The key to any effective naming, branding or marketing effort is to change and take ownership of the conversation. The U.S government has revealed an evolved sense of marketing in some of its name branding efforts recently, as demonstrated in the naming of The Patriot Act. Anyone who opposes the act is immediately under suspicion of being unpatriotic–regardless of the substance of The Patriot Act. This is a prime example of leveraging the full power of a name to take ownership of a conversation. (See Igor’s discussion of branding laws from the New York Sun.)

But the government has also demonstrated a well-honed sense of the absurd, as evidenced by the USDA’s classification of batter-dipped, fried and frozen sliced potatoes as “Fresh Vegetables.” As reported in Myrtle Beach Online:

U.S. District Judge Richard Schell last week endorsed little-noticed changes by the USDA to federal regulations that govern what defines a fresh vegetable. The changes were made at the behest of the french-fry industry, which has spent the last five decades pushing for revisions to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act.

…In his ruling last week in a lawsuit that challenged the designation, Schell sided with the USDA argument that the PACA law is so ambiguous on the definition of fresh fruits and vegetables that it should be left to the agency to define what it means.

The Frozen Potato Products Institute appealed to the USDA in 2000 to change its definition of fresh produce under the law to include batter-coated, frozen french fries, arguing that rolling potato slices in a starch coating, frying them and freezing them is the equivalent of waxing a cucumber or sweetening a strawberry.

“The equivalent of waxing a cucumber” indeed.