Posted on 04/19/2002 8:20:43 AM PDT by Starmaker
All those Cassandras who warned that banning the advertising character Joe Camel from billboards and magazines (such advertising of perfectly legal products having been banished from TV decades before) would only be "the cartoon character's nose under the tent," are now officially authorized to say, "I told you so."
Businesses spend an estimated $13 billion a year marketing food and drinks to U.S. children and their parents, according to Food Politics, a new book by Marion Nestle, chair of the Department of Nutrition and Food Studies at New York University. That's an increase of $5 billion in the last decade. And "Often, the stuff they're selling is not the perfect nourishment for growing minds and bodies," gasps Emilia Askari of the Detroit Free Press, in a lengthy "something-must-be-done" essay circulated this week to other members and subscribers of the Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Service.
Type 2 diabetes, previously considered an adult-onset disease, has increased drastically among youth nationwide, we are now advised. About 14 percent of U.S. children and youth are too heavy, "and chunky kids can face social discrimination that leads to poor self-esteem and depression, according to the surgeon general."
Oh, will the litany of horrors never end?
"Many experts — and some legislators and parents — are beginning to speak out against the marketing of low-nutrition food to children," Ms. Askari reports. "If the courts and government can outlaw the selling of cancer-causing cigarettes to kids, they ask, why not limit the hawking of obesity-inducing food as well? Is Joe Camel really so different from Ronald McDonald?"
As humorist Dave Barry would say, I am not making this up.
"It won't be easy, because the broadcasters and the food companies have a lot of influence," warns Margo Wootan, director of nutrition policy for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit outfit (naturally) in Washington, D.C. "But it's important. Unhealthy eating habits, along with inactivity, kill as many people as tobacco does."
Heavens, whatever shall be done?
The anti-obesity activists' first target is to "get advertising and vending machines out of schools," we are informed. But it won't stop there. They next hope to ban food advertising during programming "aimed at young children, such as cartoons." If the ads cannot be banned, then, Wootan suggests, media should be forced to carry ads for fruits, grains and other healthy alternatives along with ads for less-nutritious processed food.
Finally, "some even talk of bringing a class action against food companies, similar to the successful lawsuits in recent years by cancer patients against tobacco companies."
Oh good: the trial lawyers.
About half of all advertising aimed at kids is for food, Ms. Wootan announces, with a "that-proves-it" tone. Yet to what other potential advertisers would she prefer the television networks attempt to sell time on Saturday morning — purveyors of chainsaws, firearms, lingerie and sexual aids?
Steve Grover of the National Restaurant Association calmly responds that many schools have stopped requiring physical education and nutrition training. "We don't teach people to make good food choices. Then when they don't, we blame the food."
Even author Nestle of NYU acknowledges that societal shifts like the reduction in opportunities for physical play contribute to childhood weight problems. Yet such "activists" respond not primarily by recommending more parental oversight and participation in healthy exercise with their children, but rather by calling on government to censor television advertising, on the assumption that absentee parents will continue to use this service as cheap, long-term day care.
Meantime, writers like Ms. Askari seem curiously unable to locate any of the many economic "experts" who might explain the very palpable benefits of advertising — above and beyond the fact there's that little Constitutional guarantee of the freedom of speech to be dealt with.
The number of new products which have revolutionized American life in the past century are almost beyond count. And make no mistake, many of those products had to break through considerable prejudice that even allowing their mention in public was somehow "in bad taste."
Many of these products could never have repaid the investment necessary to make them widely available at low cost if their advertising had continued to be effectively banned.
Meantime, the hundreds of millions of dollars outfits like McDonald's have invested in their brand names give them a vested interest in maintaining high and consistent quality.
Yes, much of what gets advertised is crap. But when the public refuses to buy any particular line of crap, advertising dollars tend to dry up in a hurry. (Ask the folks who spent millions developing the "smokeless cigarette," or "New Coke.")
At bottom, these do-gooders hate the fact that American consumers are allowed to buy what they like, instead of what the experts contend is "good for them." Instead of listing the growth of advertising dollars as though it's prima facie evidence of evil intent, the activists might want to go back and review the general level of nutrition and quality of consumer goods enjoyed by societies that have banned "wasteful" advertising by "self-serving marketers" ... like the Soviet Union.
Ms. Askari refers to the highly-advertised foods in question as "low-nutrition." In fact, the reason so many Americans are obese is not because they're being peddled worthless, adulterated, and non-nutritious foods, but rather that they're eating "too much of a good thing." Calories are, after all, nothing but a measurement of a food's energy content.
What we have here is a clear-cut example of a bunch of firemen racing about looking for something else to hose down, because they've pretty much run out of real fires. So they turn to blaming another industry that's enjoying huge profits both because their natural bent is anti-capitalist and anti-free-market, and because they see there another set of pockets deep enough to be worth going after.
"Bad eating habits cost lives"? Yes, statistically ... and eventually. But so do motorcycling and football and driving your car without a helmet. Will they next ...
Whoops. Forget I said that.
Seriously, I'll second the idea that most 'conservatives' are terrified by true freedom, lacking faith that they would do the right thing if there wasn't a law guiding their behavior.
Gee, so I being a person who doesn't have children, who has made an effort to make sure he doesn't have children, and doesn't believe his money should be taken away for solely for use by people who have CHOSEN to have children, is now evil??? I guess I'm the evil clown, then.
It must be nice to live in such a black and white little world:
People who support taxing the childless to pay for education of other people's kids: Good.
People who believe that those who have children are responsible for raising and educating them: Evil
You seem incapable of seeing the forrest for the trees. If the government doesn't seize money to pay for public education (and where I live, they take a lot), then parents have the money to pay for a private education. If more people have more of their own money to spend, economic activity increases, returning more money to the people, creating jobs. People then have money to spend on their children's education.
Here's a hint, Willie: The government doesn't need all the money it spends per pupil to educate them. What costs $10,000 per pupil per year in a government school can be done just as effectively for $2,500 in a private school.
If a couple can't afford to spend $2,500 on their children's education (remember, they have more money now since they're not being taxed for public schoools), then they shouldn't have had children in the first place.
I guess when you have only two simplistic options, 'good' and 'evil', you can't comprehend 'better'.
You have our qualified gratitude for your sacrifice.
My point? Everyone smokes. Everywhere you go in Gay Paree, just about anyone over the age of two years old has a cig spackled to their lips! Young skinny models, intense, brooding anarchists, street vendors, callow art students; in fact, all the good little follow-the-leader socialists ingest as much tar and nicotine as seemingly possible-- so sh*tload a good all that banning of advertising does, eh?
People have a way of really speaking for themselves, I guess.
Off to make Mexican food and ogle the dreaminess of Shep Smith...
Repogirl
Abolition of public schools is an issue unworthy of debate.
Its an extremist view held by kooks and deserves only mockery.
If you say so, Willie.
It's become terribly apparent that you are incapable of debate and only capable of engaging in mockery.
The saddest part of it is that you think you're smart and have an intelligent position. The truth is you're just like a child who sticks his fingers in his ears and babbles when someone has a view you don't like.
Very Pathetic.
I see you managed to rectify your sloppy punctuation. Well, I suppose that's a small step in the right direction. But you still need work on your sloppy and uninformed thought processes. Smearing Ezola Foster as a "radical feminazi" is laughably inept.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.