[HN Gopher] UK bans daytime TV ads for cereals, muffins and burgers
___________________________________________________________________
UK bans daytime TV ads for cereals, muffins and burgers
Author : ivewonyoung
Score : 157 points
Date : 2024-12-08 19:51 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.france24.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.france24.com)
| mentalgear wrote:
| I hope other countries take action soon. It's deeply
| irresponsible how we allow advertisements and Big Sugar/Fast Food
| companies to exploit colorful cartoon characters and misleading
| health claims to hook people--especially children--on excessive
| sugar and fat consumption. This not only fosters unhealthy eating
| habits but also conditions them to crave specific branded flavors
| from an early age.
| whycome wrote:
| Are adults not allowed to like colourful cartoon characters?
| Fruit flavours?
| daseiner1 wrote:
| Parent commenter didn't write anything to the contrary;
| obviously the median child gets more excited by those two
| things than the median adult.
|
| I really loathe these sort of "gotcha" comments.
| akira2501 wrote:
| You're telling me this ad appeals to you in your demographic?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJmM2CSn2ao
| whycome wrote:
| Isn't the issue there the claims of "fruit flavours" easily
| misinterpreted as having actual fruit and including vitamin
| c prominently when it's just fortified.
| meesles wrote:
| You've moved the goalpost! No, the issue is that fruit
| flavors and cartoon characters are abused to appeal to
| children. That is what the original comment said and
| which you only half replied to! The video provided to you
| was an example of such - cartoons and 'fruit flavors' to
| hook kids on wanting sugary cereals for breakfast.
| hecticjeff wrote:
| I don't think this goes far enough. Kids see adverts for this
| stuff in so many other places, TV is just one small step. Take a
| kid into a supermarket and there's junk food advertised
| everywhere.
| Dinux wrote:
| It's a first step. The larger point here is awareness.
| lijok wrote:
| Baffling to me how advertising to those without a stable source
| of above living-cost income is allowed in the first place. Let
| alone advertising to children.
| zabzonk wrote:
| How do you select for "those without a stable source of above
| living-cost income?
| lijok wrote:
| No idea. That's for the advertising firms to figure out.
| chrisjj wrote:
| Ration TVs, obviously :)
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| They still get stuff though. Daytime advertising for toys is
| basically aimed at kids' birthday / christmas wishlists, pocket
| money, etc. If you add it up, that's hundreds of whatever your
| currency is per year across birthdays, gift giving holidays,
| and family / extended family.
| jsheard wrote:
| Can we do gambling ads next? We banned tobacco ads and then
| seemingly forgot the lesson that it's actually bad to let
| advertisers shove addictive and self-destructive products in the
| publics face, including to former addicts at risk of relapse.
| optimalsolver wrote:
| >Can we do gambling ads next?
|
| As long as we ban ads for stock trading platforms (i.e.
| gambling for the professional classes) at the same time.
| jsheard wrote:
| I don't disagree, but stock trading ads are in some ways
| already more strictly regulated than gambling ads here.
| Gambling ads are required to have a vague "please gamble
| responsibly" statement, but ads for CFD trading platforms are
| required to have a prominent warning stating the exact
| percentage of their accounts which lose money (often >75%).
| The gambling ads don't have to tell you the real odds of
| coming out ahead.
|
| e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM_zuudkSnY
| stego-tech wrote:
| I think a fair and reasonable advertisement policy is to ban
| all advertisements during "children's programming hours", or
| 0800 to 1600 when school is not in session. During "Prime
| Time" hours of 0500-0800 and 1600-2300, adverts should be
| limited to luxury goods (e.g., fashion), government PSAs, and
| non-addictive goods or services (NO drugs, NO tobacco, NO
| gambling, and NO stock trading, to name but a few). Between
| 2300 and 0400, allow "free reign" on subscription channels
| but still bar "vice" or addiction ads.
|
| We've got a century of data showing laissez-faire approaches
| to advertising results in maximum harm to a society, and
| ample recent data from the internet age showing how dark
| patterns in psychology are exploited by advertisers to drive
| outcomes.
|
| We have to do better, and the UK's step is at least an
| attempt to stem the harm. I can't fault entities from at
| least _trying_ to do better.
| chgs wrote:
| Daytime tv is all about brainwashing wealthy retired
| people.
|
| Still not as bad as those weird country which advertise
| prescription medicine
| alexchamberlain wrote:
| I wonder what proportion of children are still watching
| mainstream TV? My son (4) mainly watches Disney+ and
| Netflix.
| iamacyborg wrote:
| Wait until you hear about how CFD trading is legal in large
| parts of the world.
| datavirtue wrote:
| Irrelevant. Stocks are a share of a company. The have book
| value and intrinsic value. Freedom to buy and sell is
| essential.
|
| Of course, crypto speculation is something different
| altogether. Maybe you were thinking about all the poor
| schleps buying Bitcoin for $100k?
|
| Even then, your chances of winning are around 50/50 and no
| one is forcing you to cash out.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| There is an important difference. With stocks, the punter
| wins on average. With gambling, the punter loses on average.
|
| You can still lose all your money on stocks, with a
| combination of bad choices and bad luck. But it is much
| easier to lose it on the horses.
| shric wrote:
| The punter does not win on average with stocks due to fees
| and spread.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| IIRC average stock market returns have historically been
| around 7% per year. Index funds charge around 1% per
| year.
|
| My stock ISAs have gone up pretty much every year (after
| inflation and fees).
| jonplackett wrote:
| The warnings for gambling ads are particularly infuriating.
|
| Like what would anyone think of a smoking warning of "when the
| fun stops, stop"
| manojlds wrote:
| It's interesting that one of the tax free investment/savings
| choices in the UK is basically a lottery.
| thom wrote:
| You're not risking any capital though, if you mean Premium
| Bonds.
| anotheracc88 wrote:
| Even better, pay that money into a pension and buy a
| lottery ticket.
| hinkley wrote:
| Pensions sort of already are a lottery. Can't collect if
| you're dead. Live to 95 and they help a lot. Though
| inflation will still getcha in the end.
| anotheracc88 wrote:
| Yes if you choose annuity but you can also buy those with
| regular cash so it's as relevant here as price of tea.
|
| Pensions are more tax efficient and offer a better option
| of investments (companies) than what is effectively fiat
| interest going into a lottery pool.
|
| If you have cash in premium bonds you might die young
| then pay inheritance tax.
|
| Better give your kids cash earlier to live off or invest
| to avoid this, and so they can over-stuff their pensions
| ;). Not many people think that far ahead (60 year
| horizon)
| hinkley wrote:
| Some young adults in my life have grandparents who just
| hit this point, and are trying to set up gifting money to
| the grandkids in the form of brokerage accounts.
| petesergeant wrote:
| > Pensions sort of already are a lottery
|
| Annuities maybe, but those aren't the only kind of
| pensions
| kgwgk wrote:
| That seems the definition of pension. You may be thinking
| of something else. pension a
| regular income paid by a government or a financial
| organization to someone who no longer works, usually
| because of their age or health
| hgomersall wrote:
| Indeed, premium bonds are just a slightly more
| "entertaining" way of allocating interest. Just as
| arbitrary as the MPC, but potentially a much higher rate
| (probably not though).
| derriz wrote:
| I'm pretty sure all gambling winnings are tax free in the UK?
|
| Thank the power of the horse racing/gaming/gambling lobby.
|
| Many years ago when I lived there, I had an IG Index account
| - who market themselves as a "financial spread betting"
| service. At the time, you could buy/sell futures and options
| with them but it was presented in a way that emphasized that
| you were "spread betting" - but the mechanics were the exact
| same and expiries all lined up with the obvious counterparts
| in the liquid futures space.
|
| So because you were NOT investing but gambling, "winnings"
| were tax free.
|
| I just googled and they're still going - presumably still
| offering the same betting "service".
|
| It's funny to see the efforts that scam and pure gambling
| services go to to try and present themselves as staid and
| serious "investment" business while IG Index offered access
| to well-regulated financial markets but kept reminding you
| that you were betting.
| ahoka wrote:
| No gambling taxes? Must be a money laundering heaven.
| justincormack wrote:
| there are taxes, but they are largely on the earnings of
| the gaming companies
| duiker101 wrote:
| For those unaware, this comment is referring to premium bonds
| in the UK[1]. It is a very interesting system, I agree! But
| there are quite a few parts of the system that make it way
| more fair than a lottery.
|
| Most obviously, it doesn't cost to enter. So the most you can
| "lose" is a missed interest income from putting the money in
| another source.
|
| After that, it's definitely the fact that the algorithm is
| designed to both pay a certain percentage of people and
| always have specific return. [1]
|
| You are also limited to how much you can enter to 50k.
|
| With all that in mind, at the end of the day it feels like
| many small wins over time, with the super random chance of
| occasionally having a big-ish payout.
|
| It's definitely designed to feel like a lottery, but in
| reality is way more akin to normal savings than a lottery.
|
| [1] https://www.nsandi.com/products/premium-bonds
| teruakohatu wrote:
| In New Zealand this scheme was called "Bonus Bonds" and was
| wound up on 26 February 2024. Interest was charged on
| "wins" just like any other income. Apparently the average
| return was a paltry 1.5%.
| cynicalsecurity wrote:
| The business is probably owned by some rich and influential
| chap who eagerly shares with the right people in the
| parliament.
| ashconnor wrote:
| Considering Labour's connection to gambling companies [0]
| probably not.
|
| [0]
| https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jun/28/tory...
| hermitcrab wrote:
| Indeed. It has been heavily covered in Private Eye, as well.
| Labour is deeply in hock to the gambling industry. So much
| for "gambling is the curse of the working class".
| fakedang wrote:
| Funny how you can buy British politicians for dirt cheap. In
| India or the US, it would take at least $100k-200k to get a
| single politician's attention at the bare minimum, while in
| the UK you can influence party positions for 25k quid.
| saagarjha wrote:
| I don't have enough experience about India to comment on
| that but in the US the amount of money it takes to
| influence a politician is quite low.
| curtisblaine wrote:
| If it ruins a neighbourhood, Labour are probably in favour of
| it.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| It's interesting that the UK has banned gambling ads online,
| but not on TV. Combined with the fact that they regulate
| cryptocurrencies as gambling, that's why you get no UK crypto
| ads online. For example, the PayPal UK front page doesn't even
| mention that you can buy crypto there.
| zakki wrote:
| Do you have the link that regulate crypto as gambling in UK?
| I tried Google it but no luck.
| exe34 wrote:
| wait if crypto is gambling, then they don't tax the
| proceeds, right? but I'm pretty sure they tax it as capital
| gains..... so it's gambling for advertising purposes but
| capital investment for tax purposes...
|
| I suppose the law is an ass.
| rgblambda wrote:
| Maybe this is blurring the line between online and TV, but TV
| streaming services definitely have gambling ads. A gambling
| ad literally just came on the Channel 4 player in front of me
| as I started typing this.
| andrepd wrote:
| I'm not in the UK, but yeah it's nothing short of fucking
| disgusting how plastered TV is with these incessant gambling
| ads. "Gamble on slots on your phone while you're in the metro,
| the hairdresser, the dentist!" they shout, at kids and adults
| alike, 2 times every minute on every commercial break.
| Disgusting.
| dzonga wrote:
| i was going to comment on this. gambling ads of all kinds, sky-
| bet, sky vegas casino + whatever in their hydra form. in
| depressed places like luton - you see how gambling has
| destroyed the little that remained.
|
| ban gambling companies from sponsoring sports teams, from being
| associated with sports teams etc.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| It is very noticeable that the gambling shops are clustered
| around the poorest parts of every town.
|
| I grew up near a gambling shop. You would see the punters
| desparately trying to eek out every last puff on their roll-
| up cigarettes, while the gambling shop owner would drive up
| in his Rolls Royce.
| b800h wrote:
| Or massive vaping ads on the side of school buses.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| I wonder if a prohibition to have gambling ads on TV would
| affect the Premier League teams that have gambling sponsorships
| gwbas1c wrote:
| Let's just ban all ads!
| Winblows11 wrote:
| What about adverts on YouTube and TikTok and other online
| platforms? I doubt kids/teenagers watch much TV at all these
| days.
| xxs wrote:
| "This government is taking action now to end the targeting of
| junk food ads at kids, across both TV and _online_. ",
|
| it's a quote from the article, it's very likely they'd ban ads
| targeted at children.
| chgs wrote:
| I expect a lot of pushback from the new u.s administration
| about any online regulations.
| xxs wrote:
| The regulation would apply to the UK. UK brands and goods
| sold in the UK, by established/registered companies the UK.
| Not possible to sell any retail goods of the sorts w/o a
| registration in the UK, so stopping them advertising won't
| be hard.
|
| I don't think US administration would be able to do
| anything, much like GDPR.
| chgs wrote:
| Tarrifs and other threats
| anotheracc88 wrote:
| For Youtube often the content is an ad too. Will Google need
| to stop serving huge swaths of content to the UK at certain
| times? Hope so!
| crowcroft wrote:
| It baffles me that more countries haven't put legislation in
| place to severely limit what ads can be served to under 18 year
| olds (or at least under 16).
|
| I worked in an ad agency a number of years ago, and Phillip
| Morris approached us with a deliberate plan to launch big
| budget ad campaigns on social media platforms specifically
| because they could get in front of younger demos more easily
| (traditional media having existing regulations in my country).
|
| The original idea was to build a large database of prospects to
| sell direct to even after regulation eventually cracks down on
| them. Amazingly no regulation has come yet, and Meta has done
| little to no self-regulation.
|
| You can blame parents, but even then one under appreciated
| problem with digital ads is the lack of shared experience. With
| TV advertising, you know what your kid is seeing, everyone can
| see a verify what ad ran at what time on what channel etc. If a
| parent and a kid are scrolling social media their experience is
| entirely different, and you can't go back and see what someone
| else has seen.
| Pet_Ant wrote:
| Well I didn't understand how -besides the cereals maybe- are
| unhealthy
|
| > Breakfast cereals including ready-to-eat cereals, granola,
| muesli, porridge oats and other oat-based cereals.
|
| until I re-read and saw this:
|
| > But the new restrictions will not apply to healthier options
| such as natural porridge oats and unsweetened yoghurt.
|
| So I think it's not clear in the first sentence but "ready-to-
| eat" is meant to apply to all the items in the list and not just
| the cereals.
| deskr wrote:
| It's very strange they say porridge oats are banned, then go on
| saying "natural porridge oats" are not.
|
| In my mind porridge oats are natural and you don't have to say
| that. If you have something else you need to say so.
| dmart wrote:
| I'm assuming they mean stuff like Quaker oatmeal packets
| which are half sugar.
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| My kids love natural porridge, however there is a constant
| battle about how much honey they are allowed to drown them
| in. :)
| chrisjj wrote:
| I am amazed honey is not on this list of "junk" foods.
| datavirtue wrote:
| It's on mine. Refined sugar with water, pure and simple.
| It doesn't get a pass.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Are any other toppings on the list? If it's just
| standalone foods I'm not surprised.
| beejiu wrote:
| They are not banned. They are on "the list" (as the article
| says) meaning they must be scored using the "NPM model". Only
| scores exceeding 4 are "banned", which will include sweetened
| oats.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| Its the cereal industry being bastards again.
|
| Breakfast cereals contain a colossal amount of sugar, and are a
| great way to keep your diabetes on its toes. They haven't been
| healthy for years, moreover the toys they put in them have been
| shit as well.
| Cumpiler69 wrote:
| _> moreover the toys they put in them have been shit as well_
|
| That's what pisses me the fuck off. Even Kinder toys have
| been shit for decades.
| beejiu wrote:
| There's a lot of misinformation going around about how the
| legislation works.
|
| All porridge oats are "in scope" of the regulation, which means
| they need to be scored using the "Nutrient Profile Model" score
| before being advertised.
|
| The result is that porridge oats are not banned, but golden
| syrup instant porridge oats will be.
|
| Here's the scoring model:
| https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nutrient-prof...
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| Do you think this is worth posting as a top-level comment?
| There's already lots of speculation in this thread (confusion
| even), and I appreciate you bringing an authoritative
| reference to the discussion.
| dageshi wrote:
| Good thing they made this move once daytime tv was basically
| irrelevant to anyone under 40 or it might've had some impact.
| gwerbret wrote:
| Direct quote from the article which I'm sure you read: "This
| government is taking action now to end the targeting of junk
| food ads at kids, across both TV and online."
| tomp wrote:
| Wow, what's wrong with burgers?
|
| I mean, certainly you can get bad meat, and maybe it's easier to
| conceal in a burger than in a steak, but ... how about literally
| _all other processed meat_ that is invariably processed more than
| burgers? Salami, sausages, hot dogs, ...
|
| I personally love burger, and consider it one of the finest
| foods.
|
| Fortunately, there's a very easy way to know the _quality_ of a
| burger - if they ask you, how well you want it done, it 's high
| quality! Shitty burger places like McDonalds and Burger King
| don't want to risk selling you a medium-done burger... Funny
| enough, UK is one of the better places for high-quality burger,
| much better than e.g. Switzerland or Slovenia! My favourite in
| London is (was? 2019) Honest Burger...
| Karellen wrote:
| > Also on the banned list are products _such as_ chickpea or
| lentil-based crisps, seaweed-based snacks and Bombay mix as
| well as energy drinks, hamburgers and chicken nuggets.
|
| The foods mentioned in the article are not an exhaustive list
| of all the foods for which the government has banned
| advertising. It's possible they've also banned ads for salami,
| sausages and hot dogs, but the article didn't mention it.
|
| Probably because, compared to burgers, there aren't that many
| ads for salami, sausages and hot-dogs during daytime TV, so
| it's not seen as much of a problem, or as worth mentioning.
|
| But because you mention it - how many daytime ads do you see
| for high quality burgers, like Honest Burger, as compared to
| ads for McDonalds and Burger King?
| KaiserPro wrote:
| There is nothing wrong with most foods as part of a mixed diet.
| The problem is, a burger/box of chicken is ~PS2-4 and fucking
| fast. A meal with vegetables either takes preparation, or is
| >PS6
|
| The issue here is that the UK is obese as fuck. Partly because
| of education, partly because of price, party because of
| supermarkets.
|
| If we want to avoid spending billions upon billions tackling
| diabetes and other related conditions, the UK needs to tackle
| its diet. This is
| Krutonium wrote:
| In Canada, it's outright illegal to sell a burger medium done.
| If you get caught, your restaurant _will_ be closed for a
| couple weeks minimum, along with a hefty fine. It must be fully
| cooked, or not served.
| dylan604 wrote:
| seriously? No medium well, just straight up well done? So,
| hockey pucks? Ahh, now it makes sense. It's a law endowed by
| Canada's love of hockey
| dboreham wrote:
| It's perfectly possible to cook a burger such that it's not
| dry but also not raw.
| dboreham wrote:
| Same in UK. Family members keep asking me when we travel
| there "will my burger be done right". Uhhh..there's only one
| kind of doneness for a burger in these parts.
| akira2501 wrote:
| It's ground beef. The rule is you must cook it to the proper
| internal temperature. This is reasonable food safety. This
| simply precludes medium as an option.
|
| If they grind their own meat or use something like ground
| chuck or ground round you can get it medium.
| tomp wrote:
| That doesn't make sense. It's beef.
|
| If you can serve a steak medium, then you can also grind the
| steak, cook it medium and serve it.
| pshc wrote:
| The burgers they show on TV are pure junk food, let's be real.
| ApolloFortyNine wrote:
| I could see supporting with this, but it does seem like an abuse
| of the 'for the children' argument for this.
|
| Children pretty much have to eat what you give them until they
| get a job.
|
| Also some chicken nuggets are bad, but some average a gram of
| protein per 10 calories, which is a pretty good ratio, and
| especially for frozen food. Can't help but think this is too
| broad.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| more so in the past, there was a lot more food advertising
| directed at kids, because the thought was that kids could annoy
| their parents enough to drag the whole family to an
| establishment. and some marketing tricks work a lot better on
| children because of their social settings and general
| impulsiveness (e.g. "All the cool kids have Lunchables")
| chgs wrote:
| The milky bar kid is strong and tough
|
| The red car and the blue car had a race
|
| Turn the milk chocolatey
|
| Keep hunger locked up tip lunch
|
| I have tried to avoid adverts for 20 years, but the adverts
| of my childhood (not just ones aimed at kids - autoglass
| repair and replace, safe style do buy one get one free, dfs
| sale ends Sunday, ronseal quick drying wood stain does
| exactly what it says on the tin)
|
| The brainwashing is sickening.
| anotheracc88 wrote:
| This is not systems thinking though. It take a lot of will for
| parents to fight kids desire for junk food from social pressure
| alone. Should parents be perfect citizens that make 10000
| correct micro decisions a month correctly every time? Or can
| society help a bit by blocking some of the predators?
|
| It is like "just say no". Thay'll do it for drug addicition.
| Simple.
| petesergeant wrote:
| > Children pretty much have to eat what you give them until
| they get a job.
|
| I don't think this is true in practice; it feels sufficiently
| obvious that children's tastes influence what they get fed that
| I'm not going to bother to find a citation
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| > Children pretty much have to eat what you give them until
| they get a job.
|
| I don't believe you have children of your own; is this an
| armchair opinion or your own lived experience?
|
| Anyway while on paper this is true, in practice kids will ask
| for this and may get it as a treat, or they may get it from
| somewhere else. And as a one-off, that's fine, but they do get
| influenced by ads to want more of it at any time. Same with
| fast food chains, somehow the ones that aren't available where
| I live got an almost mythical status with the teenager here. A
| Taco Bell did open here but honestly it was mediocre and
| overpriced.
| xxs wrote:
| Teens and so would be given money to buy food themselves,
| e.g. before/after going to football training, swimming,
| dancing etc.
|
| Indeed, it's unrealistic to expect all kids would be served
| food and observed while eating.
| worble wrote:
| >Children pretty much have to eat what you give them until they
| get a job.
|
| Damn, someone better ring up the cereal companies and tell them
| to stop advertising, I bet they'll feel foolish realizing
| they've wasted all that money!
| akira2501 wrote:
| > Children pretty much have to eat what you give them until
| they get a job.
|
| So.. then.. why are we advertising to them _at all_?
| WD-42 wrote:
| > Children pretty much have to eat what you give them until
| they get a job.
|
| If true why do cereal companies spend billions on advertising
| directly to children? For the fun of it?
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| I think its so children are open to eating it after the
| parents have bought it. If the food doesn't look appealing
| the parent will have to work harder but its the parents
| making the food choices not the child. Most of the time
| children don't even go to the grocery store with their
| parents.
| ojagodzinski wrote:
| cool but nobody watches TV this days.
| anticorporate wrote:
| I mean, that's objectively disproved by the advertising
| industry who is profiting from these ads.
|
| Maybe you and I aren't, but lots of people are.
| Eumenes wrote:
| this is exactly the type of policy you'd expect from a governing
| body that is completely out of touch with the working class. I
| can imagine the cambridge, UCL, and oxford graduates patting
| eachother on the back after the meeting, congratulating
| themselves on solving childhood obesity.
| userbinator wrote:
| It's what you'd expect of a country that's rapidly diving into
| Orwellian dystopia.
| hermitcrab wrote:
| Do you actually live in the UK or is this based on Musk
| tweets?
| jsyang00 wrote:
| Yes, it's the ads. After all, we know how economical and fast it
| is for people to access healthy meals. I look forward to the
| speedy eradication of all obesity problems
| anotheracc88 wrote:
| The perfect. Enemy of the good.
| jackjeff wrote:
| If only I ever watched ads on live TV I would have noticed...
| amelius wrote:
| Can we have one or several months without ads of any kind?
|
| Perhaps then we can appreciate a world without ads more.
|
| It might also reduce the environmental burden of overconsumption.
| petesergeant wrote:
| Move to the UK and only watch the BBC, and yes
| b800h wrote:
| That's not ad-free. You have to put up with ads for a load of
| BBC programmes which will almost inevitably contain a slew of
| progressive messaging.
| dylan604 wrote:
| It is amazing when you visit a city that has banned billboards
| especially when coming from one that does not.
|
| It's the same (opposite) feeling you get when watching an ad
| free streaming service and the switch to live TV or Prime.
| Which is just like switching to a browser with out uBO.
|
| If society went 30 days with a universal uBO experience, I
| think all wars would end, cats & dogs sleeping together,
| shields would become plow. You know, basically peace on earth.
| alecco wrote:
| IMHO the only way they'll pay attention if enough of us turn it
| all off.
| jasonlfunk wrote:
| I just hope that the US can ban ads for pharmaceuticals.
| dboreham wrote:
| Never happen. There's a place called Canada though...
| zabzonk wrote:
| I hear crumpets are also frowned on - my favourite breakfast
| food!
| steviedotboston wrote:
| what about sausage rolls and meal deals?
| paulpauper wrote:
| future headline: A UK man was found dead in his flat after his TV
| broke. apparently he had starved to death after not being
| reminded of the existence of food by the ads.
| cryptozeus wrote:
| Good that they are trying but " ...aired after the 9:00 pm"
| running ads after 9 pm is even worst. If you need to consume
| sugar you might as well do it in day time.
| xxs wrote:
| It's about kids, ads targeted at kids (according to the
| article)
| contingencies wrote:
| The significant background that the UK just delivered a _House of
| Lords_ enquiry in to the food system[0] which recommended a
| "complete ban" on junk food advertising and that the government
| ban junk food vendors from regulatory feedback. You can bet the
| consumer packaged goods (CPG) AKA 'junk food industry' - the
| likes of _Mondelez_ , etc. - are actively resisting these changes
| with all manner of false reports, shoddy advertising doublespeak
| and back-channel arrangements. Given this background, the ban is
| relatively light touch. Expect further developments.
|
| [0]
| https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5901/ldselect/ldmfdo...
| blackeyeblitzar wrote:
| What about alcohol? Or other carb heavy or sugar heavy products?
| Why these?
| seabass-labrax wrote:
| As referenced by beejiu elsewhere on this thread[1], it applies
| to all foods products based on their nutritional content; there
| are no exemptions. Alcohol, however, does appear not to be
| covered by these new rules, but there are existing restrictions
| about advertising alcohol - [2] is one document on the topic,
| although I can't immediately tell if it's out of date.
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42360734
|
| [2]:
| https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/d3683dc1-189e-413c-86...
| JSDevOps wrote:
| This will make zero difference these days.
| phyzix5761 wrote:
| Help me understand. The UK government basically said that parents
| are not responsible enough to make dietary decisions for their
| children so the government needs to step in and do it for them?
|
| Does that not seem like an overreach? Its not like 4 year olds
| are driving to McDonald's by themselves and ordering burgers. The
| parents are the ones being targeted here.
| Argonaut998 wrote:
| The UK is so far gone with government overreach at this point.
| They don't seem to mind.
| widdershins wrote:
| I'm not sure what you're getting at. They banned certain
| advertisments at a particular time of day. They didn't ban
| parents from giving their children whatever thet want to give
| them.
| forinti wrote:
| They're not prohibiting anyone from feeding these things to
| their children. A lot of people will continue to do so.
|
| The government would have to spend a lot of money on counter-
| campaigns to keep the public well informed and it probably
| wouldn't have the desired effect on children.
|
| Finally, and this is a very important point for me, children
| cannot enter into business deals/contracts; commercials are
| business proposals; hence there should be no ads targeting
| children.
| majormajor wrote:
| It's more "we don't want corporations selling unhealthy junk to
| have direct access to influence super-impressional kids" -
| cause guess what, in that case? You can be a perfectly
| responsible parent dietary-decision-wise, but have your kids
| whine and complain constantly because the kids _aren 't_
| informed about the problems of it and just want the tasty shit
| they saw all the ads for.
|
| Would you allow salespeople into your home to pitch your kids
| on stuff all day if they were in-person instead of on a screen?
|
| Why not complain about the overreach of irresponsible companies
| trying to convince kids who have no way of knowing better to
| start damaging their long-term health?
| jraph wrote:
| Children are totally targeted. They will ask their parents and
| put pressure to buy them stuff. Maybe even the parents who
| don't cave in can be relieved of this.
|
| In the longer term, stuff that enters your brain as a child
| shapes you and lasts long. See how well how many people in
| their 30s remember ads of their childhood.
|
| Why would someone defend such ads anyway? I don't believe they
| achieve anything good for anyone except the advertiser.
| mirsadm wrote:
| Do you have children? They're targeted with ads _everywhere_.
| You can be a responsible parent but these things cause
| unnecessary stress. Quite frankly if the government wants to
| ban all advertising I would be thrilled.
| pessimizer wrote:
| What a useless, idle government. This is just pretending to work.
| Next, they'll raise the price of alcohol 10%, and make the
| penalties for "knife crime" 10% longer. Western governments have
| ceased to function for anything other than graft.
|
| There's a good paper (more than one, actually) on this that I
| wish I could recall offhand; but outside of graft, Western
| governments can only manage to _govern_ (and not particularly
| well) during sudden emergencies, like natural disasters. Other
| than that, they 're running worthless lifestyle campaigns to
| justify their continued existence to a faddish public, like this.
|
| The reduction of sales for cereals, muffins, and burgers will be
| non-existent. British children will remain fat. We will remain in
| thrall to a useless politics of trendy middle-class aesthetics,
| cheered on by celebrities.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-08 23:00 UTC)