Jump to content


Replying to Redefining Food Porn


Post Options

  or Cancel


Topic Summary

Posted 16 November 2018 - 10:47 AM

Marketing obesity? Junk food, advertising and kids

Research Paper no. 9 2010–11

Dr Rhonda Jolly
Social Policy Section
12 January 2011

- Childhood obesity has been labelled one of the most serious public health issues of the 21st century.

 

-Overweight and obese children typically grow into overweight and obese adults, who are susceptible to chronic complaints such as diabetes and cardio vascular disease. These diseases place considerable burdens on national health systems and economies.

 

-It can be argued therefore that policy which encourages healthy eating habits is desirable.  However, the increasing availability of foods high in fat, sugar and salt (so called junk foods) across the world has made eating healthily a challenge.

 

-This challenge, according to some research, is compounded by advertising that adversely influences people’s food preferences and consumption patterns. As a consequence of this research, there has been considerable advocacy which has urged governments to place limitations on the advertising of junk foods, particularly to children.

 

-In opposition, other research has supported the argument that junk food can be part of a balanced diet and that it should be the responsibility of individuals, including children, to make decisions about what they consume.

 

-This paper considers both sides of this debate.

 

-The paper also looks briefly at the policy approaches to junk food in a number of countries and consequent actions taken to control or prohibit the influence of advertising. In particular, the paper notes recent Australian Government approaches to dealing with this issue.

 

-The paper concludes that to date, the Australian response to this issue has emphasised the value of a self regulatory regime. 

 

-However, this approach may be modified in the future, as a result of a number of factors. These include growing public demand for intervention and a shift in health policy more towards preventive health than has been emphasised in the past.


https://www.aph.gov....p/rp1011/11rp09

 

Good article for thought. Although, I do see a lot of finger pointing going on. Who is ultimately to blame for the unhealthy 'junk'. The Manufacturers or the advertisers? Methinks they are just large cogs in a much bigger machine.

 

It seems the junk for the body isn't the only thing served. Junk for the mind and spirit as well. Preventative measures imply lobbying from the medical industry as well. Especially from the mental health division. Perhaps this is where new regulations could be wrought for the politicians to mull over. Never mind any moral implications. Those always get in the way of good business deals.


Feathers

Posted 08 November 2018 - 05:40 PM

:Agree: :Bump:  :Good_Post: 

 

adverts-and-youth.jpg?w=300


Posted 08 November 2018 - 04:55 PM

Marketing obesity? Junk food, advertising and kids

Research Paper no. 9 2010–11

Dr Rhonda Jolly
Social Policy Section
12 January 2011

- Childhood obesity has been labelled one of the most serious public health issues of the 21st century.

 

-Overweight and obese children typically grow into overweight and obese adults, who are susceptible to chronic complaints such as diabetes and cardio vascular disease. These diseases place considerable burdens on national health systems and economies.

 

-It can be argued therefore that policy which encourages healthy eating habits is desirable.  However, the increasing availability of foods high in fat, sugar and salt (so called junk foods) across the world has made eating healthily a challenge.

 

-This challenge, according to some research, is compounded by advertising that adversely influences people’s food preferences and consumption patterns. As a consequence of this research, there has been considerable advocacy which has urged governments to place limitations on the advertising of junk foods, particularly to children.

 

-In opposition, other research has supported the argument that junk food can be part of a balanced diet and that it should be the responsibility of individuals, including children, to make decisions about what they consume.

 

-This paper considers both sides of this debate.

 

-The paper also looks briefly at the policy approaches to junk food in a number of countries and consequent actions taken to control or prohibit the influence of advertising. In particular, the paper notes recent Australian Government approaches to dealing with this issue.

 

-The paper concludes that to date, the Australian response to this issue has emphasised the value of a self regulatory regime. 

 

-However, this approach may be modified in the future, as a result of a number of factors. These include growing public demand for intervention and a shift in health policy more towards preventive health than has been emphasised in the past.

It would be fair to say that the vast majority of participants in the obesity/junk food/advertising and marketing debate agree that obesity is a major health problem for modern societies. Where the participants diverge is with regards to the subtleties of what causes obesity and how to deal with what has been labelled an epidemic of modern life. This is particularly so when the issues of overweight and obesity are raised in relation to children.  

A diverse group, comprising parents, health economists, politicians and other policy analysts argue that there is incontrovertible evidence that much of the blame for obesity epidemic lies with the producers of foods that are high in fats, sugar and salt—the junk food industry. According to this group, further blame lies with the advertising industry, which uses what are seen as unscrupulous marketing tactics to manipulate children’s food preferences and consumption and to encourage children to pester their parents to purchase these unhealthy products.  

This group considers that radical steps need to be taken to deal with the marketing of junk foods. Australian advocates argue that in the case of children at least the current self regulatory regime does not work; children are continually, and in a variety of ways, exposed to junk food advertising. One commentator maintains with reference to television, that the narrow restriction of what constitutes children’s television makes it relatively easy for industry to claim that self regulation is effective. However, what is not taken into consideration is that ‘prime-time shows such as The Simpsons and Home and Away… are popular with children’.[170] There is, in fact, a fine line of distinction between children’s programs and programs watched by children, and the junk food industry counts on regulators to overlook that line.  

In opposition to this group, there are other analysts and representatives of the food and advertising industries, as well as organisations that benefit from junk food sponsorship, who argue that a healthy diet can contain some foods high in fat, sugar or salt. That is, hamburgers, chocolate, soft drinks and crisps can be enjoyed as treats without people becoming obese. The rationale behind this perspective is that when it comes to food, it is not what, but how much is eaten. Junk food producers argue that they responsibly market their products, promote healthy menu alternatives and support nutrition labelling to assist people in making decisions about their personal energy in/energy out equations.

Advertisers argue that they do not make fraudulent claims about products. They provide information on products of all types. People, including children, can then make informed decisions about whether to purchase those products. It is after all, the aim of their industry to promote and sell products. In relation to products such as junk foods, it is up to parents to educate their children to become discerning consumers.   

Despite claims to the contrary from the junk food industry and advertisers, public concern about the incidence of childhood overweight and obesity has increased.  This concern has led a number of governments to introduce various measures to restrict the marketing of junk foods. These range from legislative bans to so called fat taxes. There has been much debate about the effectiveness of such measures, but little hard evidence to date about which of them, if any, works effectively for the long term.[171]

In this context of uncertainty, Australian governments have acted cautiously. The Howard Government’s approach placed considerable emphasis on encouraging children to be active, relied on the effectiveness of existing voluntary self regulatory advertising standards and stressed that individuals needed to take a certain amount of responsibility for their own health outcomes.

Preventive health is broadly on Labor’s agenda, but the current Government’s policy intentions with regards to dealing with specific issues, such as junk food advertising, remain vague. In 2009, academic Paul Williams commented that effective policy or legislation to deal with junk food advertising should have been put in place by Labor early in its first term. Instead, the Government had ‘buckled to corporate pressure from advertisers and the fast-food lobby’.[172] Similarly, a media analyst was convinced that Labor did not have the conviction to do anything about junk food advertising in the lead up to the 2010 poll because it would not risk alienating powerful broadcasting and sporting interests. The question was whether it would have the ‘appetite for the fight’ if it won a second term.[173] Labor’s commitment to a national preventive health agency could be seen as the initial second-term punch in the fight. But there are likely to be some who want immediate action and who consider the setting up of another agency amounts to abrogating responsibility on the obesity issue in general, and junk food marketing specifically, to bureaucratic equivocation.

It remains that WHO’s warning about the worldwide obesity crisis will be difficult to ignore. More adults are becoming overweight and obese; more children are becoming overweight and obese and likely to grow into obese adults, who will place increasing burdens on the health system. Despite claims by the junk food and advertising industries that self regulation works and further intervention is not necessary, it appears that something needs to be done to prevent public health and economic disaster. Similarly, while industry arguments which posit that the link between junk food, advertising and obesity is inconclusive have been influential in the past, it appears that evidence to the contrary is now becoming more accepted. Further, the trend towards preventive health, which has emerged in recent times, and the current government’s rhetoric of a reform agenda, which prioritises prevention, appears to indicate that a more regulatory regime for junk food advertising may eventually emerge.

On the other hand, there is a fundamental tension underlying the junk food advertising/marketing debate that is unlikely to be resolved.  This is reflected in the question of whether the negative results of individual choices—for example in smoking, consuming alcohol or eating junk foods— should consequently be regarded as an individual or collective problem. As noted throughout this paper, those who see the issue as a matter for the individual consider that government action, such as the limiting or restricting of the advertising of junk food, is paternalistic. The individual is a rational being, able to make informed choices about the health risks of his or her food consumption. While it is not the intention of this paper to engage overly in ideological debate, it is worth noting comments on this subject by academic, Dr Linda Botterill:

    A classical liberal interpretation of obesity would surely be that over-eating and low levels of physical activity are private behaviours which, at worst, result in harm to the obese person themselves. [The philosopher John Stuart] Mill argued that ‘Over himself, over his own body and mind the individual is sovereign.’[174] Others can attempt to educate, persuade or otherwise cajole individuals to change their behaviour but, in the absence of that threshold test of harm to others, there is no role for compulsion.[175]

In contrast, the argument for intervention is based on a potent ‘image of the powerless consumer in the face of the irresistible multinational, food industry‘, and its co-conspirators, advertisers.[176] In Botterill’s words:

    This is the interpretation which calls for limits on advertising, particularly to children, and taps into concerns about the protection of the helpless and the innocent.[177]   

This argument rejects the implication that intervention to discourage the consumption of junk food represents the actions of a ‘nanny state’. Professor Boyd Swinburn, who has written extensively on this subject, points out that governments have often required certain behaviours of their citizens to decrease public health threats. These include the wearing of seatbelts and imposing smoke free public environments.[178] Swinburn cites tobacco control as the classic case where taxation, advertising bans and legislation served as the drivers for change with social marketing and education providing added value.[179]

Therefore, despite there being a current climate which supports the imposition of a more regulatory advertising regime for junk foods, it is likely that crucial decisions ultimately will be about how effectively any government can, and is committed to balancing a number of complex issues— protecting children from manipulation and exploitation, the rights of commercial interests to promote their goods and to trade legitimately, and divergent ideological stances.

https://www.aph.gov....p/rp1011/11rp09


Posted 08 November 2018 - 01:37 PM

:smiley-laughing024:

 

Can you describe a turd using 20 adjectives and sell it in a tweet?

mcdonalds-funny-ad-002.jpg

 

 

 

:What3:

 

:chuckle:

 

 

:rofl:

 

mcdonaldsad.jpg

 

:rofl:

 

We serve only the good stuff!

 

yemek_k%C3%B6pek.jpg

 

:hangingfromastar:


Posted 08 November 2018 - 01:23 PM

:funny-chicken-dancing:

 

Guerilla advertising at its finest...

 

creative-guerrilla-advertising-in-store-


Posted 08 November 2018 - 01:13 PM

:Laughing-rolf: :Laughing-rolf: :Laughing-rolf: :Laughing-rolf: :Laughing-rolf:

 

giphy.gif

 

:funny-chicken-smiley-emoticon: :oven-hot-chicken-smiley-emotico :smiley-laughing024:

 

If Fast Food Commercials Were Honest - Honest Ads (McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Taco Bell)

 


Posted 03 November 2018 - 01:51 PM

We often hear about the Four Ps of marketing - namely Product, Price, Place (also known as Distribution) and Promotion, but its People, that can make all the difference between a good marketing...

 

Bad-Service.jpg


Posted 21 October 2018 - 12:29 PM

:Laughing-rolf: :Laughing-rolf: :Laughing-rolf: :Laughing-rolf: :Laughing-rolf:

 

giphy.gif


Posted 21 October 2018 - 12:26 PM

Anyone for pie?

 

08bda796cec2cf09aaf9de5bc16de505.gif

 

:wink:

 

:chuckle:


Posted 21 October 2018 - 12:19 PM

it's those little details. they do matter...

 

...and the big ones...

 

tumblr_nfcndk2bfV1tuic50o1_500.gif

 

:chuckle:

 

 

:Laughing-rolf: :Laughing-rolf:

 

tenor.gif?itemid=11276939


Review the complete topic (launches new window)

IPB Skin By Virteq