Forums > Social Discussion > junk food ads banned during childrens TV *Has The world gone mad!!*
Login/Join to ParticipateBRONZE Member
grumpy poorly froggy
3,999 posts
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom
grumpy poorly froggy
3,999 posts
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom
Posted:
as reported on the news this morning:
"Junk food ad ban plans laid out
The broadcasting regulator is sticking to its plans to ban junk food ads during TV shows watched by under-16s.
Ofcom has concluded a consultation on its proposals for restricting ads for foods and drinks which are high in fat, salt and sugar, published in November.
Health campaigners had wanted a ban on junk food ads up to the 9pm watershed.
But Ofcom has said the ban, which will be phased in, will cover any shows teenagers will find appealing, whenever they are aired.
Ofcom had already said there would be a total ban on ads during children's programmes and on children's channels, as well as adult programmes watched by a large number of children.
After the consultation, it has been decided that the timetable will be:-
1 April 2007 - ads for foods high in fat, sugar and salt will be banned during or around programmes made specifically for children or those which would particularly appeal to children aged seven to nine,
1 January 2008 - junk food ads will banned in and around programmes aimed at, or which appeal to, children aged four to 15,
By December 2008 - Dedicated children's channels will have to have phased out all junk food ads.
Review
It has been estimated the ban will cost broadcasters an estimated £39 million in lost advertising revenue.
We are hugely disappointed that they didn't take the ban a step further
Peter Hollins, British Heart Foundation
Ofcom also said there would be new rules governing advertising to primary school age children.
The use of celebrities and characters, such as cartoon heroes, free gifts and health or nutrition claims will also be banned.
Ofcom suggests the package would mean that, in households where children's viewing includes a large number of programmes targeted at adults as well as those for children and young people, under-16s would see 41% fewer junk food ads.
A Food Standards Agency ratings system will be used to assess which foods are too high in fat, sugar and salt to be advertised to children.
Ofcom will review the effectiveness of the restrictions in the autumn of 2008.
But Ofcom's plans have come in for criticism.
Peter Hollins, chief executive of the British Heart Foundation, said: "Despite all the evidence, Ofcom have turned their back on the right thing for the nation's children.
"We are hugely disappointed that they didn't take the ban a step further in the first place.
"A pre-9pm watershed ban is the best way to protect our kids and is what parents want to see happen1. It's time for the government to step in."
And Melanie Leech, director of industry body the Food and Drink Federation, said: "Ofcom notes TV advertising has a modest, direct effect on children's food choices and is only one among many influences.
"So today's decision will not, by itself, reduce childhood obesity; there are no silver bullets that can be fired at this particular problem."
She added: "We are disappointed that Ofcom has decided to extend the restrictions on advertising to cover young people.
"This is a disproportionate response given that the issue has always been about young children, and industry responded to Ofcom's initial consultation on that basis."
Story from BBC NEWS:
https://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/6385345.stm
Published: 2007/02/22 10:44:14 GMT
© BBC MMVII"
do we really need a ban on ads?
i don't think so how about parents just dont buy junk food to feed the children. not much of a radical step now is it.
as reported on the news this morning:
"Junk food ad ban plans laid out
The broadcasting regulator is sticking to its plans to ban junk food ads during TV shows watched by under-16s.
Ofcom has concluded a consultation on its proposals for restricting ads for foods and drinks which are high in fat, salt and sugar, published in November.
Health campaigners had wanted a ban on junk food ads up to the 9pm watershed.
But Ofcom has said the ban, which will be phased in, will cover any shows teenagers will find appealing, whenever they are aired.
Ofcom had already said there would be a total ban on ads during children's programmes and on children's channels, as well as adult programmes watched by a large number of children.
After the consultation, it has been decided that the timetable will be:-
1 April 2007 - ads for foods high in fat, sugar and salt will be banned during or around programmes made specifically for children or those which would particularly appeal to children aged seven to nine,
1 January 2008 - junk food ads will banned in and around programmes aimed at, or which appeal to, children aged four to 15,
By December 2008 - Dedicated children's channels will have to have phased out all junk food ads.
Review
It has been estimated the ban will cost broadcasters an estimated £39 million in lost advertising revenue.
We are hugely disappointed that they didn't take the ban a step further
Peter Hollins, British Heart Foundation
Ofcom also said there would be new rules governing advertising to primary school age children.
The use of celebrities and characters, such as cartoon heroes, free gifts and health or nutrition claims will also be banned.
Ofcom suggests the package would mean that, in households where children's viewing includes a large number of programmes targeted at adults as well as those for children and young people, under-16s would see 41% fewer junk food ads.
A Food Standards Agency ratings system will be used to assess which foods are too high in fat, sugar and salt to be advertised to children.
Ofcom will review the effectiveness of the restrictions in the autumn of 2008.
But Ofcom's plans have come in for criticism.
Peter Hollins, chief executive of the British Heart Foundation, said: "Despite all the evidence, Ofcom have turned their back on the right thing for the nation's children.
"We are hugely disappointed that they didn't take the ban a step further in the first place.
"A pre-9pm watershed ban is the best way to protect our kids and is what parents want to see happen1. It's time for the government to step in."
And Melanie Leech, director of industry body the Food and Drink Federation, said: "Ofcom notes TV advertising has a modest, direct effect on children's food choices and is only one among many influences.
"So today's decision will not, by itself, reduce childhood obesity; there are no silver bullets that can be fired at this particular problem."
She added: "We are disappointed that Ofcom has decided to extend the restrictions on advertising to cover young people.
"This is a disproportionate response given that the issue has always been about young children, and industry responded to Ofcom's initial consultation on that basis."
Story from BBC NEWS:
https://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/6385345.stm
Published: 2007/02/22 10:44:14 GMT
© BBC MMVII"
do we really need a ban on ads?
i don't think so how about parents just dont buy junk food to feed the children. not much of a radical step now is it.
Life's too short to worry about where you put your marshmallows
BRONZE Member
grumpy poorly froggy
3,999 posts
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom
grumpy poorly froggy
3,999 posts
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom
Posted:
so why can other parents not teach their children well? my kids watch quite a bit a tv,not as much as some and not all of it on childrens chanels as they love documentries too.(we don't watch soaps and i hardley watch tv at all) junk food ads are every where, my kids have seen it and done the whole "mum we neeed ......" i just tell them no and give them the reason. i have done this from an early age. i was brought up in a very hands on gardening, grow your own veg farming family so perhaps this is the difference. both my boys have their own veggie plots and knw where their food comes from. we eat fresh food that actualy tastes like what it is supposed to. If i casn do it i am sure most other parents can do it. its wrong to blame the adverts when the parents get it wrong, and yet commend the parents if they get it right. parents are in control of what their children eat from day 1.
perhaps if it was an actual complany that did it, my goodness me then their would be trouble but it was parents of the children
is this before or after the conservative governemt let schools sell off playing fields all those years ago? sorry i know it may seem as though i am picking on you i'm not. just answering your questions (gets scared of online politics and how people are going to react to something)
the government have only just started taking note of what the kids are eating thanks to a TV chef! lots of parents had been compaining for years to get it changed and no one listend. You often hear the whole "i don't have time to cook" excuse. i'm sorry but if you don't have time to cook properly for your children, or take care of them why have kids in the first place but thats a different rant that i shall no doubt get into at some point
lazey parenting
me off just as much as the governtmet nanny state does.
the parents buy the food, its a sorry place to be when the governemt step in and have to ban these ads from kids TV because the parents can not handle the pressure the kids put them under for the food.
Written by: Stout
What sort of diet do you suppose you'd end up with if you let children do the weekly shop ? If the answers a balanced diet, then you've taught your children well. If the answers junk food, then advertising has taught your children well.
so why can other parents not teach their children well? my kids watch quite a bit a tv,not as much as some and not all of it on childrens chanels as they love documentries too.(we don't watch soaps and i hardley watch tv at all) junk food ads are every where, my kids have seen it and done the whole "mum we neeed ......" i just tell them no and give them the reason. i have done this from an early age. i was brought up in a very hands on gardening, grow your own veg farming family so perhaps this is the difference. both my boys have their own veggie plots and knw where their food comes from. we eat fresh food that actualy tastes like what it is supposed to. If i casn do it i am sure most other parents can do it. its wrong to blame the adverts when the parents get it wrong, and yet commend the parents if they get it right. parents are in control of what their children eat from day 1.
Written by: Stout
Is selling chips and burgers to kids through a schoolyard fence legal in the UK ? .
perhaps if it was an actual complany that did it, my goodness me then their would be trouble but it was parents of the children
Written by: Stout
Quite ofter, we as a society tend to blame our social woes on the government, at least the British government can't be accused of inaction when it comes to childhood obesity..
is this before or after the conservative governemt let schools sell off playing fields all those years ago? sorry i know it may seem as though i am picking on you i'm not. just answering your questions (gets scared of online politics and how people are going to react to something)
Written by: Stout
We have the same issues here, but more revolving around what's in the vending machines as very few of our schools have cafeterias in them.
IMO,,, the nanny state goes too far when they apply this sort of tactic to adults,,like banning junk food advertising during the dodgy soaps.
the government have only just started taking note of what the kids are eating thanks to a TV chef! lots of parents had been compaining for years to get it changed and no one listend. You often hear the whole "i don't have time to cook" excuse. i'm sorry but if you don't have time to cook properly for your children, or take care of them why have kids in the first place but thats a different rant that i shall no doubt get into at some point
lazey parenting
me off just as much as the governtmet nanny state does. the parents buy the food, its a sorry place to be when the governemt step in and have to ban these ads from kids TV because the parents can not handle the pressure the kids put them under for the food.
Life's too short to worry about where you put your marshmallows
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
It's great that this works out for you and your kids.
However, many UK parents have nowhere near this kind of relationship with their kids and some have no control whatsoever.
Hence the Chav generation.
Now i know that simply banning junk food ads will not remove that problem, but it's certainly not going to hurt either and, hopefully, in less extreme cases, will help.
Written by: GothFrogette
so why can other parents not teach their children well? my kids watch quite a bit a tv,not as much as some and not all of it on childrens chanels as they love documentries too.(we don't watch soaps and i hardley watch tv at all) junk food ads are every where, my kids have seen it and done the whole "mum we neeed ......" i just tell them no and give them the reason. ....................
....................
the parents buy the food, its a sorry place to be when the governemt step in and have to ban these ads from kids TV because the parents can not handle the pressure the kids put them under for the food.
It's great that this works out for you and your kids.
However, many UK parents have nowhere near this kind of relationship with their kids and some have no control whatsoever.
Hence the Chav generation.
Now i know that simply banning junk food ads will not remove that problem, but it's certainly not going to hurt either and, hopefully, in less extreme cases, will help.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
veteran
1,228 posts
Location: on the wrong planet, United Kingdom
Posted:
So what's going to be advertised instead?
So what's going to be advertised instead?
You aren't thinking or really existing unless you're willing to risk even your own sanity in the judgment of your existence.
Green peppers, lime pickle and whole-grain mustard = best sandwich filling.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
GothFrogette. I see your point about why can't other parents teach their children well and, unfortunately I lack any experience that could provide meaningful insight. Anything I can come up with would be nothing more than pure speculation and may be taken as simply insulting. In your case, I think the key might be how you were raised and taught "country" ( for lack of a better word ) values that made you aware of where the food you eat actually comes from.
One thing I can relate is that when I was a kid...if it was on TV..I wanted it. I wanted the sugary cereal, not only for the sugar but for the nifty plastic prize that came with it and nagged my parents incessantly to buy it. I wanted a surpee from 711, and found myself irate that this town didn't have 711..and demanded we travel to a place that had one. ( it took 4 years for that to happen and the trip didn't revolve around my slurpee cravings ) Heck..I didn't even know what a surpee was, all I knew was that they were advertised on TV so gimme gimme.. I could go on and on and on in this vein, but I'll stop here.
BTW...I'm relatively unfazed by online politics, and seldom take things the wrong way.
I don't buy the I don't have time to cook excuse but maybe there is some truth to it. A case in point...my wife. I love her dearly but I won't let her near the kitchen simply because she's so slow when it comes to food preparation that it's actually painful for me to watch. Something she might take an hour to do, I can usually do in 15 minutes ( years of experience as a restaurant cook ) so if she were to want/need to make something "fast" like opening a package of heat and serve, it's understandable that she may think she doesn't have time to cook whereas I could have a fresh, healthy stir-fry on the table in about the same amount of time. Yes...I do ALL the cooking here.
Normally, I'd object to the ban on a freedom of speech sentiment, but given the subject and target audience I'll let it slide this time.
GothFrogette. I see your point about why can't other parents teach their children well and, unfortunately I lack any experience that could provide meaningful insight. Anything I can come up with would be nothing more than pure speculation and may be taken as simply insulting. In your case, I think the key might be how you were raised and taught "country" ( for lack of a better word ) values that made you aware of where the food you eat actually comes from.
One thing I can relate is that when I was a kid...if it was on TV..I wanted it. I wanted the sugary cereal, not only for the sugar but for the nifty plastic prize that came with it and nagged my parents incessantly to buy it. I wanted a surpee from 711, and found myself irate that this town didn't have 711..and demanded we travel to a place that had one. ( it took 4 years for that to happen and the trip didn't revolve around my slurpee cravings ) Heck..I didn't even know what a surpee was, all I knew was that they were advertised on TV so gimme gimme.. I could go on and on and on in this vein, but I'll stop here.
BTW...I'm relatively unfazed by online politics, and seldom take things the wrong way.
I don't buy the I don't have time to cook excuse but maybe there is some truth to it. A case in point...my wife. I love her dearly but I won't let her near the kitchen simply because she's so slow when it comes to food preparation that it's actually painful for me to watch. Something she might take an hour to do, I can usually do in 15 minutes ( years of experience as a restaurant cook ) so if she were to want/need to make something "fast" like opening a package of heat and serve, it's understandable that she may think she doesn't have time to cook whereas I could have a fresh, healthy stir-fry on the table in about the same amount of time. Yes...I do ALL the cooking here.
Normally, I'd object to the ban on a freedom of speech sentiment, but given the subject and target audience I'll let it slide this time.
SILVER Member
with added berries
1,365 posts
Location: Manchester, England (UK)
with added berries
1,365 posts
Location: Manchester, England (UK)
Posted:
I think its a good step. As soon as children start going to school, parents do not have full control over what their kids eat. Although they can educate the kids well, peer pressure, advertisments will no doubt influence kids to eat less healthy food.
Although I don't particularly think that government control is always the best way forward, unfortunately a large amount of parents don't know what they should be feeding thier kids, and advertisments probably don't help this.
Reading this thread reminded me about a very clever display currently in my supermarket. At the end of one of the aisles, just before you get to bread, is a huge mini-egg display. The packets are all bright yellow, and everytime I walk past it, I think, ooo, I think I might get some. If they weren't displayed like this then I wouldn't have even thought about buying them. It's the power of planting an idea into your head.
Anyway, I really am randomly waffling, so I apologise for that. What I was saying is that I think its probably a good thing. You never know, if sales start to drop, companies might look into ways that they can make their food healthier so they can advertise it.
I don't know if this will make a huge difference, but I think it may make a little difference at least. And I'd quite like to see if things like coke and mars bar loose some of their 'cool' appeal...
I think its a good step. As soon as children start going to school, parents do not have full control over what their kids eat. Although they can educate the kids well, peer pressure, advertisments will no doubt influence kids to eat less healthy food.
Although I don't particularly think that government control is always the best way forward, unfortunately a large amount of parents don't know what they should be feeding thier kids, and advertisments probably don't help this.
Reading this thread reminded me about a very clever display currently in my supermarket. At the end of one of the aisles, just before you get to bread, is a huge mini-egg display. The packets are all bright yellow, and everytime I walk past it, I think, ooo, I think I might get some. If they weren't displayed like this then I wouldn't have even thought about buying them. It's the power of planting an idea into your head.
Anyway, I really am randomly waffling, so I apologise for that. What I was saying is that I think its probably a good thing. You never know, if sales start to drop, companies might look into ways that they can make their food healthier so they can advertise it.
I don't know if this will make a huge difference, but I think it may make a little difference at least. And I'd quite like to see if things like coke and mars bar loose some of their 'cool' appeal...
Live like there is no tomorrow,
dance like nobody is watching
and hula hoop like wiggling will save the world.
“What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson
BRONZE Member
grumpy poorly froggy
3,999 posts
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom
grumpy poorly froggy
3,999 posts
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom
Posted:
i'm not sure what its going to be replaced with, probably more toy adverts.
i don't mind it being banned don't get me wrong i just don't think its going to make any difference at all to the amount of crap the parents are going to buy anyway. the parents are already stuck in the weekly shopping products just as i am. you automaticaly go around and buy what you usualy do.
now i think if they banned them from the adverts inbetween the programs the parents watch their may be more of an affect.
i do strongly believe education is the way to go, starting with the parents.not just on this issue but with so many. These kids just didn't wake up one morning to suddenly find they were like it, whether it be over weight or an ASBO
Stout glad i didn't offend you, i constantly worry about that kind of thing online. i tend to speak my mind but with no ill meant towards anyone unless stated. but i also know that some people get offended over the slightest little thing which can be rather annoying.
with regards the i don't have time attitude, (can you come and cook at mine) it does take time to prepare a real meal. i happen to enjoy it and enjoy seeing the clean plates and full tummy's. as a parent though i don't think we will ever win. if we choose to stay at home to look after our children (like i do) we get slated for not having a job, providing for our children etc. and if you get parents that go to work then they are not spending enough time with their chidlren and don't have time to cook. perhaps i am rather old fashioned in thinking that if you have children you or at least one parent should stay at home and look after them, after all we chose to have the child. (whole different rant)
i do hate the nanny state. i don't see the need for their to be a ban on 'non healthy foods' in school and went mad when my kids were taking in a packed lunch for me to be told what i am and am not allowed to put in there. but i guess thats because my kids have more than enough exercise and have a well balanced diet so the odd bit of cake isn't going to kill them.
i'm not sure what its going to be replaced with, probably more toy adverts.
i don't mind it being banned don't get me wrong i just don't think its going to make any difference at all to the amount of crap the parents are going to buy anyway. the parents are already stuck in the weekly shopping products just as i am. you automaticaly go around and buy what you usualy do.
now i think if they banned them from the adverts inbetween the programs the parents watch their may be more of an affect.
i do strongly believe education is the way to go, starting with the parents.not just on this issue but with so many. These kids just didn't wake up one morning to suddenly find they were like it, whether it be over weight or an ASBO
Stout glad i didn't offend you, i constantly worry about that kind of thing online. i tend to speak my mind but with no ill meant towards anyone unless stated. but i also know that some people get offended over the slightest little thing which can be rather annoying.
with regards the i don't have time attitude, (can you come and cook at mine
) it does take time to prepare a real meal. i happen to enjoy it and enjoy seeing the clean plates and full tummy's. as a parent though i don't think we will ever win. if we choose to stay at home to look after our children (like i do) we get slated for not having a job, providing for our children etc. and if you get parents that go to work then they are not spending enough time with their chidlren and don't have time to cook. perhaps i am rather old fashioned in thinking that if you have children you or at least one parent should stay at home and look after them, after all we chose to have the child. (whole different rant)i do hate the nanny state. i don't see the need for their to be a ban on 'non healthy foods' in school and went mad when my kids were taking in a packed lunch for me to be told what i am and am not allowed to put in there. but i guess thats because my kids have more than enough exercise and have a well balanced diet so the odd bit of cake isn't going to kill them.
Life's too short to worry about where you put your marshmallows
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
they should replace the ads with healthy food stuffs
the ads might not be the problem as much as the packaging...if you can't find the bad food, you can't eat it.
it is public opinion that got the ads pulled, not a government arbitraily deciding
no more junk food snacks in the buildings and keep an eye out for enterprising kids and parents.
off topic, but...i'm slow in the kitchen and ex also was a cook. why can't you just appreciate us trying? and you all have your training, but maybe we can actually try something that you haven't without telling us that it just won't work...the more time we spend, the more love right
cook your food ahead of time, all at once and make your own microwave dinners
they should replace the ads with healthy food stuffs
the ads might not be the problem as much as the packaging...if you can't find the bad food, you can't eat it.
it is public opinion that got the ads pulled, not a government arbitraily deciding
no more junk food snacks in the buildings and keep an eye out for enterprising kids and parents.
off topic, but...i'm slow in the kitchen and ex also was a cook. why can't you just appreciate us trying? and you all have your training, but maybe we can actually try something that you haven't without telling us that it just won't work...the more time we spend, the more love right
cook your food ahead of time, all at once and make your own microwave dinners
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
Yes, I know that, because the title of the page is "McDonald's urban legends" and on the page it talks about how they are either not true or unlikely.
Written by: TheBovrilMonkeyWritten by: Sym
some interesting information here.
Those are just urban myths though, not actual information about what's in McDonalds food.
I'm quite surprised that no-one who has access to the proper equipment has just gone and bought a few burgers and tested them in their spare time - if I had the right kit I know that I'd be very curious to see what's inside them.
Yes, I know that, because the title of the page is "McDonald's urban legends" and on the page it talks about how they are either not true or unlikely.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Goth, with all due respect and compassion for parenthood, but if parents are not going to change their habits for the sake of their offspring's health, nothing will.
It's not about NO crap food NEVER. It's just that (my guess goes), parents are just tired of constantly battling the crappy habits that their children bring back from school or kindergarden. A bit of help from "above" might actually be beneficial...
Completely
The EU will restrain car manufacturers ad's, to at least not using the terms "dynamic" (amongst others) anymore...
Actually I do believe that ad's (especially with children) have a deep impact. Their (and our) minds need to be protected from all that (wrong) garbage they put into us, when watching "City of Angels" 
Goth, with all due respect and compassion for parenthood, but if parents are not going to change their habits for the sake of their offspring's health, nothing will.
It's not about NO crap food NEVER. It's just that (my guess goes), parents are just tired of constantly battling the crappy habits that their children bring back from school or kindergarden. A bit of help from "above" might actually be beneficial...
Completely
The EU will restrain car manufacturers ad's, to at least not using the terms "dynamic" (amongst others) anymore... Actually I do believe that ad's (especially with children) have a deep impact. Their (and our) minds need to be protected from all that (wrong) garbage they put into us, when watching "City of Angels"
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
SILVER Member
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Posted:
Ah, I wasn't quite sure you noticed, since you linked to it as 'information', rather than 'completely fabricated urban legends'
Written by: Sym
Yes, I know that, because the title of the page is "McDonald's urban legends" and on the page it talks about how they are either not true or unlikely.
Ah, I wasn't quite sure you noticed, since you linked to it as 'information', rather than 'completely fabricated urban legends'
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
Yep, after UCOF said
so maybe I should have said "here is a page the debunks some myths" - I did read it before I posted it, you know?
Yep, after UCOF said
Written by:
I'd be interested in where you heard this and finding out more. Have you got any sources please? (or should that be sauces?)
so maybe I should have said "here is a page the debunks some myths" - I did read it before I posted it, you know?
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
SILVER Member
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Liquid Cow
2,629 posts
Location: High Wycombe, England
Posted:
Yeah, while I was making my first post I wasn't thinking that you were providing debunking information, more adding to the anti McDonalds stuff - my bad.
*note to self*
Edit posts to make sense once I've realised they're wrong, instead of just forgetting about them.
Also, I never thought I'd be defending McDonalds - very strange.
Yeah, while I was making my first post I wasn't thinking that you were providing debunking information, more adding to the anti McDonalds stuff - my bad.
*note to self*
Edit posts to make sense once I've realised they're wrong, instead of just forgetting about them.
Also, I never thought I'd be defending McDonalds - very strange.
But there's no sense crying over every mistake. You just keep on trying till you run out of cake.
BRONZE Member
grumpy poorly froggy
3,999 posts
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom
grumpy poorly froggy
3,999 posts
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom
Posted:
FireTom i do not disagree with you but if the government are going to do something banning the ads during kids tv isn't going to help. from my experiance of first schools and schools in general they have been pushing healthy eating for a good few years, they even get free fruit to encourage the children to try new foods. the bad habbits start in the home and stick with the kids through life. Last year i took care of a 16 year old who had never eaten 'real meals' but had lived on microwaved conveniance food all of her life.
on the same lines this is is the news today
i know its harsh but i do feel that not feeding your children the healthy food they need should come under neglect. after all you are denying them with the nutrition needed for growing into healthy people, its the children in the end who suffer.
FireTom i do not disagree with you but if the government are going to do something banning the ads during kids tv isn't going to help. from my experiance of first schools and schools in general they have been pushing healthy eating for a good few years, they even get free fruit to encourage the children to try new foods. the bad habbits start in the home and stick with the kids through life. Last year i took care of a 16 year old who had never eaten 'real meals' but had lived on microwaved conveniance food all of her life.
on the same lines this is is the news today
i know its harsh but i do feel that not feeding your children the healthy food they need should come under neglect. after all you are denying them with the nutrition needed for growing into healthy people, its the children in the end who suffer.
Life's too short to worry about where you put your marshmallows
SILVER Member
what goes around comes around. unless you're into stalls.
4,030 posts
Location: Bali, Australia
what goes around comes around. unless you're into stalls.
4,030 posts
Location: Bali, Australia
Posted:
Really?
I tried a Maccas once but had to spit it out after the first bite, it was sugary soggy moosh. Nothing like a real hamburger at all! I love burgers, with real meat, salad, beetroot, crispy roll, fried onions, all the good stuff. And they still sell them at lots of places. You might pay a few dollars extra but there is simply no comparison. (I am in Oz, not USA, by the way, and we do have a lot more real food easily available)
As far as my kids were concerned, Maccas just didn't exist. It never would have occurred to me to go into one myself, certainly not to take them. The best luck was that when someone gave my daughter something from there when she was 2, she promptly threw up. Never touched it again. If any of her school friends had a *party* there she just thought it was sad and didn't bother going.
She's a pretty fussy eater all round really: likes good chocolate And green beans cooked no longer than 2 minutes yum yum.
Advertising bans? It can only help. But better to just not have commercial telly for kids at all. They can watch the occasional thing if you think it's really good for them. But why rot their brains on it in the first place? Most of it's the mental equivalent of Maccas, from the same cultural basis, even if it's outsourced to Korea or wherever those squeaky cartoons come from.
Written by: faithinfire
..and yes junk food tastes heavenly by the way
Really?
I tried a Maccas once but had to spit it out after the first bite, it was sugary soggy moosh. Nothing like a real hamburger at all! I love burgers, with real meat, salad, beetroot, crispy roll, fried onions, all the good stuff. And they still sell them at lots of places. You might pay a few dollars extra but there is simply no comparison. (I am in Oz, not USA, by the way, and we do have a lot more real food easily available)
As far as my kids were concerned, Maccas just didn't exist. It never would have occurred to me to go into one myself, certainly not to take them. The best luck was that when someone gave my daughter something from there when she was 2, she promptly threw up. Never touched it again. If any of her school friends had a *party* there she just thought it was sad and didn't bother going.
She's a pretty fussy eater all round really: likes good chocolate
And green beans cooked no longer than 2 minutes yum yum.Advertising bans? It can only help. But better to just not have commercial telly for kids at all. They can watch the occasional thing if you think it's really good for them. But why rot their brains on it in the first place? Most of it's the mental equivalent of Maccas, from the same cultural basis, even if it's outsourced to Korea or wherever those squeaky cartoons come from.
.....Can't juggle balls but I sure as hell can juggle details....
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
TheBovrilMonkey...don't think of it as defending McDonald's...think of it more as defending the world against tall tales.
Punch McDonald's into Snopes and see what comes up.
TheBovrilMonkey...don't think of it as defending McDonald's...think of it more as defending the world against tall tales.
Punch McDonald's into Snopes and see what comes up.
GOLD Member
hehe, 'Member' huhuh
6,120 posts
Location: Behind you. With Jam
hehe, 'Member' huhuh
6,120 posts
Location: Behind you. With Jam
Posted:
Someone's just edited the McDonalds entry on Wikipedia and added the words 'your fat because you can't stop eating' to the introductory paragraph...
Someone's just edited the McDonalds entry on Wikipedia and added the words 'your fat because you can't stop eating' to the introductory paragraph...
"I used to want to change the world, now I just wanna leave the room with a little dignity..." - Lotus Weinstock
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
someone has just removed that line
someone has just removed that line There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
it appears to be fixed...those wiki admins work fast, especially during after school hours when most wiki vandalism occurs. But there is new. fresh vandalism in it's place. Curiously enough, my IP address is blocked from editing wiki, due to repeated vandalism. Problem is...I've never edited wiki.... The admins tell me it's due to my being on a proxy server but still it pissed me off to be "accused" of a crime I didn't commit
But hey...the McDonalds main wiki page tells me that there's a local McDonald's with a 24 carat chandelier in it...this I have to see.
In the time it took me to type this post..the vandalism I mentioned has been fixed too.
it appears to be fixed...those wiki admins work fast, especially during after school hours when most wiki vandalism occurs. But there is new. fresh vandalism in it's place. Curiously enough, my IP address is blocked from editing wiki, due to repeated vandalism. Problem is...I've never edited wiki.... The admins tell me it's due to my being on a proxy server but still it pissed me off to be "accused" of a crime I didn't commit
But hey...the McDonalds main wiki page tells me that there's a local McDonald's with a 24 carat chandelier in it...this I have to see.
In the time it took me to type this post..the vandalism I mentioned has been fixed too.
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
i like most junk food and eat such in moderation
mc for lunch today
i like most junk food and eat such in moderation
mc for lunch today
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
SILVER Member
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Posted:
I heard a great quote yesterday on the radio , that asked why there is a multi billion dollar advertising industry if advertisers don't think it will make a difference to their sales
obviously advertising works for a percentage of the population (but not our dear hoppers who are far too smart to be influenced by such advertising
)
I guess, advertising must work, or they wouldn't waste their money on it..
I heard a great quote yesterday on the radio , that asked why there is a multi billion dollar advertising industry if advertisers don't think it will make a difference to their sales
obviously advertising works for a percentage of the population (but not our dear hoppers who are far too smart to be influenced by such advertising
)I guess, advertising must work, or they wouldn't waste their money on it..
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
Not true. A lot of the time it's about power. Often they are used to show power - papers and TV stations get a lot of money from adverts and being able to buy a full page spread and only put 1 word on it gives a clear message that they want the papers to cooperate, or that they just don't care to much and they could withdraw at any time.
I've heard of that used quite a lot.
Not true. A lot of the time it's about power. Often they are used to show power - papers and TV stations get a lot of money from adverts and being able to buy a full page spread and only put 1 word on it gives a clear message that they want the papers to cooperate, or that they just don't care to much and they could withdraw at any time.
I've heard of that used quite a lot.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
SILVER Member
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Are we there yet?
1,897 posts
Location: australia
Posted:
sorry sym, which bit did I write that wasn't true?
are you saying adverts are only about power over papers and TV?
and not about getting consumers to use their product?
and get the papers to cooperate to do what?
EDITED_BY: Ade (1172535188)
Written by: Sym
Not true. A lot of the time it's about power. Often they are used to show power - papers and TV stations get a lot of money from adverts and being able to buy a full page spread and only put 1 word on it gives a clear message that they want the papers to cooperate, or that they just don't care to much and they could withdraw at any time.
I've heard of that used quite a lot.
sorry sym, which bit did I write that wasn't true?
are you saying adverts are only about power over papers and TV?
and not about getting consumers to use their product?
and get the papers to cooperate to do what?
EDITED_BY: Ade (1172535188)
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
Sorry, I was talking about "I guess, advertising must work, or they wouldn't waste their money on it.. ". I think they would, and do, because of the relationship between the paper/tv station and them rather than them and the consumer. Obviously not in all cases, but sometimes.
Sorry, I was talking about "I guess, advertising must work, or they wouldn't waste their money on it.. ". I think they would, and do, because of the relationship between the paper/tv station and them rather than them and the consumer. Obviously not in all cases, but sometimes.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
BRONZE Member
grumpy poorly froggy
3,999 posts
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom
grumpy poorly froggy
3,999 posts
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom
Posted:
advertising can work yes but is getting rid of it once the damge has already been done going to make a difference?
on another note the woman who has a 14 stone 8 year old gets to find out if he is going to be put into care today. i don't think its a good idea that he does, but i do believe his mother should take more of a responsability about the situation and they both need support and help.
advertising can work yes but is getting rid of it once the damge has already been done going to make a difference?
on another note the woman who has a 14 stone 8 year old gets to find out if he is going to be put into care today. i don't think its a good idea that he does, but i do believe his mother should take more of a responsability about the situation and they both need support and help.
Life's too short to worry about where you put your marshmallows
GOLD Member
Pirate Pixie Crew Captain
8,428 posts
Location: Wales
Pirate Pixie Crew Captain
8,428 posts
Location: Wales
Posted:
Advertising DOES work, and it usually works on a dip, drip, drip method or why else would companies like McDonalds spend over $600 million (US Dollars) on it per annum? Repetative in your face ads is what sells products.
I welcome the ban on junk food adverts during kids TV. I don't really understand people complaining about the Nanny State when talking about this topic. There are loads of advertising restrictions in place already that are used to limit the things that can be promoted during childrens programming. Would you want those all removed as well to get rid of this nanny state? Would you be happy to see sex phone lines advertised in the breaks between "Pocoyo" and "My Parents are Aliens"?
The restrictions of these ads won't be anywhere near the whole solution to obesity in this country. Of course parents/gardians are the people that should make sure children have a healthy balanced diet, but surely any measure, like this one, that will help stop the constant drip, drip, drip of making children believe that this junk is what they want/need to eat has got to be good.
Children change very quickly and swing from fad to fad... as seen with the "in" Christmas toy every year. Remove some of the ads that make them want the product in the first place and they will soon move onto the next big thing. If the junk food ads get replaced with more healthy food ads then maybe the children will move on to wanting the more healthy stuff. The companies will then start to change what they make as demand for products change... well, heres hoping
Written by: GothFrogette
advertising can work yes but is getting rid of it once the damge has already been done going to make a difference?
Advertising DOES work, and it usually works on a dip, drip, drip method or why else would companies like McDonalds spend over $600 million (US Dollars) on it per annum? Repetative in your face ads is what sells products.
I welcome the ban on junk food adverts during kids TV. I don't really understand people complaining about the Nanny State when talking about this topic. There are loads of advertising restrictions in place already that are used to limit the things that can be promoted during childrens programming. Would you want those all removed as well to get rid of this nanny state? Would you be happy to see sex phone lines advertised in the breaks between "Pocoyo" and "My Parents are Aliens"?
The restrictions of these ads won't be anywhere near the whole solution to obesity in this country. Of course parents/gardians are the people that should make sure children have a healthy balanced diet, but surely any measure, like this one, that will help stop the constant drip, drip, drip of making children believe that this junk is what they want/need to eat has got to be good.
Children change very quickly and swing from fad to fad... as seen with the "in" Christmas toy every year. Remove some of the ads that make them want the product in the first place and they will soon move onto the next big thing. If the junk food ads get replaced with more healthy food ads then maybe the children will move on to wanting the more healthy stuff. The companies will then start to change what they make as demand for products change... well, heres hoping
Feed me Chocolate!!! Feed me NOW!
PLATINUM Member
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Flying Water Muppet
5,276 posts
Location: Edin-borrow., United Kingdom
Posted:
thank god for sanity skully!
How can anything with the concepts of banning and advertising in it be bad? I mean really? I'd ban it all if I could. And then complain about ofcom being a nanny state.
thank god for sanity skully!
How can anything with the concepts of banning and advertising in it be bad? I mean really? I'd ban it all if I could. And then complain about ofcom being a nanny state.
"the now legendary" - Kaskade
"the still legendary" - Kaskade
I spunked in my friend's aquarium and the fish ate it. I love all fish. Especially the pink ones. They are my bitches. - Anon.
BRONZE Member
grumpy poorly froggy
3,999 posts
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom
grumpy poorly froggy
3,999 posts
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom
Posted:
i again make my point seems as though its been missed that i do not see the point in banning it during the childrens tv ads as i do not believe this will change the shopping habbits of the parents. This does not mean that i want the adverts kept in the slots. i just feel that by banning the ads just during the kids programs illustrates that some parents need to take control over their children eat rather than the children dictating to the parent.
As of yet no one seems to of mentioned what is going to be replaced, i agree skully it would be great to see more ads for healthy eating, as far as i know some of the US kids tv channels have healthy mini cartoons, although i am not sure as we don't watch them (or alot of tv)
I am all for protecting the children but i am also all for educating parents.
i again make my point seems as though its been missed that i do not see the point in banning it during the childrens tv ads as i do not believe this will change the shopping habbits of the parents. This does not mean that i want the adverts kept in the slots. i just feel that by banning the ads just during the kids programs illustrates that some parents need to take control over their children eat rather than the children dictating to the parent.
As of yet no one seems to of mentioned what is going to be replaced, i agree skully it would be great to see more ads for healthy eating, as far as i know some of the US kids tv channels have healthy mini cartoons, although i am not sure as we don't watch them (or alot of tv)
I am all for protecting the children but i am also all for educating parents.
Life's too short to worry about where you put your marshmallows
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Yes- by protecting the new generations of children from its influence.
Written by:
advertising can work yes but is getting rid of it once the damge has already been done going to make a difference?
Yes- by protecting the new generations of children from its influence.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
grumpy poorly froggy
3,999 posts
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom
grumpy poorly froggy
3,999 posts
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom
Posted:
i hope so, i still think that they are amaing at the wrong target though.
i hope so, i still think that they are amaing at the wrong target though.
Life's too short to worry about where you put your marshmallows
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
I do agree with you about only stopping the children's adverts, but consider this:
Banning them during adult programs and keeping them on during children's would be silly. Banning them all together would be a huge move and I doubt it would be possible what with pressure from advertisers and tv stations. Even if it did pass these steps, there would be far more of a 'nanny state' out cry from the public.
What should the the REAL focus? Educating children in a way that makes them sceptical about everything. Not negative, but questioning about what they see. I am sure some parents do this very well, but it is not done enough. If children (and adults) did learn to question what they here then banning adverts wouldn't be needed IMHO.
As I said in my first post, the smoking advert ban was only thought to reduce smoking by 2.5%. I would be amazed if a total 'junk' food ban did much more.
Written by: GothFrogette
i hope so, i still think that they are amaing at the wrong target though.
I do agree with you about only stopping the children's adverts, but consider this:
Banning them during adult programs and keeping them on during children's would be silly. Banning them all together would be a huge move and I doubt it would be possible what with pressure from advertisers and tv stations. Even if it did pass these steps, there would be far more of a 'nanny state' out cry from the public.
What should the the REAL focus? Educating children in a way that makes them sceptical about everything. Not negative, but questioning about what they see. I am sure some parents do this very well, but it is not done enough. If children (and adults) did learn to question what they here then banning adverts wouldn't be needed IMHO.
As I said in my first post, the smoking advert ban was only thought to reduce smoking by 2.5%. I would be amazed if a total 'junk' food ban did much more.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [junk food ad * banned children * w] we found the following existing topics.
Show more..
© 1998 - 2024 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com