Should we regulate advertisement of junk food in the same way as cigarettes?

yes

parents still need to buy it for their kids, its the parents job to raise the kids, not the government or marketing comaines job.

when tobacco was banned from advertising, do you know what it did? it saved the tobacco companies millions in advertising, people kept buying.

when all is said and done, kids dont have any money, so if they are eating bad food its because parents are giving them bad food. sure, put pretty colors on the boxes all you like, the parents still need to buy it. the solution, dont take you kid shopping, or, if you do, dont let the kid talk you in to buying crap. if you do, you are basically saying “i rather feed my kids junk than deal with them”. its not reasonable to expect food companies to have to think for all parents out there. legislate the parents, not the companies.

@poisonedantidote – But you do know that essentially every food product that’s marketed to kids is a sugary, processed mess. A lot of the marketing is an attempt to create the “nag factor” – and for someone with no money, no time to spend with their kids, etc., giving the kids snacks they actually say they want may be the only way some parents to do something “special” for their kids.

This 2008 report from the FTC shows the extent of the marketing. When the FTC suggested this back in the 70s, Congress nearly closed the department due to special group interest, for the most part. Since then, we’ve seen obesity become the #1 health problem in the nation.

The Report doesn’t lay or absolve blame – but as much as it isn’t reasonable for companies to think for parents, is it reasonable for companies to directly target children with products they know provide no nutritional value to them? Below is an excerpt from the Report showing that the problem is multi-faceted:

Whether there is a link between food marketing to children and childhood obesity is a question not addressed by this Report. What is clear, however, is that childhood obesity is a complex problem, with many social and economic contributing factors. The Commission believes that all segments of society – parents, schools, government, health care professionals, food companies, and the media – have an obligation to contribute to finding and implementing solutions. This Report – with its detailed assessments of the kinds of foods being marketed to children and adolescents and how these foods are being marketed – informs one aspect of the ongoing dialogue about how to address the problem.

@iamthemob there are other ways to do something special for kids, e.g. let them stay awake an extra couple of hours. and if its just a special treat, that wont make them fat, not even if it where just pure sugar. its a habitual thing.

As for marketing companies, they are a bunch of evil greedy bastards. but they cant be blamed.

kids are fat, but if we put up laws to stop the marketing, kids will still be fat, and all we would have done is penalize an industry for nothing. it would be just as easy to blame video games or computers, by saying it stops kids from burning fat because they are sat doing nothing for ages, or you could blame all kinds of other things. but when all is said and done, it still comes down to how parents raise their kids.

Totally

I wonder if it would better to advertisement of healthy food to kids.

That and educating parents might be enough.

Oh, and making healthy food cheaper. As things stand, its more expensive to eat healthy.

@poisonedantidote – No one is saying that marketing is the problem. But there are a few things to think about:

(1) increased marketing of processed foods to kids is correlated with increased childhood and American adult obesity.

(2) limitation or elimination of the advertising or means of advertising for processed foods targeted at children under the age of 12, for instance, would not make kids thin – but it’s reasonable to think that it would stop kids who had yet to be exposed to the advertising from seeking the products.

(3) the companies are clearly to blame for a part of it – they are targeting children – Kraft has admitted that children as young as 6 are the targets – and trying to get them to want nothing but food that is terrible for them.

(4) companies have a responsibility – and part of the mandate of government bodies like the FTC – to market in a manner that is not deceptive or destructive. Consumers are protected by law, and children are particularly protected. This isn’t a step into any new territory.

(5) the health care costs for these food choices outpace the costs of health problems associated with cigarettes.

(6) although it’s debatable whether or not they deserve to be “penalized” with regulation…I don’t see how this is a penalization any more than cigarette companies are “penalized” currently with limitations on indirect marketing to kids.

@roundsquare that’s a subsidy issue – another side of the proble. ;-)

I don’t think regulation of advertisement is the key here. Like others have mentioned, parents are the ones who buy this junk and feed it to their kids. Rather than eliminating advertising, parents should be better educated in nutrition. On that note, parents should be better educated about the goals of advertising and share that knowledge with their kids. If kids know that they’re being targeted with the sole intent of making money, they might be more likely to resist the marketing.

As for the idea of junk food as a treat, there are many “healthy” junk food options out there. Rather than buy your kids ultra-processed packaged junk, why not make the “treat” an afternoon (or even an hour) of baking something together? Cookies from scratch, for example. Yeah, your kid is still eating some sugar and chocolate, but at least you know what’s in it, and you get the added bonus of spending some time together, which is valuable for kids’ development, and getting rarer in today’s society.

These are just my opinions as a young, childless woman :)

@Seelix – at the same time, though, 90% of the advertising (thereabouts) for food targeted at adults is for processed food products. These can often be labeled low-fat, and be lower-fat. However, low-fat products came on the market, and we got fatter because the replacement ingredient was, e.g., high fructose corn syrup.

Many people get the information on whether something is healthy from the marketing – if it’s said that it’s lower fat, people think they’re getting the best of both worlds.

Education is great, and I think it’s a key component as well. But marketing is, in many ways, a form of mis-education. When it’s targeted at children who don’t have the critical capabilities of adults, I don’t see how that’s not a deplorable practice.

@iamthemob – I agree with you. As I said, parents ought to be better educated in nutrition. By that, I meant from sources such as Canada’s Food Guide or the equivalent in other countries, rather than simply going by whether the food is marketed as “low-fat” or otherwise “healthy”. By “education” I meant actual education.

Unfortunately, as you said, many people get their information from marketing, and that’s too bad. And you’re right, children don’t have the critical capabilities of adults. But children develop their own value system based (in large part) on their parents’ actions and words. And I’ll reiterate: parents are the ones who buy this junk and feed it to their kids. In my opinion, that’s where the responsibility lies: with the parents, not with the marketing execs.

@Seelix – the problem with saying that the parents are the ones to blame is that, particularly for the overworked poor, an affordable diet may require that the diet lack nutritious value.

Besides the simple dollar-cost of food, there are a whole lot of transaction costs such as (1) the time necessary to research whether a diet is healthy, (2) the time it takes to make fresh dinners instead of ready-to-eat alternatives, (3) the time it takes to sort out the good information from the misinformation. Besides these, fast food restaurants are much, much denser in low-income neighborhoods.

Marketing creates noisy information that is both loud and ubiquitous. The more of it there is, and the more convincing it sounds, the more difficult it is to sort through, and the more likely you are to give up.

And then the food industry pushes the idea of personal responsibility – which is, of course, an important part of it – but funds counter information campaigns like this one that reframes the issue of people trying to interfere with a right to choose your food, while at the same time blaming people for the choices!

I totally agree that the parents should be the final line. But this type of advertising targeting is making the job so, so much harder. And generations today grow up in a time where they are always assaulted by media – so outside forces have growing impacts on children’s value systems. If it’s the case that the parents should be the only ones to blame, or the main ones, then we should allow the marketing of cigarettes to be child-targeted (as that’s the best time to get them interested in the idea of smoking, and to think it’s cool).

it’s funny that we’re both agreeing and disagreeing at the same time.

@iamthemob – If we’re going to argue the convenience, affordability and accessibility of fast food/junk food, then I’m right there with you 100%. I am a low-income family; I live in downtown Toronto on $1000 a month. Believe me, I know that junk is easier, cheaper and faster. But advertising/marketing (or the lack thereof) isn’t going to change that. In fact, if companies didn’t have to spend money on advertising and marketing, they might be able to lower their prices even more, making junk food all the more tempting for people who are drawn to the above-mentioned “pros”. Regardless of whether advertising is regulated, junk food will still be cheap, it’ll still be ready-to-eat, it’ll still be everywhere.

As a child of the 80s, I only vaguely remember the days of cigarette advertising (it was regulated in Canada in 1988, and 2 years ago the decision was made that cigarettes can no longer be displayed in view of the customer – source). But Canadian kids still smoke.

I don’t mean to say that advertising/marketing junk food is a good thing or that it’s necessary for any reason. I just mean that I don’t think regulating it is necessary, or that regulation would solve the problems it’s created. It’s easy to say that the reason obesity is rampant in North America (and it’s rampant here as well – I don’t have any statistics but I can tell you this based on what I see walking down the street every day) is because of junk food advertising, but correlation isn’t cause.

@Seelix – you know that I only think it should be regulated when it comes to advertising targeted at children though, right?

The thing is, choosing one option doesn’t mean that we ignore the others. It is a multifaceted problem and so we need a multi-pronged attack.

No matter who the processed junk food is aimed at in marketing, kids are still going to want it, just like adults are going to want it. Even if you eliminated all commercials for processed food, it would still be sitting on the shelves in the grocery stores when people went shopping. A lot of the processed food has an appeal because it is cheap, quick, and easy to prepare. In a time when both parents are often working, those things seem to win over. I really don’t think regulating marketing alone is going to fix that.

Sure, we can make it so that cereal companies have to get rid of their cartoon characters and stop having commercials aimed at the children, but parents will still buy it because it’s cheap and easy.

No. I think all forms of censorship if f!@#ing bulls$%t! :-)

@iamthemob – I have to admit that I had forgotten your original intent – we got on the topic of parents and so I guess I did stray a little. (Sorry!)

But I must agree with @Seaofclouds’ statement: ”No matter who the processed junk food is aimed at in marketing, kids are still going to want it, just like adults are going to want it… I really don’t think regulating marketing alone is going to fix that”. A wise professor once told me that correlation doesn’t equal cause, and that’s what I’m sticking to (that’s the idea to which I’m sticking?).

@Seelix – I’ll throw out a good-faithed “ERG!” on that one:

I chose correlation specifically because it’s clear that marketing is not “the” cause. However, the increase in marketing and type of marketing are almost lock-step with the increase in obesity. Plus – I keep stating that there are multiple causes.

Here’s my thing – @Seaofclouds’ point is well taken, but this issue isn’t stopping kids from eating junk food. The point is the marketing as is makes it seem as if junk food is the standard that they should be eating.

Consider this: smoking has declined sharply as marketing has been limited, and as anti-smoking campaigns have gained steam. This trend has leveled off recently – and is correlated with the new targeting of a specific (and young) audience. Of course, this doesn’t mean there’s a cause. But, I feel like dismissing it, considering the strong correlative data, as well as synonymous movements, the clear examples in every day life, and the danger of the health problems we’re heading towards, requires that we show that it’s not beneficial to limit it.

@iamthemob I get what you are saying. If we limited the advertising and increased the education, sure it might work. But there are a lot of other factors that play into why highly processed foods have become a staple in many American’s diets, and that is because of the convenience of them (like I mentioned before, they are cheap, quick, and easy to prepare). So we also need to take that into consideration as well. Doing one thing alone would not be enough to make a change. It is something that would need to be tackled from each direction at the same time.

@Seaofclouds – you know that’s exactly what I said above, right? I feel like you’re suggesting I stated this is how the problem would be solved…:-(

@iamthemob I feel like you are suggesting this is a way for the problem to be solved and I’m just saying that regulating the advertisements alone would not be enough. So, if all we were going to do was regulate advertising (since that is what your question is about), I don’t feel it would be enough or have an significant impact on it’s own. So, to say if we should do it or not, my answer is only if we are going to do other things in conjunction with it, in order to make it have an impact and be beneficial.

All cleared up now…we’re in total and complete agreement – focusing on the one is just asking for failure.

I was more wondering if people could see real, objective problems with the regulation of advertising – in my mind, it’s essentially peddling a drug. It gives you pleasure, and harms your body with use over time. I suddenly realized that I hadn’t really heard of this as an argument myself, and started to wonder why?

No.
Caveat emptor or in this case,cav-eat emptor ;)

No! That’s something people do to try to destroy something they don’t approve of. If people want to eat junk food let them.

@Mikewlf337 – how is that trying to destroy it? The narrow focus is child-targeted advertisement.

@iamthemob By making something seem less innocent. It is the parents responsibility to limit what their kids consume. Parents decide what to buy when they go grocery shopping. The commercials are just promoting the product. Kids like cookies and candy. Just a fact. When I was a kid my parents didn’t buy candy all the time and therefore I didn’t get to pig out on it. Kids only get to eat what is provided for them until they get a job and buy their own candy. When they are old enough to get a job they are old enough to decide what to eat. Candy in moderation is not going to kill a kid. Let him/her enjoy their childhood without people trying to make them feel guilty for eating a candy bar.

@Mikewlf337 – we’re not talking about candy here – we’re talking about cheap processed products that may, in fact, be the only meal option that the parents can afford. And if the companies know that the parents don’t have a lot of time to try to explore the healthier or more expensive options, the “nag factor” is increased exponentially.

There is nothing innocent about marketing crap food to kids.

@iamthemob well I see what you mean but I still feel that since the parents provide the food I don’t think that advertising targeting children is effective. My parents always provided good foods for me and my borthers and sister. What foods are you talking about?

I think the issue is that advertising is a completely different animal today than it was when we were kids – even the youngest of us “adult types.” sure, we had television. But with the internet and mobile communications, the cross-marketing craziness goes insane. Companies like Kraft have specifically stated how they were beginning to take advantage of viral-type marketing to get to kids.

The thing is, if the marketing didn’t work, if the companies didn’t see an increase in profits that they could relate to the marketing – they wouldn’t market to kids! The processed foods companies are, however, paying fully a third of their costs on pushing products to people under 12 years old.

I’m talking specifically about the processed food industry – but to turn the question, I wonder if you can come up with a children-oriented or marketed food product that isn’t really pretty much processed instead of fresh.

@iamthemob umm those nasty pizza roles. I hate those.

Yes

Yes, there should be warning labels. Same for gambling and playing the lottery.

@mattbrowne – interesting. So, instead of going after the advertising, are you suggesting that kids’ food that could cause health problems be labeled with a Surgeon General’s warning regarding the risks, as on cigarettes? If so, that could be a brilliant solution to the problem – it allows companies to say whatever they want (thereby avoiding issues about limiting free business) but gets the “talking points” about the health issues right to the consumer.

I still don’t think they should regulate those commercials like they do cigs. How do the kids eat that kind of food if the parents refuse to buy it?

@Mikewlf337 – I have to ask – do you have kids?

@iamthemob – I’m in favor of a simple “traffic light” solution with the colors red, yellow and green. When people buy 20 products and 1 is red this isn’t a problem. The occasional cheeseburger is not a problem. Same for French fries. But if 80% of the daily diet is marked red this should worry people.

@mattbrowne – Part of the problem is that much of the cheapest and biologically “craviest” food is the red light stuff.

I’m kind of loving this surgeon general concept now though…

@iamthemob nope and if I did I wouldn’t want people telling me what to feed them. That’s my business and no one elses. Surgeon general warning!? That is just dumb. What do you want? A warning on everthing that may be unhealthy. A candy bar with a surgeon general warning? That is just stupid. Are you going to put a surgeon general warning on a hotdog as well? First comes regulations and then before you know it it is banned and there is one less thing we can enjoy because somebody cried about it.

Damn. So I guess we should take them off the cigarettes, and make sure that cigarettes are legal to sell to kids, and liquor too…cause it’s the parents responsibility to take care of that.

I mean, the fact that these kids are bombarded with 10 hours and 45 minutes daily of media information now that we have the internet and smart phones, it’s totally true that we shouldn’t reanalyze whether we’re compounding the harm by allowing practices that suited an anachronistic market concept, and we should totally think that parents can control their kids even though the kids now often now how to use the technology better than their parents.

That is just dumb. That is just stupid. What was I thinking?

PS – you do know that people, like doctors, do tell you what to feed your kids all the time. And that a warning doesn’t mean you can’t decide to still buy the thing. It also allows companies to market to kids as much as they want.

@iamthemob So you think we should put a surgeon general warning on a hotdog or a bologna sandwich?

Nope. Not at all. Of course, if the dogs, bologna, or bread are highly processed (this is, of course, the deciding factor), then the individual ingredients should be labeled.

Why not hammer the message home? In the U.S., our cigarettes say “Smoking may cause cancer” whereas in Europe the warning is twice as big, and says “Smoking Kills!”

Considering that U.S. taxpayers shoulder most of the health costs of obesity (about $40 billion dollars in 2003), let’s do everything we can to head it off at the pass – or at least look for reasonably solutions to do so.

@iamthemob let me add that I never seen a kid get psyched about a food commercial. Parents are supposed to be able to totally control their kids. That’s their responsibility not the government. The messages that are hammered home are very annoying. Nobody likes to be told what to do and what to eat. It isn’t anarchy to not strictly regulate food commercials. I never seen a kid spend his allowance on food. Parents provide the food and they are responsible for feeding their kids healthy food. Villianizing a parent for fixing hotdogs for dinner is extremely harsh and silly. Eating a bologna sandwich is not like smoking a cigarette.

Obesity has surpassed smoking as the #1 cause of death in the U.S.

I also don’t see how this is villainizing parents. This isn’t about prohibiting behavior – it’s about making sure that the message is clear, so that people make better choices. Stuff that’s crappy for you is fine as long as it’s done in moderation.

Parent’s are not supposed to totally control their kids. If you go to school, the government or private interests outside your parents are the ones responsible for you for much of the day. Could your parents control you completely? The problem is that parents can’t stop the absolute flood of information coming in, we should consider how to help them out.

@iamthemob Obesity has surpassed smoking as the #1 cause of death only because there are fewer smokers today than in the past. Obesity is mainly caused by lack of activity. People sit on their A$$es and watch tv, play video games, surf the internet, etc. Believe it or not America doesn’t have the worst diet. Scottland does and I heard this from a Scott. Laziness has caused obesity more than the food.

@Mikewlf337 – I think you have a good point. Smoking is down. But, it’s down because there has been a loud campaign about the health problems associated it. It’s down in many ways because people are telling us what to do, and what we should enjoy! ;-)

Exercise is surely part of the solution – but the problem is that many people work very hard, and want some time to themselves to relax. It’s easier to get us eating differently, if possible. And the diet is a major, major problems. Consider this (discussing the big marketing push to keep Americans eating), this (discussing the strategies some interest groups use to confuse the consumer), this video (where Jamie Olivier demonstrates the profound trash fed to a lot of our school kids, and the marketing that goes on even in the education environment), and this (going over the fact that, since we are evolutionary built to gorge ourselves on sugars and salts, fast food has actual addictive properties).

No one’s saying that there’s one solution, clearly. But I think we’re privileging (not us here, of course, but the uninformed out there ;-)) an idea of “personal accountability” as if the corporations shouldn’t be held accountable for some sleazy tactics, and also doing so in a manner that prevents us from attacking the problem holistically, and making sure all contributing factors are addressed.

@Mikewlf337 Other people have the responsibility and the authority to compel parents to provide a healthy environment for their children, and their parental rights can be terminated if they do not.

@YARNLADY I think many parents if they are proud of their children would get pretty aggressive towards a person telling them that they are doing wrong feeding their children a hotdog. After processed foods then what? It will keep going to the next target until everything is eliminated and then we will have nothing. Parents have the responsibility to feed their children healthy foods but that doesn’t mean that everybody should hammer down on them on every morsel of processed foods they give them. It really does go to far and if you let this regulation idea run amok on everything. Society will have nothing at all.

@Mikewlf337 – I think you feel like every parent would take the warning on the processed food, each time, as a deep injury.

There ain’t no one yelling at them if they buy it. I think you should have a wee bit more faith in the emotional stability of parents to not feel harassed by, you know…a label.

@iamthemob Parents are usually grown up and have the brain power to make the decision what to buy for their kids. Don’t need government intervention on every matter in the world. By the way I didn’t say every warning should be taken as a deep injury. What should be taken offensive is arrogant, self righteous nagging at parents on how to raise their kids.