Ethics Of Packaging Essay

Companies are using environmentalism as a straw man for overconsumption. Coming straight out of writer Amy Westervelt’s article, “Can Recycling Be Bad for the Environment?”, Westervelt clearly sees through this ploy of emotional appeal, stating “American consumers

This paper will particularly focus on the food industry and will outline the ethical issue of food marketing towards children by reviewing the existing marketing ethics literature. The paper will evaluate the ethical responsibilities of marketing managers towards the issue of food marketing towards children and its impact. The paper will also explore and propose how managers of marketing can change their strategies to improve the ethical performance of the company by analyzing theories such as business ethics, social marketing and corporate social responsibility (CSR). It will discuss various theoretical approaches to marketing.

Have you ever seen a commercial and said, “wow, I can relate to that” or “I could use that product”? Well each company has a specific age range that they target to increase their profits. Like toys are targeted at children, and medicine is targeted for adults. However, sometimes there are times where the companies use unethical ways to sell their products, especially in genetically modified foods. It is ethical for food companies to sell unlabeled genetically modified food because customers can become confused if there are too many labels they do not understand. Companies become so desperate to bring in new customers they will use inappropriate ways to gain their attention, in hopes to increase their profits.

Many consumers are often not aware that a large number of companies do not label everything they put

In the past Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. has put up many ads on huge billboards. There is one ad in particular that stakes a claim about it’s ranking of their ingredients among competitors. The ad reads “WE WANTED TO WRITE ABOUT OUR LOCALLY SOURCED NATURAL INGREDIENTS, BUT SHORT BILLBOARD HEADLINES ARE BETTER” (Liebelson). Although Chipotle is claiming that the quality of their ingredients are better, it leaves the consumer wondering what exactly is so good about the products that go into their foods. It is wrong that more information about Chipotle and their ingredients aren’t found on the ad as it may cause a lot of misunderstanding and deception amongst the consumers. These people may think that they’re eating the best and healthiest ingredients but in actuality they are taking in food that has caused many health issues in the past.

But companies don’t care to show it, as long as there is still people paying for their products, so they keep on making us believe that what we eat is not so bad for our health. This takes very strategic marketing and we need to learn how to analyze labels and really think if what we eat straight out of a package is better than a fruit or a salad.

Although adults can view food advertisements critically to diminish their intended effects on their diet, Mello, Studdert, and Brennan found that children do not have this same cognitive ability (2605). They found that children under eight years of age are “generally unable to understand the persuasive intent of advertising” (2601). This means that children aged seven and under may not be able to distinguish the difference between when they are being marketed to and when they are being educated, for instance. This is likely the reason why “children who watch more television than do other children are more likely to identify incorrectly which of two foods is more healthful” (Mello, Studdert, and Brennan 2605). Studies have found that around 50% of “all nutrition-related information in television advertisements is misleading or inaccurate” (Mello, Studdert, and Brennan 2605). The food industry’s advertising practices are deceitful and harmful, yet they are not currently subject to legal

Many advertisements nowadays don’t advertise objects with the verity of their quality. Rather, they get someone in the famous industry to advertise their product so the people that are watching see their favorite famous person and want to buy it because they use it. When most of the people that promote it don’t use it, or it never truly works as they say, and another way they advertise is through foods.

Making food choices is a major component in the health and well being of our bodies just a few

The public has the right to know where their food came from and how it was produced. Food is not being produced like advertisers say it is and the consumers have the chance to know the truth that “[…] animal and workers ae being abused. The food are becoming much more dangerous that is deliberately being hidden from us”. When advertisers swindle the consumer by placing a picture of natural, surreal, or farms on their product

In the documentary Food Inc. The message is that the food industry does not want us to know about what we are eating. . This problem may be true however it is driven by the consumer’s continual interest in buying cheaper and cheaper products. The farmers way of life has been revolutionized. Modern farmers think faster, cheaper, bigger. It’s really not until when consumers demand

The food being advertised is extremely unhealthy and contributes to the obesity epidemic that is sweeping the nation.

The economy today runs on an antiquated ritual of exploiting, plundering, devastation, and manipulation of land for material wealth, profiting the wealthy and condemning the poor. This mindset is no more sophisticated than feudalism, a system so bad it had to be outlawed along with witchcraft. The idea that exploitation of land is justified has brought plastics to the ocean and leveled rainforests. Large corporations have grown larger by manufacturing and production, depleting the planet’s resources in the process. Now, companies must make a combined effort to put the environment first, before profit. Because of their harmful practices, consumers have the right to know where products come from, how they’re made, and the impact on the environment. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the large corporations to change their harmful practices, to make strides towards ending climate change and use clean, sustainable methods.

On your weekly trip to the supermarket it’s easy to find a number of products, from coffee to dishwashing soap, that flaunt their green attributes” (American Psychological Association, 2010). With such rumors of greenwashing, consumers are more confused than ever. However, some consumers know the tricks and are coming to find that there are companies whose marketing practices are legit, not exaggerated or deceiving. APA also found that, “people are willing to spend more of their hard-earned green on green products, according to a 2008 survey of 9,000 adults performed by the global business firm Boston Consulting Group” (American Psychological Association, 2010). Consumers who are willing to pay more for a product or service are assuming that they are purchasing a healthier, safer, and better quality product or service for the environment.

Dist. LEXIS 41077 at *32-34 (in which a product falsely claims to be “Guacamole,” made with “All Natural” ingredients). Furthermore, a reasonable person might find an advertisement misleading or confusing if its design never identifies it for what it is or specifically omits pertinent information such as in Leoni v. State Bar, 39 Cal. 609, 627 (1985) (in which a law firm failed to include clarification that the advertisements were advertisements), or if it should describe itself numerous times as something that it is not (Williams, 552 F.3d at 938-939). However, a product which describes itself clearly or which makes ample effort to dispel any misunderstanding is not confusing to a reasonable person. McKinniss, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96108 at *10-11; Freeman, 68 F.3d at 289-290. Finally, a product which can be viewed on or through its packaging is especially subject to a reasonable consumer’s scrutiny. Thus, a depicted product that clearly does not contain an ingredient, as in Videtto, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43114 at *8, is not in danger of being deceptive. Henderson v. Gruma Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41077 at *32-33 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11,