Should the federal government try to limit food marketing aimed at children?
Posted at 5:00 AM on April 29, 2011
by Eric Ringham
(27 Comments)
Filed under: Health, Politics/Government
The federal government has proposed new guidelines for marketing food to young people. The voluntary guidelines would aim to promote healthy food choices. Today's Question: Should the federal government try to limit food marketing aimed at children?
Comments (27)
Look at the children, many bloated and unhealthy. Nearly a third will come down with diabetes within in their life. Parents and food companies are guilty. With such a failure, someone should step in.
History tells us the juvenile immoral practices of ag business will proceed unchecked if not regulated.
Helicopter parents make sure little Johnny studies his math and science; then allow worthless garbage food to poison his chances.
Sure, market food to kids. Real food, good food.
Everyone of my generation remembers the Schoolhouse Rocks! Saturday commercials, right? "Conjunction Junction, what's your function?"..."Lolly, Lolly, Lolly, get your adverbs here!"
How about something comparably clever for fruits, vegetables, whole grains, beans, olive oil, etc?
Wow! "Interjections show excitement, or emotion..."
Shouldn't an edible substance have a net positive nutritional value to qualify as food?
How much "food" eaten is actually beneficial?
What is a food marketer really saying when they claim their offering is "Good for you"? Does that strike you as odd that a food marketer would feel compelled to make that claim? Are they also marketing "food" that is bad for you? Duh! Can a child know the difference? Do many adults know the difference? Government has an obligation to its citizens to a safe and nutritious food supply - and to regulate what claims marketeers can make.
Not everything people have a right to do is right to do. Do advertisers have a right to manipulate children to beg their parents to buy expensive things that aren't good for them? Maybe so. Among my friends, however, we think the right thing to do is help each other be better parents and support each other in making good decisions for our kids. If I were to encourage my neighbors' kids to whine until their parents give them something unhealthy, my neighbors would be rightfully angry at me, my free speech rights notwithstanding. The fact that our First Amendment may protect corporate marketers' "rights" to inflame our children's greed for expensive toys and craving for unhealthy food doesn't mean it's not reprehensible behavior.
One Fine Day In Mascot Hell:
Joe Camel, I knew I'd find you down here.
Tony? Tony the Tiger as that you? What are YOU doing down here?
Well, Joe like you said before your execution, "I am just the first". Now they blame me and my friend Ronald McDonald because their kids are so fat. Joe you remember when I first came on the market. Kids rode their bikes to schrool and and just about anywhere else like to the movies or the candy store. Remember when children played outside, games like cops & robbers and cowboys & Indians.
Oh, Tony. Those kid games are so-o-o politically incorrect. Calling Native Americans "Indians" and all. Playing with toy guns, that's so violent. Climbing trees and riding a bike to schrool, too dangerous! Oh, the good ol' days when your TV commercials ended with, "part of this balanced breakfast". A bowl of Tony the Tiger with milk, juice and toast". Good wholesome food.
Yeah, Joe, now kids just set on their asses in front of the TV or computer and play video games all day, their parents drive them in the car everywhere and they blame me for being so fat.
Say Tony, what's that you're reading?
Oh this? It's the US Constitution. I picked it out of the waste paper basket while being dragged out of court to the pillory.
I despair of having civil discussions of issues like this, as long as people keep resorting to the "slippery slope" fallacy. When will we wise up and realize that avoiding the disaster awaiting us at one extreme by falling into the disaster at the other does us no good? Yes, too much government is a problem (e.g., the Soviet Union), but so is too little government (e.g., Somalia). We don't need government to protect us from ourselves, but we do need it to protect us from each other and from amoral corporations, and to do on our behalf those things that are everyone's responsibity in general but no one's in particular.
CF, that's a mildly amusing bit of satire, imagining that Americans make an idol of big government. How about the way many Americans (including not a few self-described Christians!) seem to make an idol of the Free Market-- you know, the "invisible hand" and so forth? In a time of national crisis (the 9/11 attacks), when historically the king would urge the people to pray to their gods and offer whatever sacrifices or oblations their religion prescribes, GWB told us to "go shopping"! We have to make sure we appease the Almighty Economy (with corporate bailouts, tax cuts for the rich, and sacrificing government services) so that it will provide for our needs and make us happy, or so it seems some would have us believe.
All ideology is bullshit! The good road is between the ditches.
As long as the federal government is "for the people by the people", not "for the corporations by the corporations and screw the people".
How did the world's most useful and versatile plant (Cannabis/Hemp) get slammed, banned and criminalized?
Promoting true health, wealth and wisdom benefits us all.
Marketing food is an industry that sells things. You take this away and you make America's ingenuity suffer. Don't believe that this is fair or right. People make choices every day and can choose to listen to and giving into a child's pleading or tantrums or refuse to do so.
This question is a mixed can of worms. Unhealthy eating has to do with affordability of foods available. Recently there was a Secret Millionaire episode that had John Ferber who lived off $6 to $9 a day (cannot quite remember) and told how his food choices were limited so he was eating less healthily. And I suppose that marketing gimmicks may cause one to choose a certain brand over another but it does come down to affordability also.
The other problem is that the pesticides sprayed on foods and the hormones, pesticides, antibiotics etc that are used in the meats we eat cause obesogens which lead to unhealthy weight. Since this practice is what makes for consistently better production, children are exposed to it more than those in decades past.
Telling parents that their children cannot eat the meals that were provided at home because the government knows best is a slippery slope that they seem to have no problem with. I do not want government to expand in this area because the government has authorized the molestation of children at the hands of TSA agents now--this is enough to make me question everything the government says it wants to do to protect Americans &/or children.
Yes, it is true that genetics play a role and when people refuse to change their lifestyle that leads to health problems and taxpayers foot the bill for children who may then need to be cared for until they die. This is not good or welcoming especially in light of America’s horrific economy, but can we fault clever marketing schemes. This is like saying guns kill people when in fact people kill people--yes the weapon may cause the death, but the gun is an inanimate object that will not fire unless used by a person who intentionally or unintentionally pulls the trigger.
The government does not know best in too many areas and all these regulations on foods will become increasing problematic and cause the prices to go up and make choices for healthier living less possible for poor, low income, or even middle income families. Today we have the government involved in what can be served in schools, what is considered a vegetable within school cafeterias, and whether children will be forced to pay for and eat the food provided in schools because Chicago school bans homemade lunches that only add to this latest nations food fight (http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/20110411/us_yblog_thelookout/chicago-school-bans-homemade-lunches-the-latest-in-national-food-fight). Under these circumstances, I will not say that advertisement or marketing has anything to do with the choices although it may play a little role for undisciplined parents and children.
Marketing will have little influence on decisions when a child has food allergies or for religious or for family reasons children must abstain from eating certain foods. Marketing is not geared toward this when it comes to children.
Cannot say what the balance will be with marketing and the quality of life the children growing up in today’s America, but is eating food or marketing a crime? Is marketing or eating of certain foods an addiction like that to cigarettes, alcohol, and various illegal drugs? I'd say no for the most part although caffeine in sodas and chocolate is definitely debatable as the body can go through withdrawals.
I think the best effort for the future of our children is providing education on healthy eating & living, understanding that genetics and the quality of foods today plays a role, as well considering the financial ability of people to afford healthier foods that are not exposed to pesticides, hormone, antibiotics etc is something to consider rather than taking jobs away from very clever and wise individuals who market foods.
Yes, absolutely. In the same way cigarette ads haven't been allowed on television for decades. Too many people are, obviously, not able to make healthy decisions for themselves, and we're ALL paying for the preventable consequences of those decisions. If we can inform people through advertising, and lead them towards better choices, we all win. Healthy great-tasting food can be as much "fun" as the sugary junk that's being advertised. I don't accept the General Mills executive's assertion that sugary cereals are good for kids or anyone else. Too many Americans don't understand the difference between real FOOD and healthy beverages and TREATS. Pop is not a beverage to be enjoyed throughout the day, sugary cereal is not a healthy way to start the day, and fat filled, high calorie desserts don't need to be a part of your meal except rarely. Our healthcare is in crisis and a lot of what ails Americans is preventable with a healthy diet and healthy habits. This would be a good start.
I monitor both the television my child watches and the food he consumes. He has never eaten fast food and his favorite snack is fresh fruit. Parents can step up and take responsibility on this one.
Ahh yes, more government intrusion on what we can and can't eat. You can't legislate laws to protect stupid people in all areas of everyday life despite what the radical left freeloaders are demanding.
If it tastes good, spit it out. If it's advertised don't buy it. Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much. Eat fresh, whole, raw. Drink water, milk, juice, green tea. Why don't we get it?
It's the government's job to protect us from war-like attacks, and only because we pay it to. It is not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. The natural consequences of obesity (higher health costs, lower life expectancy, potentially lower self-esteem, discrimination, more expensive plane tickets, less attractive mate, etc.) should be enough of a deterrent. It's the parent's responsibility to determine what they feed their child. We all believe we're "busy", but some of us find a way to raise our children in spite of being busy. And let’s not overthink this; “bad” food in moderation isn’t going to make your kid obese. Children have sky-high metabolism and burn calories like we all wish we could. Kids are obese because of parental laziness. What’s next, banning video game commercials? Video games probably contribute as much, or more, to obesity as junk food. We all agree that children are among the most vulnerable. That’s why they have guardians. Are we not responsible adults? Do we need our kid's friendship so badly that we give them everything they want, even when we know it's not the right thing? Come on adults, are you above average or not? (keep in mind that most of us believe we're above average)
Once again, MPR shows its conservative, pro-corporate bias, both in the phrasing of today's question and in its reporting on this issue. In the news story today, after stating that the Obama Administration is presenting to industry *voluntary guidelines* (not mandatory requirements) for marketing healthier foods to kids, the MPR reporter aired only one comment: from a General Mills corporate executive. Of course, this exec said sugary cereals aren't bad for kids and MPR provided no counterbalancing comments about the links between sugary foods and childhood obesity and diabetes. All the government is asking is that the food industry make a good faith effort to market healthier foods and MPR makes it sound like some kind of heavy-handed dictate. MPR has gotten so conservative these days, it's almost like listening to Fox. Disgusting.
Yes, ban junk food ads period.
The government's primarily role is to protect those who cannot protect themselves. This includes children and ignorant adults.
One role of government is to protect the innocent.
so....
Yeah, DUH!
Marketers see marketing to the easily impress, and easily due to lack of world knowledge, is easier then dealing with someone who has wizened up.
By definition we pretty much see this is a easy answer of YES.
Dear Big Government:
We come to You, oh holy and mighty Big Government, on bended knee to ask You to deliver us from ourselves. We are helpless, weak and oh so needy of Your divine intervention.
Oh Great Majesty Big Government, You saved us from the evil Big Tobacco Companies and now we plead before Your golden throne to protect us from a new and ever present threat to our existence.. Big Food!
Oh dear and precious Big Government, we will even give You our rights so only YOU may protect us from our selves. We have entrusted Your infinite wisdom to educate our dear little ones, and so now we beg of You, oh please Big Government, tell us now how to feed our children!
May we the people continue to bow before You Big Government and allow Your dominion to rule our lives for ever and ever
Amen
No, I don't think that's a role for government. I think that all levels of government should aggressively strive to provide sound nutritional information and guidance to the general public.
We, in the US, have an obesity epidemic. Government can help by strongly adovacting heathly living and pointing out the dangers of obesity and lack of exercise. Simply identifying particularly unheathly foods and offering alternatives might offend some producers but might help all of us make better eating decisions.
they should limit food because children are getting more obese and they need healthy food and more activity!
I'd rather have a little government intervention in cases where money-driven corporations exploit the desires of children. Yes, of course it's the parents' responsibility to promote healthy habits for their children and encourage them to make good decisions. However, speaking as a busy parent with two jobs, partner with a full time job, and three children it's incredibly difficult and exhausting to compete with the power of advertising on TV, in grocery stores, on billboards, on fast food marquees, in school, etc.
Maybe the PARENTS should turn off the screen and spend some time with their children.
Big brother has bigger fish to fry.
∑
DTOM
Definately. My 5-year-old doesn't want to go anywhere but McDonald's because of the toy. When I explain to him that McDonald's tries to trick kids into eating their unhealthy food by handing out toys, people think I'm crazy.
Why don't we call it what it is-- manipulating the youngest, most cognitively defenseless among us for a financial gain.
It's too bad that they have to try with obesity in children skyrocketing. It is a failure of parents and the educational system. We need to have a license to drive a car and but good parenting skills aren't taught in schools, largely because of political reasons.
It's ironic that we are discussing the failure of parents to provide healthy foods to their children while we have Republicans trying to permanently make it harder for gay and lesbian families to get the same protections and opportunities under the law under the law in the state of Minnesota.
I guess it's not surprising because Republicans are the ones most likely to object to provide sound scientific parenting classes to our children and teens, most likely not support the healthcare for teens to stop teens from getting pregnant in the first place and also support removing the rights of children and teens to see doctors about abuse without the consent of their abusers. Talk about bad parenting. Oh they also don't support any government "interference" in the diets of our children which is and will be costing the tax payers of this country billions of dollars in health care costs.
Yes - da da da da da..I'm lovin' it! Also, the government should ban any and all pharmaceutical commercials.
NO. The should set explicit standards and definitions for what various processed foods are. For example - define a class of foods called "Obesifiers" ( have excess sugar, fats, or other problematic ingredients) and require placment of that label on the package in lettering as big as the product name. The marketer staff can "dance" all around that government definition ... but it'll be there on every package.
They can try, but it won't work. Corporate marketers have a seemingly infinite capacity to get people to covet what they're selling and addict us to their pointless and even harmful products. And Congress would never allow it, because it would be "bad for the economy" if people stopped spending money on things that don't actually improve their well-being.
Yes, because currently the food marketed to children is the worst possible food. Its overprocessed, high in sugar, loaded with artificial color and other artificial ingredients, empty calories and overpriced. Advertized children's yogurt, for instance, isn't even active culture yogurt for the most part, it might as well be pudding. Feeding kids this stuff crowds more useful foods out of their diet, but they're so susceptible to advertising and food crazes (refusing to eat anything but what they want) and we as parents are often so desperate when they're young to get anything into them that we're often tempted to buy whatever they want just to get them to eat. Its pernicious and evil, frankly.
| April 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 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 |
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock