Mother Sues Cereal Makers for Sugar Claims

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:58:50 -0800, wrote:

I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of most people and the quality of
their education or critical thinking.

I actually have a higher opinion of people and believe in their own
abilities more than they do. If they have the ability to read a price tag
on a grocery store, they have the ability to read the back at the part
where it says "Calories per serving".

What I take exception to is people RELYING ON a one line tag-line to get
their nutrition information.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:58:50 -0800, wrote:

Just for the record, I hold an engineering degree
from a well respected institution and from a look at those labels, I
would have thought that they indeed were being marketed as healthier
versions of the existing product.

We're still talking about Cocoa puffs, right?

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:55:51 -0500, Roger Zoul wrote:

Funny how you have no sympathy for people who are dumb or not critical
thinkers and get taken advantage of. Those are the very ones you should
have sympathy for.

I have sympathy for *those* people, it's the feigned ignorance of other
people I have no sympathy for. I am simply baffled that people really are
unaware that advertising taglines aren't what a person should their whole
feeding regimen on. The money shouldn't go to suing some cocoa-puff
company, it should go in re-education of people. I believe it is feigned
ignorance.

Also, people don't want to be told what they don't want to hear. If
someone had told her "What you are feeding your daughters isn't a very
healthy breakfast", she'd likely have told people to butt out and she can
live her life however she wants.

I'd have no sympathy for those who know better and yet refuse to do
anything.

Those are the same people I am talking about. People who know better, and
don't do anything.

Crafting Mom wrote:
:: On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:02:36 +0000, Ignoramus6685 wrote:
::
::: These cereal companies (just as many others) are built on lies,
::: deception, "perception management", "positioning", and other cute
::: tricks to trick people into buying based on reasons other than good
::: value for the money. Much of their advertising to parents goes along
::: the lines "this food will make kids shut up and stop bothering you".
:::
::: So, I feel no pity when they are sued, although an objection to
::: using stupidity as grounds for lawsuits, is quite valid.
:::
::: Two wrongs (deceptive marketing and bogus lawsuits) do not make a
::: right.
:::
::: Lawyers will get richer, and same crap will continue to sell.
::
:: That is true, but still I have no sympathy for people who make a
:: *regular* purchasing decision BASED ON a one-line advertising
:: tagline. It is not that much of a stretch of the imagination for
:: someone, short of being in a coma, to know that *Cocoa-Puffs* are
:: crap food! I don't buy this, "Oh the backs of those boxes are just
:: too difficult for me to read!" business.
::
:: If they own or rent an apartment/house, they have to *read* the
:: tricky wording on the lease. If they have a job, they have to have
:: *some*, thinking skills. Even the stock-boy in a grocery store
:: needs them. To have the ability to know how to word your resume to
:: get a job, and then turn around and go boo-hoo because yes indeedy,
:: cocoa-puffs are still not IV-worthy, is a contradiction in terms,
:: IMO.
::
:: A one-off purchase, I can understand, but a regular, routine, IV drip
:: feeding of the stuff, I mean, come on... People are going to find
:: ways to justify their laziness, but relying on one-liner advertising
:: as the determining factor for what to include as a regular dietary
:: choice, I'm sorry, but even the most undereducated can get that.
::
:: The woman sounds like she needs to take her third-grade teacher with
:: her to shop. If she can read the price tag on something, she can
:: flip the box over and read the ingredients/label.
::
:: But, Hey, it's america, my guess is the mother will win the lawsuit.
:: She's too stupid to read a label, but knows the right trick to weasel
:: millions of dollars from some junkfood company. So it's obvious
:: she's not entirely clueless about loopholes and wordings.

You really come of as a snob here, CM. the woman read the label and is
taking the vendors to task for purposefully misleading customers. If one
liners aren't so important or useful, why do vendors bother with them?
Because some people don't want to think about it, they just want to eat what
tastes good. And if something reasonable sounding is done ot make them think
a product is healthier, then they feel they should be able to trust some
big, smart company not to outright lie. Sure, it's not an approach that you,
I, or others here will take, but for those who don't choose to be so
concerned about their own well being, there should be some expectation to
not be purposely deceived - espeically since you're paying money for a
product.

funny how you call her stupid yet you have no sympathy for her. Have you
looked up the meaning of stupid lately? IMO, it is a sad day when
knowledgeable people take advantage of stupid people.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:31:01 -0500, Roger Zoul wrote:
funny how you call her stupid yet you have no sympathy for her. Have you
looked up the meaning of stupid lately? IMO, it is a sad day when
knowledgeable people take advantage of stupid people.

I didn't mean to come across as calling her stupid. I should have been
clearer. I take exception to her POSING as someone who is that ignorant.
I should have put the word "stupid" in quotation marks when I said "she is
too stupid to read a label". That's the thing, I have a hard time buying
that she in particular IS that "stupid".

And yes, I do indeed have sympathy for people who truly are at a
disadvantage - I suppose that is why I am baffled about this particular
issue. I spend my life helping the less fortunate and those with learning
disabilities (one of my own children included), so seeing people pretend
to not understand really makes me uncomfortable.

I'm well aware that my opinion about this is likely not going to be
popular and people will disagree with me and therefore assume I don't care
about those who are less fortunate. Well, not much I can do about that.
The funny thing is, I am very much FOR the underdog, all the time, but I
don't see this woman as an underdog. For people that do see her as such,
their reaction to my opinion is perfectly understandable. I have my own
"pet-underdogs" for whom other people have absolutely no sympathy. It's
all a matter of perspective. Doesn't make me a heartless person.

Has this woman put her money where her mouth is and started feeding her
children healthier food?

Crafting Mom wrote:
:: On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 11:55:51 -0500, Roger Zoul wrote:
::
::: Funny how you have no sympathy for people who are dumb or not
::: critical thinkers and get taken advantage of. Those are the very
::: ones you should have sympathy for.
::
:: I have sympathy for *those* people, it's the feigned ignorance of
:: other people I have no sympathy for. I am simply baffled that
:: people really are unaware that advertising taglines aren't what a
:: person should their whole feeding regimen on. The money shouldn't
:: go to suing some cocoa-puff company, it should go in re-education of
:: people. I believe it is feigned ignorance.

Truth in advertising. It should be expected. Some people will always be
ignorant or stupid. The cocoa-puff people AREN'T stupid.

::
:: Also, people don't want to be told what they don't want to hear. If
:: someone had told her "What you are feeding your daughters isn't a
:: very healthy breakfast", she'd likely have told people to butt out
:: and she can live her life however she wants.

True. But stupid and/or ignorant people will do that.
::
::: I'd have no sympathy for those who know better and yet refuse to do
::: anything.
::
:: Those are the same people I am talking about. People who know
:: better, and don't do anything.

Well, this woman is trying to put an end to deceptive practice by a mega
corporation. That's more than I'm doing. Hitting them in their pockets is
really the only way to effect change.

Crafting Mom wrote:
That is true, but still I have no sympathy for people who make a *regular*
purchasing decision BASED ON a one-line advertising tagline.

You may not have sympathy, but if we hooked up an fmri machine to your
head we can see how brands like mcdonalds have carved a place in your
brain. The taglines and continual advertising have a deeper impact than
people would like to admit.

"Ignoramus6685" wrote in message
...
These cereal companies (just as many others) are built on lies,
deception, "perception management", "positioning", and other cute
tricks to trick people into buying based on reasons other than good
value for the money. Much of their advertising to parents goes along
the lines "this food will make kids shut up and stop bothering you".

So, I feel no pity when they are sued, although an objection to using
stupidity as grounds for lawsuits, is quite valid.

Two wrongs (deceptive marketing and bogus lawsuits) do not make a
right.

Lawyers will get richer, and same crap will continue to sell.


Kellogg's managers are paid to do one thing, that is maximise the wealth of
their stockholders. In a market of super-abundance and with a product which
has dubious nutritional value this must be a hard row to hoe. But they do
their best, and I'm sure their ads are carefully lawyered for veracity, if
not completeness. To compensate, the government requires that they include
a complete, if not readily comprehensible, breakdown of what their product
contains. Not sure how much further the nanny state could or should go.
The good news is that death by starvation is relatively rare in the US, as
is the unavailability of safe drinking water.

wrote:
I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of most people and the quality
of
their education or critical thinking. It must be nice to be such a
superior individual. Just for the record, I hold an engineering
degree
from a well respected institution and from a look at those labels, I
would have thought that they indeed were being marketed as healthier
versions of the existing product. I'd call that misleading and
deceptive. And I hope the lady succeeds in her lawsuit. It's more
likely that between the suit and perhaps the govt getting aftern
them,
they will either change or kill the products.

Caveat Emptor anybody?

Plenty of choices were available I'm sure as cereal represents a high
17% proft margin. The aisle must have been filled with carbs.

"warehouse" wrote in message
oups.com...

Plenty of choices were available I'm sure as cereal represents a high
17% proft margin. The aisle must have been filled with carbs.


17% of what? Gross profit? Net profit? After tax profit? To whom? What
is your source?