maelorin: (Default)
Add MemoryShare This Entry
Call to beef up new junk food ad code
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.
There are 16 comments on this entry. (Reply.)
 
posted by [identity profile] vixstar.livejournal.com at 11:57am on 26/07/2006
face --> desk.
maelorin: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 12:22pm on 27/07/2006
some people think you can just make more rules and everything will be ok. or something.

i'm not sure i really understand politics and politicians.
 
posted by [identity profile] velvetink.livejournal.com at 02:41pm on 26/07/2006
hummm the health nazi's again. Actually part of the problem is that parents are so torn about discipline and afraid of giving discipline that when they go out and kids whine and throw themselves down on the ground if you don't buy them a big mac, they give in instead of either saying no or giving a quick smack. No one wants to be accused of abuse anymore so there is no discipline at all.
maelorin: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 12:27pm on 27/07/2006
doctor spock was evil. and the damage he has done goes on and on.

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.
 
posted by [identity profile] velvetink.livejournal.com at 02:47pm on 26/07/2006
and another thing, where can you buy a normal healty sandwich for under like $6-$9. There is a subway and one other healthy type sandwich bar in our mall, and the cheapest sandwich is $8 and the healthy drinks cost more too. Now if you have a couple of kids to feed it's way cheaper getting a kids mac and coke.

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.
maelorin: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 12:33pm on 27/07/2006
howard isn't really interested. so long as mums and dads vote for him, why should he care?

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.
 
posted by [identity profile] verdigriis.livejournal.com at 05:17am on 27/07/2006
Having read some of the Public Health research on obesity, I can see why this is an issue. The jury is still out on whether parents give in to the demands of children (marketers call this "pester power"), but there is plenty of evidence to show that children are much more susceptible to advertising than adults. Showing them adds for unhealthy food shapes their preferences - sometimes more than their parents do. Add to that friends who have also watched the adds, and whose parents don't bother teaching them healthy habits, and parents don't stand much chance of teaching them good eating habits. Generally speaking, advertising to children is a very dodgy area. I have read some pretty compelling arguments for banning advertising alltogether during children's TV programs.

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.
maelorin: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 12:47pm on 27/07/2006
i'm planning to look at the regulation of propaganda online - and advertising is a form of propaganda (though marketers dispute this voiciferously).

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*
 
posted by [identity profile] verdigriis.livejournal.com at 02:10pm on 27/07/2006
I suppose I support attempts to legislate against certain kinds of advertising - particularly to children.

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.
maelorin: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 11:30am on 28/07/2006
many of the difficulties in healthy eating are social - which is why people clamour for laws, being social tools for change.

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.
 
posted by [identity profile] rowlirowl.livejournal.com at 09:38am on 27/07/2006

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.

maelorin: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 12:54pm on 27/07/2006
We have adopted the US 'experts' culture to a large degree. [Says the 'expert' :D]

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'.
maelorin: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 12:57pm on 27/07/2006
the concern about malnutrition is alive here too. it is the real concern under all the fat. it's not just 'fat' kids that are 'at risk' ... though many of them are malnurished as well.

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.
 
posted by [identity profile] verdigriis.livejournal.com at 02:25pm on 27/07/2006
Normal and average are not based on 50s measurements - at least in professional circles in Australia. Give our researchers some credit!

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.
 
posted by [identity profile] verdigriis.livejournal.com at 02:19pm on 27/07/2006
Having briefly wandered around the halls of Professional Public Health (Psychology) I'd be a bit careful about tossing the baby out with the bathwater. The research on childhood obesity doesn't rest solely on spurious grounds. I suspect most professionals would be cautious about the application of a height/weight chart to a child or teenager - there are such huge differences in development.

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.
maelorin: (Default)
posted by [personal profile] maelorin at 11:15am on 28/07/2006
it is often children and adolescents who are the compared against these charts by health care professionals.

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.

May

SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
          1
 
2
 
3
 
4 5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
31