I wonder how long it takes for somebody from the right to come along and make a series of untenable points in attempts to criticise this article, purely to either a) attack Rowenna personally or b) excuse the actions of manipulative junk-food companies on the grounds that somebody on the left has criticised it ergo the right must therefore defend it….

[1] Paul

Does saying “right, because if McDonalds didn’t advertise children would never eat it” count?

I’m all for encouraging children to eat properly though, so it’s a tough one. Perhaps some stronger parenting is in order (we are allowed to say ‘no’ to our children). I just don’t see how this “out of sight, out of mind” tactic will work.

Why not ban it being sold to kids?

Paul@1

Not long. What people eat is a matter for the Individual consumer. What children eat is a matter for them (if they have the money to buy their own food) or for their parents (assuming they haven’t).

What people choose to eat is not an appropriate area for legislation and
it is a sad indictment of our society that we even have to discuss the possibility that it could be.

The unstated argument here is that advertisements encourage pester-power in children and teenagers. “Good” parents will occasionally relent to pester-power and treat the kids to a burger and chips; the unstated implies that “bad” parents won’t bother arguing and will feed the kids crap on a daily basis to protect their ear drums.

Simplistic rubbish.

Even “good” parents feed their kids crap. It is hard work to keep track of what goes into food, and if you buy processed food (probably 90% of what we eat), a fair proportion is going to contain something you don’t expect. A bottle of orange juice contains as much sugar as the same volume of fizzy pop, and there is an upper limit on the quantity of vitamin C can absorb.

Some “bad” parents yield to pester-power and feed their kids crap, but that is because they are failing parents. Even if you banned junk food outright, the parents would fail in some other area. Good parenting isn’t solely about what the kids eat.

Other “bad” parents feed their kids the crap that they can afford to buy or the food that they can source locally. A lot of processed food is ostensibly cheaper than the fresh alternative and fills hungry mouths.

Address the reasons why parents feed their children rubbish food, and you’ll get better results than a ban on adverts.

Do children buy the food? Aren’t parents responsible for their kids diet or is that just an antiquated notion that’s no longer needed in this liberal ‘ban everything in sight’ utopia we’re building?

Charlieman – nice of you to respond to my “unstated” argument. I hear the straw man industry is faring well despite the economic crisis?

My argument has nothing to do with good or bad parenting. Why should any parent – poor/rich/responsible/irresponsible – have to face the extra pressure of kids hassling them for things that will do them damage?

Leon – what about the liberty to know when you’re being manipulated (something that product placement denies), or to choose what you see in your own public spaces?

Does this count as a misleading advert?

http://www.kewego.com/video/iLyROoaftG_j.html

What kind of dimwitted fool can’t work out that advertising is about manipulation?! Seriously, this whole things smacks of typical middle class idealism wanting to lead the ignorant proles into a better future…

Does Rowenna know what “straw man” means?

what about the liberty… to choose what you see in your own public spaces?

There ain’t such a liberty.

‘To be fair, there have been some steps taken to protect children. In 2006, Ofcom banned junk food adverts on children’s channels or during shows that have particular appeal to under 16s’

And killed children’s TV on terrestrial TV into the bargain.

How’s the no junk food in school policy getting on?

The sooner the impressionable, easily manipulated little darlings learn not to trust TV ads, the better.

And the best way to learn is by experience.

leon and ad – product placement isn’t labelled as advertising. Therefore you don’t know when you’re being manipulated, and it’s harder to challenge.

I think you’ve made your case well, Rowenna, even if all this lot don’t.

Q: if the thought of banning the marketing of junk food to kids specifically brings you out in a cold sweat, what do you propose we do to address the problem?

I’ve always thought that mass cookery classes would be awesome, but really, it’s not going to happen, is it?

I don’t think Rowenna’s trying to ‘lead the poor ignorant proles.’ Some parents feed their kids less than ideal food because it’s easy, some because it’s cheap (or both), but many many people do so also because it literally doesn’t occur to them to do otherwise.

I mean, what counts as junk food? If it’s things that are bad for you (even when not eaten regularly), as opposed to just fast food, then parts of the North of England have a huge problem. When I was on holiday in Yorkshire, I realised that a lot of people there WERE actually used to having some meat/pud/potatoes combination with virtually no veg daily, because that’s what they’d been eating all their lives. I was only struck by this because I grew up in a pure-vegetarian family and we eat vegetables and pulses daily.

In the light of this reality, banning the marketing of ready-made junk-food to kids might be a start.

Seriously, this whole things smacks of typical middle class idealism wanting to lead the ignorant proles into a better future…

Erm, what does class have anything to do with it?

From Rowenna’s last link in her OP:

Our report proposes a regulatory system based on the principle that individuals and organisations must not act in a way where the purpose or effect is to promote an unhealthy food product to individuals under the age of 16. This should be a statutory system enshrined in law, not a voluntary industry code. The proposed law prohibits all marketing whose purpose or effect is to promote unhealthy food to children. …

The proposal would only apply to foods that are classed as ‘less healthy’ by the Food Standards Agency’s nutrient profiling model.

The FSA provides tables for its points system and says, “A food is classified as ‘less healthy’ where it scores 4 points or more. A drink is classified as ‘less healthy’ where it scores 1 point or more.”

(does the proposal include drinks?)

I’m still wondering why they haven’t advocated banning ‘less healthy’ foods altogether, if they are so worried about kids’ health. Because it seems Birds Eye Omega 3 Fish Fingers will be off the menu. And, I think, any ready meal in the Sainsbury’s kids range, after a a cursory look at eight of them.

(on their own – didn’t bother working out the points for fresh veg, although a glance suggests adding fruit and veg makes no difference to the meal being ‘less healthy’)

Perhaps, while marketing is opposed by parents, they’d still like the option of feeding little Jimmy a microwave lasagne?

“My argument has nothing to do with good or bad parenting. Why should any parent – poor/rich/responsible/irresponsible – have to face the extra pressure of kids hassling them for things that will do them damage?”

Why should they have to face the pressure of their children asking for those coloured sweeties in the supermarket or those cool-looking toys advertised on TV? The implication seems to be that parents are incapable of saying “no” to their children. If that is the case then the problem lies with the parents, not with advertising.

“Leon – what about the liberty to know when you’re being manipulated (something that product placement denies), or to choose what you see in your own public spaces?”

Those bits of “public space” that advertise are privately owned. If I walk into town I’m not automatically entitled to a nice view or posters of things I specifically want to see. If I object to junk food advertisments then I can boycott the company advertising along with all the other people who think they are somehow entitled to see particular posters on other peoples’ private property.

As for the liberty to know you’re being manipulated, I believe we all have that. It’s generally known as common sense. If I see a can of Sprite strategically placed in a TV show then it’s quite clear what is going on. In any case I prefer Doctor Pepper and the same applied when I was a child. The only product placement I can recall (and it wasn’t deliberate) was all that pizza that the Turtles ate. I asked for some out of curiosity and found it disgusting.

Rowena said ……… But these aren’t just any old people – these are incredibly impressionable, exceptionally little people.

Yes, but most have parent’s, don’t they?

Am I starting to detect a bit of a trend since here since such a proposal follows swiftly in the wake of calls to ban alcohol advertising as well?

Curiously some commentators are finally waking up to the fact our drugs policy has been an absolute disaster, and perhaps the time has finally come to legalise our timeless and universal preoccupation with mind warping substances.

Prohibition of food advertisement in the current heavy-handed political climate would be a step in the wrong direction, and I say that as a parent who is not so feeble as to feel buffeted between the Machiavellian marketing gurus at McDonalds or Nestles.

I’ll say this: I eat a TON of McDonalds, and I never watch TV. You’d have to literally ban it being sold to stop me eating it.

Why not just ban all advertising now? That way there’d be no manipulation. Isn’t what ultimately what you want, Rowenna?

Hi commenters, glad to hear you’re all so relaxed about the idea of a whole industry that’s devoted to telling your kids stuff behind your back.

“And killed children’s TV on terrestrial TV into the bargain.”

Quite. There are no solutions, only trade offs. You might think that’s a reasonable trade off, others might differ, but you do have to take it into account.

“Conservative estimates suggest that cutting junk food advertising could save us £1bn a year in health costs (think of all the money involved in treating tooth decay, obesity etc). ”

That, of course, is nonsense. Obesity causes people to die younger (real obesity, not just being a bit porky). When you add the savings in NHS costs to the savings in years of not paying State pension then obesity saves us taxpayers money.

There’s all sorts of other costs to obesity of course, non-monetary ones, not the least of which is the loss of life span to those who are obese.

But “cutting obesity will save the taxpayer money” is simply not a valid argument for it simply ain’t true.

Do you really think, that by banning advertising for particular food stuffs, you will have a material impact on what children eat?

Stunning as it maybe for you to discover this, but the vast majority of what children eat is dictated by their parents and their school. Banning Junk Food advertising in childrens programming has had no impact on dietary habits at all. It has however crippled childrens TV, and caused a collapse in UK produced childrens prgramming. I am sure a victory we can be proud of, we can all agree.

You may personally disagree, but junk food tastes good to millions of people. If it did not no amount of advertising would make Macdonalds a success.

If you want children to eat well (lets face it, who would disagree with that sentiment), then educate them in school about the benefits, so that in time, their children will be brought up by parents who understand the benefits of it. If they are educated well they might be well off enough to afford it. They might indeed let them eat Macdonald, knowing that in moderation, it is perfectly safe, fine and pleasurable experience.

Banning Junk food advertising will have one predictible consequence. Itv’s decline will be much accelerated, and the diverisity of programme making of for adults will decline. But then I imagine you won’t mind that either

[24] – there is an entire industry dedicated to alternative health foods, pills and supplements.

There is little, or no (medical) evidence that these products confer any meaningful health benefits even though advertising campaigns tend to be wrapped up in the worst sort of cod science.

So, should we ban the quacks as well?

I mean, where does the bansturbation end?

@27 – well quite. And if one of my kids started demanding knitted organic hemp waffles for breakfast, I’d be keen to know where the hell they picked the idea up from.

BTW, I thought we had banned quackery?

[28] no, Gillian McKeith and her ilk still ply their lucrative trade
http://www.gillianmckeith.info/

I’m sure its the sort of world Rowenna Davis clamours for?

BTW Ben Goldacre has already exposed McKeith for the charlatan she undoubtedly is
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/feb/12/advertising.food

So what do you class as junk food? You mention Tony the Tiger… but a bowl of Frosties contain less sugar than a glass of orange juice. Children who eat breakfast have better levels of concentration at school. So if advertising cereals to children will make children want to eat breakfast (more on this if in a tick), there is a positive impact on their education. Ill considered bans can have unintended consequences.

You are also assuming that junk food advertising impacts on what types of food they eat, rather than which brand of junk they choose.

I point people in the general direction of Costigan Quist, who has extensively blogged about obesity and children’s health
http://himmelgartencafe.blogspot.com/search/label/health

It’s also assuming that junk food does any harm at all, which is almost certainly bollocks: the key driver behind the rise in childhood obesity is reduced physical activity compared with 20 years ago (caused by cotton-woolery, hence no outdoor play with friends, no unsupervised bike rides, no walking to school, etc), not increased calorie intake compared with 20 years ago.

And of course, the “oooh, won’t somebody think of the children!” nonsense that caused the problem in the first place is also driving anti-junk-food campaign pieces like the one above…

Remarkable how such a large, spicey, portion of stupid can be fitted into a single thread.

@1 “I wonder how long it takes for somebody from the right to come along and make a series of untenable points in attempts to criticise this article…. on the grounds that somebody on the left has criticised it.” How about “I wonder how long it takes somebody from the left to come along and make a series of untenable counter – arguments on the grounds that the article was by someone on the left and must, therefore, be worth defending against any criticism whatsoever?”

@5 “What people choose to eat is not an appropriate area for legislation” Really? Well we may as well scrap all those useless food hygiene and food labelling laws, for a start, eh? The FSA can be disbanded and if I go into business selling rat burgers with extra salmonella then it’s a matter of personal choice for people who may wish to consume them, isn’t it?

@8 “Why should any parent – poor/rich/responsible/irresponsible – have to face the extra pressure of kids hassling them for things that will do them damage?” Because they’re parents, that’s why.

@8 “what about the liberty to know when you’re being manipulated (something that product placement denies),” Maybe. On the other hand, if you’re dim enough to be (presumably unwittingly) influenced by product placement then the fact that you actually know that someone is trying to manipulate when you watch an advert isn’t really going to help.

@8 “or to choose what you see in your own public spaces?” I’m sorry, “your own public spaces”? Interesting, and I would venture slightly confused, notion of the concepts of “ownership” and “public” you’re demonstrating there. Anyway, what the hell does this even mean? What is “the liberty to choose what you see in your own public spaces”? Does this mean I can take legal action against my neighbour because her new floral pattern curtains (clearly visible from the public space on the pavement outside her house) deeply offend my aesthetic sensibilities?

@17 “I mean, what counts as junk food? If it’s things that are bad for you (even when not eaten regularly), as opposed to just fast food, then parts of the North of England have a huge problem.” Luckily, of course, consumption of high quantities of saturated fats and diets deficient in fruit and vegetables are unknown in the South of England.

@17 “When I was on holiday in Yorkshire, I realised that a lot of people there WERE actually used to having some meat/pud/potatoes combination with virtually no veg daily, because that’s what they’d been eating all their lives. I was only struck by this because I grew up in a pure-vegetarian family and we eat vegetables and pulses daily.” Ah, the quaint local customs of the natives, Yorkshire’s noble savages. Luckily progress, in the form of misionaries from the Church of Vegetaria in Hampstead, is reaching that dark and backward country. Erm, you really have no idea how your post comes across, do you?

@18 “Seriously, this whole things smacks of typical middle class idealism wanting to lead the ignorant proles into a better future…

Erm, what does class have anything to do with it?” Try reading @17, that might give you some idea.

@25 “Obesity causes people to die younger (real obesity, not just being a bit porky).” Riiiiight.

@25 “But “cutting obesity will save the taxpayer money” is simply not a valid argument for it simply ain’t true.” And, of course, you can support this statement by reference to appropriately designed studies published in reputable peer reviewed academic journals, can’t you? Go on, then.

@26 “Banning Junk food advertising will have one predictible consequence. Itv’s decline will be much accelerated, and the diverisity of programme making of for adults will decline. But then I imagine you won’t mind that either” Nope, actually, I wouldn’t mind.

So, a bad diet can have negative health consequences, eh? And consumption of processed and “fast” food seems likely to be a contributing factor to a bad diet? Really? And, let me get this right, you think that advertising is used to promote the consumption of this kind of food?

Well then, obviously the only sensible answer must clearly be some form of legislation, mustn’t it? Education wouldn’t do any good, we need to stop the advertising, especially at incredibly impressionable, exceptionally little people (I mean, of course, anyone under 5ft 4 with an IQ < 95). Yes, that'll do the trick. I mean legislation to restrict alcohol advertising has completely eradicated problem drinking, hasn't it? And, of course, there's the example of heroin – since we banned advertisments for it no one has been using it, have they?

Neil @24: “Hi commenters, glad to hear you’re all so relaxed about the idea of a whole industry that’s devoted to telling your kids stuff behind your back.”

I’m actually relaxed about TV advertising or retail promotions to kids because, by their nature, they are up front and in your face. They aren’t guerilla marketing and are easy to spot. They are only “behind your back” if you aren’t keeping an eye on what the kids watch on TV, where they go on the web and who they hang out with.

It’s called parenting, if you remember, for which bans are a lazy substitute.

And, no, Neil, the UK government has not banned quackery. The Green Party even wants the state to pay for it.

More of this week’s child protection idiocy…

A requirement for those under 16 years to wear cycle helmets: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6838583.ece

So if three year old Molly wants to ride her trike on the garden grass, she has to wear a lid? If she is unsupervised and rides her trike helmetlessly on the patio, should the neighbours contact the police?

There are sensible reasons why and when children should wear a helmet. When they are wobbly and learning to ride on hard surfaces is a good case. But otherwise helmets are pretty useless. Professional racing cyclists put them on when the racing gets dicy (fast downhill runs, sprint finishes) but not during a drag through the countryside.

And “Under-fives ‘should shun animals’”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8264266.stm

From Professor Hugh Pennington: “Hand-washing was “absolutely crucial” to protect visitors to petting farms, and under-fives “haven’t learned how to do it yet”.” Err, yes, that is why children have parents and carers to teach them.

“@25 “Obesity causes people to die younger (real obesity, not just being a bit porky).” Riiiiight.

@25 “But “cutting obesity will save the taxpayer money” is simply not a valid argument for it simply ain’t true.” And, of course, you can support this statement by reference to appropriately designed studies published in reputable peer reviewed academic journals, can’t you? Go on, then.”

It’s derived from the Framingham Heart study and then the argument itself ceoms from Kip Viscusi’s work on the costs of smoking.

The logic is quite simple. Early death post-retirement saves the taxpayer money on pensions, health care and so on. Illness of course costs the taxpayer money to pay for treatment. So the question is, does the saving from early death outweight the higher expenditure pre-death?

I ran through it here using US data (and thus Medicare costs).

http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-14795-Page-One-Examiner~y2009m7d29-Obesity-does-not-cost-the-USA-147-billion-a-year-it-saves-us-money

This might not translate directly into the UK cost structure, it is true.

But Kip Viscusi’s work on the costs of smoking leads to very much the same conclusion and yes, that does hold for the UK. The early deaths mostly post-retirement that smoking causes saves the taxpayer money. Probably not purely on health care costs but definitely so when reduced pension spending is included.

Which leaves us with the question, does obesity (and I do mean obesity, not being overweight, which is where the obesity paradox comes from) reduce lifespan? And that Framingham study seems to be saying so, yes, it does.

@37 so the answer to my question would be “no I can’t point to a single peer reviewed study which supports these hypotheses, but I can refer you to a newspaper article I wrote myself which includes 6 year old statistics and references to work on the costs of something other than obesity in a country with a totally different health care system” Impressive.

When you say “it’s derived from the Framingham Heart Study” what is the “it” you are talking about? The Framingham Heart Study is a data collection exercise (probably one of the most well respected in evidence based medicine) so it’s not entirely accurate to say that your argument about the costs of obesity is derived from that, in any real sense. I read your article and you quote a paper which relied on data from the Framingham study. You also quote the New Yorker and a single chart, from 2003, on the Commonwealth Fund Website. Why didn’t you claim that your argument was derived from The New Yorker? Wouldn’t have sounded as impressive, would it?

I think you miss my point with reference to your ““Obesity causes people to die younger (real obesity, not just being a bit porky)” hypothesis. I’m not taking issue with the first bit, it’s the bit in brackets which is bollocks. See New England Journal of Medicine August 1 2002 (Kenchaiah et al) for a paper (oddly enough the data comes from the Framingham Study) which indicates that risk increases continuously with body weight – so, being a bit porky increases risk too.

“which indicates that risk increases continuously with body weight”

That’s insane. To believe this we would need to believe that someone who ate nothing (thus reducing their body weight substantially) would have a longer life span than someone who ate too much.

Either you’re being unclear or you’re being so insane. Risk of early death absolutely does not increase continuously with body weight.

Risk of early death may indeed increase with body weight *after a threshold* but that would be a different argument. *Then* we can start arguing about what that threshold is. A BMI of 25-30 (ie, a bit porky) is associated with a longer lifespan than either obese (BMI over 30) or too thin (BMI lower than 20). This is the “obesity paradox” which is entirely why I added that parenthesis.

So, onto the meat of the argument: does people dying young (but post-retirement) cost the taxpayer money or save them money?

I can point to Kip Viscusi’s papers: can you point to those that refute him?

Richard (a different one):

Much as I’d love to resort to your style and call you a wanker, I’m better than that.

Ah, the quaint local customs of the natives, Yorkshire’s noble savages. Luckily progress, in the form of misionaries from the Church of Vegetaria in Hampstead, is reaching that dark and backward country. Erm, you really have no idea how your post comes across, do you?

Newsflash: if I gave a fuck what the likes of you assume about me, I’d be sobbing in the corner. I suppose you’re almost right on one count; my vegetarianism was religiously-based. On account of being Sikh, not middle-class.

The whole reason I said that banning ads aimed at kids is a good start is precisely because I DON’T think people should have to change the way of eating they’ve had for years, moron.

I don’t live in Hampstead; although judging by your arrogance you probably do. I know you entitled morons think that the whole web is made up of others like you, but shock! It isn’t.

@39 Have you actually read the paper I cited? Obviously not, or your response wouldn’t have been quite so inane. Take the trouble to read it and you will see what is meant by a “continuous relationship between weight and risk.”

“I can point to Kip Viscusi’s papers” Ok, tell me this:

a.) Which ones? Please don’t respond with a reference to “Smoke Filled Rooms” – that isn’t a per reviewed piece of research, it’s a book published for public consumption. I have viewed a list of his working papers and Journal Articles since 1999 and I can’t find a single one relating to the economic cost of obesity …….. oh wait a minute, you said your argument was “derived from …. Kip Viscusi’s work on the costs of smoking.” Now I see, you don’t need to do any actual research on the activity you’re writing about and neither does anyone else. You look at an article or two about the purported economic costs of a totally different activity, in a different country with radically different models for the provision of health and social care, and use that as proof of your hypotheses. I must say, that’s an intellectually elegant solution and I’m surprised it isn’t used more often.

b.) Would that be the same Kip Viscusi who has served as a consultant and expert witness for the tobacco industry and who has writtem several NBER (an organisation funded by, among others, Phillip Morris plc) publications? The same Kip Viscusi who was paid $32,810 by the US Tobacco Institute for his testimony in their action against the US Environmental Protection Agency which was attempting to introduce legislation to protect people from seconf hand smoke in the workplace?

Well, anyway, given the fact that Viscusi has written sod all on the economic costs of obesity why would you “point to” his papers? And why should I point to anything which refutes them? Also, given his well documented financial relationship with the tobacco industry, just how objective do you think that work is?

This really is so stupid it burns. He’s writing about smoking, not obesity. He’s writing about it in America. The costs he calculates are based on a different health care and pension system. The fact that the word “dollars” crops up quite a lot should probably have given you a clue.

So, let me try again. CAN YOU REFER TO A SINGLE PIECE OF RESEARCH IN A PEER REVIEWED ACADEMIC JOURNAL WHICH SUPPORTS YOUR HYPOTHESES ON OBESITY AND IT’S ECONOMIC COSTS? The question is clearly giving you trouble so I’ll help – the answer is “no, I can’t.”

@40 “Much as I’d love to resort to your style and call you a wanker, I’m better than that.” Actually I don’t think that was my style. Don’t get me wrong, I think you’re a wanker, I just didn’t actually say that. Also, you’re not really better than that, are you? Or was the rest of your post ghostwritten? Looks pretty insulting to me, which would suggest that since “if I gave a fuck what the likes of you assume about me, I’d be sobbing in the corner” you’re probably in a corner sobbing. Otherwise why get so wound up about it?

Anyway, try to calm down. All that stress could counteract the health benefits of your wholly admirable dietary choices.

By the way, what is an “entitled moron”? Also I don’t see how being a Sikh is in any way relevant.

@41 argh, so many good points, and then the stupid one that because someone’s funded by the tobacco industry he’s automatically lying. So, what, because someone’s funded by the prohibitionist mobs they’re automatically truth-tellers? Or perhaps we could get beyond funding and actually look at *what they fucking write*?

@42 I didn’t say that because he’s taken money from Big Tobacco he’s automatically lying. I do think that it should lead people to look carefully at his work because the people who run the industry may be many things, but stupid isn’t one of them. You don’t see a great deal of research funded by large financial entities which concludes that their product is shite and should be banned. You also don’t see many books or articles saying that a particular product is shite when the author has been in the habit of receiving sizeable bungs from the producer. Authors who do that tend to find the cash flow dries up pretty quickly. I would also question the ethical position of any academic who would testify in court on behalf of the tobacco lobby against legislation aimed at protecting people from something with proven health risks and this is exactly what Viscusi did. And he did it for money.

I have read some of what he actually fucking wrote and the main point would have to be that it isn’t relevant to the argument Mr Worstall put forward, but I think Prof Viscusi’s ethics, and therefore his objectivity, are also pertinent.

42 –

Also I don’t see how being a Sikh is in any way relevant.

That’s because you’re ignorant (Google could’ve explained that one for you). Sikhs are supposed to lead a purely vegetarian lifestyle – and my parents are of north Indian descent, northern India being largely vegetarian anyway down to Hinduism.

‘Entitled moron’ is you, because you showed up entirely to snark at other people rather than engage directly with the article itself, and made lame knee-jerk assumptions. When embarrassed, you continued to bluster nonsense like this:

Anyway, try to calm down. All that stress could counteract the health benefits of your wholly admirable dietary choices.

Haha! Love it. Since you know everything ever, clearly being born into a particular religious culture with externally-imposed dietary stipulations = ‘choices’?

I get wound up because Liberal Conspiracy gets overrun with chest-beating fools like yourself who think they call the whole world’s shots. Sorry moron, I’m a woman and I’m non-white – that’s why I noticed how people ate in Yorkshire. Food has always been a point of obsessive interest for Indian women, whether we like it or not. Equally, that’s why I value the right of people to prepare and eat what they want, whilst appreciating the dangers of junk food for kids. I’m also not genetically wired to be able to process the kind of diet I regularly encountered in Yorkshire (even though I loved it – Yorkshire puddings!!!) which is why I had to seek out vegetables.

Then again, reality like that would’ve ruined your lovely little knee-jerk assumptions, wouldn’t it? Troll on!

@45 You’re right about one thing, I am smirking.

I wouldn’t say my assumptions were particularly lame or knee jerk compared to yours, but I expect you would disagree. I’m sure you will do so as eloquently as you have up to now.

I still don’t see the relevance of your religion, I’m not sure why you mention your gender and I’m not in the least bit embarassed. I’m also not blustering. You, on the other hand, are. Very much so.

Finally, I’m pretty sure that “snark” isn’t a real word, although it is a fictional animal invented by Lewis Caroll.

That’s ‘different,’ love.

I still don’t see the relevance of your religion, I’m not sure why you mention your gender and I’m not in the least bit embarassed

Wow – in that case, I can help you no further. Specsavers might be able to, though.

Cheers.

Nitey nite

“Would that be the same Kip Viscusi who has served as a consultant and expert witness for the tobacco industry”

Yup.

“and who has writtem several NBER (an organisation funded by, among others, Phillip Morris plc) publications?”

If you«re going to try and taint the NBER then you’ve got quite some work to do.

http://www.nber.org/info.html

“Founded in 1920, the National Bureau of Economic Research is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization dedicated to promoting a greater understanding of how the economy works. The NBER is committed to undertaking and disseminating unbiased economic research among public policymakers, business professionals, and the academic community.

Over the years the Bureau’s research agenda has encompassed a wide variety of issues that confront our society. The Bureau’s early research focused on the aggregate economy, examining in detail the business cycle and long-term economic growth. Simon Kuznets’ pioneering work on national income accounting, Wesley Mitchell’s influential study of the business cycle, and Milton Friedman’s research on the demand for money and the determinants of consumer spending were among the early studies done at the NBER.”

It’s a little more established than just being a tobacco company mouthpiece.

“This really is so stupid it burns. He’s writing about smoking, not obesity. He’s writing about it in America. The costs he calculates are based on a different health care and pension system. The fact that the word “dollars” crops up quite a lot should probably have given you a clue.”

There’s this little thing that we can use called “logic”. Tobacco kills people, makes them die young. There are costs associated with treating the health problems of smokers before they die young. By dying young they reduce the number of years that taxpayers must pay for their health care and pensions.

The US and UK health care and pension systems are not all that different: Medicare in the US if govt. funded, supposedly from a levy upon current wages. The NHS is govt funded supposedly from a levy upon current wages (national insurance). Both countries the old age pension is a pay as you go pension system funded by levies upon the wages of current workers to pay pensions of those retired, they having amassed pension rights by paying such levies for their working lives.

They’re similar enough that an argument that works on one country will work on the other.

The crucial question would then be, does obesity make people die younger? It seems that it does. Thus we can transfer the entire argument, lock, stock and barrel, from one disease to another and from one country to another.

Because of the way that health care and pensions funding are done, early, post-retirement, death saves the taxpayer money.

It’s really not that difficult.

I would also question the ethical position of any academic who would testify in court on behalf of the tobacco lobby against legislation aimed at protecting people from something with proven health risks

Except for the fact that, certainly at the time, there weren’t documented health risks associated with secondhand tobacco smoke. Which is presumably why he testified that way…

@ 8 “My argument has nothing to do with good or bad parenting. Why should any parent – poor/rich/responsible/irresponsible – have to face the extra pressure of kids hassling them for things that will do them damage?”

Two answers

1) Because being a parent is about responsibility. That includes a responsibility to teach children some sort of impulse control. As a parent I can assure you that “pester power” applies to all sorts of things, some of which aren’t good when taken to excess and all of which aren’t good for my wallet. Kids will be subject to advertsising for all of their adult lives, so isn’t it a good idea to teach them how to deal with it now ?

2) I could go into a long rant here about how the whole “healthy eating” thing is just a weird modern form of snobbery that seeks to divide the population, using childrens diets as a proxy, into the “healthy” and the “unhealthy” (subtext the middle class and the working class).
It’s the reason why Pizza Express (tastefull decor, nice half caraffe of wine and middle class students as waiters) is decreed “Ok” to take the kids to, but Pizza Hut – mutinational fast food outlet decor, not a wine cooler in sight and spotty chavs as waiters) is “unhealthy”, despite the fact that in terms of nutrition, there’s nothing to choose between them.
If you actually bothered to look at the nutritional analysis of much “junk food” you’d find it no worse than than much of the stuff on the shelves at pret-a-manger.

Why is it that so called liberals seek to ban anything they don’t personally like? Surely the “liberal” thing to so would be to allow the advertising but put the onus on the parents to educate their little darlings in the best way to eat healthily if they so chose to. Teaching children how best to live and survive is what being a parent is about.

Matt, much as I agree with you on food snobbery, I suspect that Pizza Express’s pizzas really are healthier; have you seen the fat that drips off Pizza Hut pizzas? (esp. the deep pans). Plus they use higher-quality ingredients – no “reformed” ham at Pizza Express – which need less salt and fat to make them taste nice.

I’m no cheerleader for either – the Real Italian Pizza Company in Bath beats either hands down, try it if you’re ever in town – but I think you probably could have picked a better example

Richard (different one). The relevance of KJB’s religion is that she is a Sikh. Sikhs are vegetarian. She tried to explain this to you.

She’s right – your assumptions were unfair.

Matt Munro
1. Kids are not as able to resist psychological manipulation as adults are. It’s reasonable to expect grown adults to ignore advertising. Not kids.
2. No it isn’t.
I don’t understand the whole ‘healthy eating is middle-class’ thing; I really don’t. Junk food is convenient and often relatively cheap. But that isn’t a class issue. A packet of pasta, some veggies, tinned tomatoes and beans, for example takes almost no cooking skill, only the preparation time to chop the veg, feeds a family and can be frozen and reheated on busy days. Plus it costs less per person than ready meals.

Mr Tyke
The proposal is to ban advertising junk food. Not to ban junk food.

I’ve come late to this but Charlieman puts the answer clearly

“It’s called parenting, if you remember, for which bans are a lazy substitute.”

Quite not enough people understand this.

Learning to deal with adds (and the rest of today’s culture), evaluate them, benefit from the informative ones and learn to sus out the lying ones is something that quite young children can learn if parents are prepared to sit and watch TV with them and then even, shock horror, buy some of the stuff so the kids can see if it’s as good as the add says. This teaches them anout media, marketing and consumerism.

Supporting children in learning how to make good food choices is crucial. They are capable of working this out when helped by honest rational parents. Parents who ban food only create children who are less able to make their own decisions and so will be more vulnerable to the marketing people. When parents aren’t around to enforce their views the opening is left for the culture to enfoce it’s influence. Only way to protect children from such influence (or to filter it and benefit from the good, while shunning the bad) is to raise thinking decisive children.

That kind of parenting is not easy, but it’s rewarding and fun. Better to explore the world with your kids than to insulate them from it.

Oh and if you think a type of food should be banned, then have the guts to do it yourself, rather than expecting the whole of society to ban it. They are your kids after all, if banning works do it yourself. If you need to appeal to a higher power to do it for you you need to think about how effective your parenting techniques really are. If banning is effective it’ll work against the power of advertising.

I’ve tried both methods and allowing children to explore what is available as long as the parent provides guidance and advice is more effective (I’m not advocating laisez faire parenting here but engaged parenting). Then they will eat good food becase they want to rather than because they have to. It’s the only effective long term solution.