5 ms·

> In case you’re curious, the ADA and Splenda appear to be still at it. As I write this, the ADA’s Diabetes Food Hub web page still features no fewer than 203 r

> In case you’re curious, the ADA and Splenda appear to be still at it. As I write this, the ADA’s Diabetes Food Hub web page still features no fewer than 203 recipes – some marked “sponsored”, some not – that include Splenda, whose parent company’s $1m contribution has brought to light the utter insanity of our diabetes epidemic. If you call yourself the "American Diabetes Association", (why) aren't there regulations against such stuff? For eg in some countries you cannot use the name of the city/state/country unless you're a government entity.

johnfernow 2y ago
I agree, it seems extremely misleading, especially for medical organizations. The US government doesn't make consumer clothes, so I don't think anyone's too confused with American Eagle Outfitters not being government-ran, but the US does have several government-ran Health and Human Services divisions and U.S. Public Health Service agencies (e.g. the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), etc.) I wonder what percent of Americans think that the American Diabetes Association is a government-ran organization. My guess is that it's quite high. You'd have to design a poll correctly (e.g. "From the following list, select which ones are government-ran organizations") to not give the answer away, but I imagine it's a high percentage.
im3w1l 2y ago
Associations aren't typically governmental entities are they?
citizen_friend 2y ago
Nobody has your interest in my mind, except in so far as aids their interests. Doesn’t matter how many regulations or labels or non profit signals there are.
- dingusdew 2y ago
  [dead]
crazygringo 2y ago
I've been baffled by this for the longest time. Why does "Bank of America" get to call itself that? Growing up there was a "USA Federal" credit union [1] too, with a stylized American flag logo. Similarly there's a historic "New Yorker" hotel in New York City, and the totally separate "New Yorker" magazine, neither of which have any official affiliation with the city. The short answer is that no, there don't seem to be regulations against it. Why any business seems to be able to take the name of a country or state or city, and therefore gain an aura of authenticity or approval, and then prevent any other from doing the same (since the name got taken, you can't have two Bank of Americas) -- I've never understood why the government allows these things. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Federal_Credit_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Federal_Credit_Union
- nradov 2y ago
  America is a pair of continents, not the name of a country. The US federal government doesn't hold a trademark. The notion that companies shouldn't be allowed to name themselves after geographic features or political regions is absurd.
  - crazygringo 2y ago
    In the US, if you ask 100 people what "America" is, they'll tell you it's the name of the country they live in. And since language is defined by use, yes -- America is the name of a country. The shortened version, of course, just like "Mexico" is the shortened version of the "United Mexican States". Surely you're not going to claim that Mexico isn't the name of a country either? And no, "America" is not a pair of continents in standard usage -- that's "the Americas" you're probably thinking of (plural and with the definite article). Which is a rare term to come across, essentially unused in regular conversation, reserved for some highly specific contexts. And I'm saying that companies being able to name themselves after political regions is absurd. How is that fair? I don't get to name my company "Google Bank" (and make it seem falsely associated with Google), so why should I get to name my company "New York Bank" (and make it seem falsely associated with New York)?
    - 2y ago
deegles 2y ago
maybe someone should start the American Anti-Diabetes Association.
callalex 2y ago
Let’s start with the Chamber of Commerce and the Better Business Bureau.
BobbyTables2 2y ago
Amazing. One million is barely the cost of office supplies at many places… Too often it feels like bribing politicians is cheaper than paying employees!
II2II 2y ago
I would be surprised if there is a lack of regulation. To give you an example from my country, the government has trademarks that identify government agencies. That includes the Canada workmark (with the flag over the final "a") and the flag to the left of the words "Government of Canada / Government du Canada". As trademarks, their use is protected. Yet words like Canada or Canadian don't convey any association with the government or even the country.
cjensen 2y ago
Why can they call it the "American Diabetes Association" is a pretty easy question. The First Amendment. Part of the First is that the government cannot ban you from using a word unless there is a very good reason do so. "American" is a word that is not associated exclusively with the government, nor was it ever used that way historically. In fact, the word "American" predates the US Government. Since the word does not now, nor has it ever, implied governmental affiliation, it would be illegal for the US Government to attempt to obtain a monopoly on the word by banning others from using it.
- newshackr 2y ago
  It doesn't seem much different from trademarks, where you can't use a word if it causes confusion

johnfernow 2y ago

I agree, it seems extremely misleading, especially for medical organizations. The US government doesn't make consumer clothes, so I don't think anyone's too confused with American Eagle Outfitters not being government-ran, but the US does have several government-ran Health and Human Services divisions and U.S. Public Health Service agencies (e.g. the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), etc.) I wonder what percent of Americans think that the American Diabetes Association is a government-ran organization. My guess is that it's quite high. You'd have to design a poll correctly (e.g. "From the following list, select which ones are government-ran organizations") to not give the answer away, but I imagine it's a high percentage.

im3w1l 2y ago

Associations aren't typically governmental entities are they?

citizen_friend 2y ago

Nobody has your interest in my mind, except in so far as aids their interests. Doesn’t matter how many regulations or labels or non profit signals there are.

dingusdew 2y ago
[dead]

crazygringo 2y ago

I've been baffled by this for the longest time. Why does "Bank of America" get to call itself that? Growing up there was a "USA Federal" credit union [1] too, with a stylized American flag logo. Similarly there's a historic "New Yorker" hotel in New York City, and the totally separate "New Yorker" magazine, neither of which have any official affiliation with the city. The short answer is that no, there don't seem to be regulations against it. Why any business seems to be able to take the name of a country or state or city, and therefore gain an aura of authenticity or approval, and then prevent any other from doing the same (since the name got taken, you can't have two Bank of Americas) -- I've never understood why the government allows these things. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Federal_Credit_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Federal_Credit_Union

nradov 2y ago
America is a pair of continents, not the name of a country. The US federal government doesn't hold a trademark. The notion that companies shouldn't be allowed to name themselves after geographic features or political regions is absurd.
- crazygringo 2y ago
  In the US, if you ask 100 people what "America" is, they'll tell you it's the name of the country they live in. And since language is defined by use, yes -- America is the name of a country. The shortened version, of course, just like "Mexico" is the shortened version of the "United Mexican States". Surely you're not going to claim that Mexico isn't the name of a country either? And no, "America" is not a pair of continents in standard usage -- that's "the Americas" you're probably thinking of (plural and with the definite article). Which is a rare term to come across, essentially unused in regular conversation, reserved for some highly specific contexts. And I'm saying that companies being able to name themselves after political regions is absurd. How is that fair? I don't get to name my company "Google Bank" (and make it seem falsely associated with Google), so why should I get to name my company "New York Bank" (and make it seem falsely associated with New York)?
  - 2y ago

deegles 2y ago

maybe someone should start the American Anti-Diabetes Association.

callalex 2y ago

Let’s start with the Chamber of Commerce and the Better Business Bureau.

BobbyTables2 2y ago

Amazing. One million is barely the cost of office supplies at many places… Too often it feels like bribing politicians is cheaper than paying employees!

II2II 2y ago

I would be surprised if there is a lack of regulation. To give you an example from my country, the government has trademarks that identify government agencies. That includes the Canada workmark (with the flag over the final "a") and the flag to the left of the words "Government of Canada / Government du Canada". As trademarks, their use is protected. Yet words like Canada or Canadian don't convey any association with the government or even the country.

cjensen 2y ago

Why can they call it the "American Diabetes Association" is a pretty easy question. The First Amendment. Part of the First is that the government cannot ban you from using a word unless there is a very good reason do so. "American" is a word that is not associated exclusively with the government, nor was it ever used that way historically. In fact, the word "American" predates the US Government. Since the word does not now, nor has it ever, implied governmental affiliation, it would be illegal for the US Government to attempt to obtain a monopoly on the word by banning others from using it.

newshackr 2y ago
It doesn't seem much different from trademarks, where you can't use a word if it causes confusion