The FDA’s new graphic cigarette warning labels don’t go far enough
The way in which a product is marketed is vitally important to its success. We know that manufacturers spend a lot of time and money to ensure that their product, however hurtful it might be, seems appealing to consumers. The reason for this is obvious: most people are helpless in the face of great marketing, and great marketing starts with the packaging in which a product is sold.
This week, the Food and Drug Administration offered up some ideas for new cigarette warning labels, complete with gruesome illustrations that plainly display the effects of smoking. Merely telling people “smoking causes cancer” is not enough – clearly, people need to see the revolting results of their disgusting habit that I hate. That we all hate. That is costing us so much money.
Obviously there are some things that our citizens should not do, and our government has an obligation to discourage this bad behavior. That’s why I believe that the FDA’s cigarette packaging proposals don’t go far enough. You will note, for instance, that there were no suggestions made about fast food packaging. Recently, San Francisco took the bold and necessary step of banning toys in so-called “Happy” Meals – but they did nothing about the packaging of the Happy Meals. They are still available in brightly-colored, eye-catching, and irresistible boxes that display cartoon images of inviting characters.
Those boxes do not display the dangerous effects of fast food. I would like the FDA to correct this, by forcing the purveyors of fast food products to show the effects of eating their products, such as images of sad, obese children lying dead in caskets and being laughed at by healthy children, along with a prominently-displayed warning, such as, “FAST FOOD CAUSES OBESITY AND DEATH.”
While the FDA is at it, they might also take a look at the packaging of the junk “food” that clutters our nation’s supermarket shelves. Deadly poison is given inviting names such as “Twinkies” and “Ho-Hos,” and adorned with images of classic superheroes meant to inspire children. There is no way that parents can compete with the billions of dollars spent on marketing to the future of our country, but the government can step in and act as an equalizer, by requiring that the boxes in which these seemingly delicious substances are contained have images of the unhealthy bowel movements that inevitably result from their ingestion, and the warning “THIS PRODUCT CAUSES GROSS STOOLS.”
And as long as we’re changing the labeling of products we know are bad for us, we might also consider changing the labeling of products we know to be healthy, to make them more appealing. For instance, a package of healthy fruit, such as strawberries, might be required to show an image of a beautiful woman eating one. Because eating fruits will make you beautiful.
Putting an attractive woman, such as pornographic film actress Stoya (link not safe for work), on a package of healthy strawberries will encourage people to buy it.
Among the FDA’s cigarette packaging proposals are images of unhealthy lungs, and of autopsies. In contrast, perhaps a package of carrots might display photos from the autopsy of a healthy person, to show how pink and luscious your organs will look when you die a healthy death. These ideas are proactive ways of encouraging healthy behavior.
But if we’re only thinking of food, we’re thinking too small. The government can use its warning labels and disturbing images to encourage all sorts of healthy behavior. For instance, I have noticed recently that a lot of people are complaining about the TSA’s airport security screening protocols, including the use of the body imaging scanners and the “pat downs” of travelers. This petulant bellyaching would be stopped completely if signs were prominently displayed in the security area, depicting graphic images of people who have been beheaded by terrorists, along with the caption “RESISTING THE TSA’S SECURITY SCREENING PUTS US ALL AT RISK.”
These images could also be displayed by the president of the United States, when he gives speeches about how we need to indefinitely continue our military presence in Afghanistan, or by the white house spokesman when he explains why we won’t be closing Gitmo any time soon. These graphic images are worth more than a thousand words when explaining to people why they have to accept what our government tells them.
We could also extend this new warning label program to our elections. Images depicting the inevitable results of certain politicians’ ideas would be placed next to their names on the ballot. For instance, if one politician proposes cuts to Social Security, you might place beside his name an image of a little old granny lady, lying in a gutter half naked and bleeding from the kicks of passersby. A warning might read, “THIS POLITICIAN SUPPORTS POLICIES THAT WOULD KILL YOUR GRANDMOTHER.” Those politicians who wanted to reduce funding for education would see an image of a dead child who has been shot and killed by another child who was dropped from class because there wasn’t enough money to pay for his school. “THIS POLITICIAN WANTS US TO TURN OUR BACKS ON THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY,” the warning might read. I’m just spitballing here; you can probably come up with some of your own. If you do, you might consider sending them along to the relevant government agency. For its part, the FDA is soliciting input on the cigarette packaging proposals.
Most people want to do what is best for them. Unfortunately, every day of their lives they face irresistible temptation from packaging. It’s important that we take steps, as a nation, to help them overcome this.
Latest posts by Ricky Sprague (Posts)
- Meet the start-ups that are thriving in the current economic recovery - May 27, 2016
- How a Wonder Woman comic from 1942 led to the Great California Cow Exodus of 2012, maybe - November 28, 2012
- A common-sense approach to restoring economic prosperity - November 19, 2012
- New Philip K. Dick novel too absurd to be believed - September 17, 2012
- My 90 Days, 90 Reasons submission - September 12, 2012
Print This Post
Jung argued that personas were masks — packaging — we wear for two reasons: 1. To meet societal expectations of who we’re ‘supposed’ to be; and 2. To hide who we really are. So, clearly, when it comes to packaging people, what you see is definitely not what you get.
To remedy this, I suggest the federal government require all individuals to wear nothing but spandex clothing. You can’t hide anything in a spandex body suit.