We don’t all get to be politician astronaut engineer biochemist auto mechanic computer programming medical professionals specializing is business and legal issues in our copious amounts of spare time granted to us by our self-running multinational corporations.

Honestly. Look around. Depressing isn’t it?

124

People have come to idolize business and trade above and beyond a level that is healthy.

It isn’t true that what’s good for business is good for the consumer, the country or the planet.

Dammit, don’t get me wrong, I’m pro-business, but somewhere under all the fucking money-grubbing we need more ethical people.

125

KFC did not make any claims to cause consumers to infer they were eating something healthy. They have not made claims about the health aspect of there food at all. Why should the onus be put on them to do this? You could argue that their should be an obligation to disclose the amount of trans fat in foods and notify consumers of the health impact. Or even a law to have a set maximum amount in a given serving side. Some have. I personally don’t think there should be anything but disclosue. I wouldn’t agree with a government-determined maximum or require fast foods companies or anyone to educate consumers. The information is abundantly available elsewhere. In any case, it is not the current law. And under the law we have, this is a frivolous lawsuit. KFC has made no false or misleading claims, swivel.

126

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
KFC did not make any claims to cause consumers to infer they were eating something healthy. They have not made claims about the health aspect of there food at all.[/quote]

For those who never saw the past TV ads I referred to earlier, here’s an old USA Today article (dated Dec 2003) that talks about them.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/adtrack/2003-12-07-track-kfc_x.htm

Low-carb message not popular, but sales are up

By Theresa Howard, USA TODAY, 12/8/2003

NEW YORK - The popularity of the low-carbohydrate Atkins diet has motivated an unlikely group of food and beverage brands to find ways to tout low-carb benefits of their products or introduce low-carb versions.

Ads suggest KFC’s Original Recipe is low-carb, high-protein, but remind viewers fried chicken isn’t low in fat, sodium or cholesterol.

Even beer and indulgent restaurant brands are trying to ride the wave of weight watching.

T.G.I. Friday’s, known for its Friday’s Tostado Nachos, Philly cheesesteak sandwiches and potato skins (loaded with cheddar cheese and bacon), is among the latest to join. On Friday, the company announced plans to add two pages of Atkins-diet-friendly selections to menus at its 523 domestic restaurants.

The items, created in cooperation with Atkins Nutritionals, will be in restaurants Dec. 9.

Meanwhile, beer brands are in a carb war sparked by the success of Anheuser-Busch’s Michelob Ultra low-carb brew. Joining the battle have been Rolling Rock’s new Green Light brand and low-carb pioneer Miller Lite, with ads reminding consumers it has always had just 3.2 grams of carbohydrates. Coors recently announced that it will roll out a low-carb beer called Aspen Edge in March.

But perhaps no marketer has dared to make as bold a low-carb pitch as fast-food chain KFC.

The Yum Brands unit (YUM) launched its "You’ve Gotta KFC What’s Cookin’ " campaign by FCB, Chicago, with two ads squarely aimed at selling fried chicken to the carb-obsessed.

In one ad, someone asks his friend Jack what he has been doing to look so good. Jack’s answer: “Eatin’ chicken.” The announcer then says, “The secret’s out. Original Recipe chicken has 11 grams of carbohydrates and 40 grams of protein.”

In another ad, a wife slams down a bucket of chicken as the answer to “eating better.”

Although the chicken might be a fine source of protein with relatively few carbs, health food it is not. That might be the larger message of the ads, but a small-print disclaimer notes that fried chicken is not a “low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-sodium food.”

Marketing expert Marian Salzman thinks the ads put KFC on risky ground.

“When marketers cross the line into untrue territory, they are in a bad, bad place,” says Salzman, chief strategy officer of New York ad agency Euro RSCG. “I really question the intellect of where they went. Marketers need to understand that you can’t ask people to believe what isn’t true.”

Shortly after the ads began to air in late October, the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a food activist group, filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission saying the ads’ “small print does not undo the deception caused by the big print.”

“These ads don’t tell the truth,” said Michael Jacobson, CSPI executive director, at the filing. “These ads take the truth, dip it in batter and deep-fry it. Colonel Sanders himself would have a hard time swallowing this ad campaign.”

The FTC is reviewing the complaint and would not comment on it. The review is expected to take as much as three months.

KFC would not comment on the ads, which have not aired since Nov. 21. But in a statement following the CSPI filing, the company said the complaint had not prompted the company to pull them. It said the ads, which were the first installment of the ad campaign, were scheduled to stop.

Results of Ad Track, USA TODAY’s weekly poll, indicate consumers won’t miss them. Of those familiar with the campaign, just 8% like the ads “a lot,” vs. the Ad Track average of 21%. And 22% dislike the ads, vs. the Ad Track average of 13%.

Despite the reaction, the ads seem to have helped sales. Dec. 4, Yum reported a 1% increase in U.S. same-store sales for the four-week period ended Nov. 29. That was the first month of sales growth for the chain since April.

127

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
KFC did not make any claims to cause consumers to infer they were eating something healthy. They have not made claims about the health aspect of there food at all. [/quote]

they made enough of an inference for an ftc complaint to pull their ads off the air.[quote]

Why should the onus be put on them to do this? [/quote]

c’mon, they’re serving bad shit, not telling people, and charging them money ! goddamn ! talk about adding insult to injury. if you cooked dinner for your friends i’ll bet they’d assume you weren’t promoting heart disease…wouldn’t they ?

[quote]
You could argue that their should be an obligation to disclose the amount of trans fat in foods and notify consumers of the health impact.[/quote]

that’s all they want from this suit. for kfc to disclose trans fat conetent @ point of sale or to stop using trans fat. [quote]

Or even a law to have a set maximum amount in a given serving side. Some have. I personally don’t think there should be anything but disclosue. I wouldn’t agree with a government-determined maximum or require fast foods companies or anyone to educate consumers. The information is abundantly available elsewhere. In any case, it is not the current law. And under the law we have, this is a frivolous lawsuit. KFC has made no false or misleading claims, swivel.[/quote]

well, i think it’s a legitimate argument. the court will decide. cspi has filed similar suits against:

tropicana- who sold a “peach-papaya drink” that claimed " made with real fruit juice" however, it was pear juice and the drink had no peach or papaya in it. same with their “strawberry-melon drink”.

quaker- same shit as above but with “peaches and cream oatmeal” ans “strawberry’s and cream” no peaches , no strawberries, no cream.

whole foods market- a fungus based “meat substitute” makes people sick. diarrhea, allergic reaction, incontinence. etc.

arizona iced-teas- barely detectable levels of the herbs they claim.

frito-lay : olestra makes some people ill. although packaging did inform of the use of olestra, this suit was brought to have it more prominently displayed. and now it is. frivolous ? i guess you could argue that since it said it already. but c’mon it makes people sick !

all of these companies thought enough of this type of complaint to settle out of court. i dont see any of these suits as frivolous. do you ? i don’t see a suit asking kfc to disclose their use of trans fat, which everyone agrees is shit to be eating (everyone but fox news that is) as frivolous either. to the contrary, i see it performing the valuable function of telling some of these companies they better back the fuck up.

the part i dont understand about some of the posts on this thread is how you all seem to be rooting for a dirt-bag company like kfc. i’d like to believe you aren’t but dammit, it sure seems that way and i don’t get it…manny just jacked one btw, sox win again, spanks lose… i mean why don’t we want higher standards and more truth in our society ? especially when it comes to food ? i’m sick of these fuckers pushing the limits at every corner. why doesn’t anyone want to call bullshit ? and kfc taking the hard-line and defending their use of trans-fats because they want to “preserve flavor” is bowl-fuckin-sheeit ! at least this way people know about it.