The New York Times reports that eleven huge food companies, in the face of regulatory intervention, lawsuits, and a forthcoming government study on childhood obesity, agreed to voluntarily withdraw junk food advertising from children’s TV shows targeted at an under-12 audience.
But does it go far enough? TV is just one component of the advertising spectrum, and the industry’s move won’t apply to “family”-type shows.
Maybe we should treat treat junk food ads like cigarette ads…
More From Consumerist
-
I Like Kohl's, But I Hate Torrents Of Junk Mail
-
L.A. Bans Plastic Supermarket Shopping Bags
-
The Internet Age Has Only Made Junk Mail Smarter And More Efficient
-
Judge Cans Bloomberg’s Large Sugary Drinks Ban, Calling It “Arbitrary And Capricious”
-
Is Seattle Plastic Bag Ban Actually Leading To More Shoplifting?
@acambras: That’s a rather large leap to take. IANAD, but I’m pretty sure the reason anorexic’s periods end is due to their lack of food intake, not body fat. Their bodies go into protective mode to conserve as much of the body as possible, and the period is a good bit of blood loss, with corresponding nutrient and energy loss, each month.
Adding to my original post, it’s also very much the “American” (or more simply a technologically advanced) way of life causing the “epidemic” of obesity. We don’t take the time to prepare our food and take convenience over healthy all the time. All western countries have gotten fatter, but we’re the ones in an epidemic.
Did anyone mention, how fat that kid looks in the picture.
I hope that was a photo shoot and not real, because his parents have some major revamping to do that lil terd.
@roche I can’t believe you’d want them to advertise BOTTLED WATER, what kind of environment hating resource wasting nut are you???
Actually, I think I read somewhere that someplace like NYC is trying to ban bottled water due to the overwhelming amount of trash derived from the brazillions of little plastic bottles.
reg
this will just lead to the advertisements being moved from TV to more intrusive forms, such as at School.
I guess most of the commenters here are planning on being dead before these guys health problems are affecting everyone’s access to health care (or personal space on public transportation)? Maybe the market will take care of it, but even that doesn’t mean that you, Mr./Ms. Personal Responsibility (or I) won’t suffer unnecessarily in the process. But (as Geekfather and others hint at, Michael Pollan writes about) government funding for agriculture is probably the place to start looking for real solutions.
Letting your children become fat (if not medical related) is neglect and should be criminal, regardless of advertising. If they come to your house and give it to you free, it is still YOUR fault as a parent for feeding it to them. I have finally decided to vote no.
@muckpond: yes. yes yes yes.
My parents went through a period where they were dirt poor a few years ago. Layoffs, etc. – lost everything. They were living in a place that had a microwave and nothing else. They couldn’t afford to eat healthy food. They were living off the Wendy’s dollar menu (mind you, not getting fat, because they would split two items from the menu between them).
When they were getting back on their feet, they lived in a poor part of New York, near a McDonald’s. They knew a lot of people who would eat there, sometimes with their kids, between their first and second jobs of the day. Not only is healthy food expensive – it’s time-consuming.
One thing my dad commented on – sometimes Burger King would have those dollar-Whopper specials, so they’d each get one of those, and despite its being huge and momentarily disgustingly filling, he’d be *starving* a couple hours later. It was the sort of feeling he associated more with eating sugar on an empty stomach or something (we’re both a little hypoglycemic), but not “meat”. Ick.
@The Walking Eye: “…it’s also very much the “American” (or more simply a technologically advanced) way of life causing the “epidemic” of obesity.” There’s an interesting argument out there (not necessarily my own) that says our obesity “epidemic” is simply the result of our evolution.
Up until very recently, it made a lot of sense to eat as much as you could, because food was scarce. Therefore, the genes that cause gluttony would propagate, just as the genes that cause lust. Gluttony and lust are evolutionary advantages, because in a non-technological world, they increase a population’s chances for survival.
The invention of birth control allows us to indulge our genetically-programmed desire to breed incessantly without too much consequence. However, technology hasn’t allowed us to indulge our genetically-programmed desire to eat whenever we get the chance, consequence-free.
Again, it’s an interesting argument, and one that I don’t necessarily subscribe too.
@whinypurist:
Exactly. Convenience first, freedom second.
@The Walking Eye: I think there is a connection to body fat – female athletes also lose their periods sometimes.
Amenorrhea
I’ve got a small child who is “on the edge” according to the doctor (that’s her genes, by the way. Her dad is the exact same way). Because of it I have to keep her off of things like juice (she’s allowed 1 glass day, then off to water) and junk food. I know it’s my responsibility to make sure she doesn’t eat too much junk. Whenever she is watched by others I make sure they know the rules.
That said, I still voted to ban the commercials. My daughter isn’t old enough yet to be effected by these, but in a few years she will be. I don’t want to listen to her complain and whine about how she wants this. I won’t give it to her, but I don’t want to hear it either. Please take it off our kids television shows, for the sake of the parents who do not want to listen to their child and have a fight (even if the child won’t win)
@camille_javal: Crap, forgot about that. Yes, there is correlation to lower body fat but I’ve not seen any papers going the other way.
@Steel_Pelican: Yes, I’ve heard that too. It is quite interesting and supports the sedentary lifestyle part of the equation. But it all still boils down to our individual choices.
Commercial speech is not protected, at least inasmuch as you do not have a right to advertise. Or put another way, you cannot compel a television network to sell you time to promote your product. So why are these complaints not leveled at the kiddie channels that sell advertising to junk food companies? I think that would be a worthwhile campaign. They clearly already have a list of companies they won’t sell time to during children’s programming — booze, smokes, birth control, viagra, etc. — so why don’t concerned parents lobby the stations to stop selling space to products that damage their children? And at the same time, ask them to defend the choices they do make. That seems to both keep the government out of it and would be a sign of parents taking responsibility for their children’s health.
On a related, more general note, I think the idea — expressed in many posts above — that parents are the only ones with any culpability in the obesity of children is absurd. Advertising is not benign. It is not ineffectual. It is a multi-billion dollar industry that works. People see ads, people buy products — it’s that simple. Not all ads and not all products appeal to everyone, but they all work for some. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be on the air. And ads targeted at children work better than most. When people demand parental responsibility above all else, they are asking individual parents to resist the full force of the billion dollar junk food advertising industry. One against thousands, and those thousands are pros. That seems to me an unfair fight and helping parents out by requiring some responsibility on the part of the advertisers (or the channels) does not seem a ridiculous idea that would threaten the very foundation of the country.
And hell, even if you are going to just yell “free speech, free speech” in your defense of Doritos, keep in mind that the supreme court repeatedly treats children differently than adults in deciding free speech cases. Those decisions usually mean kids don’t have the same free speech rights as adults, but the principal behind them is that kids require guidance and protection. They are a special class of the population. I think limiting access to influence them is not out of line with current judicial thinking.
I would interpret a “unilateral ban” as the producers of these products standing up and saying “we want to help by doing this.”
Joining a moratorium “in the face of regulatory intervention, lawsuits, and a forthcoming government study on childhood obesity,” is hardly unilateral. Shutting up because you will probably be sued/censored is not much different from being censored.
@kaikhor: Oops, I meant “they don’t want to listen to their child whine and have a fight”…we should really listen to our children…
@camille_javal: Not only is healthy food expensive – it’s time-consuming.
Oh please. It might be expensive to eat the ideal, perfectly balanced diet. But it IS NOT more expensive to eat healthier than fast food burgers/fries/fried food. I’m not even considering the convenience factor, if you’re too lazy to cook some fairly simple/cheap/moderately healthy meals, that isn’t going to change. But with the amount of money people spend eating McDonalds, Popeyes, Burger King, etc is ridiculous. Who has the stats on how often the average American eats out?
Is it expensive to have a “perfect” diet? Yes. Is it more expensive to eat healthier than most people currently eat? No.
That’s the point.
It’s called personal responsibility. Mc Donald’s serves junk food if you wanna be fat eat there every day If you want to be healthy eat there every once in a while but not all the time. also the parents should make their kids work out instead of playing X-Box all day. so I’m sure That its both the fault of the kids and parents.
@Denada: You might have the only reason I would have voted yes.
@kaikhor: There’s no need to fight your child over complainig that she wants fast food. Simply put, say no, and tell her it’s final. Any more complaints ends up with no TV and sending her to her room. A couple rounds of that and the fight is over.
As a parent, I have a responsibility to ensure the health and wellbeing of my child. Having to expose my son to the world in mundane things is tough enough without giving him something extra that is bad for him. If fast food is this dificult for parents of young children, imagine the pain the parent will have to endure when their child becomes a teenager and has to deal with tobacco, drugs, underage sex, alcohol, and all those fun things.
Take charge now or you’ll never have a night’s rest.
I’m not even considering the convenience factor…
@enm4r: Of course not because that would kill your argument. It’s much easier to assume that people working multiple jobs are just lazy. It couldn’t possibly be because they don’t have the time.
@Rectilinear Propagation:
No, it wouldn’t kill my argument. If you’re going to be lazy, you can eat healthier than McDonalds, Popeyes, and Burger King. It doesn’t take much effort to eat HEALTHIER than fast food. I’m not talking about spending 2 hours on a meal. I could probably eat healthier, spend 20 minutes a night in the kitchen, and save money over eating out. If you want to really break it down, I’m saving hypothetical time taken in the drive through, or walking into the restaurant, so the net time increase from cooking at home is much lower.
I find it hard to believe there is a statistically significant percentage of the population that cannot take 15-20 minutes out of their day to eat a healthier, cheaper meal. The rest are lazy.
But for clarification, in the context I originally was using that statement, I was stating that we can operate under the assumption that you are too busy/lazy/apathetic to cook more food at home than you are currently. Even operating under that assumption (I’m too busy!) it is possible to eat healthier than the the big 3-4 fast food chains.
@llanim:
You do have a right to advertise. I can stand on a street corner and say “buy my CD!” as much as I want. However, since most advertising space and airtime is owned by businesses, those businesses have no legal compulsion to allow you to advertise on their space/airwaves. Just like they have no compulsion to allow you to speak your mind on their space/airwaves. When the government gets involved, and says “even though the owner of these airwaves sold you this time, we won’t let you say what you want.” that’s a violation of the advertiser’s and the station’s First Amendment protection.
And the truth is, parents ARE the only ones culpable when it comes to a child’s eating habits. They buy the food, and they teach the habits. Junior can want a bag of Doritos more than he wants life itself, but if Mommy doesn’t buy it for him, Junior doesn’t get to eat Doritos. Parents get all the help they need from the government with the government-mandated nutrition information printed on every package of food.
Lastly, children have mostly the same Free Speech rights as adults. There are a few exceptions (appearing in pornography is a big one), but on the whole, the 1st Amendment doesn’t care how old you are. Perhaps you’re confused by the Court’s decisions about a minor’s First Amendment protection within the school system, which is more complicated.
Let’s fight capitalism with capitalism, and let’s fight government with democracy. If you have a problem with a station selling it’s advertising time to companies you don’t support, be a good capitalist and boycott. If you think McDonald’s is poisoning your kids, stop giving McDonald’s your money. It’s that simple. Don’t get the government involved because the evil advertisers are just too much for poor Janey Housewife to compete with.
There’s a very, very powerful weapon against TV ads, more powerful than a boycott, a law, a Constitutional amendment, or a Papal Bull. It’s called the power button.
I said no. Partly because I have a libertarian streak but mostly because children will be exposed to advertising for the rest of their life. Advertising works by convincing you that you want something but if you never learn that you’ll never be able to resist advertisements.
I’m young enough to remember begging for some new, sweet cereal and I occasionally got it. But I also got oatmeal, from scratch pancakes and waffles, French toast, and Cream of Wheat. I was much more likely to get some fresh, homemade cookies than a candy bar. Point is, parents are the deciding factor when it comes to what kids eat, not some animated animal. Interesting thought, do kids want to buy auto insurance because they have an animated gecko?
And what’s with all the kid related issues here lately? They seem to be splitting the readership more than other issues.
I think the idea behind banning the ads would be to protect from their parents.
@enm4r: When we talk about cheap unhealthy food, we’re not just talking about fast food chains. We’re talking about Hamburger Helper, mac-n-cheese, ramen noodles, frozen burritos and pizzas, which are all easier and faster than making things from scratch, and which all have preservatives, unnecessary sugars, extra fats, and twice your daily requirement of sodium.
We’re talking about how marinara made from scratch may or may not be more expensive than the stuff that comes in jars, depending on the quality of ingredients you go for, but making marinara takes a hell of a lot longer than putting a jar of red stuff in the microwave — and for that time you saved, you get way way WAY more sugar, salt, and fat packed into what seems like a “healthy” meal that technically qualifies as “cooking at home,” but provides few of the benefits we associate with that idea.
Pre-packaged foods are often cheaper and definitely easier than cooking from scratch. You’re not only failing to consider time investment, you’re also forgetting the physical and emotional fatigue caused by working menial jobs and raising children at the same time. It’s not “lazy” to try to conserve energy when you’re exhausted.
You’re also forgetting that, with all the extra sugar and fat, junk foods or crappy pre-packaged foods deliver a real kick of energy up-front for tired people, plus a feeling of satiety that you probably wouldn’t get from a salad unless you ate five pounds of it.
There are many, many reasons that people eat poorly, and “laziness” is not one of the more significant problems.
@CumaeanSibyl:
I agree with you in principal. I think it’s short-sighted and condescending to say that people eat junk food just because they’re lazy.
However, personal accountability is a cornerstone of liberty, and if we cannot accept that every adult American is responsible and accountable for what they feed themselves, then we are asking Big Brother to make the decisions for us, to protect us from our own hectic, busy lives.
I am a busy person, and 90% of the time, I choose convenience over my health. Sometimes it makes me feel better to blame my culinary indiscretions on my exhausting job, my busy romantic relationship, or my hobbies. And this comforts me for a little while, but the truth is I’m making a choice. I choose to eat Pringles for dinner, because I’d rather play video games than cook. But at the end of the day, I don’t have anyone to blame for my expanding waistline than myself.
@CumaeanSibyl: If you’re looking to include all the prepackaged foods I would say that 1)while prepackaged foods are not as healthy as 100% organic prepared from scratch alternatives, a perfectly healthy diet can include Ragu, Hamburger Helper, and a frozen Pizza now and then. Those need not be eliminated.
and 2)if you’re taking (even the small amount of) time out of your schedule to make Hamburger Helper, the time excuse is no longer a factor. Which means there is something healthier you could be eating, but are choosing not to, in the same price range.
I think now we’re touching on a larger issue, which is education and frankly, people caring. People don’t care to learn alternatives, so they don’t. For the time invested in the hamburger helper, you could have thrown some vegetables in a pan, cooked them up, had some rice going in the background, and in 20 minutes you’ve got something that cost little more than Hamburger Helper, went through almost the same exact steps, and took the same amount of time. People don’t care to try it, to think about it, or to seek out alternatives. That is the type of laziness I’m talking about.
I think the point missed here is that no one is saying the only alternative is to go 100% natural, organic, and freerange meats. For a negligable change in effort/time, much healthier foods can be eaten.
Of course no one has mentioned physical activity, because EXPECTING someone to actually move a mussle or two everyday would be ridiculous.
We protect children from other forms of entertainment that are bad for them… porn, violence, alcohol and tobacco advertising, etc. Why can’t we protect them from advertising of food products that are detrimental to their health? We wouldn’t let a gun manufacturer advertise to children.
@savvy: We protect children from these things, not the government. There are no laws that keep pornography off of Saturday morning TV. The FCC protects the airwaves with regulations and fines – not laws. The only thing that keeps it off of cable, satellite, and fiber optics are corporate interests- good old fashioned capitalism.
Advertising tobacco and alcohol to minors is illegal because selling tobacco and alcohol to minors is illegal – not because of health concerns.
@Steel_Pelican: Not that my post was particularly well written, but based on your response to it, I take it you aren’t familiar with the farm bill and its effects on the market, as written about extensively by Michael Pollan. It’s hard to advocate for a free market approach when the market is being weighted towards certain products, right off the bat.
I think this fall squarely on the parents/guardians of these kids. I was raised when none of this crap was cared about, was fed meat and potatoes and my parents monitored my sweets. I turned out a very healthy 145lbs & 5’8″ – maybe even too skinny for my height. It can be done.
Since when are CHILDREN responsible for what they eat every day?
They don’t run the household, pay the bills, or work to earn money, do they? How then, can advertising to them make a damn difference, if they don’t have any money to buy the bad stuff?
OH WAIT! THE PARENTS ARE THE ONES WITH THE MONEY AND THE ONES WHO MAKE THE DECISIONS!
Time to start blaming parents like we should have DECADES AGO.
Sorry, had to say yes to this one. Eliminating or significantly reducing the ads will make it easier for those parents that are parenting and trying to control what their kids eat and it will help those parents that should have never become parents in the first place because if kids see less ads for food they will want less of the food in the ads.
Issues with kids are a very sensitive part of society these days thats why they are so talked about. I have to stand by my comments in previous posts that its american society as a whole to blame for child obesity and the fact that excercise opportunities such as playgrounds and free city and state parks are being removed from children and adults every time we turn around.
I honestly feel that the fast food industry is not like Big Tobacco or the alcohol companies. Fast food is acceptable in moderation as with everything. An adult recognizes that smoking 4 packs a day is bad for their health and a child most likely cannot comprehend this. This is why there is a law limiting the sale of cigarettes to minors, since they are not capable of making a life changing decesion.
Now if you look at fast food, yes these children cannot comprehend that fast food is not healthy, but it isnt illegal. Do you think that there needs to be a minimum age to buy a Big Mac?
Couldnt McDonald’s argue that they want people to eat their food once in awhile? And that if John Doe is going to have fast food once a month, make it McDonalds over Wendys?
Until I hear “I’m going to need to see ID” when ordering a Big Mac, I think advertising is acceptable.
@Steel_Pelican: I also agree with the importance of personal accountability, and I certainly don’t think junk food advertising should be banned. I’m just pointing out that it’s unfair to characterize everyone who eats unhealthy diets as “lazy” or “stupid.” It’s a matter of making choices based on your situation. If you work a lot more than 40 hours a week, if you have a very tight budget, or if your job is very physically demanding, the choice to eat unhealthy convenience foods starts to make a lot more sense: it’s fast and easy, it’s cheap, it makes you feel good temporarily. Yes, you’re accountable for your choice, and you’re responsible for the consequences, but that doesn’t mean that you have made the wrong choice according to your circumstances.
Now, what I find disturbing these days is the disappearance of grocery stores from poor areas — the insurance costs are really high, so either you have high-priced groceries, or you move your store somewhere else and the people in that neighborhood are left with gas stations and fast-food restaurants. That’s another one of those factors that makes it more difficult for people to choose a healthy diet, and makes the choice of an unhealthy diet easier to understand.
@Steel_Pelican: exactly
@CumaeanSibyl: well said
@chimmike: AMEN!
I voted NO
They can advertise to my child all the want but I’m the one that purchases the food for my family.
Sure advertisers encourage pestering at the market..ect but in the end it’s the parents that buy the crap or pull into a McDonald’s drive through.
Don’t pass the blame because your kid is a fat little bastard!
If you think this whole thing is ridiculous and that freedom of speech is in danger and that parents should actually monitor their kids instead of the state then you’re right. …but you also need to read books like Fast Food Nation. Because companies have been studying for years how to market to children and they’ve become really good at it. So it’s not entirely parents fault when the radio plays a catchy jingle and Ronald is smiling at everyone at the local playground and there are actual advertisements for golden french fries in your kids schools.
You know how you counter all that marketing as a parent? DON’T BUY THE DAMN FOOD. If I had whined like a little stuck up brat to my parents to get me to McDonalds I would have been spanked uptil my ass fell off. I guarantee that if you slap a kid when he starts a tantrum he will learn to stfu about fast food or become a tough little sob.
@Steel_Pelican: FCC regulations are laws.
I agree that their is a problem with the growing rate of obesity and the proliferation of advertising aimed at children is on the point of obscene. That said I had to vote for number two, parents are responsible for the health of their children. If my daughter asks for some cereal because she likes the character on the box, its my responsibility to tell her no, and to feed her what I think is healthy.
Wow, I can’t believe people reading the consumerist are actually saying yes. The consumerist has always struck me as a very free-market orientated blog.
In a way, they help consumers help themselves. We don’t need the government to help us consumers.
consumerist.com often gives tips and advice on how to be responsible with your money and spending habits, surely the same goes for children!
The socially responsible pat of me is inclined to vote “yes”; however, I take one look at that photo of the kid bursting out of his shirt like the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man, and there is NO way he got that big without the help of his parents or guardians. Parents must take responsibility for kids that young, IMHO.
I can’t believe anyone would want the government to regulate advertising, let alone anything like this. People in America no longer want to take responsibility for themselves or their children. The government controlling any aspect of our lives is just another step closer to fascism.