• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 

Forums > Social Discussion > junk food ads banned during childrens TV *Has The world gone mad!!*

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1234
GothFrogette
BRONZE Member since Oct 2004

GothFrogette

grumpy poorly froggy
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3999
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:

http://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

Delete Topic

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:In Canada, we've had a total ban on tobacco advertising in place for years and I can't imagine many advertisers wanting to advertise a product like alcohol to a target audience that isn't legally able to access their product...sounds like a waste of money to me.

Yes..the shellac on fruit...I think it's time to create an awareness campaign on this issue followed up by a marketing campaign to introduce individually packaged alcohol wipes for vegans to remove the non-vegan contaminate from the outside of their fruits and vegetables.

So if insects or insect products are not vegan, then what about bacteria and fungi ? just because you don't see them, doesn't mean they don't have feelings too ?


Delete

GothFrogette
BRONZE Member since Oct 2004

GothFrogette

grumpy poorly froggy
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3999
Posted:Good point onewheeldave i don't think there ever was ad during the kids tv ads. there was and still are some drinking ads during other tv prgrams that children watched with their parents(i think, i am not sure as i don't watch alot of tv)

ubblol @ stout hug


Life's too short to worry about where you put your marshmallows

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Stout





Yes..the shellac on fruit...I think it's time to create an awareness campaign on this issue followed up by a marketing campaign to introduce individually packaged alcohol wipes for vegans to remove the non-vegan contaminate from the outside of their fruits and vegetables.



So if insects or insect products are not vegan, then what about bacteria and fungi ? just because you don't see them, doesn't mean they don't have feelings too ?





I agree about increasing public awareness of shellac- no vegan wants that on their fruit.



I'll assume you're joking about alcohol wipes?



The onus should be on encouraging apple packagers to offer non-contaminated fruit as an option, or, at least, compulsory labelling for any such addiitives.



Insects are generally considered not vegan, though, due to the fact that in our culture, people rarely eat insects (except when they're slipped in by manufactures/packagers, as with shellac).



Fungus is totally OK for vegans though- generally vegan means 'eats no animal produce', fungus are not animals.



(arguably, I guess neither are insects?)


"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!

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:I just naturally assumed that vegans would have that information ( about the shellac ) but I bounced the idea off two vegans yesterday...proving my assumptions to be incorrect.

Actually I was half serious about the alcohol wipes, I'm uncertain about alcohols ability to dissolve set shellac, but a product like that would allow an aware vegan to eat an apple without peeling it. I'm not about to pursue the idea myself..merely suggesting that there could be a market niche here smile

You figure that consumption of insects is taboo among vegans for cultural reasons and doesn't play into the "animal suffering" mindset ? Could be...I know that around here most people consider eating insects as just plain gross.

Also..people rarely eat insects that they know about in a classic case of ignorance being bliss

IMO "drawing the line" at considering insects as animal products is a very, very difficult stance to actually take and live. As I mentioned above, what about the aphids and other types of insects/larvae on vegan friendly foods ? Seems to me the vow to avoid causing harm to insects would be just this side of impossible to keep in the real world.


Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Stout




You figure that consumption of insects is taboo among vegans for cultural reasons and doesn't play into the "animal suffering" mindset ? Could be...I know that around here most people consider eating insects as just plain gross.





I didn't really mean it that way.

What i meant was that we live in a culture where insects simply aren't a part of our diet.

Cows, pigs, chickens etc are- when contemplating cutting out animals on ethical grounds, the vegan obviously has to consciously cease eating the obvious cow/pig/hens/eggs animal produce, plus the 'hidden' stuff (eg most beer/lager has animal produce in).

They don't have to cease eating insects, cos they never did eat them in the first place.

(Though insect produce is an issue e.g. honey).




 Written by: Stout






IMO "drawing the line" at considering insects as animal products is a very, very difficult stance to actually take and live. As I mentioned above, what about the aphids and other types of insects/larvae on vegan friendly foods ? Seems to me the vow to avoid causing harm to insects would be just this side of impossible to keep in the real world.



As stated before, no realistic vegan expects to get to 100% 'no harm'- that's not possible.

It's about either lowering or minimising harm.

Many vegans, when drawing the line, will be thinking in terms of 'does it move, feel, perceive, have eyes' etc.

That's a valid line if the aim is lowering/minimising harm.

However much quibbling goes on about the validity of where the line is drawn, what constitutes consciousness etc, etc: one thing is pretty much undeniable- that vegans contribute much less to animal suffering than do meat-eaters or vegetarians.

For most vegans, that's enough, that's all they need to justify their choice of lifestyle.


"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!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted:While on the subject of insects/grubs- as any aboriginal (living the trad way) or modern day survivalist knows, many are nutritionally superior in many ways to vegetables and meat.

As you know, I'm not pushing/promoting 100% vegetarianism/vegainism in this thread (though respect to vegans as, when it comes to minimising harm, they're pretty much at the top of the pyramid).

So I've often thought about the practicality of 'grub farms'- using a life form which is less capable of pain/loss/suffering than trad food animals (cows, pigs, hens etc)- the end product being a highly nutritious paste with no obvious grub/insect visual characteristics.

Obviously not suitable for vegans, but it could be presented as a less harmful (both to animals and environement), super-nutritious, relatively cheap, 'green food'.

The main problem would be prejudice/distaste, due to our cultural view of insects/grubs.

A little thought about what goes into, for example, sausages (bits of waste animal, including rectums etc) may give food for thought on that one?


"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!

Delete

Stout
SILVER Member since May 2004

Stout

Pooh-Bah
Location: Canada

Total posts: 1872
Posted:Is it just me..or do all these threads seem to be running together ?

I'm always curious as to what motivates vegetarian and vegans to make the choices they do and quite often the reasons are clear cut and valid to my way of thinking. I may not make the same choices..but that doesn't stop me from being interested.

Which is why I'm curious about the bug thing. If vegans are concerned about things like honey, cochineal, and shellac, then obviously some vegans have given thought to insects as animals and I'm not being critical of vegans when I ask questions like "what about the aphids in the broccoli? " I'm more curious as to whether this has been raised as a point amongst vegans..or if they've even thought about it.

Yes..it's about drawing the line..or more so, about where do you draw the line...and why ?

Maybe insects will become the new meat...if people are willing to eat the lips and assholes that make up hotdogs...who knows.


Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3252
Posted:It really does come down to lowering or minimising harm- no one, vegan or otherwise, can get through 70 years of life without inadvertently killing some insects.

Concerning aphids in broccoli- there's no alternative, as pointed out in the veggie thread, meat eaters kill far more plants than veggies and vegans cos their animals eat loads of crops and, hence, more aphids.

So, the vegan knows that they cause aphid deaths, but, by being vegan, they cause far less than they would otherwise- they've minimised the harm.


"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!

Delete

robnunchucks
BRONZE Member since Jul 2004

robnunchucks

enthusiast
Location: manchester uk

Total posts: 363
Posted:while i welcome the ban on junk food adverts i personaly think the ban should have been worded to ban all adverts biggrin

My nunchucks vital statictics biggrin

weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches

Delete

ali47


newbie
Location: NSW, Australia

Total posts: 7
Posted:Hi all.
I am absolutely all for a ban on advertising directed at children and young people, especially when it comes to unhealthy food. I would love to see it taken up in Australia. But I would like it to be done properly, as to do it in half measures can so drastically weaken it's noticable effectiveness that it can become an excuse to say that the measure doesn't work at all.

The change in advertising will make incredible changes to perceptions of food for children in years to come. The changes will not be noticable immediately as parents and children already have dietary habits and values. To change these a lot more education about what actually is healthy and how to achieve this is needed. And a drastic change in school canteen foods!

Where the results will be noticable is in children being born to first time parents over the next few years.

Advertising normalises things which are really just not normal. If a person sees certain foods often enough (on supermarket shelves, advertisments, school canteens, kitchen shelves etc...) then it just starts to seem ok and ordinary and nobody stops to really think about it. They just buy it because 'that's what everybody feeds kids'.
Reducing the advertisements will mean that new consumers (first time parents and young children) are less likely to begin buying a certain product in the first place.

I think the idea of take away and junk food being a 'treat' is common, but people's perceptions of how often it is ok for a child to have a 'treat' varies greatly.
Advertising has, over time, had the effect of making the time between 'treats' become less and less until those foods actually become a part of the regular diet without anyone even questioning it.

On the parents responsibility comments... I do think parents have a responsiblity to care for their children including providing a healthy diet. However, I think that if our society, governements and big business are going to be constantly undermining parents' ability to care for children then we all have to take some responsibility for the results.
Supporting and empowering parents to care for their children is so important and very difficult to do when there is a bombardment of advertising with conflicting messages.

Just on the Macdonalds thing... my daughter has never eaten Macdonalds, but once a few years ago it was a public holiday and there were no other toilets around so we went into one for the first time. She was horrified by the smell and loudly exlaimed "This place stinks!!!" to the shock of the tables full of people eating there. When we got into the toilets she said "ah that's better"..... he he he. It was very cute...


Delete

Rouge Dragon
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003

Rouge Dragon

Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction, Aus...

Total posts: 13215
Posted:This is rather related:
Australian Adults are the Fattest

As for kids; yes. Ban junkfood ads. But at the same time, the parents need to be a bit stricter. Maccas was only ever a sometimes food for me, chocolate was the same, and I barely remember drinking soft drink. Plus I played sport til the cows came home.

So now as an adult: strictly no maccas (Haven't eaten it in 3 years), softdrink only at work (and even then I try to stick with soda water only), sadly lots of chocolate but we all know I cycle til the cows come home.

Get the good habits in young.


i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Delete

GothFrogette
BRONZE Member since Oct 2004

GothFrogette

grumpy poorly froggy
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3999
Posted:giggles at the fact you used my fave saying smile which i usualy get the resonse of "but mum we don't have any cows"

The adverts are not such a big thing for us, if the kids want to have any of the junk advertised i say no and explain why. We do not mind the occasional bit of 'junk' but it isn't just these things that are advertised, there are yoghurt ad's,milk ads,sports ad's etc all with the sole purpose of getting people wanting their product. For me it makes no difference what they are advertising they are all a pain in the ass but i say no to the kids. It doesn't take alot to explain why they are advertised and that is doesn't mean that it has to be baught, all adverts have an imact....she says while her two boys are walking around pretending to have huge boobs after a bra advert lol every thing has an impact and it is up to the adults to say no.
I am still against banning them as i know my parenting skills are more than well equiped in dealing with any questions and request my kids throw at me.


Life's too short to worry about where you put your marshmallows

Delete

Rouge Dragon
BRONZE Member since Jul 2003

Rouge Dragon

Insert Champagne Here
Location: without class distinction, Aus...

Total posts: 13215
Posted: Written by :GothFrogette


I am still against banning them as i know my parenting skills are more than well equiped in dealing with any questions and request my kids throw at me.



But sadly, there are lots of parents out there that are less than well equipped out there. I've worked with them frown


i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey

Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...

Delete

GothFrogette
BRONZE Member since Oct 2004

GothFrogette

grumpy poorly froggy
Location: Nuneaton, United Kingdom

Total posts: 3999
Posted:me too and it sucks, more effort should be put into helping those who struggle with things like that rahter than the 'easy' option of banning the adverts. the damage has already been done with the parents, patterns and habbits of buying junk etc we have problems now that need dealing with and i think that although it may work in the long run can we afford to wait until the generation of children going without 'harmful' ad's are responsable for buying their own food?

Life's too short to worry about where you put your marshmallows

Delete

ali47


newbie
Location: NSW, Australia

Total posts: 7
Posted:Hi. Yes I work with parents too, and no banning ads won't solve the problem, especially for the people already effected by poor diets and consumerism. A lot has to be done to increase knowledge about what a healthy diet consists of, positive parenting practices, empowering parents to take charge of the decisions etc...
But I think banning advertising to children is a positive cultural step for the future, and will have positive public health results within a short enough time to make it feasable.
Children have the right to be viewed as children rather than as consumers, I think. I think it is a cheap shot when large companies sell things to children rather than to parents. I don't think we have to accept that, and I think we can advocate on behalf of our children for them not to be targetted like that.
As for the nature of the advertising... companies need to take responsibilty and be accountable for how they market their products in often misleading ways. Even adults find it difficult to decipher and read through the marketting. How is a child supposed to do that?

I don't think we have to wait until children being born now are grown and buying their own food. The culture of junk food is directly affected by children pressuring parents into purchasing. That can start to change almost immediately.

When the 'norm' of junk food is so extremely bad, it makes it difficult to actually put in place a truly healthy diet, and even parents who are conscious of healthy eating end up taking a middle ground and allowing things that would otherwise never enter their children's mouths.

I see the ban in advertising of certain products which are a health risk when viewed as 'food', as being a step in changing those 'norms' and a step in our cultures making decisions about what is an acceptable level.

It's great GothFrogette that you are strong with your children and have a relationship with them where they listen to your explanations and respect your decisions. I take that approach too, and explain the process of how the companies go about convincing people of things which are not often true. We also don't have the kids watching commercial television....

Be well... smile


Delete

newgabe
SILVER Member since Mar 2005

newgabe

what goes around comes around. unless you're into stalls.
Location: Bali, Australia

Total posts: 4030
Posted: Written by :ali47


Just on the Macdonalds thing... my daughter has never eaten Macdonalds.. When we got into the toilets she said "ah that's better"..... he he he. It was very cute...



Ya I wouldn't dream of feeding a kid that sort of stuff either and I completely agree about the 'normalisation' of 'scary toy food' through advertising. But I am not a total nazi eg wouldn't try to shame someone who gave my kids such things to be 'nice'. Luckily the first time someone gave my then-two-year old daughter something from Maccas she threw it up. Not so cute, but effective! We never watched much telly (mostly didn't have one) so she never got the idea junk was normal. Her own experience of having lots of far more yummy real things to eat shaped her taste. One time when she was older and a mate invited her to a 'party' there she went to be sociable and took some food with her! She's grown up and left home now and looks after her diet well. Most of her friends are similar.. a good example of the change you're talking about I think, Ali47


.....Can't juggle balls but I sure as hell can juggle details....

Delete

NathanielEverist
SILVER Member since Aug 2007

NathanielEverist

enthusiast
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Total posts: 315
Posted:I find this whole suggestion fairly ludicrous myself. It is a severe impediment of the Liberties of businesses within our nation. If McDonalds wants to advertise, I don't see why they should not be allowed to. McDonalds has changed a lot over the years, reacting to the increasingly obvious fact that social-responsibility can be a big profit-puller. They disclose all their nutritional information, and provide healthier alternatives. I've read a lot of blaming of McDonalds, but it's not their fault, they are simply reacting to consumer demands. If demand for orange juice was higher than cola, guess which one they'd have a larger stock of?

McDonald's should not have it's freedoms impeached upon because some people cannot control their own actions, that seems highly unjust.

The solution I think, is education. Media studies should be compulsory education, now that it has become such an integral part of our society. People should be taught how advertising works, how to break it down, analyse it and understand it. Once we understand these things, I think we'll find the knee-jerk fear-based reaction to "Ban it" will dissipate.

My key argument for not banning "junk" food advertising is that it is wrongfully taking away business' freedoms, and puts us straight onto the slippery slope of censorship. It angers me when I see people continuously purchase products that they KNOW are bad for them (if you don't know that junk food is high in fat, it's probably not just your physical health that is poor) and then complain and moan that "the corporation made me fat". You decide what you put into your body, you know what you're putting into your body, you do with your body as you please. If you fill it with high-fat food products, and don't exercise enough to burn off the energy given to you from such products, well... who's really to blame? And who should suffer the consequences?


Delete

willworkforfoodjnr
SILVER Member since Aug 2007

willworkforfoodjnr

Hunting robot foxes
Location: Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, ...

Total posts: 1046
Posted:Nathaniel, I can't agree when you state that "If demand for orange juice was higher than cola, guess which one they'd have a larger stock of?"

The thing is that cola is cheap. Really cheap. Therefore by pushing this over fresh juice drinks the corporation can make huge profits. Is it not obvious that consumer demands are dictated much more by advertising than the other way around as you suggest? If it was any other way then advertising itself would be completely pointless.

I fully agree that it is the responsibility of the parents to control their children's diets, but suggesting that McDonalds are somehow impartial in this, just providing what people want can be nothing but fantasy. At the end of the day all they are interested in is money, and time and again they have shown this to be more important than health, hygiene, human rights, animal rights and almost any other moral we should be allowed to expect of a company which we allow to trade on our soil.


Working hard to be a wandering hippie layabout. Ten years down, five to go!

Delete

BurdaA
SILVER Member since Jul 2007

BurdaA

Sacrebleu
Location: At the quiet limit, United Kin...

Total posts: 377
Posted:Good idea, although I think it's pretty naive to assume that children only watch children's TV.

I can see your point Nathaniel (slippery censorship slope), but I support the ban. I mean lets be honest censorship is already rife within television, we just call it lots of other names. In the same way, as a smoker, I supported the smoking advertisement ban and 'you will die tomorrow' messages brandished on every pack. And to a certain extent the public smoking ban.

Despite the committed parents we clearly have here, many out there are simply not and rely on television as a free nanny of sorts. I know this, as I would imagine some others here do, from being partially raised this way.

When eating McDonalds as a child I had absolutely no idea that that it was bad for me. It wasn't until I was 15/16 and was so utterly appalled by a meal I received (chips/frys were potato shells filled with dirty fryer fat, burger looked like it'd been stepped on) that I had a 'Falling Down' moment and one good McRant later boycotted the lot.

As a sidenote the implication that McDonalds is a treat surely worsens the issue, as when we grow up we can afford/tend to 'treat' ourselves more often. Although I suppose at that age those who should know better, will.

I think what separates TV from ethical marketing mediums is that it doesnt inform. It subconsciously drills. Sure one McAdvert per afternoon may not be bad but have you watched television recently? theres only about 20 adverts on (in the UK at least)! Just over and over again. And when some new limited edition uberburger comes out its advertised every break. I dont see them as supplying to meet demand, so much as telling you to want something, and then selling it to you (which IMHO is a bit much for kids). Obviously many businesses work this way, but that doesnt mean I have to like or support it. And I think getting the government to realise that children are even more susceptible to these methods, and that not all parents can/will do the right thing is an important first step.

Now, if you want to ban an ad here in the UK lets make it injurylawyers4u/national accident helpline etc. the McDonalds of the Benefits generation.

[/JibbaJabba]


Poi(poi~y) n. : A Hawaiian food made from the tuber of the taro that is cooked, pounded to a paste, and fermented.
- part owner of Wooktastic

Delete

polarity
SILVER Member since May 2005

polarity

veteran
Location: on the wrong planet, United Ki...

Total posts: 1228
Posted:*Not having a TV, goes to the kitchen for a snack, and comes back with a carrot*

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.

Delete

Sparklygreenfire


Sparklygreenfire

*Green Spirit*
Location: Southampton, England

Total posts: 201
Posted:I've been seriously thinking about getting rid of my tv, the amount of time we waste as a family is ridiculous!! I think I'd be out numbered though... umm
I can remove it from the living room, just as long as there's still one in the house for mega starwars marathons . ubblol


Are you a robot...or an alien?

Delete

Page: 1234