Next up - A total ban on junk food advertising

As food follows the same bansturbatory pattern as smoking did, we are now moving towards a total ban on advertising.
"Ofcom introduced significantly tougher restrictions on advertising foods high in fat, salt and sugar to children in 2007."
But of course this hasn't worked, just like every other ban in history that didn't solve the perceived problem. But hey, it's not supposed to work is it? That would put the tax guzzling righteous puritans out of a job. Each ban or restriction is only supposed to be the precursor to the next one, so the fake charities can keep justifying their funds. Public health is now a multi million pound industry, so it has to justify it's existence constantly.
Children are still exposed to the same level of junk food advertising despite tighter regulations, research suggests.
The UK regulations ban the advertising of foods high in fat, salt or sugar during children's programming.
Newcastle University academics said 6.1% of adverts seen by children were about junk food before the ban - the figure was 7% after the ban.
A sane and analytical mind might conclude that the ban did not work, has actually achieved the opposite of what it set out to do and is therefore wrong and must be repealed. The warped mind of the health puritan will see this as reason for even more restrictive laws.
They said young people do not just watch children's programmes, to which the rules apply.
The team noted that although most of the adverts stuck to the rules, children were still being exposed to junk food ads during other programming not particularly aimed at them.
So now we must ban advertising of junk food during adult television programmes, even though an adult might want to make an adult choice to consume whatever food they see fit.
Dr Jean Adams, lecturer in public health at Newcastle University, said: "While adverts stay within the letter of the law, I think we can say we're still not getting the spirit of the law.
A law is a defined rule. You break it or you don't. There is no 'spirit' unless your agenda is furthering the law to match your own prejudices about how people should live their own lives.
We have a duty to further tighten up the restrictions particularly if we're going to help our young people grow up to make good choices about the food they eat”
"We know advertising works - otherwise food companies wouldn't use it - so we have a duty to further tighten up the restrictions particularly if we're going to help our young people grow up to make good choices about the food they eat."

A Department of Health spokeswoman said: "Being overweight and not eating well is bad for our health. Controlling the advertising of food to children is important, but it is only part of the picture.
No! We don't need even more regulations, we need less. We need to hand back personal responsibility for children to the parents. We can't blame unhealthy eating on the people that make the food, we can only blame it on the people who eat it, or in the case of minors, their parents. When you remove responsibility, the results are disasterous.

Ofcom, the group who implemented the original regulations and who don't have a vested interest in furthering them, disagree with the findings.
Ofcom said its own studies indicated the contrary, that there had been a decrease in how much young people viewed adverts for unhealthy food.
An Ofcom spokeswoman said: "We note the research from the University of Newcastle. Our final review of the rules, which included a full year of data from 2009, showed a significant reduction (37%) in children's exposure to adverts for products that were high in fat, salt and sugar since 2005."
And here's why I stopped shopping at the local British Heat Foundation 'charity' shop.

The British Heart Foundation (BHF) said the research highlighted a "loophole" in the regulations.
BHF policy manager Mubeen Bhutta said: "To protect children all junk food adverts should be screened after the 9pm watershed and we want to see consistent advertising regulations across all forms of media, including online, to protect our children.
"It's time for the government to put the health of our children above the health of the advertising industry."
Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Food, Big Salt and now Big Advertising. It's all just a battle against eeevil business isn't it.
The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) said the research demonstrated that the current rules did not go far enough.
They never do. That would be the end of Big Public Health.

5 Comments:

Anonymous said...

Bucko said...

Anonymous said...

JuliaM said...

Bucko said...