Nicole Kolmer
Tonya Schoenfuss
FSCN 1102-001
22 October 2018
Understanding the Real Truth: POM Wonderful is Still Wonderful
Majority of shoppers have heard of it, bought it and or consumed the 100% pomegranate juice contained in the highly recognizable POM Wonderful bottle in the beverages section of each grocery retail store showing it is a drink like no other. Owned by California billionaires Stewart and Lynda Resnick, POM Wonderful LLC has boomed within the last decade stacking up a $250 million market from its extremely popular pomegranate products (Ledyard, 2013). Through its eye-attracting advertisements and astounding health benefits, POM has created one of the most well-known food beverages on the market. While this pomegranate juice company is arguably the best, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has tried POM Wonderful for false and misleading advertisements of health claims (Ledyard, 2013). But what is considered to be “false” and “misleading” and what are the determining factors that classify it to be that way? While there are standards concerning what can and cannot be said through food advertisements, the First Amendment protects and guarantees Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment “guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely” (LII Staff, 2017). This protection of speech through the First Amendment includes speech such as advertising in which POM should be in the clear for its persuasive advertisements however the FTC believes otherwise. The FTC has claimed that POM Wonderful’s advertisements are deceptive and in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act) which prohibits any false advertisement that is likely to induce consumers to buy their product (Ledyard, 2013). The FTC and other similar organizations must follow strict guidelines concerning the First Amendment but have failed to accompany them throughout the case involving POM’s advertisements. While the FTC should enforce strict regulations on what can and cannot be said on food labels and ads, they have no right to hinder a company’s personal belief statements. POM Wonderful has in no way violated the restrictions of the FTC Act and should not be penalized for it. The Commission has now used an abusive power with their enforcement and subjectivity and created an unfair advantage over food companies with POM Wonderful being just one of many.
POM Wonderful stands behind its health claims and should not be fined for believing them to be truthful. Any food company that chooses to support their claims are expressing their beliefs and should not be at fault for anything that is said. The FTC violates the First Amendment by restraining speech that is only “potentially” misleading which is not a violation of the FTC Act and is what POM Wonderful’s advertisements have conveyed. Any information on an advertisement that is not deceptive and only potentially misleading should not be punished for it. The Commission identifies an ad to be false and misleading unless the advertiser has a “reasonable basis” for its claims (Samp, 2015). But how does one determine what is “reasonable”? FTC has never identified the amount of evidence that is needed to support a claim making it unclear to food companies on what a reasonable claim entails. Companies such as POM must all follow certain restrictions pertaining to food and beverage labels and only need to be addressed by and conform to existing regulations (Busch, 2014). POM has said that the FTC has applied a new standard of review for advertisements which was not announced prior to the violation that is being placed against the company (Ledyard, 2013). The government’s role in supervising food advertisements should be limited to outrageous claims that are unrelated to any previous claims that have been made about similar and related products. Even then, the approach to these claims should be entered at ease and only take regulatory actions after a rigorous and extensive investigation is conducted.
Food companies such as POM Wonderful that believe their claims to be truthful should not be penalized as they are practicing their First Amendment rights. The First Amendment allows Freedom of Speech within advertisements and was in no way violated by POM. The FTC Act, which prohibits any false advertisement that is likely to induce consumers to buy their products, was not disobeyed by POM as the Commission was unclear about their updated standards within their review process for food advertisements. While government intervention is an essential part of the labeling and advertising of food products within the industry, limitations should be placed. Questionable actions concerning advertisements within a company should be approached in a friendly manner until any and all research and evidence proves otherwise. The FTC has violated the First Amendment and used their abusive powers against POM Wonderful and therefore, should not have won this case. POM Wonderful has remained a truthful company and should be recognized as one throughout the food industry.
References
Busch, M. (2014). POM wonderful v. Coca-Cola and the implications of granting competitors
the right to challenge false or misleading food and beverage labels under the Lanham act. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 48(2), 525-538. Retrieved October 14 2018, from https://heinonline-org.ezp2.lib.umn.edu/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/lla48&id=598&men_tab=srchresults#
Ledyard, A. (2013). Snake oil in your pomegranate juice: Food health claims and the
FTC. University of San Francisco Law Review 47(4), (pp. 783-806) Retrieved October 15, 2018, from https://heinonline.org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/HOL/Page?lname=&public=false&handle=hein.journals/usflr47&page=783&collection=journals#
LII Staff. (2017, October 10). First Amendment. Retrieved October 11, 2018, from
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment
Samp, R. (2015, February 04). The D.C. Circuit's POM Wonderful Decision: Not So Wonderful
For FTC's Randomized Clinical Trial Push. Retrieved October 15, 2018, from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/wlf/2015/02/04/the-d-c-circuits-pom-wonderful-decision-
not-so-wonderful-for-ftcs-randomized-clinical-trial-push/#6478b1881aba
The Truth Revealed: POM Wonderful’s Cheating Game for Fame
The label posted on a food product is arguably the most determining factor for consumers to buy the product that it claims to be. Buyers have built a trust within the food industry concerning their products that when broken, is very difficult to regain. In September of 2010, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) took POM Wonderful LLC, a company well-known for their 100% pomegranate juice products to trial for false advertisement and labeling of health claims (Ledyard, 2013). The most prominent of health claims made by POM Wonderful range anywhere from preventing cardiovascular disease to curing prostate cancer to treating erectile dysfunction. The FTC has determined POM ads to be misleading and persuades consumers to purchase and consume their various products which is a direct violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). The labeling requirements may seem like a simple task to achieve however many companies like POM are willing to attempt to bend the rules to build a seemingly better brand. In order for a food label to be approved for display on a given product, “advertising must be truthful and not misleading and before disseminating an ad, advertisers must be able to adequately substantiate all objective product claims” (Ledyard, 2013). While food advertisements must be truthful and fail to mislead consumers, a food label or ad that is not legally deceptive if consumers understand that the claims being made on that label are not to be taken literally is allowed. Many companies attempt to manipulate their advertisements around the required standards however with the FDA and FTC in place to protect consumers from misleading advertisements, nearly all of them are halted to continue advertising such claims. FTC’s main role is to prevent any fraudulent and deceptive business practices and with new standards in effect, a product must now be supported by randomized and controlled human clinical trials, also known as ‘RCT’s’” (Samp, 2015). Both the FDA and FTC work to complement one another as the FDA controls food labeling and the FTC dominantly controls food advertising. This allows for full coverage of food claims to ensure accurate information is being dispersed to consumers about the products they are buying.
While many do not realize the significant supervision that the FDA and FTC have on food labels and advertising, consumers would soon discover that they contribute more than what is noticed if gone. Consumer protection laws are in effect for the sole reason of guiding consumers toward the truth. Food companies are willing to pay just about anybody to conduct a study to support their product. This leads to a large amount of bias in the claims that are to be posted about food products which consumers believe to be true. These claims then tend to lead shoppers distracted from the real nutritional information of a product and rather hook them with the persuasiveness of the false statements (Klein, 2010). The eye attracting labels from various visual effects can lead people to overlook warning statements which are unquestionably more important for consumer’s health (Duerrschmid and Danner, 2018). Without the FDA and FTC, rules and regulations of the content on food labels would not be in effect which in turn allows food companies to abuse their power to manipulate buyers.
While there are numerous food companies that have accurate claims made about the products they are dispersing, there are just as many, if not more, that display false information. In the majority of these cases involving false and misleading advertisements, the driving motive is for fame and money. Companies often disregard the fact that money will still flow in without having to falsify research and make inaccurate claims. An honest and truthful company will have a better reputation than one that increases skepticism in consumers which ultimately leads to declining business (Ledyard, 2013). Our government has an obligation to protect any and all consumers from the harmful effects of misleading food advertisements. With strict regulations and requirements in place, companies will be pressured to stay truthful. Consumers shouldn’t believe everything they read on a product’s label or the claims posted on a food advertisement billboard and companies should strive to make persuasive yet honest statements on any and all products. This will result in food companies being proud to present their products and buyers will then be pleased to support them through continuous and steady business making the world of food an exceedingly better place.
References
Duerrschmid, K., & Danner, L. (2018). Eye tracking in consumer research. Methods in consumer
research, volume 2: Alternative approaches and special applications (pp. 279-318)
Retrieved October 18, 2018, from
https://wwwsciencedirectcom.ezp1.lib.umn.edu/science/article/pii/S0950329318302234#bi005
Klein, S. (2010, October 27). POM-boozled: Do health drinks live up to their labels? Retrieved
October 20, 2018, from
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/10/27/health.pom.drink.labels/index.html
Ledyard, A. (2013). Snake oil in your pomegranate juice: Food health claims and the
FTC. University of San Francisco Law Review 47(4), (pp. 783-806) Retrieved October 15, 2018, from https://heinonline.org.ezp3.lib.umn.edu/HOL/Page?lname=&public=false&handle=hein.journals/usflr47&page=783&collection=journals#
Samp, R. (2015, February 04). The D.C. Circuit's POM Wonderful Decision: Not So Wonderful
For FTC's Randomized Clinical Trial Push. Retrieved October 15, 2018, from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/wlf/2015/02/04/the-d-c-circuits-pom-wonderful-decision-
not-so-wonderful-for-ftcs-randomized-clinical-trial-push/#6478b1881aba