posted by
maelorin at 09:11pm on 26/07/2006 under advertising, advocacy, children, consumers, eating habits, education, legislation, regulation, special interest groups
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Call to beef up new junk food ad code
Julian Lee Marketing Reporter (July 17, 2006)
Regulations and laws can't make people lose weight.
We need to change the priorities of the keepers-of-the-purse-strings. Education ought to come before corporate handouts, for example.
Children's 'food preferences'? Perhaps some people ought to be reminded that they're the adults. They're responsible for making decisions on behalf of the children in their care ...
You can't legislate maturity into existence.
Julian Lee Marketing Reporter (July 17, 2006)
A NEW code regulating the marketing of junk food will not stop children becoming obese, the Australian Consumers' Association says. It has repeated its call for the Federal Government to step in and legislate.*headdesk*
Regulations and laws can't make people lose weight.
"We don't believe that a voluntary code is going to provide adequate protection for children from advertising of unhealthy foods that may influence their food preferences and the food they eat, which in turn will impact on diet and nutrition and have the potential to contribute to overweight [sic] and obesity," the association's food policy officer, Clare Hughes, said.And I don't believe you can legislate 'protection' of this kind into existence.
We need to change the priorities of the keepers-of-the-purse-strings. Education ought to come before corporate handouts, for example.
Children's 'food preferences'? Perhaps some people ought to be reminded that they're the adults. They're responsible for making decisions on behalf of the children in their care ...
You can't legislate maturity into existence.
(no subject)
(no subject)
i'm not sure i really understand politics and politicians.
(no subject)
(no subject)
parenting is all but a lost cause - no one learns how to parent, since the oldies were shipped off to dying-places. we've lost our cultural memories, and replaced tham with theories - education psychology babble, early learning guff, and blah-de-blah.
many parents don't have the time to figure this shit out for themselves, so they give in. many expect schools to raise their kids for them.
the baby boomers really have screwed themselves. and us. oh crap.
(no subject)
Howard in forcing small business's to go broke with the new laws has put the only people selling healthy food out of reach for the masses. That's another reason why people are eating junk. Good stuff just isn't financially viable. Look at the prices of fresh vegies. Way dearer than any other kind.
(no subject)
so long as our economies are driven by "growth", we're screwed.
basic physics tells you that growth requires a constant supply of energy to power the work required to buck the trend towards decay and disappation. perpetucal energy is impossible. the crash we're in for will be ugly.
(no subject)
To be clear, they're not trying to make children lose weight, they're trying to prevent children from being brainwashed into eating unhealthily.
The other issue is that people form preferences and brand loyalties early in life, which they may begin to express later. So your parents may not let you have unhealthy food, but the moment you can choose for yourself, you rush to the unhealthy yet "cool" option. It really does work - there's a reason companies pay so much for advertising. It's certainly a mainstay of alcohol and cigarette advertising - both things which are marketed to teenagers in the hope that they'll buy them when they're 18.
As for the legislation regarding health/obesity, sure, on an individual level it seems wierd. We all believe we aren't influenced by advertising, and that it's a personal choice to lose weight or not. But again, the population statistics disaggree, and health problems related to unfitness and obesity (note that unfittness is a much bigger risk than obesity BTW) are starting to cost our society big dollars in health care. It's pretty clear to the researchers in this area that advertising, convenience and cost are all stacked against having a fit healthy population. Unhealthy options are quicker, easier, cheaper and seem more appealing (thanks to the money spent on advertising them).
Personally, it looks to me like attempts to educate the population are falling behind the corporate juggernauts that drive our unhealthy environment.
Here's one example of how insidious the problem is. High fat and sugar conetent in food turn off our sense of fullness - we are then inclined to eat more, because we aren't satisfied. Fast food companies like McDonalds know this. They can sell more burgers/fries/whatever by loading them with fat and sugar. On top of that, increases in serving size create an impression of good value that is worth more to them than the small cost in ingredients. Money talks. Add to this the fact that these vast fast food franchises are cheap and convenient, and you have several very powerful reasons for people to eat there more than they should, some of which are innately physical and difficult to overcome.
I'm not sure what the answer is, but I seriously doubt that hoping people will take controll of their own lives will work in an environment that opposes them at every turn. As velvetlink said above, it's hard to make a healthy choice when it's cheaper to buy Maccas and Coke.
(no subject)
people are seriously discouraged from taking control or responsibility. particularly in the dominant u.s.a. culture.
and as you point out - in societies where money is value, and conspicuous consumption is the measure of worth, why would the average person 'waste' money buying more expensive 'food'. besides, maccas tells them how good their 'food' is, and has nice shiney 'family restaurants' to eat in. everywhere. so what's wrong with eating the cheaper stuff?
*sigh*
(no subject)
As for the obesity issue, it's kind of clear that some environments are more obesogenic (yes that's really the technical term in use...new jargon is born every day) than others. You're more likely to get fat in an office job with nasty hours than in a third world labour camp...
Governments in democracies can't controll individuals enough to make them be healthy, but they can hope to influence the environment, and thus the health of the population in general. Given the cost of our unhealthy lifestyles they have a vested interest in doing so. Companies with a stake in the status quo obviously try to counteract this as much as possible.
I agree with you that we've all been encouraged to think that everything we need will be provided for, and that we don't have to take responsibility for our own health. But on the other hand, there are numerous difficulties in the case of healthy eating. There are some pretty entrenched hurdles to overcome, some of which are powerful biological urges.
(no subject)
problem is, laws don't resolve the original problem - why people are living lifestyles that are unhealthy.
doesn't mean the laws might not be a good idea. just they'll not be enough. laws often follow social change, but they can induce change too.
social inertia is a serious problem.
(no subject)
When I was sixteen, I was perfect for my background and height, but according to the 'authorities' I was obese (looking back at the photos this is totally untrue). The problem is that the authorities are lumping all kinds of people together on the same chart. It just doesn't work like that. I come from a family history of being fully physically mature by 13/14 years old. There is no way people like myself should be judged against those that haven't yet started that process. From that I learnt to throw out the vast majority of what the Australian 'professionals' think.
This comment I read today is one of the most sensible I have seen in a long while, concerning children and nutrition.
(no subject)
Clothing sizes, for example, are based upon a survey of average body sizes by the US Army during WWII when they decided to mass produce uniforms to reduce costs. The average fit soldier is no reflection of the average non-soldier.
We have become a risk-averse culture, following the lead of the US. Being 'normal' or 'average' build means somehtign different now than it did 50 years ago.
And we live a much less active, more sedentary life now. With loads more junk food options, just to make it interesting.
I agree with your point about the 'standard' charts - though more recent versions have revised the age, height, weight relationships. I'm not sure how the Body Mass Index thingy works either.
The politics of healthcare are complex and laden with 'values' and 'interests'.
malnutrition
we have a situation now where some people are scared to eat anything with fat in it - despite fats being a key component of our nutritional intake requirements.
(no subject)
BMI is just a number derived from magically combining your height and weight, so it's essentially no different. I can't recall the exact formula off the top of my head. :-)
Professionals also use waist measurement ratios (apparently more important than height/weight in determining health risk) and body fat percentages (though of course, these are harder to measure).
Certainly there are plenty of interest groups involved in pushing different healthcare agendas - arguably, obesity isn't the most important health issue facing our society. But some combination of poor diet, obesity and unfitness is pretty unarguably becoming a public health nightmare.
(no subject)
What I find scary about the obesity debate is that it is much worse to be the right weight and unfit than to be obese and fit (though the two often go together). We should really be more worried about the "unfitness epidemic", but then fat is Teh Evol in todays society.
(no subject)
it is much easier to blame fat than to educate people - whcih requires effort and stuff.
public health peoples do prattle about unfitness, but "lo fat" and "lite" are easier to market for mouth-stuffing-peddlers, erm, 'food' companies. and it's those ads that people are exposed to endlessly. they're much easier to 'get' than the hassle of regular exercise.