Cotton the Moment

News & Analysis
In the News Gristmill Blog Muckraker Features

Columns
Ask Umbra Victual Reality Weekly Recipes The Bottom Line From A to Green The Grist List

Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.

ADVERTISING POLICY

[Advanced]

Tools: print | email | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS

Misleading cotton ads banned in U.K.

Posted at 10:07 AM on 13 Mar 2008

Poster and magazine ads by the U.S. cotton industry have been banned in Britain. The U.K. Advertising Standards Authority can put the kibosh on advertising deemed to be greenwashing, and regulators took issue with the cotton ads' claim that the crop is "soft, sensual, and sustainable." The ad authority pointed out that cotton is a "pesticide- and insecticide-intensive crop" and can "seriously deplete" groundwater supplies. The cotton industry protested the ban, to no avail.

source: The Guardian
see also, in Grist: The U.S. organic cotton industry has a tough row to hoe

ADVERTISING POLICY

< Previous | Next >

Comments: (3 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Right On!

This shows the value of NOT having a First Amendment, which in the U.S. has been used far more for corporate and general business propaganda for the past several decades than for any good. The ideal situation would be to remove First Amendment protections for commercial speech and for any statements that are provably false, but overall the Earth would be better off without a First Amendment at all if it's going to be used the way it has in the U.S.

by Wolverine at 11:42 AM on 13 Mar 2008

?Wolverine?

May I respectfully suggest that our friend Wolverine lay off the pipe before publishing opinions such as the previous. Trashing the Bill of Rights because you don't approve of Big Business Propaganda (as opposed to the Propaganda that you agree with) is uncalled for: when everyone seems to be suffering from the fear that Government is taking away our rights, getting rid of any part of the protection that does exist against governmental intrusion seems, well,....mental.

Just my humble opinion.

by edarnold41 at 10:59 AM on 14 Mar 2008
[ Parent ]

To Edarnold41

The First Amendment was never meant to protect commercial speech. Read the Federalist Papers. This, combined with the corporate media, neither of which existed at the time the First Amendment was written, have caused far more harm than the First Amendment has caused good. Let's have a little reality check here:

With 300 million people in the U.S. and most people getting their information from TV, what most people know is what corporate propagandists want them to know. Talking to a small number of people by other means is almost meaningless in comparison. The internet has made some inroads addressing this problem, but the fact remains that if you can't get on commercial TV, no one knows of your views. For example, most people in the SF Bay Area, the most progressive large area in the U.S., don't even know who Dennis Kucinich is, let alone what he stands for. This is because he was censored by the corporate media which also prevented him from participating in some of the presidential debates.

So in this context, the First Amendment does far more harm allowing mass dissemination of propaganda and brainwashing than it does good by allowing the tiny voices of dissent. Obviously, it would be best if the First Amendment were amended to exclude protection for commercial speech and provable falsehoods, but the next best thing would be to eliminate it altogether and craft new laws similar to those in the progressive countries in western Europe.

If you have an argument to the contrary, I'm happy to entertain it, but please refrain from future name-calling or other irrelevant comments.

by Wolverine at 12:51 PM on 14 Mar 2008

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?