bggrthnjsus
Member
Recently I went to a house meeting about some grass roots campaign to get mcdonalds to stop advertising to children, stop happy meal toys if the happy meals cannot meet a basic nutritional requirement, and to retire ronald mcdonald. Obviously everyone at the house meeting was all for that, but i was interested in seeing what the reaction would be in a more diverse group of people.
As for me, I'm about 75% on board with this, mostly because I'm in a medical profession (or about to be anyway) so it has consequences in my line of work. Fast food ads directed at kids have obvious consequences in terms of individual health, public health, health care costs, etc. The American Association of Pediatrics policy is more or less against advertising fast food to children (among other things) (see: http://www.aap.org/advocacy/washing/Testimonies-Statements-Petitions/dr_ Shifrin_remarks.htm ) and ( http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;118/6/2563 ).
Children are more or less defenseless to advertising, and the ftc has admitted to this, saying that it is unfair and deceptive. However, there are no regulations regarding advertising to children in this country because the ftc deemed them impractical and likely ineffective (i partly disagree with the former, definitely disagree with the latter) http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/beales/040802adstokids.pdf Some countries have bans on tv advertising to children (norway, sweden, others), while many others have some regulation but not an outright ban. Characters such as Joe Camel were discontinued because of the intent to build brand loyalty to unhealthy products at a young age. The case is a little more cut and dry (but not totally) with tobacco, but with fast food, it's a different story.
However, I also feel that laying all the blame on advertising absolves parents of responsibility, and I don't want that to happen. Also, on a per calorie basis, fast food is the cheapest food available to most lower income people, and I think if they had the option of feeling full but being unhealthy vs. being healthy but hungrier, they would take the unhealthy option every single time. And for some people, crappy food is really the only option as far as survival goes.
So what does gaf think?
As for me, I'm about 75% on board with this, mostly because I'm in a medical profession (or about to be anyway) so it has consequences in my line of work. Fast food ads directed at kids have obvious consequences in terms of individual health, public health, health care costs, etc. The American Association of Pediatrics policy is more or less against advertising fast food to children (among other things) (see: http://www.aap.org/advocacy/washing/Testimonies-Statements-Petitions/dr_ Shifrin_remarks.htm ) and ( http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;118/6/2563 ).
Children are more or less defenseless to advertising, and the ftc has admitted to this, saying that it is unfair and deceptive. However, there are no regulations regarding advertising to children in this country because the ftc deemed them impractical and likely ineffective (i partly disagree with the former, definitely disagree with the latter) http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/beales/040802adstokids.pdf Some countries have bans on tv advertising to children (norway, sweden, others), while many others have some regulation but not an outright ban. Characters such as Joe Camel were discontinued because of the intent to build brand loyalty to unhealthy products at a young age. The case is a little more cut and dry (but not totally) with tobacco, but with fast food, it's a different story.
However, I also feel that laying all the blame on advertising absolves parents of responsibility, and I don't want that to happen. Also, on a per calorie basis, fast food is the cheapest food available to most lower income people, and I think if they had the option of feeling full but being unhealthy vs. being healthy but hungrier, they would take the unhealthy option every single time. And for some people, crappy food is really the only option as far as survival goes.
So what does gaf think?
