Related Articles

9 Comments

  1. 1

    william magnusson

    its not the kids you have to get the message through to, its the parents. they are the ones buying the junk food for the kids

    Reply
  2. 2

    Shooba

    Yeah Jen, and there’s no causal relationship between smoking and cancer either. Or Russian Roulette and death. But establishing a causal relationship shouldn’t stop us from acting on a strong correlation.

    I am of the belief that parents need to be the first port of call in preventing childhood obesity. But hey, if ads marketing to kids (and the resulting “MUM CAN I GET THIS!!!!?” at the Supermarket or “DAD CAN WE STOP FOR MACCAS AND A HAPPY MEAL TOY PLEEEEEAAAAASSE!????”) are influencing 10% of parents’ behaviour, leading them to buy the wrong products too often… bring on stronger legislation. No-one loses except the people who make unhealthy food.

    We can tackle it on a number of fronts, too. I don’t see why parental education can’t be the #1 priority while simultaneously restricting advertising.

    Reply
  3. 3

    hptns

    OK Shooba,

    So what should be banned and what should be promoted, by the public health lobby, given you seem so sure of yourself? Tell me which foods are bad and what is your evidence base for so asserting?

    For instance, are all the “”heart tick” foods on the AHF www site to be given the blessing of the public health lobby, given the AHF are obviously on your team? Or should one look at them a little more closely and see that a goodly proportion of them have substituted sugar in it’s various forms for saturated fat. Should one look at the contradictions between the evidence papers on the same web site and the products which are given the “heart tick”?

    My suggestion is that it might be better to educate us punters to make our own educated choices, rather than making simplistic top down assertions which are not evidence based, but are based upon so called “common sense”, which is often nothing more than public health lobby group think. Yearning for an earlier simpler time when the public health lobby could do no wrong in the anti-tobacco campaign assists no-one. Sorting out the evidence base before making gross generalisations, is in everyone’s interests.

    Reply
  4. 4

    Shooba

    @hptns

    Better minds than mine can come up with nutritional “cutoffs.” I doubt, however, they’d be based on the AHF’s dubious criteria for the Tick.

    From what I’ve read (From the World Health Organization), there is evidence to suggest that reducing the number of ads a kid sees for Maccas will have an impact on how much Maccas they want/get.

    Given the stakes, I would say advertising restrictions are worth a punt, wouldn’t you? After all, as I said earlier… who loses in this situation? Are kids missing out on a formative experience if they can’t see the latest ad for KFC? Nope.

    And, in yet another parallel with smoking… it seems that if the junk food companies invest so heavily in advertising to kids and they’re up in arms about restrictions, then they probably know restrictions will impact their sales. Which, considering the nutritional voids they sell, is precisely the point.

    But people will always think “pffft, advertising doesn’t affect my buying/eating habits” while at the same time, the execs in boardrooms look at the chart showing the sales spike that lines up perfectly with the dates of their latest round of TVCs.

    But yeah, overall I’d think parental responsibility comes first and foremost. Saying no to kids isn’t that difficult.

    Reply
  5. 5

    william magnusson

    i know what can be restricted, anything that can be purchased at a drive-through…think about it i have no scientific evedence only my own observations over the last 32 years of being in the food trade. the first drive through in australia was in 1980 at auburn and since the explosion of drive throughs australians have been getting fatter. you dont see the obese people in line inside the so called restuarant ,no they are inline in the drive through. we cant ostracize the obese as iam aware it is a symptom of other things going on in life.perhaps its better to focus on the cause rather than the symptom

    Reply
  6. 6

    Obesity Policy Coalition

    See today’s Croakey blog post for the OPC’s response to Jennifer Doggett’s claims. https://croakey.org/the-evidence-backs-action-on-junk-food-advertising-to-kids-but-its-not-all-thats-needed/

    @hptns On the issue of which nutritional criteria would be used as the basis for junk food advertising restrictions, the OPC and other health groups have proposed that nutrient profile criteria should be used. These criteria were developed by the UK Food Standards Agency to identify high fat, sugar and salt foods that are subject to advertising restrictions in the UK (see http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/nutprofr.pdf), and have been adapted for use in Australia by Food Standards Australia New Zealand as criteria for foods carrying health claims (see http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/nutritionhealthandrelatedclaims/nutrientprofilingcal3499.cfm).

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

© 2015 – 2020 Croakey | Website: Rock Lily Design

right-share-menu

Follow Croakey