Ban Ronald McDonald?

[Coito ergo sum]

Try again.
'1984' is not the only alternative to 'absolute free market'.

Ahh - and by the same token, when we advocate for freedom in one area such as this, and when we advocate for good evidence before banning certain commercials, it does not mean we are advocating for a completely libertarian society. We don't have an "absolute free market" now, so from where do we derive the blame of the "free market" for obesity?

[Coito ergo sum]

Except American parents are obviously unable to look after themselves, let alone their children, or obesity wouldn't be such a problem.
Let's factor in the over-exposure of fast food stores with advertising aimed at children, you have an ad which appeals to children, really appeals to children, and as they're walking down the street they see the company identified with that ad maybe four or five times a trip.
"Can we got to McDonald's?"
"Why can't we?"
"What if I behave?"
It isn't a one-off-thing either. McDonald's is chemically engineered to taste good, all that sugar plus the 'happy meal toys' mean that as a child you don't just get 'good food' but a present along with it. So, this place has 'good commercials', 'good food' and it gives you a 'free' present. You're gonna start liking this place. You're going to be conditioned to like McDonald's before you can tie your shoelaces.
Factor in the fact that a lot of families now have to be double-income households, meaning that often there's not a parent there to prepare dinner and when they come back from work they are often too tired to cook.
Factor in you're now looking at the third or fourth generation since McD's first came around and the 'arch' effect has had time to nestle in.

YAY Free Market! Nothing says 'liberty' like an obesity epidemic which can be directly linked to the fast food industry!

+1!

And, what's the point of "yay free market?" The alternative is what? A controlled market that prescribes what we're allowed to eat and prevents us from eating and doing unhealthy things?

Free market allows sky diving, BASE jumping, bungee jumping, private airplane flying, pie eating contests, hot dog eating contests, giant burger eating contests, smoking citgarettes, smoking cigars, drinking alcohol, etc. - but since these things are dangerous and/or unhealthy, what do you think should be done about them?

Where did this desire come from among our liberal populace to have the State save us from ourselves?

As ever there is a balance to be struck. The state insists we use seat belts. There was a lot of resistance to it in some quarters and yet now we know thousands of lives have been saved internationally. Are you suggesting that people should be free not to use them? Or to drink and drive?

These are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Can you please explain to me (and I've now asked you twice) - why are you so quick to advocate banning of advertisements, and yet you completely ignore the actual evidence that kids are grossly fucking obese because the the huge increase the amount of sedentary hours spent in front of televisions and computers (40% increase in the last 50 years) and have increased dramatically the number of calories on average they cram in their faces every day (8% increase over the last 30 years)?

We both acknowledge there is a problem. I have not stated that the State should not do something about it. I have stated that the state should not ban Ronald McDonald, and I have stated that the connection between commercials on television and obesity is quite tenuous (the best evidence presented by anyone has merely stated that there may be a "possible" "association," - no indication of a finding of causation).

So, one of the big issues here is the apparent knee-jerk reaction to simply advocate banning the commercials when there is little to no real evidence that the ban would help at all, and despite having cited many sources that were definitive demonstrating the real cause of the problem, you and others just ignore that. Why?

We protect our children in all sorts of ways using legislation. Some of it even works!

Once again - the best evidence presented here about the commercial advertisements is a "possible association." Why don't you advocate that we do something about the real, strong, connection between the number of hours spent in front of televisions and the increase in calorie consumption?

The state already has powers in most industrialised countries to intervene if parenting is inadequate.

Fine - but why don't you advocate intervention regarding the time children spend in front of the t.v. and the amount they eat - since that is clearly the cause of the problem? (or at least, far more demonstrated than the commercial-obesity assertion).

There is an argument to be made that allowing your child to become obese is tantamount to child abuse.

Once again - then why don't you advocate for a reduction in the amount of time kids are allowed to watch t.v.?

While it is probably, except in very extreme circumstances, unacceptable to remove a child from parents who are shortening its life by allowing it to sit in front of the TV all day and eat high fat food, I see no reason that it should not put legislative pressure, through taxation, rules about advertising and so on, to mould and influence the issues and people's behaviour.

Why is it unacceptable to make rules about how long a child is allowed to watch t.v., but it is acceptable to limit the right of someone to broadcast on television?

[maiforpeace]

While it is probably, except in very extreme circumstances, unacceptable to remove a child from parents who are shortening its life by allowing it to sit in front of the TV all day and eat high fat food, I see no reason that it should not put legislative pressure, through taxation, rules about advertising and so on, to mould and influence the issues and people's behaviour.

Why is it unacceptable to make rules about how long a child is allowed to watch t.v., but it is acceptable to limit the right of someone to broadcast on television?

Actually In the UK, it's not acceptable for parents to neglect their children to the extent they allow them to become obese.

Parents of Obese Children Charged with Abuse in Britain

In England, it's not a question of whether the government should intrude in family life, but how and when.

November 22, 2008 - by Frank Furedi

During the past decade, the British government has adopted an interventionist stance towards the management of family life. It continually lectures mothers and fathers about how to bring up their children and it constantly criticizes parents for behaving in ways that run counter to the ethos of expert-approved child rearing. The government does not simply advise or provide information, it is also in the business of saving children from their parents.

In early November a six-year-old boy from Derby was taken into care by social workers for being overweight. This is the first time that obesity has been listed by social workers as one of the reasons for taking a child away from its family. But behind the scenes more and more families are targeted by social services. Last month it was reported that seven obese children have been put into care and that obesity was a factor in at least 20 child protection cases last year.

In recent years public officials and child protection experts have taken upon themselves to police the weight of youngsters. Many of them take the view that parents who allow their children to become overweight or obese are actually guilty of child abuse. Back in February 2007, when two men in Cambridgeshire were convicted of causing unnecessary suffering by allowing their dog to become obese, child protection entrepreneurs responded by inviting the state to react the same way to abusive parents. “We wouldn’t treat a dog this way,” argued Tam Fry of the Child Growth Foundation before stating that since child obesity is a form of abuse, parents should be held to account. Dr. Tom Solomon, a doctor at Royal Liverpool University Hospital, pointed out that since the state punishes parents who do not send their children to school, why not penalize them for making their kids fat?

During the past year, the crusade to expand the meaning of child abuse to encompass obesity has gained significant momentum. Only a few months ago, David Rogers, the public health spokesman for the Local Government Association, announced that “parents who allow their children to eat too much could be as guilty of neglect as those who did not feed their children at all.”

His big idea was to subject overweight youngsters to child protection procedures. The main outcome of this campaign is to encourage the surveillance of parental behavior. This approach was advocated by Dr. Colin Waine, former head of the National Obesity Forum, who called for closer monitoring of children to avoid them being taken into care. He stated that “this would enable appropriate action to be taken so we eliminate the need for such drastic measures.” As if policing parents was not drastic enough!

Thankfully there are still some health professionals who are prepared to argue that obesity is not a child protection issue. My friend, Dr. Michael Fitzpatrick, argues that it is illegitimate to equate bodily harm that is “the direct result of parental abuse” with long term health risks that are the “result of a complex (and poorly understood) combination of factors, including the wider ‘obesogenic’ environment — cheap, fast and fattening food, sedentary lifestyles, and so on — as well as the behavior of the child and her parents.”

The readiness with which officials and experts are prepared to accuse parents of abuse is symptomatic of a cultural climate where parents are not trusted to bring up their children. Since the Tony Blair years officials have opted for policies that rely on getting their hands on the nation’s toddlers before their parents get a chance to ruin them.

To counter what they perceive as the “parenting deficit” they promote the idea of “early intervention” in family life. The tone of the crusaders promoting state intrusion into private life have become more assertive. It was in this vein that former Children’s Minister Margaret Hodge insisted that the government has a “powerful” role to play in family life. She argued that “it’s not a question of whether we should intrude in family life, but how and when.”

No doubt as far as she is concerned, policing overweight children is an exemplary way for the state to exercise its “powerful” role.

[Coito ergo sum]

While it is probably, except in very extreme circumstances, unacceptable to remove a child from parents who are shortening its life by allowing it to sit in front of the TV all day and eat high fat food, I see no reason that it should not put legislative pressure, through taxation, rules about advertising and so on, to mould and influence the issues and people's behaviour.

Why is it unacceptable to make rules about how long a child is allowed to watch t.v., but it is acceptable to limit the right of someone to broadcast on television?

Actually In the UK, it's not acceptable for parents to neglect their children to the extent they allow them to become obese.

So, does that mean you advocate a law limiting the number of hours kids can watch t.v., or do you just advocate prosecution of the parents of fat kids?

[JimC]

No don't ban, that would be a free speech issue. Just ban advertising aimed at kids, including product placement in films and TV. Not all that hard.
If McD's didn't target that demographic, it wouldn't use Ronald, that's for fucking sure.

LOL!

"just ban advertising aimed at kids" - like clowns?

You can at least limit junk-food ads during kid's TV programs...

Shouldn't we have some evidence that that would work first?

Why not limit kids' time in front of the t.v. - as I have posted, the average time in front of the television has increased 40% since 1960, and now we have 4 hours A DAY in front of the t.v. for kids, and 2 hours of computer time - 6 hours of sedentary activity. Plus, an 8% increase in calories per day since 1979. What do you think is more likely to cause obesity? Commercials on t.v. - or a sedentary lifestyle plus a higher calorie intake?

Certainly I agree that less calories, less TV and more exercise is the key, and that parents need to do most of the running on this. However, it isn't easy for many, and most would be helped by a reduction in the relentless, skilfull and highly-targetted spin from fast food companies with which young minds are being bombarded.

[Coito ergo sum]

No don't ban, that would be a free speech issue. Just ban advertising aimed at kids, including product placement in films and TV. Not all that hard.
If McD's didn't target that demographic, it wouldn't use Ronald, that's for fucking sure.

LOL!

"just ban advertising aimed at kids" - like clowns?

You can at least limit junk-food ads during kid's TV programs...

Shouldn't we have some evidence that that would work first?

Why not limit kids' time in front of the t.v. - as I have posted, the average time in front of the television has increased 40% since 1960, and now we have 4 hours A DAY in front of the t.v. for kids, and 2 hours of computer time - 6 hours of sedentary activity. Plus, an 8% increase in calories per day since 1979. What do you think is more likely to cause obesity? Commercials on t.v. - or a sedentary lifestyle plus a higher calorie intake?

Certainly I agree that less calories, less TV and more exercise is the key, and that parents need to do most of the running on this. However, it isn't easy for many,

Agreed. It's not easy. Let's say it's not easy, for the sake of argument, for anyone.

Don't you still want EVIDENCE that a certain course of action will actually achieve the desired result before you advocate engaging in that course of action?

and most would be helped by a reduction in the relentless, skilfull and highly-targetted spin from fast food companies with which young minds are being bombarded.

Care to demonstrate that positive assertion, or to at least support it with empirical evidence of some kind? Any kind?

[JimC]

^^^^^^^^^

Well, the companies themselves must think it works, given the large amount of money they devote to their advertising campaigns. They are run by hard-headed businessmen, who would not put a cent into an activity that did not help them sell more burgers and fries...

As well, I would be astounded if there were not some psychological studies somewhere showing that direct, targetted ads to children have an effect on the pressure they put on their parents, but I can't give you chapter and verse.

Government regulation of certain ads targetting children is not a solution by itself, but it could be one strand of an overall solution...

(and I don't mean by banning the clown, just a reduction in the intensity of the targetted advertising at certain times...)

[charlou]

Where did this desire come from among our liberal populace to have the State save us from ourselves?

You seem to be advocating less tv/computer time. Who'll enforce that?

[charlou]

For the record, I agree that parents should be responsible for the health and well being of their children. There's an ethical can of worms (for want of a better way of putting it) in legislating and enforcing that responsibility to the degree being discussed here.

[Hermit]

"just ban advertising aimed at kids" - like clowns?

You can at least limit junk-food ads during kid's TV programs...

Shouldn't we have some evidence that that would work first?

I think the evidence is that MacDonalds spends a lot of money on advertising, and much of that is aimed at children. If the corporation thought this advertising made no difference to the volume of its products being sold, it wouldn't fucking throw in excess of one billion dollars at it every year, would it?

[Ameri Boi]

....why is there no cheese option on a poll related to the sale of Cheese Burgers?

[Trolldor]

Try again.
'1984' is not the only alternative to 'absolute free market'.

Ahh - and by the same token, when we advocate for freedom in one area such as this, and when we advocate for good evidence before banning certain commercials, it does not mean we are advocating for a completely libertarian society. We don't have an "absolute free market" now, so from where do we derive the blame of the "free market" for obesity?

Simple. Companies are the prime regulators of what's 'appropriate' for them to do. That includes all the misleading labelling like 'low in fat', 'low in sugar', 'natural flavours', 'fresh', 'organic'. Some of the biggest opponents to Occupational Health and Safety, to Work Cover, to Quality Control, are companies themselves.

Secondly, there is evidence that advertising aimed at children is "effective". It's not merely anecdotal either. I doubt that you'll actually try looking for it though.

Here, an entire book.

[Coito ergo sum]

Try again.
'1984' is not the only alternative to 'absolute free market'.

Ahh - and by the same token, when we advocate for freedom in one area such as this, and when we advocate for good evidence before banning certain commercials, it does not mean we are advocating for a completely libertarian society. We don't have an "absolute free market" now, so from where do we derive the blame of the "free market" for obesity?

Simple. Companies are the prime regulators of what's 'appropriate' for them to do.

Well, of course. Every individual is the prime regulator of what is "appropriate" for an individual to do, and groups of individuals are the prime regulators of what is appropriate for them to do. Governments are regulators of what is LEGAL to d.

That includes all the misleading labelling like 'low in fat', 'low in sugar', 'natural flavours', 'fresh', 'organic'. Some of the biggest opponents to Occupational Health and Safety, to Work Cover, to Quality Control, are companies themselves.

Labels like "low in fat" and "low in sugar" are not inherently misleading. They can be misleading if the products themselves are not low in fat or low in sugar.

However, none of this verbiage has anything to do with McDonalds since they make none of those claims.

Secondly, there is evidence that advertising aimed at children is "effective".

The issue is not whether it's effective or ineffective. The issue whether childhood obesity is caused by the commercials.

It's not merely anecdotal either. I doubt that you'll actually try looking for it though.

I have. And, again, the issue is not whether it's effective or ineffective. The issue is whether childhood obesity is caused by the commercials. There is no real evidence for that proposition. There is, of course, plenty of evidence that kids are fat because they sit in front of the t.v. for many hours more than they used to, are far less active than they used to be, and eat far more than they used to.

So, I'll ask again - if you want government action to fix this problem, then why do you resist addressing the real problem: number of hours of television watching, and amount of food eaten overall.

If you eliminate all commercial advertising for McDonalds - all of it - do you think the obesity problem would be reduced significantly? If you cut children's t.v. watching time down to 1 hour a day from 4, and reduced their calorie intake 8%, do you think the obesity problem would be reduced significantly?

You smugly accuse me of not wanting to "look for" the data showing that commercial advertising is effective. Yet you just blindly ignore real and demonstrable, and undisputed, causes of obesity: reduced activity due to lengthy t.v. watching time, plus increased calorie intake.

[Coito ergo sum]

"just ban advertising aimed at kids" - like clowns?

You can at least limit junk-food ads during kid's TV programs...

Shouldn't we have some evidence that that would work first?

I think the evidence is that MacDonalds spends a lot of money on advertising, and much of that is aimed at children. If the corporation thought this advertising made no difference to the volume of its products being sold, it wouldn't fucking throw in excess of one billion dollars at it every year, would it?

The evidence needed is the evidence that the commercials cause obesity rates to climb.

Why don't you want to take action based on the clear, unequivocal and undisputed evidence that the time kids spend watching t.v has increased 40% since 1960 and their calorie intake on average has increased 8% since 1979? Why go after the commercials, when we know that the lengthy time watching tv and the extra calories being forked into their faces is what is causing the problem?

[Coito ergo sum]

Where did this desire come from among our liberal populace to have the State save us from ourselves?

You seem to be advocating less tv/computer time. Who'll enforce that?

The State could. For those of you big on government regulation and legislation, we can make a law that says that children are not to watch more than X hours of television. If children are obese, then child services can step in - issue warnings, fines, etc., if they find that violations are occurring. The same sort of thing that happens now when child services steps into people's homes for a variety of reasons, only we'd add obesity to the mix of neglect issues.

In my opinion, it wouldn't be a question of "enforcement," but rather "education." We live in a free society. How parents choose to raise their kids is generally up to the parents. However, I would issue calorie guidelines, exercise guidelines, and t.v. watching guidelines, and I would include fitness education in schools from an early age, reinstate "recess" and play time and fund recreational sports and games for the masses (things like after school activities that will give all kids, even non-athletic kids, more opportunities to get an hour or so of exercise a day).

This isn't rocket fucking science. People are fat, except in the rare genetic or glandular problem cases, because they eat too much. That's it. Period. People may not want to hear that, but it's true. 67% of Americans are overweight for one reason, and one reason alone: THEY SHOVE TOO MUCH FOOD IN THEIR FACES - more food than their bodies need. There are two ways to be less fat. One, eat less. Two, exercise more.