Is Big Sugar the Culprit?

Is big sugar the culprit creating the larger pool of consumers who have experienced negative health outcomes from consuming products with added sugar? Yes. I believe they have.

Whether products are healthy or not such as alcohol and sugary products, the marketers shouldn't give consumers a misconception of a product. Marketers are trying to sell any product regardless its  effect on personal health and its damages, it is their job is to make the product attractive. Having said that, I feel that marketers should still provide consumers with accurate information about the products. Puffery, even though effective for food and beverage manufacturers, should be avoided. Ads on these types of products are unfair and deceptive to the consumers and is a misrepresentation the induces a consumer to make a purchase. The image of the muffin mix emphasizes that the product is made with whole grains. But how do we know how much whole grain is used and if the amount of whole grains is enough to make a difference? Is the amount of whole grain used to enough to be the reason why we choose this product over another without whole grain or is the amount in there undetectable?

The image of cocoa cola's zero soda is giving a misleading representation  as well. Even though there is zero calories in the soda how do we know the substitute ingredient used  to make it zero calories isn't any worse than having a soda with all the calories? Marketers should develop more informational nutritional facts or not say anything about it at all, I feel that they are ethically responsible for their consumers. If a product has no nutritional information I automatically assume that there are no benefits to eating the product and from there is my choice whether or not I choose to eat something unhealthy.To make in informed decision, people need accurate information. I would actually rather buy a product that has facts that have been substantiated than one that provides misleading facts. The misleading facts leave me questioning how it it a better product. And if there is no nutritional facts at all than I purchase it knowing the effect it will have on me in the long run.

Food and drink manufacturers should have ethical responsibility of what they are offering their consumers, with the added sugar products leading to increased chance of diabetes and obesity, how are they any different than tobacco companies causing lung cancer to their consumers? According to meccola, Big Sugar uses Big Tobacco style tactics manipulating the public and government agencies with "slick propaganda that has virtually no basis in real science, and carefully covering up the reality of harm". What makes Big Sugar worse is that they target even younger markets, young children who can't differentiate the products that are harmful.

I believe that companies should be taxed on the their sugary products. Even though it is a difficult move, I feel that it could potentially be more effective in the long as other states take the same step and approve taxes on certain companies and a product they are using. From what I found, taxes have had a negative effect on some places leading companies to use worse ingredients as a substitute for sugar. In The Guardian, after Mexico had approved a tax on every liter of sugar drinks sold, "Mexicoke" felt they wore forced to switch to much cheaper high-fructose corn syrup the cane sugar to compensate the tax effect on their company. In another article from The New York Times, businesses in Denmark have been negatively impacted by the so called "fat tax". As a result, Danes would go to Swedan and Germany where prices are lower to buy certain products. If all companies in every company was taxed for the added sugar than people wouldn't need to go to the neighboring countries to purchase products because they all would follow the same regulations.These results show that if companies in different countries were taxed the overall effect would be more effective.

Do You Got Insurance? Campaign

The “Got Insurance?” campaign aimed to encourage young adults to sign up for health insurance coverage through Obamacare, and for multiple reasons . This ad campaign was a collaboration between Colorado Consumer Health Initiative and Progress Now Colorado Education organizations, Colorado nonprofits, to make a spin off the famous “got milk” ad campaign as a way to promote Obamacare.

This campaign created questioned intentions about Obamacare and whether or not it was supported by the government. Instead this was promoted via social media to create awareness and traffic. Even though the intentions were to bring traffic, I feel that it was more damaging rather than helpful. It drives negative attentions using offensive and misleading communications. I understand how they were taking a humorous approach to it but the imagery is offensive. Business Insider supports this in that they don’t care whether the campaign creates positive or negative reactions, as long as people are noticing it and creating traffic. 

According to Business Insider the three main target groups are young adults, women, and minority groups. It appears that they believe this is a naïve target market, they’re young and poor and trying to convince the images in the ad are normal and that healthcare is needed at their age. Some of these images focuses on college students, in their 20-30s, this is the age range where people are typically healthy. Snopes says the representatives of the campaign felt that the ads images focus on women to help them connect with their new health insurance options. It’s true that some of these scenarious seem relatable but their use of visuals is  somewhat distracting from the real purpose of the healthcare. Consumer Health Initiative and Progress Now Colorado Education has done some image-destroying activities for ObamaCare, using offensive communication and misleading communications. ObamaCare purpose was to create opportunities for people to obtain affordable healthcare for more serious situations, not to misuse healthcare for silly reasons.  

When I saw these images, I felt that they were projecting these scenarios to be part of the norm and that it’s okay to do all of these things.It was if the campaign was promoting this type of behavior, it was okay because  Obamacare will pay for everything regardless of the reasons. This campaign doesn't do Obamacare any justice, the intention of the healthcare do not seem sincere here, instead it's displayed in a humorous and tacky manner. 

It’s interesting because some of visuals are more serious and  more realistic and others are just plain ridiculous. For example, I think Mamacare is a more typical concern situation that cames up,“When my baby  is sick, my first question is what’s my doctor’s number, not can I afford a doctor”.  Whether or not calling the doctor has always been a concern for those who are not insured. But then right next to it is “Let’s Get Physical” "OMG, he’s hot! Let’s hope he’s as easy to get as this birth control” and “Get Your Shots” 

Seriously?  think they should of drawn the line with this image here about birth control, its almost as if they are promoting this type of behavior. Like its okay to do these types of things because having Obamacare will take care of all of this for you. Overall the use of different images left me confused and flabbergasted, I don't know who to react because some of these images are relatable. Having healthcare for some of the reason displayed such as getting pregnant, and having your kids hurt are more practical reasons than getting birth control and getting a hot guy and being able to afford alcohol.