In this blog post, we will look at the impact of advertisements that distort scientific facts on consumers and the responsibilities of companies, consumers, and the government.
“Is casein sodium good for her body? Or is fat-free milk better?”
“We used milk instead of casein sodium.”
These are famous advertising slogans that you may have heard before. In 2010, a company launched a new coffee mix product with these slogans and achieved sales of 10 billion won in just three months, quickly rising to second place in the industry, demonstrating the effectiveness of the advertising. Consumers who saw this advertisement began to perceive casein sodium as a harmful chemical and started to prefer this company’s products. Other competing companies that saw this also started similar marketing campaigns. This advertisement can be said to have targeted the stereotype of Koreans who believe that “chemical substances” are bad for the body. Following the success of this marketing campaign, the company is now promoting a new product with the concept of “no phosphates added.” However, caseinate is simply casein, a type of protein extracted from milk, combined with sodium to make it more soluble in water. Therefore, it is harmless to the human body, and there is no recommended daily intake. Phosphate is also just a type of mineral that makes up the human body. Consuming too much phosphate can be harmful to the body, such as preventing the absorption of calcium, but the amount of phosphate obtained from coffee is only about 1.6% of the total intake.
This is not the first time that advertising has used incorrect scientific facts. A few years ago, there was controversy over MSG (monosodium L-glutamate). In 1968, an article was published in the United States stating that consuming large amounts of MSG causes symptoms such as nausea, and this was referred to as Chinese restaurant syndrome (CRS, Kwok’s disease) due to the high use of MSG in Chinese restaurants. However, in order for MSG to have a direct adverse effect on the human body, one would have to consume 15 to 18 grams per kilogram of body weight, which is an amount that is difficult to consume in reality. Nevertheless, as stories about the harmful effects of MSG spread in Korea, products claiming to be different because they did not contain MSG began to appear one after another. Companies competed to advertise that their MSG-free products were healthier.
Currently, the truth behind the two examples above is known to a relatively large number of people through the internet and documentaries. However, similar “scientific” marketing continues. The superiority of natural vitamins over synthetic vitamins and the efficacy of enzyme foods, which are currently popular, are also unfounded. Many natural vitamin products emphasize that they are extracted from “natural” sources, but in fact, there is no difference in their ingredients, and they must undergo chemical processing in order to be extracted. Therefore, rather than whether the product starts with natural ingredients or synthetic ingredients, it can be said that the quality depends on how well the vitamins are separated from other substances. Enzymes are also simple proteins with large molecular weights, so they are broken down into amino acids after ingestion and absorbed, making it difficult to see any special effects. This type of marketing is not limited to food. Similar marketing is prevalent in the beauty industry, with cosmetics that claim to activate collagen or genes or regenerate stem cells.
Why do companies continue to use this type of marketing? Many consumers are interested in health and beauty, but they do not have the scientific knowledge to distinguish between true and false advertising claims. Therefore, even though many companies know that there is no scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of their products, they continue to advertise without scientific basis in order to increase sales. These advertisements appear to be based on facts, but in reality, they rely solely on consumer emotions. In most fields today, companies must constantly compete with other companies. However, it is difficult to develop innovative products that differentiate themselves from competitors’ products, so they resort to relatively easy methods such as the marketing described above. This is a form of exaggerated advertising and can misinform people. It can also hinder the development of technology and industry in the right direction.
Of course, the indiscriminate spread of false scientific marketing is primarily the fault of companies that are desperate to win the competition. But are companies the only ones at fault? Exaggerated advertising is regulated by law because it can undermine fair competition between companies and infringe on consumers’ rights to safety and information.
“No false labeling or exaggerated advertising shall be made regarding the name, manufacturing method, and quality of food products, etc., no excessive packaging shall be used, and no labeling or advertising that may cause confusion with pharmaceutical products shall be used for food products and food additives. The same shall apply to the nutritional value and ingredients of food products and additives.” (Food Sanitation Act of the Republic of Korea, Article 11)
“Scope of false labeling and exaggerated advertising –
1. Whether the labeling or advertising contains content that suggests that the product is effective in treating a disease or content that may be confused with a medicine.” (Article 13 of the Food Sanitation Act of the Republic of Korea)
However, the practical effectiveness of these regulations is questionable because they do not cover all types of advertising that could be subject to punishment, and most punishments for false and exaggerated advertising are limited to one-time measures such as corrective orders. In fact, the number of cases of false and exaggerated advertising of cosmetics increased 45 times in 2012 compared to 2009. Even if they are caught, the damage is not significant, so they continue to exaggerate for the sake of operating profits. It cannot be left to the conscience of companies alone, so legal sanctions must be imposed, but it can be seen that the law is not fulfilling its role.
Consumers also bear some responsibility. No matter how misleading a company’s advertising may be, if consumers did not judge it critically and were not swayed by it, sales would not have increased, and exaggerated advertising would not have spread as it has. Consumers should not accept advertising content indiscriminately. However, in many cases, when scientific terms that appear “professional” are used, people tend to believe that the content of the advertisement is true. This can be seen as a result of people’s ignorance. However, even with a basic level of scientific knowledge, there is much content that can be questioned in terms of its effectiveness, and with the development of the internet, it is now possible to find out more about it with just a little time and effort. Nevertheless, few consumers make the effort to find the basis for their judgments themselves, and instead make purchasing decisions based solely on the images and information provided. Even if they are aware that the information may be incorrect, they are often swayed by provocative and flashy advertising slogans and purchase products without making a factual judgment. Therefore, it is necessary to make rational and careful decisions when purchasing products, which may be one way to prevent companies from misusing scientific knowledge in exaggerated advertising.
The current state of “science” marketing can be seen as the result of companies pursuing immediate profits without technological development, consumers accepting advertising content without criticism, and governments failing to regulate properly. Therefore, in order to revitalize the market and develop the industry, all three must fulfill their responsibilities and roles. Even if one party acts improperly, the other two can prevent the spread of excessive “science” marketing by fulfilling their roles and responsibilities. This normalization may seem to cause immediate losses or inconveniences to some, but in the long run, it will benefit everyone.
