Sunday, March 26, 2006, 11:00
The UK Broadcast Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) recently stopped the airing of a series of Australian television advertisements in Britain because they feature the word "bloody". (They have since reversed this decision.) The advertisements are aimed at promoting tourist visits to Australia and feature the statement "So where the bloody hell are you?"
The advertisements are part of an A$180 million (£76 million) dollar advertising campaign put together by Tourism Australia for audiences in Britain, Germany, China, Japan, India and the US. The campaign is actually an example of viral marketing. Viral marketing seeks to reach a wide audience, sometimes using humour or a sense of bypassing censors, to encourage people to tell or email each about a product or website.
Tourism Australia Managing Director, Scott Morrison explains: "The campaign was designed to achieve cut through and get people talking, especially online. After just two weeks, we've certainly achieved that. Already, we estimate that over 100,000 people in the UK have already viewed the ad online through our website www.wherethebloodyhellareyou.com and after the BACC decision this is only going to get better".
However whilst the use of a cutesy, old-fashioned, innocuous swear word is a calculated effort to garner publicity, the campaign includes a phrase that is much more offensive, and unintentional, which seems to have gone unnoticed. One of the print advertisements (and an image on the website), featuring a picture of a pristine forest, states "We've fertilised the ferns, Had the garden watered, And pacified the Tasmanian Devil. SO WHERE THE BLOODY HELL ARE YOU?"
The bad taste involved here may not be obvious unless you know something of what is happening to Tasmanian devils and the controversy over the role of chemicals used by foresters in its demise. The devil is a smallish marsupial animal, complete with a pouch for its babies, that is not found living in the wild anywhere else in the world outside of the island of Tasmania. It has long been extinct on mainland Australia.
The numbers of devils have been falling fairly dramatically since the late 1990s when they started getting an incurable facial cancer which prevents them from eating, so they starve to death. Populations have been reduced by 90 percent in affected areas and the number of affected areas are increasing. For this reason the devils are becoming endangered.
Some argue that the chemicals used in forestry are contributing to the cancer. Others that the cancer is contagious and is spread when the devils bite each other.
Those who hypothesise that the devils are affected by chemicals point to aerial spraying of pesticides and herbicides - such as atrazine which causes tumours in rats - by foresters and their extensive use of 1080 as a poison. 1080 is used in Tasmania to kill some native animals, such as possums and wallabies, which damage young plants, and it is used extensively in forestry operations. Devils are not direct targets of the poison as they are carnivores but they often eat dead animals, including possums and wallabies and so are indirectly exposed to the poison.
Recently published research by Anne-Marie Pearse and Kate Swift from the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment (DPIWE), supports the hypothesis that the cancers are contagious and infectious cells are transferred to new animals when they bite each other during fights. Their findings have yet to be confirmed by DNA studies of the tumours.
The DPIWE, which employs them, is responsible for the permitting, control and supervision of 1080 use and for administering legislation covering aerial spraying of atrazine and other chemicals. Its 2005 Code of Practice for 1080 recognises that "Farmers and foresters frequently have a real need to reduce damage to pastures and crops by native browsing animals."
Naturally the forestry industry has hailed the publication by the DPIWE researchers as proof that their chemicals are not the cause of the cancers. However, even if it is subsequently proven that the cancers are contagious, it may well be that forestry chemicals have weakened the immune systems of the devils and made them vulnerable to cancers. It is highly unusual for cancers to be contagious in normal circumstances.
Given this ongoing controversy, the claim in the advertisements that the Tasmanian Devil has been "pacified" is not only offensive but reflects badly on an organization that depends on Australia's natural flora and fauna to attract tourists.
Wednesday, 26 April 2006
Friday, 14 April 2006
Teflon - A Sticky Issue
DuPont has been conducting an advertising campaign in major newspapers in various parts of the world, including Australia, asserting its product Teflon® is safe. In its advertisements DuPont is at pains to distance Teflon from the PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), which is used in the manufacture of Teflon to give Teflon-coated cookware its non-stick property.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been investigating PFOA because it "is very persistent in the environment, was being found at very low levels both in the environment and in the blood of the general U.S. population, and caused developmental and other adverse effects in laboratory animals."The main message of the 'Teflon is safe' campaign is that Teflon is not PFOA. But is Teflon safe? The problem is that when cookware is used at very high temperatures the Teflon coating decomposes and gives off toxic gases. As early as 1991 researchers reported in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology that PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene - the chemical name for Teflon) has "long been known to evolve toxic products when heated above normal service temperatures."It is the "normal service temperatures" that is the key here. DuPont's advertisements claim that PFOA is not detected in Teflon coating when used "under normal cooking conditions". But what does DuPont mean by normal cooking conditions? DuPont admits on its teflon.com website that "Significant decomposition of the coating" occurs "when temperatures exceed about 660°F (349°C)-well above the smoke point for cooking oil, fats or butter". But it claims that "it is unlikely that decomposition temperatures for non-stick cookware would be reached without burning food to an inedible state."
The website goes on to say "However, these high temperatures can be reached if dry or empty cookware is neglected on a hot burner or in an oven-a safety hazard that should be avoided with all cookware." A safety hazard not mentioned in the 'Teflon non-stick coating is safe' advertisement.
A 2003 study conducted by the respected Washington DC-based research group, the Environmental Working Group, found that an aluminium fry pan coated with Teflon took only five minutes to heat from room temperature to 721°F (383°C) when the element was on high.The DuPont advertisement also refers to the Australian regulator, NICNAS (National Industrial Chemicals Notification Assessment Scheme), as endorsing the safety of Teflon. Dr Roshini Jayewardene, Leader Regulatory Strategy & Reform at NICNAS says that "based on the information available, there is absolutely no risk to the consumer when using non-stick cookware under normal cooking conditions". She claims that if you heat a frypan above 350°C you would "incinerate" the food.
But at temperatures of around 260°C, which is just below the smoke point for safflower oil, Teflon gives off fumes according to a warning on an earlier version of DuPont's Teflon website. It said that Teflon can "emit fumes harmful to birds, if cookware is accidentally heated to high temperatures, exceeding approximately 500°F (260°C) - well above the temperatures needed for frying or baking".Another problem is that drip pans can get to temperatures high enough to emit fumes even under normal cooking conditions. DuPont noted that Teflon-coated "drip pans should be avoided because even in normal use they reach extremely high temperatures and can emit fumes that are hazardous to birds." DuPont maintains Teflon is safe for humans whilst warning people to "never keep your pet bird in the kitchen".
The DuPont advertisements boast that "DuPont has been praised by the US Environmental Protection Agency for our 'leadership' in reducing PFOA emissions". Yet in December last year that same agency levied the largest environmental administrative penalty in its history against DuPont for failing to "report information to EPA about substantial risk of injury to human health or the environment that DuPont obtained about PFOA from as early as 1981 and as recently as 2004."PFOA is now found in the bodies of people all over the world. Given that the manufacture of Teflon is a major contributor to PFOA in the environment, can DuPont really assert, without qualification, that Teflon is safe? Wouldn't it be more responsible to say that Teflon is not safe to manufacture but they believe it is safe to use provided people don't heat their cookware to temperatures above 250°C and never heat an empty Teflon-coated container?
Sharon Beder is author of "Suiting Themselves: How Corporations Drive the Global Agenda" and "Environmental Principles and Policies" (UNSW Press, Sydney) forthcoming.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been investigating PFOA because it "is very persistent in the environment, was being found at very low levels both in the environment and in the blood of the general U.S. population, and caused developmental and other adverse effects in laboratory animals."The main message of the 'Teflon is safe' campaign is that Teflon is not PFOA. But is Teflon safe? The problem is that when cookware is used at very high temperatures the Teflon coating decomposes and gives off toxic gases. As early as 1991 researchers reported in the journal Chemical Research in Toxicology that PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene - the chemical name for Teflon) has "long been known to evolve toxic products when heated above normal service temperatures."It is the "normal service temperatures" that is the key here. DuPont's advertisements claim that PFOA is not detected in Teflon coating when used "under normal cooking conditions". But what does DuPont mean by normal cooking conditions? DuPont admits on its teflon.com website that "Significant decomposition of the coating" occurs "when temperatures exceed about 660°F (349°C)-well above the smoke point for cooking oil, fats or butter". But it claims that "it is unlikely that decomposition temperatures for non-stick cookware would be reached without burning food to an inedible state."
The website goes on to say "However, these high temperatures can be reached if dry or empty cookware is neglected on a hot burner or in an oven-a safety hazard that should be avoided with all cookware." A safety hazard not mentioned in the 'Teflon non-stick coating is safe' advertisement.
A 2003 study conducted by the respected Washington DC-based research group, the Environmental Working Group, found that an aluminium fry pan coated with Teflon took only five minutes to heat from room temperature to 721°F (383°C) when the element was on high.The DuPont advertisement also refers to the Australian regulator, NICNAS (National Industrial Chemicals Notification Assessment Scheme), as endorsing the safety of Teflon. Dr Roshini Jayewardene, Leader Regulatory Strategy & Reform at NICNAS says that "based on the information available, there is absolutely no risk to the consumer when using non-stick cookware under normal cooking conditions". She claims that if you heat a frypan above 350°C you would "incinerate" the food.
But at temperatures of around 260°C, which is just below the smoke point for safflower oil, Teflon gives off fumes according to a warning on an earlier version of DuPont's Teflon website. It said that Teflon can "emit fumes harmful to birds, if cookware is accidentally heated to high temperatures, exceeding approximately 500°F (260°C) - well above the temperatures needed for frying or baking".Another problem is that drip pans can get to temperatures high enough to emit fumes even under normal cooking conditions. DuPont noted that Teflon-coated "drip pans should be avoided because even in normal use they reach extremely high temperatures and can emit fumes that are hazardous to birds." DuPont maintains Teflon is safe for humans whilst warning people to "never keep your pet bird in the kitchen".
The DuPont advertisements boast that "DuPont has been praised by the US Environmental Protection Agency for our 'leadership' in reducing PFOA emissions". Yet in December last year that same agency levied the largest environmental administrative penalty in its history against DuPont for failing to "report information to EPA about substantial risk of injury to human health or the environment that DuPont obtained about PFOA from as early as 1981 and as recently as 2004."PFOA is now found in the bodies of people all over the world. Given that the manufacture of Teflon is a major contributor to PFOA in the environment, can DuPont really assert, without qualification, that Teflon is safe? Wouldn't it be more responsible to say that Teflon is not safe to manufacture but they believe it is safe to use provided people don't heat their cookware to temperatures above 250°C and never heat an empty Teflon-coated container?
Sharon Beder is author of "Suiting Themselves: How Corporations Drive the Global Agenda" and "Environmental Principles and Policies" (UNSW Press, Sydney) forthcoming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
