Ban on junk food advertising. Good or Bad?

[Tash.]

But parents are stupid. Why should a child have to pay for their parent's (and their own nieve) stupidity? Again, kids are dumb, and many of them have a demanding power over their parents.

At the underlined bit - just because the adverts arent going to be on, doesn't mean that the parents will just stop taking their children there. Some parents are very lazy and won't cook good food. So banning the adverts won't help the children who have irresponsible parents at all.

[RedStratocas]

At the underlined bit - just because the adverts arent going to be on, doesn't mean that the parents will just stop taking their children there. Some parents are very lazy and won't cook good food. So banning the adverts won't help the children who have irresponsible parents at all.

No, parents arent lazy as they are just stupid and give into what their kids want (like all parents do these days). If kids didnt see these commercials, I can garentee that the amount of kids who want McDonald's would drop. And what the kids dont want, parents follow.

[Caution]

Bad. Won't have any effect.

[Tash.]

No, parents arent lazy as they are just stupid and give into what their kids want (like all parents do these days). If kids didnt see these commercials, I can garentee that the amount of kids who want McDonald's would drop. And what the kids dont want, parents follow.

From personal experience of a family on my street, and without being offensive to anybody, I can say that if your parents are obese there is a higher chance that you are going to grow up obese. Fair enough if your parents have realised that you need a healthy diet. But, with the people down my street, they constantly have takeaways etc. Their child is only 6/7ish. You can't tell me that the kid demands takeaways every single night because of an advert on the television? Parents primarily choose their kids meals.

Anyway, the main principle about this I disagree with, is that we seem to be living increasingly more in a nanny state. We're being told what we can/cannot eat, and that irritates me.

[English]

It's good because although people may still go out and buy the food, they will be less likely to have a 'craving' for a certain food like many people do when a certain advert comes on - it's a psychological method to get people to buy certain products.

[RedStratocas]

Anyway, the main principle about this I disagree with, is that we seem to be living increasingly more in a nanny state. We're being told what we can/cannot eat, and that irritates me.

They arent telling you that you cant eat it. If that were true, they would ban the food itself. Its banning advertizements. It would be like saying on the bann of cigarette ads means they want to tell people not to smoke. But its the same thing as this, they dont want these ads influencing young people.

[hindu]

omg...

they will loose profit$

[RedStratocas]

I dont see why this effects people though? A bann on advertizements? The junk food will still be there, but they wont be shoving it down your throats.

[English]

I dont see why this effects people though? A bann on advertizements? The junk food will still be there, but they wont be shoving it down your throats.

It's a good thing, so it does affect people but in a good way.

[Mentor]

Banning cigarrett ads had around a 0% impact on the sales, the only real differnce now, is more people understand there effects, aka they tend to kill you, as opposed to thinking they were healthy as they were markted origanly, You still sell to the idiots who think it makes em hard, but not to the normal people who have brains of there owns, plus cutting down the chav population is realy just a public service.

Banning junk food ads? i really dont think it will have much of an effect, people dont want junkfood becuse its on TV, all that is is competition between the differnt produces, they want it since it tastes danmed good.

Hell i live of the stuff, Xl bacon cheese burger meals, gone super. Its what keeps me alive, red bull/sprite/7up is all a dirnk, I often get threw 10 packs of crisps a day if not more, chocolate, sweets, pretty much anything, hell i cook bacon with lard.... im also complearty inactive and do no exsorsize. The problem lies here in the fact, im perfectly healthy, with no problems what so ever, i very rairly get ill, and im just on the border of being underweight or healthy weaight, (im underwaight in the morning, a healthy waight in the evening)

Now if all the fast food stuff was really true, i should be pretty much dead, waighing in at a number of tons. Yet im not?
So this is an anomilalie yes? well i know alot of people who eat diets nearly as bad as mine who also dont have any problems?

I personaly belive theres a major problem in the current commonly held understanding of how people maintain health. This really should have become obvious by the fact the intrdouction of mandatory PE lessons in america led to soreing rates of obeasety. (if the current idea were true, youd exspect the oppersit)
ALot of this probably comes from the fact humans tend not to think of themselves as animals, includeing there bodys, the fact are body ajusts to what ever nutraiants it gets and how much exsorise it gets is overlooked by nearly all govement inforced of suggested health recommenedations. if you eat less, your body uses less, and stores more when it can (added fat). If you use more energy the same thing is going to occur, becuse your body then exspects you to use that engergy in feature, when its not used, theres a problem.
Note, according to health officals nearly every athleat that will take part in the olimpics will be clinicaly obease, Why, Mustle ways more than fat, hence people with alot of mustle are unsuprising very hevey... this is complety overlooked by nearly all heath guidlines provided by the goverment, the idea of BMI calcualtion for instance "/