Fortunetly the grocery store I work for sells pies marked as 'no sugar
added'. Tippins Bakery listened!
Marlene
> Now about ethics. Most of supermarkets in the US have variety of pies that
> are marked "Sugar free". Its completely ridiculous because these are fruit
> pies, and there is no sugar-free fruits on this planet. It should be "No
> sugar added". Every time I see that I spoke to chain manager, wrote to
> their headquarters, called, explained.... They nod, they agree, nothing
> happens. Why? Sugar-free sells by tons. The knowingly sell these pies
> under false labels. I also saw drinks that say:Sugar - 10 gr.
> Carbohydrates: 0g.
> Ethics, - shmetics.
>
> Sasha.
>
>
> "Michael Plant" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ourania nk.net11/22/05
>>
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>...I didn't mention a solid ethical standard (or foundation) in
>>> China at all, Michael. All I said is that they do indeed *have*
>>> a solid code of ethics regarding "truth in advertising." How do
>>> I know? Because they have advertising.
>>
>>> If they have
>>> advertising, they have a code of ethics regarding advertising.
>>
>> That's subtle.
>>
>>> Ethics -- or a system of evaluating right conduct -- is a
>>> cultural universal, even in the earliest of civilizations. And
>>> there is no existing element or behavior in any society that is
>>> exempt or excluded from its system of evaluation. If an activity
>>> or conduct is observable, there's a cultural code for determining
>>> its ethical status. That's a given. Whether we as outsiders can
>>> even perceive or grok that code (much less agree with it) is of
>>> course irrelevant.
>>
>> Your analysis is sophisticated, to say the least. But, the discussion
>> would
>> be a lot more interesting if you would share what you know or think about
>> the specific ethical standards in question, the idea of ethical standard
>> being inherent.
>>>
>>>>> But in any case, the labeling and advertising constraints in the
>>>>> U.S. are the results of legislation and most definitely not the
>>>>> result of ethics.
>>>>
>>>> Which *should* somehow correlate to or reflect the ethics of the
>>>> community
>>>> at large.
>>>
>>> I don't think we can make that assumption any more. Our
>>> legislative system is now so convoluted, so heavily influenced by
>>> purely financial considerations, so far removed from anything
>>> resembling an authentically democratic process, and our citizenry
>>> is so unsophisticated and uneducated and easily manipulated by
>>> blipverts, that I think it's more accurate to say that our laws
>>> reflect the power struggles among various global
>>> military-industrial lobbying factions rather than the ethics of a
>>> so-called community-at-large.
>>
>> We could argue, but we won't. Let me just say, Thus the asterisks I
>> placed
>> around the word "should."
>>>
>>>>> Check out the label on a can of Campbell's
>>>>> SpaghettiOs, for example. It emphasizes how healthy that junk is
>>>>> for children (because vitamins are added). And Campbell's
>>>>> advertising for that product claims, "Now you can feel good about
>>>>> giving your kids what they are asking for!" because in addition
>>>>> to being delicious (!), it's so healthful and will help them
>>>>> grow. Then look at the ingredients. One small can contains over
>>>>> one gram of sodium! On top of it, the whole salty mess is just a
>>>>> glob of white flour and cheese and sugar. That's truth in
>>>>> labeling and truth in advertising? No. That's ethical? No.
>>>>> That's legal? Yes.
>>>>
>>>> You've hit on something important here. I personally believe that the
>>>> entire
>>>> concept of advertising is unethical because it polutes the environment,
>>>> whether that be our great outdoors or our peace of mind on the
>>>> underground.
>>>> Further, advertising is in practice a no-holds-barred attempt to get me
>>>> to
>>>> buy stuff, and that in itself is unethical. That's my humble opinion.
>>>
>>> Fine. But what you're saying, then, is that our entire
>>> socio-political-economic system (aka "capitalism") is unethical,
>>> because getting you to "buy stuff" is what sustains it and vice
>>> versa. With that opinion I concur.
>>
>> Yes, I am saying that. You concur aright.
>>>
>>>>> Or look at an ad from GM that says you can buy a car at x% over
>>>>> invoice, or at employee discount prices, or whatever. Naturally,
>>>>> the ad doesn't mention the dealer pack, the "manufacturer's
>>>>> fees," etc., that result in the selling price being considerably
>>>>> (and invariably) much higher than what was advertised:
>>>>> unethical, untrue, and legal.
>>>>
>>>> I agree so completely I'm jumping up and down.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I can take that much excitement at this hour.
>>
>> It's OK. I'm back under control now.
>>>
>>>>> Our hubristic assertions about U.S. consumer protection (not to
>>>>> mention U.S. business "ethics") are misinformed. Our notion that
>>>>> other cultures' "ethics" are inferior to ours is, well, a
>>>>> misguided assessment, at best.
>>>>
>>>> Are you suggesting that the only source of consumer protection is from
>>>> the
>>>> gods? I'm not disagreeing, just asking, my hubristic assertions aside.
>>>
>>> No, I'm saying that our only reliable source of consumer
>>> protection is our own good sense. (Whether our own good sense
>>> comes from the gods I'll leave for you to decide.)
>>
>> Person, that's hubris! Unfortunately good sense doesn't always get us
>> there,
>> but that perhaps is a discussion for another day.
>>>
>>> I'm also saying it's hubristic (and naive) to believe that our
>>> comparatively infantile nation could come up with a legislated
>>> consumer-protection scheme more effective than the
>>> millennia-tested "caveat emptor."
>>>
>>>> Sooooo......what about China? Perhaps you were just rambling, much like
>>>> my
>>>> additions to your post here?
>>>
>>> What about China what? China is the 800-pound gorilla that can
>>> pretty much call its own shots, no?
>>
>> No, I was asking you once again to be more specific about the ethical
>> code
>> regarding advertising in China, since they have advertising, hence
>> ethical
>> code concerning it.
>>>
>>>> BTW, I'm drinking the very worst Feng Huang Dan Cong I've ever drunk.
>>>> No
>>>> pretense to Dan Cong flavor, lousy leaf, overroasted, poorly made,
>>>> crumby
>>>> taste, no fruitiness, no magnolia aroma, just harsh rough and nasty. I
>>>> might
>>>> as well have Alex send me some of that river water he mentioned
>>>> elsewhere.
>>>> Wanna know where I got this tea? It will be my secret, and you'll
>>>> never
>>>> know. (You won't get any either unless you go *far* out of your way, so
>>>> don't worry.)
>>>>
>>>> Hope this helps, but the tea's still cruddy.
>>>
>>> Thanks for the heads-up, but I never go out of my way for bad
>>> tea. :-)
>>
>> Well, I wanted to run interference before any question about the vendor.
>>
>> So, what's your favorite tea?
>> Michael
>>
>
>