Although scientists have yet to identify any such "fountain of youth," many companies falsely are claiming their products are able to "reverse aging." Should companies be restricted from making claims that their products are "anti aging" when in fact, it's not true?
Conclusion: It is immoral for companies to make false claims about “anti-aging” products when in fact, it’s not true.
Premise 1: Companies should not be deceptive to the consumer it could cause ill effects.
Justification: Your face is full of open pores in which these products enter your bloodstream. Some of the most common ingredients in skin care products are toxic, such as propylene glycol which attacks the nervous system and could cause liver or kidney damage. These toxins …show more content…
Justification: The FDA does not regulate cosmetic products, nor do they do any type of recall on them and they feel it is up to the manufacture to follow guidelines to keep their products safe for consumers. Anti-ageing is a billion-dollar business and companies will do whatever to sell their products not caring about the consumer. According to the FDA cosmetics must be safe when consumers use them. In 2009 O'lay was fined for false advertising along with L’Oréal by the Federal Trade Commission for making false claims about having visibly younger looking skin.
Example: At the Brainerd Industrial Center (B.I.C) sits over 5000 cars, since these cars were sold under the assumption that their emissions systems passed the standards set by the EPA, when in fact they violated the U.S. Clean Air Act and over 550,000 cars have now been recalled. They sit and wait to be determined if they be fixed or if they are junk and will be scraped out. This is a prime example of a company who made false claims to the consumer just to sell a product and was fined by the Federal Trade Commission for false advertisement and violating the clean air act and are looking at fines over 61 billion
Conclusion: It is immoral for companies to make false claims about “anti-aging” products when in fact, it’s not true.
Premise 1: Companies should not be deceptive to the consumer it could cause ill effects.
Justification: Your face is full of open pores in which these products enter your bloodstream. Some of the most common ingredients in skin care products are toxic, such as propylene glycol which attacks the nervous system and could cause liver or kidney damage. These toxins …show more content…
Justification: The FDA does not regulate cosmetic products, nor do they do any type of recall on them and they feel it is up to the manufacture to follow guidelines to keep their products safe for consumers. Anti-ageing is a billion-dollar business and companies will do whatever to sell their products not caring about the consumer. According to the FDA cosmetics must be safe when consumers use them. In 2009 O'lay was fined for false advertising along with L’Oréal by the Federal Trade Commission for making false claims about having visibly younger looking skin.
Example: At the Brainerd Industrial Center (B.I.C) sits over 5000 cars, since these cars were sold under the assumption that their emissions systems passed the standards set by the EPA, when in fact they violated the U.S. Clean Air Act and over 550,000 cars have now been recalled. They sit and wait to be determined if they be fixed or if they are junk and will be scraped out. This is a prime example of a company who made false claims to the consumer just to sell a product and was fined by the Federal Trade Commission for false advertisement and violating the clean air act and are looking at fines over 61 billion