Shards O Glass Freezepops Recalled

Shards o Glass Freezepops has realized that “some of our products are addictive and deadly when used correctly” and is calling for an immediate recall of all their products. They’re shutting down the factories “until we can provide consumers with a safer line of glass-filled treats.” Maybe they don’t need to go to extremes, how about a light, narrower version? New menthol flavor?

What do you think? Will this latest Truth anti-tobacco campaign from campaign actually get anyone to stop smoking? Sound off in the comments.

If you haven’t caught the previous videos in the Shards o Glass series, here they are.

Glass freeze pops are for adults only:

New Shards o Glass spheres:

I don’t think this one has ever aired on TV, but it’s awesome:

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. segfault, registered cat offender says:

    I call BS on them being dangerous. When I was a kid, we used to get bags of broken glass for Christmas to play with, and lived to tell about it.

    • sumocat says:

      Ah, you rich kids and your bags. I had to pick my Christmas glass off the street after walking 50 miles through the snow from school, uphill both ways.

      • Supro says:

        That’s nothing. I had to work at a Christmas glass factory for 70 hours a week to earn a small pay and because the company was too cheap to give us a discount, we had to buy them at full price. It took 3 weeks of pay before I could my own broken glass.

        • danstirling2000 says:

          Luxury! When I was a kid I had to work at a glass factory 130 hours a week. Not Christmas glass either, the plain clear kind. And when we got paid they deducted the whole paycheck to cover the glass we ate for food.

          • Lowcifur says:

            When I was in the Army, I had to spend 407 hours a day peeling broken glass just to get it ready in time for chow. This wasn’t your fancy “clear” glass, either, it was “unprocessed” glass…or sand, as you civvies refer to it.

      • womynist says:

        uphill both ways, and barefoot as well.

    • DariusC says:

      I call BS on their line about someone dying every 6.5 seconds… I would like to see their sources that show that people are dying directly from cigarettes every 6.5 seconds (to include cancer and all that). Perhaps they are adding up all of the fire incidents where people fall asleep in bed with one or when they flick it carelessly towards a gas tank?

      Hey guys… just responding how anyone else would if a commercial made statements as-a-matter-of-factly.

    • DancesWithBadgers says:

      No one makes their own broken glass at home?

      • LadySiren is murdering her kids with HFCS and processed cheese says:

        My children only get organically grown, free-range, HFCS-free Shards o’ Glass. Unless of course, the high-fat, processed version is on sale and I have a coupon.

  2. Miss Dev (The Beer Sherpa) says:

    I actually like these. And, after seeing the shards spheres one, my (smoking) boyfriend actually commented on how stupid it would be if that was a real product. When I pointed out the similarity to tobacco, he stubbed out his cigarette and came inside to sulk.

    I take this as a good sign.

    • RxDude says:

      Have you considered getting a smarter boyfriend?

    • The Marionette says:

      I see the commercial’s point, but I honestly think they could’ve went in a better direction than that. With smoking, (most of the time), the effects aren’t apparent until at least months or even years after starting. My grandfather is going to be in his 80′s and he’s been smoking since he was a teen (filterless mind you) and still works construction and carpentry on the side. He’s in really good shape and no effects so far, but I’m sure it’ll hit him sometime if he lives long enough. With those glass shard things I’m almost positive you’re going to bleed immediately after swallowing them. They needed something that shows more long term effects, but then again their whole aim is to stop smoking now and not give people the idea they have time to smoke still.

      • Coyote says:

        80 years old and you still give him greif about smoking? Seriously?

        My Great great grandmother was notorious for smoking cigars and rubbing snuff (the good kind you snort) and lived to 84. If anything it’s an inspiration that the human body is durable and that smoking isn’t the instant 100% killer like say swallowing glass would be.

  3. Torgonius wants an edit button says:

    Now I know what I’m giving out for Samhain this year.

  4. mianne prays her parents outlive the TSA says:

    Nice to see these freeze pops contain plenty of minerals! And they glisten so much more than their competitors.

  5. chiieddy says:

    I like them. Too bad it’ll go right over the heads of most Americans.

  6. KyleOrton says:

    Mainway will be focusing on their line of children’s toys:

    http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/irwin-mainway/1185611/

  7. RxDude says:

    All the “truth” commercials are annoying.

    • Damocles57 says:

      All the people who are annoyed by the “truth” in advertising and comment on it are annoying.

    • qbubbles says:

      Yes! This. Totally agree.

    • AlphaLackey says:

      I know we’re so used to their being zero truth in advertising that the presence of any of it might be off-putting, but what’s so annoying about a little satire? Only thing wrong with them is that the satire will fly over the heads of a saddeningly large number of people.

    • FrugalFreak says:

      +420 for the hypocrites

    • bethied says:

      Seriously. I am a smoker. I wish I’d never started, but I enjoy my addiction for the time being. The Truth ads are self-righteous and annoying. The tone of those ads is what puts me off the most. Now, if they flooded the screen with images of nasty blackened lungs and stuff like that, that would definitely leave a lasting impression.

    • Timbojones says:

      Whenever I see a ‘truth’ ad, urge to smoke… rises. This was true even before I smoked a single cigarette, with their body bag ads back in the late 90s. In fact, I partially blame ‘truth’ for getting me started on this shit. The ‘truth’ message got to me back then because they call themselves ‘truth’ as if they present only pure data and unadulterated facts, but obviously use theatrical rhetoric and biased statistics for persuasion. That kind of hypocrisy raises my hackles and wakes the rebel in me.

      These days smokers already know the danger of cigarettes; we don’t smoke for our health. At the core, we smoke because we possess one of the most insidious addictions currently known. The way ‘truth’ portrays their message just makes me bitter and resentful. I may not have been consciously craving a nicotine fix before I saw your ad, but now that you’ve put tobacco into my mind, I feel forced to recognize and satisfy the craving.

      • Taddare says:

        Actually these ads are, in my opinion, Annoying enough to make you want to smoke on purpose. The funding for these ads came from a settlement against cigarette making corps. As part of the settlement reached by Big Tobacco and state attorneys general in 1997, Lorillard et al. must spend $500 million a year on anti-tobacco advertising.

        See “Big Tobacco’s Anti-Smoking Ads Boost Teen Smoking” – http://www.healthscout.com/news/1/535826/main.html

  8. syzygy says:

    I just don’t get this campaign at all. The tobacco industry is not selling items that are obviously and immediately dangerous, which is the problem. If they were covered in sharp, poison-tipped needles, they wouldn’t sell nearly as well. There are of course health problems with tobacco, but not only are they not as simple a hazard as a Shard O Glass, they’re non-obvious to users that aren’t informed. And they usually take longer to cause serious health issues than jagged glass splinters.

    So, it’s a slick, well-produced set of ads, but I question its effectiveness. Now that I think of it, that’s my opinion of Truth campaigns in general.

    • Venality says:

      I agree with you that most Truth ads are like that, however, at least these ones seem more memorable than previous ones. Even if you are not informed, the questions it raises (What the heck is going on) might cause some people to look it up, at least.

    • Sneeje says:

      I don’t know. I think it makes the point rather well. They aren’t trying to make a direct comparison. They are trying to make you consider why you might see near-guaranteed short-term harm differently than near-guaranteed long-term harm.

      There is a definite cognitive bias here (zero-risk bias? hyperbolic discounting?), I’m just not knowledgeable to identify it.

    • MaxH42 thinks RecordStoreToughGuy got a raw deal says:

      That’s precisely the point. It’s easy to ignore long-term consequences, so they’re making a parody using something with immediate but drastic consequences because they would NOT be easy to ignore. Also, the stigma of tainted/tampered food is pretty strong, so the parallel of smoking causing harm when used as intended is a very effective way of stigmatizing the tobacco industry. From a public health perspective, I think this is a great ad.

      • Darrone says:

        But its a THINKERS ad. Sure, if someone took a lot of time, thought about the parody, and came to the conclusion that cigarettes are dangerous, then it might be effective. Those that are smoking are choosing to ignore much more obvious signs of health problems, for example, the big fing signs on the box. So, no, its not an effective ad. Its a smoking ad that is targeted to non-smokers.

        • RobSmalls says:

          +1 for the very last line of your comment.

        • Bibliovore says:

          While the ad campaign might not get people to quit, if it reduces the rate at which people start to smoke, it’s doing some good.

          Other studies have shown that almost all smokers start before age 20. I’d be curious to see demographic reports on how teenagers see these ads.

  9. chaesar says:

    “Will this latest Truth anti-tobacco campaign from campaign actually get anyone to stop smoking?”

    Hard to say. Their target is kids and young teens (right?) who haven’t already made up their minds about smoking, but who the hell knows what gets through to them. It seems like these would go over most of their heads. All they get is, “haha glass in a freezepop would be funny, like, if someone ate it, and was bleeding a bunch.”

    • RvLeshrac says:

      I quit smoking a year ago.

      These ads just make me want to start again, because I know it annoys the idiots.

  10. dolemite says:

    I don’t think these things work. For me, when you make statements like “every cigarette takes 11 minutes off of your life”, or “90% of lung cancers are related to smoking”…those are facts that make you stop and think.

    • Phineas says:

      And extremely misleading (most likely made up). The dubious survey studies I’ve seen that try to put a number on how much life you lose smoking only take into account how much less a smoker lives than an average person does. It doesn’t take into account a guy who smokes his entire life and then dies of something unrelated. The assumption that every smoker who dies is related to the smoking is false and misleading. Don’t get me wrong; I see people everyday whose health is compromised from tobacco. But bad science that gets repeated everywhere makes me all itchy.

      • GSwarthout says:

        > And extremely misleading (most likely made up).

        And you are basing this on … ?

        > The dubious survey studies I’ve seen that try to put a number on how much life you lose
        > smoking only take into account how much less a smoker lives than an average person does.
        > It doesn’t take into account a guy who smokes his entire life and then dies of something
        > unrelated. The assumption that every smoker who dies is related to the smoking is false and
        > misleading.

        Uh, no. Dying of something unrelated happens to both smokers and non-smokers alike so a comparison of AVERAGE lifespans is pertinent. This is Logic 101.

    • Gulliver says:

      Not to a teenager. This is not geared to a 50 year old brain

  11. Weighted Companion Cube says:

    Probably not but kudos for them the take off of an fantastic old Saturday Night Live skit.

  12. hatemonger says:

    Too bad these commercials focus more on “tobacco companies are evil!” than “your life will improve if you stop smoking”. The Truth anti-globalization bend is a real turnoff for me.

  13. Larraque eats babies says:

    I don’t recall the last time I saw an advertisement for cigarettes (outside of places that sell smokes) — it’s certainly been a few years; I’ve never seen any directed at kids.

    Are the “truthers” really that far from the truth?

  14. Aennan says:

    I’m truly being serious when I say this: I don’t understand what outcome the glass popsicle commercials are supposed to produce. Is it supposed to get people to stop smoking or think tobacco companies are bad? If it’s supposed to keep people from starting smoking, I don’t think it’s a great approach (although funny).

    I kind of feel like they are the same train as the I’m a Mac/I’m a PC ads. The people who are already on the anti-tobacco company will really enjoy them. Other people will think they’re funny, but no impact.

    • nonsane says:

      The point is why are you buying a product that does this?

      On the flip side, i kinda wanna make sugar glass and sell some of these bad boys.

  15. Unicorn-Chaser says:

    Truth=BS I like your commercials but seriously…you guys are such shite.

  16. SPOON - now with Forkin attitude says:

    I make my own glass filled freezer pops at home.

  17. Matt says:

    I loathe these Truth anti-tobacco commercials. They utilize the same tactics that tobacco companies use to persuade smokers. Their ads scream YOU’RE A TARGET OF BIG TOBACCO and yet, you’re also a target of the anti-tobacco as well. I actually see more advertising from the anti-tobacco groups than tobacco companies, which oddly forces the image of smoking people into my life more. They’re hypocritical, unfunny, and exceptionally irritating.

    • Gulliver says:

      There is a major difference. One is a NOT FOR PROFIT. The other is intentionally trying to get people to use more of their product by inserting it with HIGHLY addictive ingredients.

    • goodfellow_puck says:

      Besides the profit thing already mentioned…you do realize they’re doing the same tactics ON PURPOSE, right? That’s part of the satire.

  18. Darrone says:

    But eating shards of glass isn’t fun. There are plenty of products, that when used correctly, are dangerous. Get over it. We that choose to smoke have chosen so. You can kick us out of bars, you can put warning labels the size of my dick on the side of the box, that doesn’t change the fact that we have made our choice. Get. Over. It.

    • Big Mama Pain says:

      Thank you!!

      I wonder what percentage of the people commenting on here that they like the commercials are smokers? It doesn’t really matter if YOU like them, it’s supposed to be focused toward people like me. If I don’t give a shit about anti-smoking campaigns, I don’t see the point in having them. Do they get federal money or something?

      Don’t even bother trying to convince me that it’s mainly to dissuade new smokers, like teens. Teens are a)stupid and make poor decisions about everything and b)just as informed about the dangers of smoking as adults, perhaps more informed.

  19. YouDidWhatNow? says:

    If the photos of diseased tissue on Canadian cigarette packaging doesn’t dissuade smokers (and it doesn’t) then nothing will.

    You could staple a dead muskrat to every pack of smokes and not make a dent in their sales.

  20. BigHeadEd says:

    People love to point out how stupid the “This is you brain, this is your brain on drugs egg-in-the-pan commercials”. I fail to see how this approach is any less stupid, although society seems to have decided that smoking tobacco is not acceptable and is therefore an fair target while illegal drug use is a matter of personal freedom and those that argue against it are do-gooding busy-bodies.

  21. Toffeemama is looking for a few good Otters says:

    If they’re trying to target teenagers(alliteration!) with these ads, I don’t know if they’ll do that well. It’s not like kids shy away from doing obviously stupid things, as long as they think their friends will like it. Does anyone remember the anti-smoking ads where one teen was smoking, and to his friend he looked like a monkey? I think that ad campaign was better.

    • RobSmalls says:

      I remember that ad. The “Above the Influence” ads they run these days are like that, and they’re fairly well-done and on point. These ads the “Truth” runs are absurd beyond parody and don’t likely stop anyone from smoking.

  22. Concat says:

    TRUTH: Smoking a cigarette is like shooting yourself in the face with a shotgun. While your children are forced to watch and ingest broken glass. They are then subsequently waterboarded and held without trial.

  23. FrugalFreak says:

    BOOOOOO, IS this consumerist or anti-smoking blog?

    • Difdi says:

      No, Consumerist is an Anti-Unsafe-Products blog. And tobacco is just about the only legal product that if you use it precisely as directed in a legal fashion, will kill you.

  24. Greyfox2401 says:

    I miss Joe Camel. How come tobacco companies can’t advertise on tv politicians can lie and slander each other which only confuses voters on the issues that matter, also what about alcohol commercials they all make drinking look fun; I’m cool because I ordered disaronno on the rocks or chicks dig me cause I drink captain Morgans rum.

    Fun fact in the state of illinois (don’t know about others) while it is illegal for persons under the age of 18 to purchase tobacco (but not rolling paper – weird) there is no law against a minor actually smoking cigarettes the police just hassle kids the catch.

  25. JakeChance says:

    These are hilarious :-)

    On a serious note though, I don’t smoke, none of my friends smoke, no one at work smokes that I know of. I fully support the banning of smoking in public places though I feel there should be a degree of it left open to the business owner. I won’t frequent an establishment that allows smoking but if a restaurant wants to allow it, they should be able to. Finally, I don’t think cigarettes should ever be illegal. You should be free to make the choice even if you choose something that’s bad for you. It’s your own life you’re harming and you have that right.

  26. redwing41 says:

    I’ve hated these ads from day 1 and I’m not a smoker. It can’t be related to smoking in a single instance.

    Popsicles with shards of glass: Kills you within hours. You may get the taste of popsicle (which leaves something to be desired), but you also get instant pain.

    Cigarettes: There is a chance they may kill you after years of using. When using, they cause no pain, are used for enjoyment.

    You can argue and argue that both are bad, and it’s true – that’s not the point. The point is these ads are off the deep end. Doing so can prove a point in some cases, here it’s stupid and hardly creative.

  27. Dopaz says:

    Makes me want to go have a smoke. AFK

  28. Levk says:

    Well the commercial has nothing to do with cigarettes so I do not think anyone will understand it or bother not like a commercial will make anyone quit smoking they will have to try better. Its a choice to smoke let em smoke not like they dont know its bad.

  29. Kenneth G says:

    You know… Truth.com’s “campaign” become so annoying, now a days they make me want to restart smoking out of spite. Sombody should tell them that “douchbag advertising” kinda went out with “Joe Izuzu.”

  30. Leiterfluid says:

    Shouldn’t this be tagged as a “sponsored link” and heavily marked “Advertisement?”

  31. Mogbert says:

    Look, the Shards O’ Glass Freezepops are good and all, but they will never beat the old time goodness of Asbestos Bars. I remember my grandparents would always pick up a box for us, god rest their souls. Even my parents were big fans, may they rest in peace.
    I still remember their comercials, “You can’t eat just *cough weeze hack*”. Man, those were such a hoot.

  32. gvsteve says:

    The commercials aren’t intended to convince people to stop smoking so much as they are meant to make people more supportive of legal action against tobacco companies.

  33. MustWarnOthers says:

    I still don’t understand why they don’t just make an extremely objective commercial stating the really basic, obvious reasons why smoking is one of the more idiotic things people do on a day to day basis.

    Maybe a commercial correlating the obscene prices people pay for a single pack, to all the things they could have done with that money which would have been arguably more satisfying, healthier, and smarter?

    Out of all the reasons to not smoke (It’s expensive, dangerous long term, everything you own smells like shit, causes coughing and shortness of breath short term, etc) the price thing is the one that baffles me.

    Smokers go into a store, and pay what? Just short of TEN DOLLARS a pack, on a daily basis?

    If I was a smoker and someone brought up that fact I’d hang my head in shame for being such a monumental idiot.

  34. Bladerunner says:

    I get sooo tired of people railing against smoking all the time.
    I used to smoke: I quit because I wasn’t enjoying it as much, and I still occasionally have one (usually if I’ve pulled a stand-up 24 hour shift and still have to be up the next day).
    “Cigarettes are the only product that when used as directed in a legal fashion will kill you” is the most ludicrous thing I hear. No, they aren’t. Every product that can be consumed will kill you if not used in moderation.
    McDonald’s would like you to have them 3 meals a day. Candy manufacturers don’t advertise vegetables. Both of those are bad for you. Anything done in excess is bad for you. And many things done in moderation are “bad”, only not so bad. (booze, soda, fastfood, etc. all have been directly linked to health problems.)

    Smoking is (of course) bad for you. But I call shenanigans on the people who say it’s just so INCREDIBLY ADDICTIVE they can’t help themselves to moderate it. I did, and so did many other I know. And there are many, many people who only smoke the occasional cigar, never going up to dozens a day. It’s more a mindset/addictive personality issue than anything else. And they’re available EVERYWHERE.

    I also call shenanigans on the whole “It’ll take 7 minutes off your life” argument. It’s based, again, on people who smoke packs a day. And even then only loosely. The science done has been pretty universally shoddy, since “everyone knows” how terribly bad they are (again, I know they’re certainly BAD, but I think the amount is inflated when the only decent study I’ve ever seen to look at secondhand smoke was people who used to smoke, and whose partners still smoke more than a pack a day)

    The Truth ads are hypocritical, AND they violate the original agreement that was signed by the tobacco companies (at, as someone noted, gunpoint), in that the ads were not to find fault with the tobacco companies, and that’s all they do. But it’s okay, because it’s to try to get the KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDdddddddddddddzzz to stop smokin! Even though it’s not particularly effective.

    And as has been previously noted, nothing makes me want to have a cigarette more than these truth ads.

  35. tacitus59 says:

    Somehow, I grew up in a world where smoking was cool, we had candy cigarettes that came in boxes that looked pretty real, we had ads on TV targeting everyone, and you could smoke anywhere. I lived in a tobacco town and I never took up smoking. Now a days, you have anti-tobacco lobby blaming everyone except the actual kids for smoking. We have had these annoying ads for awhile and they aren’t doing any good; unfortuneately public money is probably still going to these [self redacted]. If you want kids to stop as a public policy, government has to start targetting under the 18 and CANE them if they buy or use inappropriate items under the proper age.

  36. mebaman says:

    It seems smoking is generational, with older generations continuing a time-honored pasttime and younger generations becoming increasingly aware of the long-term health effects and being convinced that smelling like an ashtray is no longer acceptable in polite society. As smoking continues to be banned in most public areas and increasingly discouraged by employers and other policymakers, more and more children are growing up in a different time when the smell of tobacco smoke is no longer comforting reminder of grandpa’s presence, but is rather a disconcerting, persistent stink that triggers allergies and repulses others. Ultimately, I believe it is the changing aesthetic of smoking that ultimately causes most smokers to turn away. Not wanting to become a pariah in the workplace or a leper on the street – this is what ultimately caused me to stop smoking. While I understand on an academic level the damage done to my body, that doesn’t translate immediately into a real world reason to ditch the habit. After all, I’ll have just one more and then quit, right?

    That being said, as a former smoker, I find the Truth commercials to be nothing more than obnoxious government-sponsored propaganda. In fact, some Truth commercials have actually made me want to start the habit again (one in particular with a machine spitting cigarettes at people comes to mind). They didn’t work for me, but maybe for someone else . . .