I hope this helps the child obesity issues.

[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.

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!!

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!

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! 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.
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 !!!)
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.
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 !!!)
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
Wom