And if parents are still making the vast, vast majority of food purchasing decisions; why are we even discussing banning advertising of food or beverages geared to those under 13 years old? Toronto Star
Toronto's board of health wants senior governments to combat childhood obesity by banning food and beverage advertising aimed at children under 13. "Children are exposed to large amounts of marketing for low-nutrition, high-calorie food," Dr. David McKeown told reporters yesterday.I cannot believe my tax money goes to pay for this idiocy.
"We have rising rates of childhood obesity, leading to an epidemic of obesity in adulthood with all of the health problems that come with that – diabetes, cardiovascular disease and so forth," McKeown said.
The board of health unanimously adopted McKeown's recommendation to urge the federal and provincial governments to impose a ban, over objections from industry representatives.
6 comments:
I prefer to think that this is a subtle, coded message from our government that the child labour laws are no longer being enforced, and that it is okay to require 13-year-olds to shop for groceries and make responsible decisions while doing so.
Now I need to find an expendable six-year-old for menial labour like mowing the lawn and cleaning the eavestroughs.
Without defending the board of health or other use of tax dollars, I think you're missing the point: advertising to children affects family purchasing decisions even if the children don't make them.
Ultimate responsibility rests with the parents, but I don't think you can really defend advertising to children at all.
So this ban would be a good measure for not-quite-right reasons.
Indeed.
It's just so much trouble to tell the kids that they can't have coke on their fruit loops. Or worse, try to explain that they should use their own critical facilities ... the poor little drones.
Or you could just throw out your tv. Then you can raise you children without the added effort of having to compete for face time with Dora the Explorer.
"Ultimate responsibility rests with the parents, but I don't think you can really defend advertising to children at all. So this ban would be a good measure for not-quite-right reasons."
I agree ultimate responsibility rests with the parents part D but I certainly see no reason why not to defend advertising to children. If companies want to go chasing after the ever elusive purchasing power of children; I say go for broke. It keeps a great deal of parents profitability employed and seriously teaches children a few good life lessons.
I will share one with you. In 1968, my parents and I moved in with my grandparents. Now my grandparents had a television which was not necessarily common among poor families in 1968. At six, I got hooked watching the Imperial Margarine commercial. The idea that I would eat this margarine spread on my challah and magically a crown will appear on my forehead was too much for my six year old brain. It took a year of working on my grandmother but eventually she succumbed. I ate the margarine and no crown. I became a natural and life long cynic on the claims of any advertiser since. It happened more or less the same for my own children at about the same age.
I should point out one thing about this little imperial story, my grandmother only gave in to my pleas once she learned the "why" I wanted the margarine. She even went so far as to make a big production of both of us eating bread together. My advice to any parent who is faced with the deeply desired wants of their children is to suggest you take the time to find out just why your child has a developed a hankering for something from television.
Post a Comment