Fantastic Forum the Original Art Bell's Midnight in the Desert and Coast to Coast AM Forum

Where A Junk Food Ban On Kids' TV Advertising Will Lead Us
by Wayne Friedman, 7 June 2012

TV ad buyers will need to hire a nutritionist.

This will be especially true if Disney’s ban on junk food advertising to kids spills over to other networks like Nickelodeon, its main competitor.

To be fair, many kids’ networks have already spent years trying to scale back informally on those high-caloric advertisers. In theory, no one needs to be told.

Nickelodeon, the big Viacom kids’ cable network, is already having difficulties with mysteriously steep ratings drops of 15% or more. Now, some believe it will be pressured to follow Disney in pushing some all-important food advertisers out of the picture.

Disney is laying out specific details for marketers. For example, food products that want to advertise need to contain a maximum of 130 calories per ounce (but this rises to 200 calories for some higher-fiber breakfast cereals), and juice drinks should contain a lot more fruit juice and a lot less sugar.

While Disney seems to be making a bold stand, look at these meager numbers from Kantar Media: Just $7.2 million a year is spent by junk food advertisers on two Disney networks – Disney XD, the young boys-oriented channel, and ABC’s kids’ programming on Saturday mornings.

The bigger Disney Channel doesn’t really take advertising, though it does have “sponsorships.” Disney XD is a smaller network, but a lot of its advertising comes from direct response. So most of the junk-food cuts will come at the hands of the programming that runs Saturday mornings on ABC. Still, Disney believes whatever it loses can be made up with new healthier-minded kids’ advertisers.

Question is: What’s next? Are certain kids’ clothing, toys and other products taboo? Does kids’ apparel breathe properly, and is it environmentally friendly? Do toys advertised on TV hinder creativity?

You want to protect kids really well? Ban all advertising to them until they are 18 years old. But don’t worry marketers. There are always other ways to influence the purchasing of kids and their parents, such as mobile and other digital areas.

Of course there is an even easier way to get healthier kids. Parents should be crazy-strict for as long as possible about what type of food they bring into their homes. (Teenagers will find ways, but it’s harder for younger kids).

Does this sound tough for overworked parents and annoying kids? Yep.

And it’s not just that kind of consumption. Advertising exposure -- on refrigerator shelves -- starts in the home.



Article & Comments

Original Aritcle from several days ago.

We all know good eating habits start in the home with the parents and with us personally.

It all goes back to personal responsibility and once again we see the arm of the government, big brother, the state, telling us all and maneuvering themselves in to our lives all under the auspices of lets beat obesity.

Have you ever listened to some of the public service announcements? Can you just imagine the money and again, more governmental jobs that industry churns out?

In terms of gorging - how about these do gooders try to stop themselves from replicating themselves and many of their useless jobs, benefits, perks and all the rest - try reigning that in and then lets discuss what I eat.

Or again for the umpteenth time - mandate and don't use a loop hole for Physical Education - 1 hour in all public school grades.

An honest question: why is it ok for 'big brother' to mandate an exercise regimen, but not ok to mandate dietary regimen?

The way I see it, 'liberta e mobile'. At first we had the liberty to eat, drink, smoke, and carry weapons at will. Then we ate until we were obese as a people, we started walking around guzzling 'purple drank' and thrashing on our angelic neighbors until they jerked iron, failed to consider those who preferred not to smoke, and generally acted poorly. Some of whinier folks among us complained about all of this to the 'authorities' - and as always, the government is waiting around to 'fix' the situation. Now we see irrational limits being placed on most of our freedoms. But it seems to be a result (of bad behavior, and lack of supervision), not a cause.

The point is, we have given them excuse after excuse, along with our tacit approval for every encroachment/boondoggle/expenditure on the books.

Am I wrong?

Possibly Related: showthread.php?s=&threadid=9085

Hi Squid,

Are you referring to my post relative to PE in grade school?

I believe it should be mandatory as part of the school curriculum - like math, reading ,english, etc.

When I attended school (and walked 10 miles in the snow):D it was not only about exercise but also sports skill, competition, knowing what it is like to be part of a team and as I look back on all of that it seems, perhaps just to me that the by product of this was I can honestly remember only a very few kids who were obese.

Also that hour of running around blew off a lot of steam and I think was good for the mind and temperament as well.

Diogenes wrote: Hi Squid,

Are you referring to my post relative to PE in grade school?

I believe it should be mandatory as part of the school curriculum - like math, reading ,english, etc.

When I attended school (and walked 10 miles in the snow):D it was not only about exercise but also sports skill, competition, knowing what it is like to be part of a team and as I look back on all of that it seems, perhaps just to me that the by product of this was I can honestly remember only a very few kids who were obese.

Also that hour of running around blew off a lot of steam and I think was good for the mind and temperament as well.

Well, I had to take PE too. But isn't that a spendy & ineffective government program (like all of public school)? I wonder where we draw the line - mandated PE is good, but nutritional suggestions from the government/corporate complex are over the line? I'm asking honestly...

Maybe the problem lies elsewhere.

http://www.amazon.com/Wheat-Belly-Lose- ... 1609611543

http://www.teenobesity.net/

Oddly, in our school district, marching band qualifies for PE.

If you saw our band you would know why.

I don't hate the Public School system - I am disgusted at how our Public School system has deteriorated, in particular since the advent of the Feds taking over I think it was 1989? The more money we throw at it the worse it seems the stats in general are worse.

I believe the taxpayers should receive something for the monies taken from them in the form of taxes for the exchange of goods and services and part of that expectation is the ability to send your child to a public school for which we are all paying for (on a local level, not federally).

Physical Education was a good thing with lots of positive by products, and I would bet much less expensive and more effective, in a simple way I grant you, than many in this cadre of Federally Funded Educational Programs.

http://www.schooldata.com/fed_funding_06.html

Diogenes wrote: I believe the taxpayers should receive something for the monies taken from them in the form of taxes for the exchange of goods and services and part of that expectation is the ability to send your child to a public school for which we are all paying for (on a local level, not federally).

I always forget much school funding is generated locally, through property taxes, right? - so I guess my comparison is a little off.

When I was young there were four food groups, and a Presidential Fitness Program which all students participated in.

And part of the problem is public schools are more daycare for kids who have parents that probably had no real reason to have them.

Around here, I would argue that in exchange for "public schooling", the parent is co-responsible for the actions of the teen and their performance. Tie it to their welfare, for example. If a kid doesn't attend and skips a class, doc the parent 10% off their check.

Around here, the problem is the kids are tossed into a school, and they act up. The school can't do anything about it, as the parents don't want them at home. However their shenanigans often ruin it for other students who are there for an education.

I think we should quit excusing bad behavior for being "frustrated" or "poor". In a lot of other countries around the world what students do here would be jail for them.

But I guess we're kinder and gentler. (Phoooey!)

SquidInk wrote: I always forget much school funding is generated locally, through property taxes, right? - so I guess my comparison is a little off.

When I was young there were four food groups, and a Presidential Fitness Program which all students participated in.

Squid, I had forgotten about that - yes the Presidential Fitness Program.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-Hi ... tness.aspx

voguy wrote: And part of the problem is public schools are more daycare for kids who have parents that probably had no real reason to have them.

Around here, I would argue that in exchange for "public schooling", the parent is co-responsible for the actions of the teen and their performance. Tie it to their welfare, for example. If a kid doesn't attend and skips a class, doc the parent 10% off their check.

Around here, the problem is the kids are tossed into a school, and they act up. The school can't do anything about it, as the parents don't want them at home. However their shenanigans often ruin it for other students who are there for an education.

I think we should quit excusing bad behavior for being "frustrated" or "poor". In a lot of other countries around the world what students do here would be jail for them.

But I guess we're kinder and gentler. (Phoooey!)

Thus the reasoning for folks sending their children (if they are able) to private schools.

Look at some of the federally funded programs - and that's an old list. Talk about Big Brother's reach - heck mandating Physical Education is so benign compared to these programs.

Schools - PE was mandatory growing up, but we also had something called recess - where we ran around a lot, played dodge ball games, had other active games going on too.

Growing up kids behaved in class or were disciplined (and whole lot of kids would be disciplined at home if they misbehaved at school). Kids could not talk back to teachers or be disruptive in class.

Education was learning and no points for "trying" - kids who failed were held back a year. There was no pass kid along for his/her ego.

School lunches were done by cooks and not just open some cans provided or limited to some gov't mandate. No we did not have machines where kids could buy candy, snacks or sodas.

Get gov't OUT of these horrid mandates! Return discipline, PE and recess! Kids skipping out of school - CALL their parents! most schools don't even do that these days.

Yes, well that was 1950 - 62 years ago. Most of that had changed by 1980, when I went through.