Or maybe it was just ridiculous advertising. Check out Stanford's full collection for more stunners like the ones below.

"Not a Cough in a Carload" [Stanford University via WeirdNewsFiles via Neatorama]

I also learned something about myself this morning, which is that I don't enjoy watching other people fart half as much as I enjoy making up French phrases.

"Extended Stay Makes a Passing Reference" [MSNBC Ads of the Weird]

We wonder how long this WaMu Live nonsense is going to last. Hello, Chase Bank Auditorium #334,234...

Laura writes:

I just got off the phone with Toys R Us customer service. On the main page for video games it states "Buy 2, Get the 3rd Free on ALL video games $19.99 or less while supplies last"

However, when you click on that, it only gives you selected video games that are $19.99 or less. If you add other games (which I assumed were included in ALL video games) they are not eligible.
Customer service was no help. They just kept stating that it was only certain games and couldn't comprehend why I was unhappy with the misleading banner ad.

It's not ok for Toys "R" Us to write "ALL" and mean "some." You could report Toys "R" Us to the FTC, if you like. It'll probably be the easiest case they'll have all day.

You can also report the company to your state's attorney general or department of consumer affairs.

FTC Online Complaint Form [FTC]

Matt writes:

Today Best Buy had a PNY 2GB USB 2.0 Flash Drive SKU# 8202045 onsale for $2.49. I purchased 5 online for instore pickup, order was placed, charged and picked. I recieved both emails from Best Buy saying that the order was ready to pick up.

When I get to the store in Milford, Ma to pick them up I am told that the order was canceled do to a pricing mistake and that I was informed by email. My order was never canceled and when I inquired about this email that I never recieved, I was told the the Manager Josh sent them out to everyone but somehow he missed me. I told the assistant manager who was treating me like I was in the wrong that the order was placed, it was never cancelled and that I am still being charged for the items. The Flash Drives are right behind the counter and the assistant manager, Brian or bill i believe his name was, told me that he would not let me leave the store with my order.

To top it all off, he then takes my printed receipts from my emails and calls 1-800-Best Buy from the store and tells the CRS that "I" wanted to cancel my order and that it shouldn't have been picked. After 30 minutes of arguing with this person, while he is on the phone I tell him that I wanted to talk to the CSR and he refused to let me speak. I wanted to tell the CSR that I did not want my order cancelled and that I expected my order to be honored. He gets off the phone and tells me that my CC would be credited immediately and that they would send me out a new gift card to replenish the one I used with my order. Needless to say I left that store very irate and went right home to call Customer Service and Customer Relations to complain about how I was treated.

I explain my situation to Customer Service and they tell me there is nothing they can do with my order since it has already been cancelled and to make matters worse they tell me that if it wasnt cancelled they would have been able to ship my order out to me with free shipping since the pricing mistake was on thier end. I dont understand how a company can cancel my order without even speaking to me in the first place.

I then asked to get transfered to Customer Relations to complain about how I have been treated by this store, the assistant manager and how that the store manager Josh wouldnt even come out to talk to me and just had his assistant deal with my problems. Their way of solving this Is to offer to send me out a $15 Giftcard for my inconvenience and that nothing will come of the fact that this assistant manager cancelled my online order without my consent and has the charges returned to my credit card and a new giftcard issued to me.

I feel totaly ignored by this company and that no matter how rudely I was treated it just didnt matter to them one bit and these people will still have a job come next week. Not to mention the fact that Brian took it on to himself to handle my personal finances while just pushing me aside like I wasnt even in the store. I have never been so mad as I am at this very moment.

I hope that maybe this story can get posted on your site and maybe I can get some kind of advice on how to just get my order honored. The item has been pulled off of Best Buy's site now I notice and CSR's are unable to even pull it up by the SKU #

Matt's story falls under a little thing governing retail advertising called 940 CMR 6.13 (2).

6.13: Corrections

(2) It is an unfair or deceptive act for a seller, manufacturer, franchisor or distributor who discovers a material error in an advertisement subsequent to the submission date of the advertisement to fail to either honor the terms of the advertisement or to promptly correct any material misrepresentation by clearly and conspicuously disclosing the information necessary to eliminate such misrepresentation in the same advertisement or, if not feasible, in the same advertising medium, if reasonable, and as close thereto in both proximity and time as reasonably possible. Examples of misrepresentations requiring correction include, but are not limited to, information relating to prices, product descriptions or availability of products.

Best Buy had two choices: honor the deal, or, in the same medium, tell Matt that the mistake was an error. "Whoops you didn't get our email" isn't sufficient. Best Buy must honor the terms of the deal.

Since they did not, Matt should call Best Buy corporate and tell them he's going to small claims court, where he's entitled to triple damages:

If the court finds for the petitioner, recovery shall be in the amount of actual damages; or up to three, but not less than two, times such amount if the court finds that the use or employment of the method of competition or the act or practice was a willful or knowing violation of said section two.

The actual damage here was $16. With five drives and triple damages, that works out to $240. Call it the cost of terrible customer service. Wouldn't it have been so much easier if the assistant manager simply honored the deal?

940 CMR 6.13 [The Attorney General of Massachusetts]
Chapter 93A: Section 11. Persons engaged in business; actions for unfair trade practices; class actions; damages; injunction; costs [The General Laws of Massachusetts]

Spirit suckered the Bahamas, supposedly the epitome of relaxation, not annoyance, to serve as the airline's first spam advertiser. More will follow.

Spirit's press release asks: Where else can you find 100 percent saturation with a targeted captive audience that will be actively engaged by your ad for an average of three hours?

Spirit is right. Saturation does have an effect. A profoundly negative effect. After starting at the same taunting ad for three hours, we'd want to stab every ad exec and airline official with a Hurricane-sharpened palm tree. But we're vindictive and have "anger issues." Who would you stab?

Spirit Airlines Launches Mile High Media (Press Release) [Spirit via Jaunted]

Each spot features precocious little urchins discussing topics like "risk management" (ha!) and their parent's perceived personal finance failures until eventually the name of AIG is invoked as a salve to soothe their worried minds. Each commercial ends with AIG's tagline "The strength to be there." We saw these running as recently as Sunday, two days before you, the taxpayer, bailed the company out with 85 billion of your dollars.

Enjoy.

"Creepy Ads" [Weirdomatic via Very Short List]

From Sara Lee Corp.'s new ad campaign with The Walt Disney Co.'s "High School Musical 3: Senior Year" to Kraft's new pizza commercials preaching "DiGiornonomics," consumers should expect to be blitzed by food advertisements in the next year.

Many major food makers are promising boosts to their advertising in the new fiscal year or reporting their spending is up in the most recent one. Their ads seem to be hitting a variety of outlets, including print, television, in-store promotion and the Internet — which marketers say helps them hone in on consumers and get the most bang for their advertising buck.

Analysts say it makes sense, even as these companies grapple with high prices for oil, corn and grains.

Consumers aren't going to change what they eat as they pull away from restaurants, said Harry Balzer, vice president of consumer research firm the NPD Group, and an expert on American eating patterns. They're just going to look for bargains, and that can mean changing brands.

"It's very hard for us to change our behavior. If we like ice cream, we're going to continue eating ice cream," he said. "Now the question is going to be what brand you're going to buy."

Remember, the Grocery Shrink Ray goes wild over brands. Savvy consumerists know to resist the advertising, and will see this as an opportunity to reaffirm their unending allegiance to the lowest price.

Foodmakers plan big ad campaigns in down economy [AP]
(Photo: GirlReporter)

Before you scream "obvious computer error!," remember that "PriceBreakers are hand-picked by [Priceline's] travel deal experts for their exceptional value."

It's like that Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where Larry thinks rain forecasts are the weatherman's way of guaranteeing empty golf courses. Except here, you end up stranded under a tropical storm.

Hilton Head not your cup of tea? Hang in there, we expect the savings to rush up the eastern seaboard:
(Thanks to Steve!)

What is with the pregnant woman drinking champagne in the ad on this page!?!

Oh, c'mon, David. She's just having one for the road! Don't be such a square.

Happy Labor Day everyone!

Cincinnati.com (on the right)

Here's part of the pseudo-congratulatory email.

Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:20:31 -0400
Subject: You've earned a new phone

UPGRADE TODAY!
Call 1.888.333.0047 or visit your local Verizon Wireless Store today

Upgrade today to any one of our advanced phones or PDAs we carry. Plus, for our exclusive customers, we've added an additional discount on one of our most popular devices, the LG enV2TM. All of this brought to you by Verizon Wireless, with the nation's largest 3G network and most reliable wireless network.

LG Dare Bold touch screen, fearless features, 3G speed capable.

$249.99 2-yr. price
-$ 50.00 Mail-in rebate
$199.99 Your Price

(New 2-yr. agreement required on a new Nationwide Calling plan.)
LG enV2 Full keyboard gives you two ways to text or email.
EXCLUSIVE OFFER for our loyal customers.

It goes on like that for several models. Verizon gets special bonus points for including mail-in rebates as part of the "deal."

(Photo: Getty)

Sandra says:

I received the following advertisement in the mail today. It comes from a Feeny Dodge dealership in Elgin, Illinois. However, it came in an envelope marked "Traffic Division - Department of Ticket Disbursements" from Carol Stream, IL. I thought it was a traffic ticket so I opened the letter. I was surprised to learn that it was actually an advertisement for a local car dealership! Seriously, how low will a company go to get you to read their junk mail?

This is just sad. We were curious about the official-sounding stuff about consulting the F010 section of the DMM so we looked it up. It's the section of the official domestic mail manual that deals with Nondelivery of Mail. Tee hee. How authentic.

I cooked up the Banquet Chicken Pot Pie per directions.

I flipped it over after cooking and put it in a bowl. I opened up the "bottom" to get at the pot pie goodness and what did I find? Practically nothing. It was almost completely hollow.

On the back of the box were the instructions for cooking.

The final step says to insert a thermometer to ensure a temp of 160 to make sure it is fully cooked. If I had actually done that the probe would have been in the hollow pocket of the pie and not been measuring anything but air.

I will stick with Marie Calendar pot pie from now on. They are actually filled with pot pie goodness.

(Thanks to couponknob!)

As MSNBC puts it, "It kind of makes us pine for that irritating, but light-hearted, Energizer bunny." Plus, you can use the bunny to point out where the bad man touched you.

"Trust Duracell to Scare the *$#%! Out of You" [MSNBC]

We took a look at the infomercial and it's just about as shady as it could possibly be. It opens with a fake news report about the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, then slowly transitions into a sales pitch for "FHA loans." The anchor even stages a fake interview with the mortgage company pitchman. He's introduced as an "expert."

"Joining us to offer his expert advice and insight into all of this...," says the fake anchor from the "MLN Studio," while the screen is festooned with the same kind of tickers and gizmos that you'd expect to find on CNBC.

And what does the mortgage pitchman suggest that you do with your "FHA loan?" Whatever! Pay for "college tuition, home improvement, start a savings plan... Anything you want!" How much can you borrow? "97.75% of your home's value!"

The infomercial then instructs consumers to call what seems vaguely like an official government information "hotline," but which doesn't go to the FHA at all. Sophisticated consumers won't be fooled, of course, but we suspect that the lender isn't targeting them with this advertisement.

If you are actually in need and want to take advantage of the new FHA-Secure program, click here. HUD will help you find an approved lender and a HUD-approved counselor to answer your questions about the program.

If you'd like more information about the FHA and how they can help you refinance your home and avoid foreclosure, call HUD at: 1-800-CALL-FHA, 1-800-225-5342.

Federal Housing Administration

UPDATE: Commenter Triborough points out that the shadiness of this infomercial is compounded by the fact that the fake "anchor" is a real working reporter for WCBS radio who used to be a substitute tv news anchor at NBC4 in New York.

Here are several representative snippets:

"I have two preschoolers (ages 2 and 4) and this pool is just the right size for them."

"It is the worst product I'd ever bought from Toys R US and I'll never go to Six Flags! Don't buy it."

"One person can't slide down the slide while one person is in the pool let alone have 2 people sitting in it! The slide is so small and when you turn on the hose to let the sprinklers come down the orange top collapses and has no use!"

"As every one else has said this pool is tiny maybe good for 1 or 2 toddlers. Picture on the front is NOT accurate. A 6 year old can't go down the slide with his legs out because they hit the wall. My 3 year old hardly fit. Buy a sprinkler for $5.00 my kids had more fun with that."

The box admonishes buyers "product may not be as appears on image;" a gross understatement for a gross distortion.

SPIN SPIN SPIN [Popper Font] (Thanks to Paul!)
Banzai Complete Water Park [Amazon]
(Photo: davehwng)

It opens on a guy in bright yellow shorts sashaying down a sidewalk. He's speedwalking. Suddenly a truck comes roaring over the houses and smashes onto the street beside the man. Mr. T is in the back of the truck behind a Gatling gun. He yells at the man to stop speedwalking: "You a disgrace to the man race!" he shouts. Then he fires candybars at the man, and the man dances around on the sidewalk in fear and takes off running. The tagline: "Snickers. Get some nuts." (You can watch it here.) Yum! Now when I want to satisfy my hunger and think about shooting down a mincing, nutless homo in suburbia, I'll know what candy bar to buy! Thanks, Snickers!

Bob Garfield at the magazine Ad Age wrote an open letter last week to the CEO of Omnicon, the ad corporation responsible for the spot, accusing him of using "dehumanizing stereotypes" and "jokey violence" in of all things a candy commercial.

This letter is to you, but it is equally to your colleagues throughout the industry. Are you so bereft, of ideas and simple humanity, that you must be reduced to stereotyping and bullying? That you must identify an "other" to ridicule, or worse? That you must build a brand on the backs of people who have harmed no one save for challenging a high-school locker-room standard of masculinity?

He points out that Omnicom says it practices corporate responsibility by "ensuring that we use our position to promote socially responsible policies and practices and that we make positive contributions to society across all of our operations." Then why, in a candy ad that you assume is at least partially targeted to children, would you go this route? Garfield points out that it's not just about anti-gay attitudes, or more broadly about gender roles and what's "okay" for one sex or another. It's really about attacking people who are different or seen as weak:

You don't have to be gay to be the target of macho aggression. If you are slight, or weak, or meek or odd. If you don't like football or groove on Liza. If you read books. If you drive a Neon. If for any reason you don't fulfill the masculinity expectations of the bully, you are therefor[sic] a faggot and: ridiculed, berated, laughed at, marginalized, stuffed into a locker, beaten up, murdered. Ass-wiggling speedwalker = faggot. It's code. Likewise sweater-draped poodle walkers who squeal "oooooooh!" This kind of ad, which normalizes and even incites contempt or worse for the supposed faggots, is therefore homophobic whether the runner is gay or not.

Some Ad Age readers have commented that Garfield is being too politically correct and that it's all in good fun. After all, it's not a crime to offend someone. At the very least, one of them argued, kids today don't have the same anti-gay culture of past generations.

Is this true? I'd love to hear from Consumerist readers who are, say, in their early twenties or younger: has bullying based on codes of masculinity abated in recent years? Is that sort of behavior really a thing of the past? Because if it is, good for humanity—but I wonder if a Snickers ad that shows a pop-culture icon firing a large gun at a big ole' sissy is teaching kids it's time to bring it back.

But enough about that cheery world of high-school—the real question, writes CV Harquail on his blog Authentic Organizations, is why a global corporation that claims social responsibility would produce a spot that undermines its promises to do good.

What I don’t understand about the responses to Garfield’s letter is that so few people are focused on holding Wren accountable for aligning his organization’s actions with its words. Why is this?

Striving for authenticity, for alignment between who you say you are, what you believe about yourself, and how you behave as an organization, is the responsibility of the organization’s leadership.

And responsibility for being authentic is not confined to leadership: Keeping behavior aligned with the organization’s statements of purpose, vision and value is the responsibility of every employee. The people at Omnicom know this– it’s right here in Omnicom’s Code of Conduct statement:

Our reputation depends, to a very large measure, on you taking personal responsibility for maintaining and adhering to the policies and guidelines set forth here. Your continued cooperation in this regard is appreciated.

"An Open Letter to Omnicom President-CEO John Wren" [AdvertisingAge via Towleroad]
"Homophobia and (In)Authenticity at Omnicom: What can a leader do?" [Authentic Organizations]

(Thanks to Patrick!)

(Photo: betterbethany)

Logan writes:

I bought some toothpaste last night as my wife an I had been surviving on tiny, dentist-issued travel tubes for the past couple weeks. We're lazy, so to save ourselves the trip after the next big tube was gone, I decided to buy a double pack of toothpaste. Thinking that the marginal savings of bundled toothpaste was the way to go, I grabbed a healthy sounding combo and was one may way. When I got home though, I was in for a big surprise. When I pulled the "Bonus" tube out of its box, it was actually in another, smaller box. Whaaaaat? Why the double boxing? Was it for packaging reasons? Or was it to hide the widespread reach and effectiveness of the the product shrink ray?

This isn't the feared Grocery Shrink Ray. This is deception, pure and simple. The weasels running Colgate's marketing team stuck to the law by printing the net weight on both boxes, but they clearly want consumers to assume that the boxes are the same size.

Way to waste an extra box, Colgate!

Jim writes:

Greetings, Consumerist braintrust. Attached is a picture I think you'll find interesting. I took it yesterday at my local Staples store. As you can see, it states that as of July 1, 2008, it is the law that you must use a hands-free calling device while operating a vehicle. And that's certainly true. At least, it's true in California. But I live in Birmingham, Alabama, which is a couple thousand miles away from California, and which has no such laws. There was no disclaimer on the display, just a "DO IT NOW!" admonition to comply with a law that doesn't apply to you.

Five states restrict their residents from yabbering while driving: New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Washington, and as of July 1, California.

Call us old fashioned, but we think public safety laws should be written by legislators, not marketers.

Cell Phone Driving Laws [Governors Highway Safety Association]

Maybe her friend, Mr. Moneybags, can shower Congress with cash and buy some of that tasty warrantless wiretapping immunity! Whoops, too real!

So who are the other members of the Online Liberation Movement, you ask? The ironically-named Ms. Proof and Ms. Forgetful, obviously.

Isn't this so !@$% fun? It's like we're living in a book!

AT&T's Latest Ad a Sick Joke [Reading For Dummies via Boing Boing]

What are we looking for?

For example, in this AmbienCR commercial, the announcer says:

"Sleepwalking and eating or driving while not fully awake with amnesia for the event have been reported."

Driving while not awake? With amnesia? Neat!

If you've noticed a disturbing side-effect in a tv drug ad, watch the ad again and write down exactly what the announcer says and the name of the drug, and email it to us at tips@consumerist.com. Put "Disturbing Side Effect" in the subject of your email. If you can find a clip of the advertisement on the internet, please include a link. If you have a commenter account, feel free to leave your suggestion in the comments.

We'll pick the top 10 and feature them in a Consumerist post. Thanks!

"You can't take everything personally," said Deana Cruthird, 31, at Kenmore station.

And, besides, said Russell Sweet, 48, "There are plenty of other things to be offended about."

But that's not the view of Stephan G. MacDougall, president of the Boston Carmen's Union, who fielded 40 phone calls from Green Line workers incensed by the ads.

"To say they are angered and offended is to put it lightly," MacDougall said. "I will tell you this: If they don't come down, we will not drive those trains."

MacDougall said he likes Legal Sea Foods, and cannot understand why the company and the T could not have anticipated a backlash to the ads.

"Who the hell wants to say they have a face like a fish?" he said. "I happen to like to eat fish, and I like seafood, and I like going fishing, but I don't want anybody saying that I or any of my members look like a fish."

The ad agency doesn't see anything wrong with making fun of trolley conductors. They told the Globe that they rejected one idea that was a bit much, so obviously they're not like, insensitive...

The ads were designed by the New York ad agency DeVito/Verdi, which vetoed one idea as too crass: "This trolley is a lot like your mother. Anyone with a couple of bucks can get a ride."

"So it's not like we're insensitive," said Ellis Verdi, president of the agency.

Seems like they rejected the only funny one.

Hook, line, or stinker? [Boston Globe] (Thanks, Kevin!)
(Photo: 100%`￥afe)

Castleman responded by angrily withdrawing the scholarships, leaving the four students without the means to attend college.

The president and CEO of Castle Automotive Group, Howard Castleman, said it didn't have to be this way. "We opted not to give it to them because of, quite frankly, attitude," he said in a phone interview. He said school officials accused him of wanting to bring in a "media circus" and would not allow him to hang his company's banner.

Castleman said that having press at the event would have paid public tribute to the teacher who died, it would have encouraged more people to donate to the school, and "we would've gotten some PR."

[...]

"My family was very excited when they heard I would receive the money from Toyota in order to go to college," said one of them, Iftin Iftin, a Somali refugee who graduated from Patterson on Saturday and plans to study English and computer programming.

When D'Anna summoned the students to tell them Castle wasn't donating the money after all, Iftin said, "I couldn't even smile all day." At night, he said, "I couldn't get sleep."

Castleman also decided to cancel his annual Christmas party for poor Baltimore children, saying "This is it. I'll never have another Christmas party for these kids. It doesn't pay."

Um, the missed lesson here, Castleman, is that charity should be its own reward, not a hackneyed public relations scheme.

Firm reneges on scholarships [The Baltimore Sun] (Thanks to Stanton!)

On Wednesday, Kieffe & Sons posted a statement on their website, apologizing to "all who were offended." As commenters pointed out, saying you're sorry that someone got offended is not the same as actually apologizing for what you said. Now, according to the Bakersfield Californian, we find out even the non-apology wasn't genuine.

“I don’t regret the sentiment at all,” said Kieffe, who bought the 48-year-old dealership from his father in 1974. “It’s what we believe.”

. . .

The dealer’s Web site Thursday bore a statement about the ad that included an apology “to all who were offended.” Kieffe said he’d been contacted by Ford Motor Co. after the manufacturer heard complaints from numerous “blog-lo-dites.” The company asked him to post something saying he was sorry if he’d offended anyone, Kieffe said.

Kieffe said he will continue using J.W. Horne for the dealer's ads. Horne also confirmed that he wrote the trolling, single-entry blog that went up on Thursday.

Ford Says "Shut Up" Ad Was a Mistake, But Dealer Stands Behind It [Bakersfield Californian]
PREVIOUSLY: California Ford Dealership Radio Ad Tells Non-Christians To "Sit Down And Shut Up"
(Photo: Amy Watts)

According to the Bakersfield Californian, Rick Kieffe, the dealership owner, said he doesn't remember approving the ad (emphasis added):

“It’s just something that went by us,” said Kieffe, who does not attend church but considers himself “a Christian spirit.” “We’re obviously sorry that it offends a given segment who identifies themselves as atheist.

Kieffe said he received a flood of angry phone calls from people around the world who saw blog posts about the story. Kieffe's advertiser, or someone claiming to be him, apparently didn't get the memo, as he has posted an unapologetic screed conflating gay marriage with the purchase of a Japanese car (seriously).

PREVIOUSLY: California Ford Dealership Radio Ad Tells Christians to "Sit Down and Shut Up"
Car Dealer Regrets Ads Telling Non-Christians to "Sit Down and Shut Up" [Bakersfield Californian]
(Photo: Amy Watts)

The ad reads:

Did you know that there are people in this country who want prayer out of schools, "Under God" out of the Pledge, and "In God We Trust" to be taken off our money?

But did you know that 86% of Americans say they believe in God? Now, since we all know that 86 out of every 100 of us are Christians who believe in God, we at Kieffe & Sons Ford wonder why we don't just tell the other 14% to sit down and shut up. I guess maybe I just offended 14% of the people who are listening to this message. Well, if that is the case, then I say that's tough, this is America folks, it's called free speech. And none of us at Kieffe & Sons Ford are afraid to speak up. Kieffe & Sons Ford on Sierra Highway in Mojave and Rosamond: if we don't see you today, by the grace of God, we'll be here tomorrow.

The ad has been running on radio stations in southern California since at least February, according to one blogger. She wrote to Ford headquarters, but received a reply that because the dealerships are independently owned and operated, she should get in touch with the management at the dealership.

Here's the audio of (most of) the ad:

The Underground Unbeliever [via BoingBoing]
(Photo: Amy Watts)
(Audio: Karen Peralta)

Our reaction is, of course, "Holy Shit! Where can we buy that poncho!?"

ROFLcon and ponchos spark controversy [Weekly Dig]

I thought I'd send along an interesting find from when I visited a Linens 'N Things (the one going through bankruptcy), they had some Rowenta Irons marked UP by $10... and then had a $10 LNT gift card promotion sign right next to them. It's no wonder they're going bankrupt! I think they need to be a little more savvy than this. I mean, are consumers so stupid that they won't notice that the $10 LNT gift card promotion is on a produce with a handwritten price that's $10 higher than retail?

We think this is evidence that Linens 'N Things has just given up. They're not even trying anymore. How sad.

The two companies jointly sought an injunction to stop Tyson's ad campaign, arguing the "raised without antibiotics" claim misleads consumers by making it appear Tyson's chicken is safer or more healthful.

Sanderson and Perdue initially based their legal challenge on Tyson's practice of feeding chickens ionophores, an antibiotic used only in animals raised for food. Sanderson and Perdue also use ionophores.

Then during trial in federal court in Baltimore, Tyson officials acknowledged they also inject eggs several days before they hatch with antibiotics that are approved for use in humans. Dave Hogberg, Tyson's senior vice president for consumer products, said it is a common industry practice.

Hogberg said injecting eggs with antibiotics did not undermine the "raised without antibiotic" label because the term "raised" is understood to cover the period that begins with hatching.

According to Tyson's "Core Values," they are a bunch of well-meaning folks "engaged in the production of food, seeking to pursue truth and integrity." After the USDA initially cried foul over Tyson's health claims, the pursuit of truth led Tyson to instead boast that their chickens are "raised without antibiotics that impact antibiotic resistance in humans.” At the time, Tyson said:

“We once again turned to consumers for their guidance and they told us this label more clearly conveys our chickens are not raised with any feed ingredients that could contribute to antibiotic resistance in humans,” said Dave Hogberg, senior vice president of Consumer Products Marketing for Tyson Foods. “The new labeling enables us to continue producing Raised Without Antibiotics chicken, which nine out of ten consumers say is important to them.”

Wow, that statement is just leaking with truth and integrity. Who ever would have guessed a federal court would brand Tyson as dishonest?

Court Orders Tyson to Suspend Ads For Antibiotic-Free Chicken [Washington Post]
Court says Tyson chicken antibiotic claims must stop [BarfBlog]
Tyson to Use New Label for Raised Without Antibiotics Chicken; Company and USDA agree to more informative wording (Press Release) [Tyson Foods]

From Slate:

Reading McTeague's comment over coffee yesterday morning, I couldn't help but think of an advertisement I'd seen a few months ago while on a reporting trip to China. I was walking from my Beijing bed-and-breakfast to a nearby subway station when I was stopped in my tracks by a billboard that made the controversial 1990s Calvin Klein underwear ads look artistic by comparison. Staring down at the throngs of shoppers on Beijing's Xinjiekou Nandajie Avenue, a busy commercial thoroughfare about a mile west of the Forbidden City, was a white girl who looked all of 12, reclining in a matching bra-and-panties set adorned with Disney's signature mouse-ear design. In a particularly creepy detail, the pigtailed child was playing with a pair of Minnie Mouse hand puppets. In the upper left-hand corner was the familiar script of the Disney logo.

Not believing my eyes, and on an assignment that touched on images of Westerners in the Chinese consumer's imagination, I snapped a photo:

After reading of the Cyrus flap, I e-mailed my photo to Disney's McTeague. I was curious: How did the company square its position on the Liebowitz photo with its risqué billboard in China?

McTeague passed on commenting and forwarded the image to Gary Foster, a spokesman for Disney's consumer-products division. He called me from a business trip (to China) to disavow the ad. "It has caught us totally by surprise," Foster told me by phone from Guangzhou. He explained that Disney contracts with a host of licensees, who produce and market products for the Disney brand. Foster said that licensees are contractually bound to clear all advertising with Disney's corporate offices. "We have literally hundreds of licensees making our products. They are supposed to submit any kind of imagery to us before it is used, but it's hard to enforce that sometimes," he said.

Mickey Mouse Operation [Slate]
(Photo: Daniel Brook )