I hope this helps the child obesity issues.

[wombat2u2004]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Some of America's largest food and drink companies, such as Coca-Cola Co. and General Mills Inc., will adopt stricter controls on advertising aimed at children under 12, according to media reports on Wednesday.

Some companies have agreed to curb advertising ahead of a Federal Trade Commission hearing on Wednesday that is expected to exert pressure on food and drink makers for more responsible marketing plans as a means to help address childhood obesity problems, the New York Times and Associated Press reported.

The scope of the self-imposed marketing controls vary from company to company, according to the reports.

The U.S. division of McDonalds Corp., for example, said it will advertise only two types of "Happy Meal" to children under 12 -- one with chicken nuggets, apple dippers with caramel dip and low-fat milk, or one with a hamburger, apple dippers and milk, said AP. The meals meet the company's requirement of containing less than 600 calories, and derive no more than 35 percent of calories from fat, and have no more than 35 percent total sugar content.

General Mills will cut its advertising of Trix cereal for the under-12 age group, according to the New York Times, but will continue to run marketing geared towards children for another of its cereal brands, Cocoa Puffs, which has one less gram of sugar per serving.

PepsiCo, which owns Frito-Lay, Quaker Foods and such drinks as Pepsi and Gatorade, will only advertise two of its products to children -- Baked Cheetos Cheese Flavored Snacks and its Gatorade line of energy drinks, AP said.

Other companies adopting varied restrictions on advertising to the under-12s include the Campbell Soup Co., Hershey Co., Kraft Foods Inc., and Cadbury Adams, the maker of Bubblicious chewing gum, according to the reports.

[columbine]

There's also a lot of energy going into creating safe places for kids to play, so they can have some fun without getting recruited by criminals or hit by cars. Sports are fine for kids who can actually make the team, but people are starting to build more playgrounds (http://kaboom.org/) for the kids who'd otherwise just end up playing video games.

Love, Columbine

[wombat2u2004]

There's also a lot of energy going into creating safe places for kids to play, so they can have some fun without getting recruited by criminals or hit by cars. Sports are fine for kids who can actually make the team, but people are starting to build more playgrounds (http://kaboom.org/) for the kids who'd otherwise just end up playing video games.

Love, Columbine

Well, thats a very good idea. After all....those kids are the future.
Wom

[catnapper]

I guess Trix will have to come up with a new slogan... "Silly rabbit, Trix is for kids" just doesn't fit their new marketing plan. I was wondering why they changed their shape back to the way it was when I was a kid, instead of the fruit shape.

Childhood obesity is awful, but really, its the parents who BUY this stuff for their kids. Yes, I am well aware kids respond hugely to marketing. My nephew could barely say mommy and daddy when the Disney film Madagascar came out. Don't ya know that thanks to all the marketing on commercials (including things like Happy Meals) my nephew could say "Madagascar" perfectly? Ultimately, it comes down to the parent buying the food and putting it on their plate (or in their cereal bowls). Nobody wants to be a parent anymore. They want to be their child's friend.

[jackie]

I don't think it will make a difference unless parents make the changes in their children's life.

[finn's mom]

I think every little bit helps. Baby steps. It's going to take a lot more than that to stop the childhood obesity epidemic, obviously, but I don't see how it can hurt.

[Catty1]

It's a part of the solution, anyway. Short of a boycott of all the junk stuff.

And parents should be changing their own lifestyle habits...that's the best way to change a child's health.

I battled overweight all my life - my mom was healthy, but I followed in my dad's "foodsteps". It was a hard training to overcome...ironically, it was easier for longer after he died...though I would gladly have another 30 pounds if I could have my dad back.

He smartened up after a mild heart attack at 62.

[IRescue452]

Behavior is only part of obesity. Why don't people get this through their heads?

I have three obese mice, American brindles carrying the red gene. American mice average 40g at adulthood and these mice are 70g. Do you know why? Because all three carry the well-known gene for obesity. The obesity gene is carried with the red coat gene of mice. It can be controlled by breeding out the gene alltogether, but once a mouse carries it, it will be obese. The mice can run all day on a wheel and eat a limited diet, and still they are obese.

Scientists have isolated such obesity genes in mice and rats, but nobody will even look at that as an explanation for humans.

I see people who eat nothing but junk food and watch hours of tv that are thin. And people who eat fast food several times a week who are thin. And I also see people who exercise, who eat right, and do everything "right" and are fat.

There's more to it than a few grams of sugar.

If people are so obsessed about being thin and having thin children, we can test the embryos and selectively abort kids who are going to be fat. Trust me, scientists could determine that pretty darn accurately if it weren't a moral issue.

[Catty1]

I read a number of years ago that genetic factors in human obesity accounted for about 5% of the population. That can be a pretty significant number.

It seems that in the last several years, the rate of obesity is increasing. Can that be attributed purely to genetic reasons?

Junk food and fast food are unhealthy for slim people too. Slim does NOT mean healthy. Crappy food is crappy food.

When I started substituting the concept of 'healthy' as opposed to 'thin', the picture got bigger and life became a bit easier.

[IRescue452]

I don't see how obesity can be increasing when the average size keeps going down. Compare current times to centuries ago. Maybe there was a lull in obesity due to some outside factor and now its picking back up to normal. who knows?

[Lady's Human]

What happened to parents saying "no"?

Or paying attention to diets?

Oops, sorry, that would be asking people to be responsible for their own shortcomings, and then trial lawyers would be out of business.

[Marigold2]

I was at a bridal shower last year that was held outdoors on my friend's dairy farm. The bridesmaids were all fat and I do mean fat, over 200 pounds each. One girl had to be close to 300 pounds, she had a toddler with her. This child was playing with a beaded necklace and at one point she dropped it by my feet. I watched as she tried to pick it out but was to darn fat to do so.
A woman at the next table picked it up. It took ALL of my willpower to not go up to that fat 300 pound tub of lard mother and say " If you want to be a cow that is fine but making your three year old that fat is child abuse. I was so angry and was so disgusted. This poor kid. How can any mother do that?
Poor kid couldn't bend down. Oh it makes my blood boil now to think of it.
Parents have control over what their kids put into their mouths, and control over the amount of physical exercise they get. Take them swimming, to the park, camping, horseback riding, get a bike, jog, play baseball, football, soccer, basketball. Making your child obese is child abuse and those children need to be taken out of the homes or some form of therapy needs to be applied. The medical issues these kids face are horrible.

[wombat2u2004]

Yes, while I do believe that genetics are involved to an extent, I think the main reason for obesity is lifestyle.....a sign of the times perhaps.
Wom

[wombat2u2004]

that would be asking people to be responsible for their own shortcomings.

Thats a big call in this day and age mate.
Wom

[Roxyluvsme13]

I'm pretty sure my obesity issues are genetic. I can eat right, exercise, and continuously diet (healthily of course), and I don't lose a single pound..

Of course I also blame it on my mom for the continuous fast food in and out of our door. :(

Anyways.. maybe these kids won't have to grow up with the torture and torment from others and can be healthy..

[Catty1]

I don't see how obesity can be increasing when the average size keeps going down.

The average size is all over the map because of imports from a variety of countries, each of which seem to have different sizing standards.

I've fit a 10 or 14, depending on where an item was made.

I'll trust medical stats over clothing manufacturers any day. :)

[columbine]

I don't see how obesity can be increasing when the average size keeps going down.It's also a recognized marketing strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_sizing).

Love, Columbine

[jackie]

Behavior is only part of obesity. Why don't people get this through their heads?

I have three obese mice, American brindles carrying the red gene. American mice average 40g at adulthood and these mice are 70g. Do you know why? Because all three carry the well-known gene for obesity. The obesity gene is carried with the red coat gene of mice. It can be controlled by breeding out the gene alltogether, but once a mouse carries it, it will be obese. The mice can run all day on a wheel and eat a limited diet, and still they are obese.

Scientists have isolated such obesity genes in mice and rats, but nobody will even look at that as an explanation for humans.

I see people who eat nothing but junk food and watch hours of tv that are thin. And people who eat fast food several times a week who are thin. And I also see people who exercise, who eat right, and do everything "right" and are fat.

There's more to it than a few grams of sugar.

If people are so obsessed about being thin and having thin children, we can test the embryos and selectively abort kids who are going to be fat. Trust me, scientists could determine that pretty darn accurately if it weren't a moral issue.

Yes, some people are genetically inclined to be overweight, but not such a large percentage of the population. Almost every overweight person I know complains of a slow metabolism or genetics, then I sit and watch them suck back 2 red bulls, or a "healthy" salad loaded with cheese, ham, and dressing. People need to start taking control of their lives and waistlines.

I feel so much pity for children who have no choice but to eat what their parents put in front of them, grow up not knowing basic nutrition, and have their health compromised.

[Catlady711]

I don't see how not putting a cartoon on a box of cereal is going to change obesity at all.

For one thing if people didn't have such sedentary lives and spend waaaaay too much time watching tv they wouldn't be seeing so many ads in the first place and they'd be healthier for getting out of the house. ;)

For another thing I'm not one that is much influenced by ads of any kind, they just tick me off by interrupting my movies, filling up half my $4.50 magazine that should have cost half that, and most of them just plain don't make sense anymore and are stupid.

Actually I'm LESS likely to buy a product that advertizes heavily. And don't even get me started on drug companies advertizing their drugs on tv to get you to bully your dr. into prescribing their product!! :mad:

I look at my neighborhood around me and see several nice playgrounds that are never used because...
1) parents are too lazy/selfish themselves to take their children there to play.
2) the kids are not taught respect for property and so can't be trusted away from the home so they let them play LITERALLY in the middle of my street!

When I was a kid my mom would let me watch x amount of tv on Saturdays before shutting it off and making me go outside 'for some fresh air' and play time. I was not allowed to watch tv after a certain time at night and only x amount of tv per day. We had one tv and it was not in anyone's bedroom either. I was allowed far more time outside to play, mom took me to the park and library regularly (by walking not driving) and we frequently went on walks or bike rides together even in the winter! :D

Now-a-days (makes me feel old to say it that way) kids are TOLD to 'go watch tv' or given their own tv's/computers just to get them out of the parents hair and be quiet for hours on end. If anyone wants to truely fight childhood obesity THAT is where they should start, not whether or not there's a cartoon rabbit advertizing a cereal! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: JMHO

[mruffruff]

Hear, Hear! I have to agree with what Catlady711 said. All of it!

[wombat2u2004]

Hmmmmm....Catlady, you are right, and you have certainly made some good points.
But I think you underestimate the power of advertising. Sure....you go buy a magazine for $4.50 and half of it is ads, and you don't bother to even read them (but still you have paid for them).....but some people do read them, and that is the reason why they are there. For sales !!!! Plain and simple.
Advertising is an art, and a very very effective one at that......it targets those groups of people where sales are made.....so it's not simply a picture of a duck on the back of a corn flakes box......uh uh.....it goes so much further than that.
You can't blame parents for everything. There are experts out there who devise ways of shoving a product down kids throats on a daily basis.
I believe that most parents are responsible people, and we certainly are told by media and everyone else around that we should be responsible.
How about enforcing the manufacturers and advertising agencies to be responsible ????
I think it's a very good idea that some govt body expects this on behalf of the public.
As Catty said before......if it helps....then lets just do it !!!!
Wom

[Catlady711]

Hmmmmm....Catlady, you are right, and you have certainly made some good points.
But I think you underestimate the power of advertising. Sure....you go buy a magazine for $4.50 and half of it is ads, and you don't bother to even read them (but still you have paid for them).....but some people do read them, and that is the reason why they are there. For sales !!!! Plain and simple.
Advertising is an art, and a very very effective one at that......it targets those groups of people where sales are made.....so it's not simply a picture of a duck on the back of a corn flakes box......uh uh.....it goes so much further than that.
You can't blame parents for everything. There are experts out there who devise ways of shoving a product down kids throats on a daily basis.
I believe that most parents are responsible people, and we certainly are told by media and everyone else around that we should be responsible.
How about enforcing the manufacturers and advertising agencies to be responsible ????
I think it's a very good idea that some govt body expects this on behalf of the public.
As Catty said before......if it helps....then lets just do it !!!!
Wom

I still stick with the theory that it's the parents that raise the kids, not the government, or the advertisers. And while it's nice to blame 'someone' for our problems, it's never easy to point the fingers in our OWN direction. Whether that means limiting the amount of time kids spend watching tv, being on the cpu, or monitoring the food/excersize; I think it's still up to the parents to control the kids and say NO, not the other way around, and I think it's the parents job to raise/train the kids not the government. We start giving the government too much control over raising our kids, and we'll soon find we've given up ALL power to raise our kids.

We're already seeing some of the consequences in our schools/neighborhoods of people that have delegated their childrearing powers by allowing the store clerks to baby sit our kids while we shop, for letting the teachers in the schools take all the blame for how our kids misbehave during school (course we take all the credit when they behave well) etc.

Parents may not be 100% to blame for every single thing a kid does wrong, but I'd wager they are to blame for about 97% of it whether they want to admit it or not.

While this may not be a popular opinion with many people, it's my opinion and I'll stand beside it 100%.

[jennielynn1970]

What happened to parents saying "no"?


Oops, sorry, that would be asking people to be responsible for "themselves"(my word, not LH's)

Do you know how many teachers ask this very same question about the parents of the children they teach?!

Your child did poorly on this test, it seems as though he went home and didn't study a stitch. Did he go over this with you at all at home, mom and dad of fictitious student?
"Our son study at home? Home time is for relaxing and family time. We don't believe in homework."

Change up to many schools doing "homeowork" in school (called Ramp Up Program for afterschool or before school) so that parents aren't involved at all, and have no responsibility over their child's education.

Same with food.

Why have breakfast at home. School should provide it. Now, granted many at risk areas REALLY DO need this program (it is state/federal funded to go along with the free/reduced lunch programs with school). Thing is, I see many more kids who get FREE lunch and breakfast, take the ENTIRE meal, eat next to none of it, and throw it away. Whereas the kids on reduces who do have to pay, are scrounging to get the change for breakfast cause they are hungry, can only get a banana and a juice or something, and they are really hungry. Kids who don't qualify for free or reduced can also get breakfast, but have to pay the entire price. They also eat what they buy. Many times it's the kids who are falling through the cracks who aren't on Free lunch, but have just enough to be on reduced lunch, and yet they they still go hungry.

The janitor on duty does keep a table open up by the trash cans to put any food that is still wrapped or milks that are unopened etc... so that they are up for grabs for anyone who is still hungry so they can get them and eat them for free. Some of those growing boys in 7th and 8th grades could eat 5 bagels, 2 juices and an apple and an orange some mornings. You never know what these kids come from.

Our school is already on the bandwagon for the healthy food. The kids aren't too happy, but I'm not complaining. I can get yoghurt with fresh berries and fruits in the fall and summer/spring areas, the head cook down there makes some really good meals that aren't "presupplied" and they are yummy and healthy and not too expensive, even for us teachers. I can get a HUGE garden salad, with sliced chicken on the side, a roll and home made raspberry vinegrette dressing for $1.50 if you get the nice lunch ladies. Sometimes they'll throw in a PowerAde to go with it. I don't think I've ever had a lunch over $3.50, and that was even for a chicken bacon ranch wrap and a spinach, toasted pecan, fresh strawberry, mandarin orange and other little greens in the salad with a lime dressing over it.

And this was at school. I am amazed!

[wombat2u2004]

I still stick with the theory that it's the parents that raise the kids, not the government, or the advertisers. And while it's nice to blame 'someone' for our problems, it's never easy to point the fingers in our OWN direction. Whether that means limiting the amount of time kids spend watching tv, being on the cpu, or monitoring the food/excersize; I think it's still up to the parents to control the kids and say NO, not the other way around, and I think it's the parents job to raise/train the kids not the government. We start giving the government too much control over raising our kids, and we'll soon find we've given up ALL power to raise our kids.

We're already seeing some of the consequences in our schools/neighborhoods of people that have delegated their childrearing powers by allowing the store clerks to baby sit our kids while we shop, for letting the teachers in the schools take all the blame for how our kids misbehave during school (course we take all the credit when they behave well) etc.

Parents may not be 100% to blame for every single thing a kid does wrong, but I'd wager they are to blame for about 97% of it whether they want to admit it or not.

While this may not be a popular opinion with many people, it's my opinion and I'll stand beside it 100%.

Parents are to blame huh ????
You should get a job with an advertising company, maybe they will greet you with open arms. :D
Perhaps maybe you could get a soapbox set up down and the park and preach to people about the advantages of one parent stays home to nurture the children properly (never mind about about food....sorry honey, we can't afford it this week !!!) :rolleyes:
You my dear, are living in the past !!!!!
Perhaps you should be considering the problems of this day and age....the mass advertising, the cheaper imports, the peer pressure on children in schools to have the latest Ipod (and if you don't have it, you're not cool), the fact that parents have to both work to support a family adequately.
Gone are the days when mom stayed at home and gave the kids cookies and milk after school.....finito old mate !!!!! Times have changed, advertising and sales have become smarter and smarter, they get into your home no matter WHAT you do !!!!!! On TV, on the computer, on magazines, on the voices of peers, newspapers, on every product that comes in your door.
No, you cannot blame people 97%, that is a crazy opinion. Even with the pressures on people in this day and age, most parents are doing absolutely the best they can. And in MY opinion, we should be doing something about the external influences.
Wom

[Catlady711]

I don't go to the mat on too many issues, but this one requires it of me.


Parents are to blame huh ????
You should get a job with an advertising company, maybe they will greet you with open arms. :D
Perhaps maybe you could get a soapbox set up down and the park

I'd also get a megaphone if I thought people could hear me over their cell phones and Ipods stuck in their ears. ;)

Advertising companys wouldn't want me, I think they waste ALOT of money trying to get kids to run their parents and con the rest of the world into thinking they care. They're like politicians only they have a snappy jingle.



preach to people about the advantages of one parent stays home to nurture the children properly (never mind about about food....sorry honey, we can't afford it this week !!!) :rolleyes:
You my dear, are living in the past !!!!!

I was raised by a SINGLE MOM who worked many jobs she hated just to keep our heads above water. For a VERY SHORT time she was forced on ADC when she lost her job when the plant closed and once waited in line OVERNIGHT sleeping on the sidewalk with a whole line of other people to put a job application. She had a pinto that had several colors of primer on it and the muffler was wired up with pipe cleaners because mom couldn't afford any other vehicle. My dad was an absent father who did not pay child support. Grandma & Grandpa babysitted me often for mom (they did NOT raise me like so many kids are done with today), also mom had several close friends that babysat for her also and all of them watched me just about the same as if she would have been there herself. Mom frequently worked oddball shifts just so she could spend more of her time being with me rather than have me be a 'latchkey' kid or being home alone unsupervised.

I was a healthy child, fed healthy but certainly by no means overfed nor did we actually go hungry either. We never lived with rats or cockroaches and we had heat in the winter and a single box fan in the summer. We moved several times when rent got raised so mom could still afford to pay the bills, even if it meant changing schools twice.



Perhaps you should be considering the problems of this day and age....the mass advertising, the cheaper imports, the peer pressure on children in schools to have the latest Ipod (and if you don't have it, you're not cool), the fact that parents have to both work to support a family adequately.

It must be nice that some families HAVE two parents.

When I was in school all the 'cool' kids had a tv's and phones in their rooms, a stereo of their own, and Jordache jeans. Yes I longed to be like the 'cool' kids but when I'd ask mom for those things she firmly explained that she couldn't afford them, no we weren't getting them, and that in the grand scheme of things those items didn't mean squat, they were just "things" and if people only liked you because of the 'stuff' you had then they weren't your friends.

We drank powdered milk, couldn't afford pop/cable/or vcr. We had one lone radio in the house my mom got when she got married (no stereo's here), one lone tv (given to us) and our clothes were made by my grandmother because we couldn't afford much for store bought clothing. Most of our furniture was given to us second hand.

On mom's few days off she spent time with me on homework (she insisted I never get below a C average ever), we went for walks, bike rides, went to parks, talked, and went to the library (cheap or free forms of entertainment that foster a solid relationship). She spent time with me EVERY day after work (even if it meant she lost some sleep) to talk with me and do stuff with me. Many times she did without new shoes or dental work so she could provide those to me.

So don't start preaching to me the importance of ipods and 'cool' stuff. They are optional NOT a necessity and the sooner people realize this the better off the world will be!





Gone are the days when mom stayed at home and gave the kids cookies and milk after school.....finito old mate !!!!!

Stuff like that only existed on Leave It To Beaver, get real. NONE of the kids I went to school with had parents that could afford to have a stay at home mom, probably because both parents had to work to buy those stupid Jordache jeans huh?



Times have changed, advertising and sales have become smarter and smarter, they get into your home no matter WHAT you do !!!!!! On TV, on the computer, on magazines, on the voices of peers, newspapers, on every product that comes in your door.

Yeah so if the family has so much money for a computer and magazines why the beef about "sorry no money for food?"

It's still the parents job to say NO regardless of their peers and ads. And it's the parents job to know who the friends are, what kinds of messages the kids are exposed to, and to TALK to their kids about what they may encounter in the world and why the parent believes certain things are in the best interests of the child and STICK with it! My mom managed that, not bad for a single mom huh?



No, you cannot blame people 97%, that is a crazy opinion. Even with the pressures on people in this day and age, most parents are doing absolutely the best they can. And in MY opinion, we should be doing something about the external influences.
Wom

When I see people in my neighborhood (and no I don't live in the projects or anything like that) ALLOWING in full parental view the following things....(and these are only a handfull of TONS of similar type things)

Playing basket ball in the middle of a busy street daily (not moving for traffic either)

Shooting a BB gun at the siding on their own house

A 6 year old bare handedly ripping one of my shrubs in half

A 10 year old boy peeing on the sidewalk in broad daylight (more than one occasion)

Kids ages 5-17 using language that would make a sailor blush, and loud enough you can hear it across the street on a daily basis.

7 year old kids being told to 'keep an eye on the baby' that is sitting on the edge of a pool while the parent goes inside for another beer.

Two teenagers SKATEBOARDING on the roof of their house!

And THESE kids are our FUTURE, no wonder the world is so out of whack these days!

These are just a tiny portion of the things I see on a day to day basis that I NEVER saw when I was growing up and parents kept better tabs on their kids rather than trying to be their friends or trying to buy them so much stuff out of guilty feelings of inadequacy. As a general rule then parents weren't too lazy or too wrapped up in their computers/ipods/video games to take the time it does to RAISE their kids!

I didn't intend this to be an arguement, I simply was stating my opinion that media does not raise the kids, and I think too many people like to place blame with anyone but themselves 97% of the time. My opinion may not be popular, and you may not like it, but it wasn't necessary to get ornery about it when you don't even know how I was raised!

Kinda goes back to the old line "the music/tv/video game" made me do it, I'm not at fault, we should sue" mentality.

I wouldn't be surprised if you deleted this thread because parents can and should have more control over their kids regardless of what the media has to offer! If that be the case then fine, it wasn't my intention to make enemies nor to get into an argument. I was stating my opinion which in the begining you said I had some valid points to, until it apparently hit too close to home.

[wombat2u2004]

Errrrrrrrrrr......I'll listen the the experts....k ????

Pediatricians call for more kids' ad restrictions

By Lorraine Heller

Related News

Major food firms back new kids' ad guidelines
UK food ad restrictions 'could affect sales'
UK solution to junk food ads more effective, says US lobby group
Report may require firms to reveal food marketing to kids data
Task force to address advertising, kids' obesity link
Food companies target children online
Children's advertising guidelines to be reviewed

News Archives

All news for April 2007
All news for March 2007


12/5/2006 - Children should have access to special media education that will allow them to become critical of advertising, according to a new policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

Published in this month's issue of the AAP's journal Pediatrics, the statement outlines several recommendations to help mitigate the harmful effects of advertising on children.

According to the report, which claims that children are cognitively and psychologically defenseless against advertising, it is necessary to implement severe restrictions to adverts for junk food, cigarettes and alcohol that could be viewed by kids.

"Several European countries forbid or severely curtail advertising to children; in the United States, on the other hand, selling to children is simply 'business as usual'," said the AAP.

And with estimates that children are exposed to over 20,000 adverts per year for foods, especially sugared cereals and high-calorie snacks, the organization adds its voice to the mounting clamor of claims that such exposure is contributing to the childhood obesity epidemic.

However, industry bodies, such as the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Food Products Association, claim that advertising to children by food companies is "age and nutritionally appropriate and reflects a balanced approach to health and nutrition".

Currently, the nation's Children's Advertising Unit (CARU) lays out self-regulatory guidelines for all children's advertisers, including food and beverage companies. These guidelines were recently updated, broadening their jurisdiction and strengthening CARU's guidance to food advertisers in a number of areas. These include clarifying that children's food advertising should not depict over-consumption or discourage healthy lifestyle or healthy dietary choices.

And just two weeks ago, ten of the nation's leading food and beverage manufacturers launched the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. This voluntary self-regulation program would impose new requirements on product advertising to kids under 12, while increasing messages that promote good nutrition and healthy lifestyles.

But in its updated policy statement, the AAP says more needs to be done.

"Unlike free speech, commercial speech does not enjoy the same protections under the First Amendment of the Constitution. Advertisements can be restricted or even banned if there is a significant public health risk (…) ads for junk food could easily be restricted," it said.

"One solution that is noncontroversial and would be easy to implement is to educate children and teenagers about the effects of advertising - media literacy. Curricula have been developed that teach young people to become critical viewers of media in all of its forms, including advertising," it added.

"Media education seems to be protective in mitigating harmful effects of media, including the effects of cigarette, alcohol, and food advertising."

The AAP recommends that pediatricians work with schools and community groups to implement media education programs, as well as ban all forms of advertising in schools.

Other recommendations include asking Congress to limit commercial advertising of children's programming to no more than 5 to 6 minutes per hour, which would decrease the current amount by 50 percent.

Congress should also be petitioned to implement a ban on junk-food advertising during programming that is viewed predominantly by young children; to prohibit interactive advertising to children in digital TV; and to convene a national task force on advertising under the auspices of the Institute of Medicine, the National Institutes of Health, or the Federal Trade Commission.

[Catty1]

The professionals here are doing very good things, no doubt.

But the parents do factor in, also - remember, the ark was built by amateurs, and the Titanic by professionals.

I like the media criticism - I hope it becomes mandatory in every school. Imagine the parents hearing about what their kids learned at school that day...or at least wondering why the kids aren't begging for the latest widget. :)

[wombat2u2004]

The professionals here are doing very good things, no doubt.

But the parents do factor in, also - remember, the ark was built by amateurs, and the Titanic by professionals.

I like the media criticism - I hope it becomes mandatory in every school. Imagine the parents hearing about what their kids learned at school that day...or at least wondering why the kids aren't begging for the latest widget. :)

Sure, we need to hit this problem from every single direction we can.
Wom

[Lady's Human]

If parents and other groups want to limit children's exposure to advertising, here's a suggestion......


TURN THE DAMNED TV OFF!

[wombat2u2004]

If parents and other groups want to limit children's exposure to advertising, here's a suggestion......


TURN THE DAMNED TV OFF!

That may work 97% of the time. Not sure about the remaining 3%, maybe we could lock them up in a cage or something :eek:
Wom

[Lady's Human]

We now return you to "Alexander and the Gordian knot"

[jackie]

Parents are to blame huh ????
You should get a job with an advertising company, maybe they will greet you with open arms. :D
Perhaps maybe you could get a soapbox set up down and the park and preach to people about the advantages of one parent stays home to nurture the children properly (never mind about about food....sorry honey, we can't afford it this week !!!) :rolleyes:
You my dear, are living in the past !!!!!
Perhaps you should be considering the problems of this day and age....the mass advertising, the cheaper imports, the peer pressure on children in schools to have the latest Ipod (and if you don't have it, you're not cool), the fact that parents have to both work to support a family adequately.
Gone are the days when mom stayed at home and gave the kids cookies and milk after school.....finito old mate !!!!! Times have changed, advertising and sales have become smarter and smarter, they get into your home no matter WHAT you do !!!!!! On TV, on the computer, on magazines, on the voices of peers, newspapers, on every product that comes in your door.
No, you cannot blame people 97%, that is a crazy opinion. Even with the pressures on people in this day and age, most parents are doing absolutely the best they can. And in MY opinion, we should be doing something about the external influences.
Wom

The only thing I agree with is that we should be doing something about the external influences. Peer pressure has always been on children to have the latest fad, but at the end of the day, parents should have the final word. To blame teachers for children slacking in studies, and blame advertising for making them fat and demanding is lunacy.

[Lady's Human]

BTW, Wom, as far as no one being able to afford only one income?

Funny, we're managing it, and doing quite well, thank you. It's a little touch and go at times, but we'd rather do this than have children in daycare. It comes down to choosing which is more important.

[wombat2u2004]

BTW, Wom, as far as no one being able to afford only one income?

Funny, we're managing it, and doing quite well, thank you. It's a little touch and go at times, but we'd rather do this than have children in daycare. It comes down to choosing which is more important.

Well so do I. And that also is my choice.
But when I was a kid, hardly any women worked at all....now most of them do, so they have less time for their kids.
I'm sorry folks if I have a different opinion than you all, but that is my opinion, and as someone else pointed out here on this thread, they shall stand by that, and so shall I stand by mine. It's ok to say blaming external influence is lunacy, but I believe it is a real issue here, and there are certainly many people who will agre with me, especially in the medical profession.
Sheesh.......saying that parents must take the full blunt of the blame is like saying....."hey....lets not have kids and create the problem in the first place".
Like I said before, there are many many parents out there who are doing absolutely the best they can....given the circumstances of junk thrown at their kids them from all angles, they are still doing the best they can. It's the advertising companies and the manufacturers who make a art out of getting money out of kids who are not responsible. Call it business....call it what you like....selling snake oil was slotted into the catagory to.
Wom

[Lady's Human]

Wom, the point is that the external influences can in large part be turned off.

[wombat2u2004]

Wom, the point is that the external influences can in large part be turned off.

Sure they can be......what are you going to do ??? Lock them in the basement ??
Why should you have to do that ????? Why don't the companies do something about the problem ????
I'm glad the doctors are speaking up about this, and that the govt may step in and do something about this.......if it helps, just like with smoking....if even a handful of kids can be helped, then it's all worth it.
LH.....just a case in point here if I may............I have a cousin, who had Anorexia Nervosa, she almost died from it........a disease that was almost non-existent when I was young. She had the BEST parents that anyone could ever have, and she was one of those real protected kids. Her parents had no control over magazines and stuff that she viewed with her friends at school, how could they ???? What was the solution ???? Home schooling ???
At least the English are now considering banning models that look so unhealthy (but obviously thrown at the teenage girls to promote whatever sales) from the catwalk. Good on them, at least they are trying to do something.
Wom

[Lady's Human]

No need to lock them in the basement. Simply do what my parents did a few decades ago. Limit TV, limit and control other media, and keep an eye on who we were hanging out with and what we were doing when we were doing it.

Anorexia nervosa has probably existed for ages, but like other mental illnesses wasn't diagnosed. Mental health is a relatively new field of study, and many ailments simply didn't exist even 20 years ago. Not because they were not affecting people, but because they weren't being diagnosed. As a parallel, I can almost guarantee Post Traumatic Stress disorder affected soldiers from the Civil War, the Spanish American war, Boxer rebellion, and other pre-Vietnam conflicts, but there was no diagnosis for it, as the science wasn't there.

[Marigold2]

For the most part, mom's are still the one that do the grocery shopping. That gives us some control especially when kids are small. It's easy to have a household without chips, candies, soda, cookies and cakes. Even working mom's can make quick meals that are healthy.
Once the children start school you can pack their lunches. You still have control over what they eat for breakfest and dinner. If you give them an apple for a snack instead of a bag of chips it becomes a life long habit they take with them.
Schools often serve the worst food, especially in high school, pizza, burgers, taco's, soft drinks in the vending machines along with candies.

Once they become teenagers and can drive you have pretty much lost control. You have to set those good eatting habits young.

I taught my kids to cook boys and girl. Oh yes I worked the whole time as well, had to. I babysat when they were little, sold Avon for 19 years, worked as a hostess, housecleaner, staffer, receptionist, office manager, car detailer. I did lots of things to earn extra money. Doesn't take any longer to make a good healthy meal then it does to make a crappy one.

If you look in your cabinets right now how many of us have those dreaded cookies, chips, soda, cakes, pies. Who bought them? And why are we giving them to our kids instead of applesauce, strawberries, yogurt, cut up veggies.

If you have a fat kid look at yourself and what is in your cabinets. Don't blame others. Yes there are a lot of commericals on TV, are you saying that you don't have the brains to decide what your kids will eat? Take control parents. Just because a new chip comes out doens't mean you have to buy it.

[Marigold2]

Here is an easy and yummy treat for kids.

Cut up fruit, apples, pears, strawberries, grapes what ever you have.
Take one container of yogurt, (strawberry is great) put in bowl and mix with one cup of Cool whip.
Fruity, fluffy, yummy, dipping treat.

[wombat2u2004]

No need to lock them in the basement. Simply do what my parents did a few decades ago. Limit TV, limit and control other media, and keep an eye on who we were hanging out with and what we were doing when we were doing it.

Anorexia nervosa has probably existed for ages, but like other mental illnesses wasn't diagnosed. Mental health is a relatively new field of study, and many ailments simply didn't exist even 20 years ago. Not because they were not affecting people, but because they weren't being diagnosed. As a parallel, I can almost guarantee Post Traumatic Stress disorder affected soldiers from the Civil War, the Spanish American war, Boxer rebellion, and other pre-Vietnam conflicts, but there was no diagnosis for it, as the science wasn't there.

"""Anorexia Nervosa is more common today, than a century ago. There are different reasons for this:

The thin ideal has become "fashionable", an ideal which almost all type's of media advocate. This leads people to believe that this is the ideal way to look like, and the right way to live their life. Many people try different slimming methods, one after the other, and unsuitable slimming methods is the most common factor which starts an eating disorder.

Modern technology helps us so much that we do not need to exert our bodies physically as much as before. Most work is performed in a sitting position. People handle the reduced need for with less and/or healthy food.

The media also focus a lot on sport and exercise, which can lead to an extreme focus on one´s body, and on an almost unreachable body ideal.

Eating disorders like Anorexia Nervosa have shown to occur more commonly in countries where these reasons are more apparent in the daily life. """"

Agreed....it has been around for a long time, and was first diagnosed in the 1800's or thereabouts........but it is more common now, for the reasons above !!!!!!
PTSD is a little different, it is caused by trauma.....but I can see the parallel, and will accept same as that.
Wom

[Catty1]

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/educational/handouts/advertising_marketing/kids_advertising_rules.cfm


STUDENT HANDOUT

Rules For Advertising to Kids
In Canada, there are rules that advertisers must follow when advertising to children.
Here they are:

1. Advertisers must not use words like "new," "introducing" and "introduces" to describe a product for more than one year.

* New products always seem more exciting, so advertisers are only allowed to promote a product as "new" for a year.

2. Advertisers are not allowed to exaggerate.

* Some advertisers want to make you believe that their product is bigger or faster or better than it really is.

3. Advertisers may not promote craft and building toys that the average kid can't put together.

* When you get a kit that is supposed to be for kids, you should be able to make it yourself.
* Also, your finished project should look like the picture of the finished product that appears on the box.

4. Advertisers are not allowed to sell products that aren't meant for kids.

* For example, a commercial that sells vitamins or drugs should be aimed at adults, not kids. Check out some ads for adult products - do they use cartoon characters, jingles or images that would attract kids?

5. Advertisers are not allowed to recommend that you have to buy their product, or that you should make your parents buy it for you.

* In commercials, advertisers can't say things like: "Hey kids, tell mom and dad to run down to the store and get you one now!" or "You must have our product, or you won't be cool!" But they are still going to try to make you want to do these things, so watch commercials closely to see how they make you feel this way without telling you directly.

6. Advertisers may not use well-known kids' entertainers (including cartoon characters) to promote or endorse a product.

* Although advertisers can create their own characters for kids, like "Tony The Tiger" or the "Nestlé Quick Bunny," they can't use performers or characters from kids' shows in their TV commercials. This rule does not apply to packaging, so you might find cartoon characters or famous people on the front of your favourite cereal box.

7. Advertisers can't make you believe that you're getting everything that's shown in the commercial.

In their ads, advertisers have to tell you exactly what you are getting when you buy the toy, and what it will cost. Advertisers are supposed to clearly state:

* The complete price of every part of the toy they are showing, whenever the price is mentioned in an ad.
* Any parts of the toy shown in the commercial that cost extra.
* Any other toys in the commercial that are sold separately.

Next time you watch a toy commercial, see how the advertiser obeys the rule, while still giving a false impression. Look for really small writing on the screen at the end of the ad saying "Batteries not included," or an announcer's voice talking very fast.
8. Advertisers are not allowed to show kids or adults doing unsafe things with the product.

* Unless it's part of a safety message about what not to do, advertisements can't show kids or adults doing dangerous things that children might try to copy.

9. Advertisers can't suggest that using their product will make you better than other kids.

* They also can't make kids think that people will make fun of them if they don't use the product.

10. Advertisers cannot show more than one commercial for the same product in a half-hour period.

* In other words, No Brainwashing Allowed!


BE AN AD DETECTIVE! SEE HOW WELL ADVERTISERS FOLLOW THE RULES FOR ADVERTISING TO KIDS!


Source: The Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB) Broadcast Code For Advertising To Children (1993)

[columbine]

Good food is up against the same peer pressure as intelligent speech and nonviolence - if you eat a good packed lunch or choose salad over fries, you're a "baby" and a "goody two-shoes" and on your way to ostracism (or even a pounding!) That's not a small consideration. Kids who are on sports teams sort of have an "excuse" because they're pulling for their school's reputation when they eat well, but otherwise, stuffing your face with junk says "I make my own decisions, nobody pushes me around." It's a real problem.

Yes, I realize that this is not the case in private schools or in particularly nice neighborhoods, and that there are probably other exceptions that I haven't listed (e.g. your kid).

Love, Columbine

[Catty1]

Some interesting PDFs here for review as well, regarding the USA. Report released in April of this year.

http://cdpac.4poyntzdezign.com/content.php?doc=73

And some excellent parent stuff here on educating their kids:

http://www.caru.org/guidelines/parent.asp

[columbine]

My high school actually had a "Consumer Education" course! We learned how to write deceptive ads without breaking rules or lying outright, how to spot "inflated" packaging and bogus guarantees, and appeal to would-be opponents by using straw man arguments and emotional appeals. Problem was, it wasn't in elementary school...

Love, Columbine

[wombat2u2004]

Some interesting PDFs here for review as well, regarding the USA. Report released in April of this year.

http://cdpac.4poyntzdezign.com/content.php?doc=73

And some excellent parent stuff here on educating their kids:

http://www.caru.org/guidelines/parent.asp

Thanks for that C....they are very interesting reads indeed.
Wom