According to this morning’s Australian, there is division over junk food ads for kids. On one hand, the Australian Communications and Media Authority has backed the status quo, citing limited evidence of the need for a ban, while the latest brainchild of the Rudd government, National Preventative Health Taskforce, thinks they didn’t look hard enough.
The taskforce, commissioned by the Rudd government last year to recommend ways of tackling the obesity epidemic, proposes ending free-to-air and pay television advertising of energy-dense, nutrient-poor food before 9pm within four years.
“The taskforce finds that, on balance, the weight of evidence of the negative effects of inappropriate food advertising on children’s knowledge, attitudes, food preferences and consumption is now sufficiently compelling to recommend ameliorative action,” it says.
Advertising bans: Nanny State or Suitable Censorship?
So is banning junk food ads suitable censorship or are we turning Australia into a nanny state? Well, there are arguments both ways so let’s take a look at them:
Over in the suitable censorship corner:
- Once a week, when my daughter was about 4, she would watch Channel 10 because it screened Bratz with which she had a short-lived fixation. During the half-hour, it was not unusual with her to be confronted with 2 or 3 McDonalds ads. None of the ads promoted the food – they all promoted the toys as the lure for children (let’s face it, no kid is interested in a hamburger at 8am) – so for a long time, my daughter thought McDonalds was a toy retailer.
- TV advertising to children who are impressionable is yet another pressure on parents. The supermarkets don’t help – leaving lollies and junk food close to checkout and within eyesight of short but vocal tantrum-tossing toddlers – but hey if the child doesn’t know a product exists, the child won’t ask for it. So remove advertising and you potentially remove pester power and you enable the parent to more easily focus their child’s attention on healthier options.
- Gosh, just think how much money we’ll save in the longer term. Reducing the obesity in children will reduce the health-related issues that stem from childhood obesity and that have to be dealt with by our overloaded health system. These are more than just physical issues, but psychological and emotional issues as well, as children are targeted for teasing at school because of their weight or may be subjected to bullying. It’s all about saving the children (and our money).
- Precedence has already been set. Look, we’re already addressing other health issues this way. Cigarette advertising has been banned, alcohol advertising is under scrutiny, why not add junk food to the pile as well? We have experience, we know how it’s done.
While in the nanny state corner:
- People need to be more responsible for the choices they make. Government isn’t elected to tell people what to eat. Goodness me, the next thing is they will be wanting to prescribe how much exercise is mandatory for everyone each day. This is a democracy not a dictatorship, people. In a democracy, you need to make choices for yourselves. Grow up! Be responsible!
- Vote with your wallets, people, that’s why you have them. If you don’t want junk food, don’t buy it. No-one is forcing you to buy anything. Like any other advertising, you are presented with a product but you can say NO. Lots of other parents say NO to their kids – you can too. Get a spine!
- Junk food advertisers are supporting armies of people that are employed in advertising and across mainstream media. They sponsor events, local kids sporting teams that might not otherwise financially survive, and charities too. They also support the employment of industries, such as printing, that is required to create advertising and promotional material. Take out junk food advertisers and there may be direct employment consequences and bust sporting clubs that have run out of money.
- The people that are buying junk food are not going to change their habits because you ban these ads. McDonalds and other fast food outlets target areas which tend to have lower socio-economic communities, set up shop, and the customers flock in. Taking the ads off-air isn’t going to change this – or their buying habits.
So what’s the verdict, people? You’ve heard the arguments from both sides. Are we heading towards a nanny state – or should be deploy censorship? Be heard by leaving a comment below.
