Junk Food can't be stopped (1 Viewer)

[Ligeti]

Every once in a while I'll have junk food, probably like most people, but I'm aware it's bad for your health and it's consumption shouldn't be encouraged, specially for kids.

This is why the Greens (who most of the time I hate, but I agree with them here) proposed a "Protecting Children from Junk Food Advertising Bill", which simply wanted to put limits on the times junk food ads would run, so they don't run when mostly kids are watching TV.

Sounds like a good and harmless idea doesn't it? It's not as intrusive as forbidding junk food in schools and there's plenty of other companies that could put their ads in the same time slots so TV networks wouldn't be majorly affected.

So how did the bill go? Lost 42-5

What was the Government's argument? That healthy eating goes beyond controlling children's television advertising

That would make sense, if they were implementing measures that go beyond controlling children's television advertising... but are they? or will they at some point?

 

[Uncle]

But young children lack judgement and they require an external source such as the government to intervene.
as an uncle i force my nephews and nieces to eat strict diets when theyre off the field of battle.
That's why when children in the developed world become infected as zombies, 70% of them will be filled with fat and methane, walk in a slow and cumbersome manner and explode upon impact.

btw where is da sour ce?

 

[quik.]

Maybe

I mean I'm going out on a limb here, but shit

Just maybe

Parents should take some responsibility for their kid and not give into their whinging and whining.

Maybe those same parents should not go 'man it has been a long day, I don't feel like cooking, I'll just pick up this kfc variety bucket and leave the kid in it for an hour or two'

The government/teachers at school/anyone else are not responsible for taking care of your kid

 

[Born Dancer]

Every once in a while I'll have junk food, probably like most people, but I'm aware it's bad for your health and it's consumption shouldn't be encouraged, specially for kids.

This is why the Greens (who most of the time I hate, but I agree with them here) proposed a "Protecting Children from Junk Food Advertising Bill", which simply wanted to put limits on the times junk food ads would run, so they don't run when mostly kids are watching TV.

Sounds like a good and harmless idea doesn't it? It's not as intrusive as forbidding junk food in schools and there's plenty of other companies that could put their ads in the same time slots so TV networks wouldn't be majorly affected.

So how did the bill go? Lost 42-5

What was the Government's argument? That healthy eating goes beyond controlling children's television advertising

That would make sense, if they were implementing measures that go beyond controlling children's television advertising... but are they? or will they at some point?

I don't think that banning junk food in schools would be such a bad idea. I know a lot of children of both primary school and high school age who either use their own money/ parents money without them knowing to buy their own junk food from the canteen unbeknown to their parents.

Also, I know that pester power is a major tool for advertisers but what happened to good old fashioned parenting with discipline? If a child is watching junk food ads on television, wouldn't it be up to the parent to enforce healthy grocery shopping? Man up, mums and dads. Take the kids to McDonalds once every fortnight instead of for three meals a day or do what one of my old lecturers did and tell them that McDonalds will make them sick to the point of them being terrified to even go near the food.

 

[volition]

Sounds like a good and harmless idea doesn't it? It's not as intrusive as forbidding junk food in schools and there's plenty of other companies that could put their ads in the same time slots so TV networks wouldn't be majorly affected.

No I don't agree that it is a good and harmless idea, you're talking about bureaucratic control over privately owned (or at least what should be privately owned) businesses. What TV networks and advertisers decide to put on the air is their own business, and what children eat is generally under the responsibility of parents.

 

[Ligeti]

No I don't agree that it is a good and harmless idea, you're talking about bureaucratic control over privately owned (or at least what should be privately owned) businesses. What TV networks and advertisers decide to put on the air is their own business, and what children eat is generally under the responsibility of parents.

You don't see beer or smoke ads during day time TV, and those are legal products that one could argue have the right to broadcast their ads at any time they like...

Why is it different for junk food? The Health risk is very similar.

Sure parents should do their jobs and be better parents, but what's wrong with giving them a hand? The food will still be there, the options will still be there, with the difference kids won't be reminded every 5 minutes about them.

 

[Born Dancer]

You don't see beer or smoke ads during day time TV, and those are legal products that one could argue have the right to broadcast their ads at any time they like...

Why is it different for junk food? The Health risk is very similar.

Sure parents should do their jobs and be better parents, but what's wrong with giving them a hand? The food will still be there, the options will still be there, with the difference kids won't be reminded every 5 minutes about them.

if parents do their job properly then the last point about junk food being around every 5 minutes becomes a moot point, doesn't it? if mums and dads refuse to engage in buying their kid bad food in every situation then it doesn't really matter whether the advertising is frequent or infrequent because the kid should learn soon enough that pestering just won't work

 

[gcchick]

Sup parental control. It seems so old-fashioned now.

 

[withoutaface]

You don't see beer or smoke ads during day time TV, and those are legal products that one could argue have the right to broadcast their ads at any time they like...

Why is it different for junk food? The Health risk is very similar.

Sure parents should do their jobs and be better parents, but what's wrong with giving them a hand? The food will still be there, the options will still be there, with the difference kids won't be reminded every 5 minutes about them.

I don't see anybody here arguing in favour of restricting beer and cigarette advertising either. Banning certain ads reduces the overall quality of programming that children are able to watch.

 

[quik.]

You don't see beer or smoke ads during day time TV, and those are legal products that one could argue have the right to broadcast their ads at any time they like...

Why is it different for junk food? The Health risk is very similar.

Sure parents should do their jobs and be better parents, but what's wrong with giving them a hand? The food will still be there, the options will still be there, with the difference kids won't be reminded every 5 minutes about them.

Alcohol and tobacco are legal products with fairly strict guidelines regarding their distribution (age limits), I'm assuming advertising limitations were put in place to keep some consistency with this

Parents don't need a hand, they just need some willpower, to enforce some discipline and to be consistent. A good belt helps to, although an extension cord can be used if one is not available.

Personally when I was doing little athletics, performance was rewarded with McDonald's vouchers (free happy meal, cheeseburger, small fries or whatever). I'd rather practises like this change than anything to do with advertisement

 

[S.H.O.D.A.N.]

I don't see anybody here arguing in favour of restricting beer and cigarette advertising either. Banning certain ads reduces the overall quality of programming that children are able to watch.

So you'd be okay with cigarette and beer ads during children's TV times because it allows for 'higher quality programming'?

Actually, don't answer that. You're a fucking Libertarian shmuck. Of course you'd be OK with it.

 

[withoutaface]

So you'd be okay with cigarette and beer ads during children's TV times because it allows for 'higher quality programming'?

Actually, don't answer that. You're a fucking Libertarian shmuck. Of course you'd be OK with it.

You're just restating what I said and appending an ad hom to the end of it. Running alcohol and cigarette ads during children's programming would be largely ineffective and make for really bad PR.

Advertising is what makes TV free. If parents would prefer not to have advertising they're more than capable of purchasing DVDs or subscribing to foxtel.

 

[Ligeti]

Advertising does not vitiate free choice. As mentioned parents can just refuse to buy the junk food, or they can refuse to let their children watch so much TV.

I agree that advertising does not vitiate free choice. So banning the advertisement does not affect your rights to consume those products. What could the downside possibly be?

Sure parents should be better parents but using that argument against measures like this is like arguing that speed limits should be banned because drivers should be better driver and more responsible.

Some parents are great, some parents are terrible. That's reality. But it's the governments responsibility to help in any way the can the kids or bad parents.

 

[withoutaface]

I agree that advertising does not vitiate free choice. So banning the advertisement does not affect your rights to consume those products. What could the downside possibly be?

It has a direct impact upon the right of a private television station to show what it wants when it wants to do so, and by diminishing the demand for advertising space will give them less money with which to purchase or produce quality programmes.

Sure parents should be better parents but using that argument against measures like this is like arguing that speed limits should be banned because drivers should be better driver and more responsible.

What? It's arguing that parents should have a basic level of concern and responsibility for their own offspring. Speed limits exist, in the main, because there are anonymous third parties involved who we have no direct link to and (for some people at least) very little concern for.

 

[volition]

You don't see beer or smoke ads during day time TV, and those are legal products that one could argue have the right to broadcast their ads at any time they like...

Why is it different for junk food? The Health risk is very similar.

My answer is simple: I disagree with the bureaucratic control over beer and smoke ads too.

Sure parents should do their jobs and be better parents, but what's wrong with giving them a hand? The food will still be there, the options will still be there, with the difference kids won't be reminded every 5 minutes about them.

"Giving them a hand" ? You mean enforcing a rule against TV networks and advertisers with the backing of state violence all because it's politically expedient for them to do so?

What could the downside possibly be?

The downside is, you're encouraging the government to use violence just so that you can have things your own way, when you don't actually own the TV networks or the advertisers.

 

[Born Dancer]

I agree that advertising does not vitiate free choice. So banning the advertisement does not affect your rights to consume those products. What could the downside possibly be?

Sure parents should be better parents but using that argument against measures like this is like arguing that speed limits should be banned because drivers should be better driver and more responsible.

Some parents are great, some parents are terrible. That's reality. But it's the governments responsibility to help in any way the can the kids or bad parents.

How are those even equatable? Don't make comparisons like that unless the variables are reasonably similar. Children are for the most part incapable of good decision making and clear judgement and therefore pester power should be easily stopped by a decent amount of discipline. Like I have already mentioned, surely a child will realise soon enough they are not going to get junk food no matter how much badgering their kid does.

Why on earth should it be the governments responsibility to solve bad parenting issues? Parenting of parents? Come on.

 

[Ligeti]

How are those even equatable? Don't make comparisons like that unless the variables are reasonably similar. Children are for the most part incapable of good decision making and clear judgement and therefore pester power should be easily stopped by a decent amount of discipline. Like I have already mentioned, surely a child will realise soon enough they are not going to get junk food no matter how much badgering their kid does.

Why on earth should it be the governments responsibility to solve bad parenting issues? Parenting of parents? Come on.

Well for drivers to be able to drive we measure their skills by periodically putting them to the test, if they don't pass they can't drive. Every driver is an adult by law so they should be capable of good decision making and clear judgement.

But there aren't (and shouldn't ever be) any control over who can or can't be a parent.

I think people are too focused on the parents. When this is for the kids.

This is equatable to government including sports in school curriculum. Sure parents should make sure their kids do enough exercise to be healthy and active, but most don't so the government does what it can to help kids grow up in optimal conditions.

 

[quik.]

Well for drivers to be able to drive we measure their skills by periodically putting them to the test, if they don't pass they can't drive. Every driver is an adult by law so they should be capable of good decision making and clear judgement.

But there aren't (and shouldn't ever be) any control over who can or can't be a parent.

I think people are too focused on the parents. When this is for the kids.

This is equatable to government including sports in school curriculum. Sure parents should make sure their kids do enough exercise to be healthy and active, but most don't so the government does what it can to help kids grow up in optimal conditions.

Do you drive on Australian roads? Most people can't drive for shit.

It is also arguable that control over who is and is not in a position to be a parent would be beneficial (eg: octo mum). There is also the fact that if someones parenting is seriously called into question then they can lose parenting rights, so um

Sports and physical activity would be a part of school life regardless, kids need to release pent up energy and be kids

 

[blue_chameleon]

The government shouldn't have a role in removing (if partially at least) the responsibility that parents have in properly educating their children on healthy eating choices.

Eating junk food isn't a problem, if it's in moderation and there is a healthy diet at the foundation.

Of course, this means parents would also have to lead by example and eat healthy themselves, which for some is just too hard.

 

[katie tully]

Side note, somewhat related to what Dom said.


Does anybody remember what it was like as a kid? i was never particularly swayed by ads in terms of junk food, but it had more to do with what my friends were eating.

Adverts did influence a bit. Like, I remember wanting roll ups so I could cut shapes out of them and stick them on my face...

It'd be interesting to see the results of those 'candy free' check outs that Woollies and Coles have implemented....