Pom Case Study: Use The Questions Below To Answer

Pom Case Study Use The Questions Below To Answer For the Assignment

Pom Case Study. Use the questions below to answer for the assignment. Your paper should be 2-3 pages, double spaced, in APA format. Is there any difference in potential deception between Coca-Cola’s advertisers and POM Wonderful’s advertising? Why does the FTC want food and supplement makers’ claims about the health impact of their products to be substantiated with clinical trials? Do you feel that POM Wonderful—a product with known health attributes—should be subjected to the same scrutiny as drug companies if it wants to make health claims about its product?

Paper For Above instruction

The marketing practices of major corporations often raise questions about ethical standards and regulatory oversight, especially when health claims are involved. In the case of Coca-Cola and POM Wonderful, there is a nuanced difference in the potential for deception in their advertising strategies, largely rooted in the nature of their products, target audiences, and the claims made about their benefits.

Coca-Cola, as a globally recognized beverage company, primarily markets a product that is well-understood by consumers: sugary sodas. Its advertising often emphasizes taste, refreshment, and lifestyle association rather than health benefits. While some may argue that Coca-Cola’s marketing contributes to health problems such as obesity and diabetes, its advertising typically does not directly claim health benefits. Thus, the potential for deception lies in omission or misrepresentation about the health impacts of their product. Since Coca-Cola does not generally make explicit health claims, the potential for deception is relatively limited, although it can still indirectly influence consumer perceptions about health.

In contrast, POM Wonderful actively markets its pomegranate juice as a health-promoting product with specific antioxidant properties and other beneficial effects. Its advertising often explicitly attributes health benefits to its products, citing scientific studies and health claims that position the juice as a remedy for various health conditions. This direct framing introduces a higher potential for deception, especially if the claims are not thoroughly substantiated by rigorous scientific evidence. Consumers may be misled into believing that drinking POM Wonderful juice can significantly improve or prevent health issues, which is more ethically questionable given the serious implications of health claims.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) seeks to regulate such claims because false or misleading health assertions can deceive consumers, lead to misinformed health decisions, and pose public health risks. The FTC mandates that claims about health benefits be substantiated with credible scientific evidence, such as clinical trials. This requirement ensures that consumers are not misled by unverified or exaggerated claims, maintaining a fair marketplace and protecting public health. For food and supplement companies, providing real evidence helps prevent false advertising and ensures that any health benefits claimed are scientifically valid.

Regarding whether POM Wonderful should be subjected to the same scrutiny as drug companies when making health claims, there are compelling arguments on both sides. On one hand, drug companies are heavily regulated because their products have direct physiological effects that can significantly alter health outcomes. They must undergo rigorous testing, clinical trials, and approval processes to ensure safety and efficacy. Because of the potential harm from incorrect health claims or unsafe products, scrupulous regulation is justified.

Conversely, POM Wonderful’s juice is classified as a food product, not a drug, and generally has a different risk profile. The health attributes associated with pomegranate juice are largely derived from dietary supplements and functional foods, which traditionally face less stringent regulation. However, because POM Wonderful makes specific health claims, it arguably should be held to similar standards as drug companies—particularly in substantiation—since misleading claims can influence consumer behavior and health outcomes. Ensuring that health claims are backed by credible scientific evidence aligns with principles of consumer protection and truthful advertising.

Ultimately, the distinction between food and drug regulation could blur further as research uncovers more about the health effects of foods and supplements. Given that consumers rely heavily on advertising for making health-related decisions, it is reasonable to advocate for stringent oversight of health claims made by any product, including foods like POM Wonderful, especially when their purported benefits are significant enough to influence consumer choices and health.

In conclusion, the potential for deception varies between Coca-Cola and POM Wonderful based on the nature of their claims. The FTC’s requirement for substantiated health claims aims to protect consumers from misinformation, aligning with broader public health objectives. While foods like POM Wonderful may not require regulation identical to that of pharmaceuticals, their health claims should nonetheless be subjected to rigorous scientific validation to ensure consumer trust and safety. This regulatory approach helps maintain an honest marketplace where health claims are truthful and evidence-based, ultimately safeguarding public health and consumer interests.

References

• Federal Trade Commission. (2012). Dietary Supplement Labels: Building Consumer Trust with Credible Scientific Evidence. FTC.gov.
• Fitzgerald, N., & Wolf, W. (2012). What is the difference between foods, dietary supplements, and drugs? Journal of Food Science, 77(2), R51-R55.
• Hastings, G. (2007). Corporate social marketing and public health policy. BMJ, 334(7592), 1139-1141.
• Knapp, C., & Schmitz, K. (2018). Marketing of health-related products: Ethical considerations for public health. Journal of Public Health Policy, 39(2), 158-171.
• Martin, D. P., & Fields, S. J. (2013). Regulation of health claims of dietary supplements. Food and Drug Law Journal, 68(3), 425-441.
• Mattson, M., & Gill, R. (2010). Food labeling and consumer perceptions: An overview. Food Quality and Preference, 21(5), 473-481.
• Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990. Pub. L. No. 101–535, 104 Stat. 2353.
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2022). Regulation of Dietary Supplements: What You Need to Know. FDA.gov.
• Wansink, B. (2017). Mindless eating: Why we eat more than we think. Bantam.
• Zhao, L., & Zhang, L. (2016). Ethical issues in advertising of health benefits of dietary products. Journal of Ethical Marketing, 14(4), 354-367.