Saturday, 30 April 2011
-
Limitations Proposed Towards Marketing Food Targeted at Kids
In a few months you may never see your favorite gummy fruit snack or breakfast cereal again.
Several government agencies would like to intervene on what is marketed to your children in order to fight obesity and promote good health.
The proposal, released this past Thursday, is targeting children ages 2-17. The agencies behind the proposal believe that the first step to improving health and fighting childhood obesity begins with controlling what children want to eat, therefore starting with what is typically shown to them. Check out the list of what will and will not be allowed below.
Foods That Would Not Be Allowed to Market:
- anything with trans-fat
- anything with more than 1 gram of saturated fat
- anything with more than 13 grams of added sugars
- anything with more than 210 milligrams of sodium
Foods That Would Be Allowed to Market:
anything with significant amounts of...
- fruits
- vegetables
- whole grains
- low-fat milk products
- fish
- extra lean meat
- eggs
- nuts
- seeds
- beans
If the proposal goes through, it will be phased in over the period of 5 years.
For more information, check out the original article on USA Today here.
What do you think about this proposal? Do you think it will accomplish a lot or is it a ridiculous decision?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to ireallylikefood's IReallyLikeFood Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in ireallylikefood's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: aliconklin
- Name: Ali Conklin
- Location: New York City, New York, United States
- About Me: I am a college student in New York City who loves to cook and be cooked for. There is nothing more satisfying than a delicious meal.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 103 Views: 0 297375 Comments: 0 2642 View all posts by aliconklin
Comments (37)
That first sentence made me think that the government was going to ban/regulate what we eat which would be complete bull, but they're really not.
The proposal aims to limit how these foods are advertized to make the junk foods less appealing to children, not ban the foods. On top of that, my understanding is that the companies have to agree to follow the proposal, but they're not obligated to do so.
I don't think it'll be too effective.
I most definitely think its a step forward, but its not enough nor will it go unnoticed by the big food conglomerates, whom I believe will oppose this decision in some way. Children need to be educated in the schools about food. Where it comes from, how to grow herbs and vegetables and ultimately studying how a meal is put together. Food does not magically appear in the racks of supermarket stores.
Food (good wholesome good) is grown with hardwork and labor. They come from nuturing and care. Until children learn how food is grown and where it comes from. The government is focusing on important issues but not targeting the right area. If we focus on eating only naturally grown local produce, we wont have to worry about the amount of sugar, trans fat or sodium in the foods. Eat local and naturally grown foods and things such as obesity will become trivial.
Tbh if people didn't gorge on these things it wouldn't be a problem.
This is ridiculous -- the nanny state taken to as absurd an extreme as I want to see. I think if we eliminated the jobs of the bureaucrats wanting to implement this policy, it might be a start toward reducing the federal deficit.
I don't think this will follow through. And besides, as long as you teach your kids to eat the proper serving they should be fine.
I think it's a really good idea! We need to fix the whole "just mark it as healthy and they'll buy it" system going around! With so many unhealthy foods out there marked as healthy it gets confusing for adults, and even more so kids. I remember trying to explain to a girl I was babysitting that just because it says healthy on the cereal box doesn't mean it isnt all sugar.
I have a real problem with this proposal. At first glance, it would seem to be in complete violation of a little thing called the First Amendment.
I'd be more impressed if we banned high fructose corn syrup and other dangerous food additives that European countries have already banned.
I think readers are overlooking the fact that the proposal is not a to-be law, the food companies have to agree to sign on it. There's pressure to sign it, but no force.
How do kids get fat? Because they whine and cry until mommy and daddy cave and buy them this processed shit? Control your damn kids and teach them common sense.
Oh, darn. I'm in America.. parents must HAVE common sense before they can teach it to their kids. My bad.
@thisiswhereItellyoueverything@xanga - Where do you get your info on HFCS?
@ncxcorexkid@xanga - This is crap. A parent can teach her kid to eat right and the second she steps out into the world, there is some adult at school selling her junk or giving it to her for no good reason.
Wow... Can't they just ban advertising on Kids television statements?
I'm 19 and I still eat a lot of those cereals and will be super mad if they take them off the market. Plus, it's a PARENT'S responsibility to teach their kids how to eat right, but apparently so many are failing at that lately. My best friend's little brother is absolutely SPOILED. He eats McDonalds all the time, gets whatever he wants because he throws a giant fit over the smallest things, he refuses to eat vegtables unless he's at the babysitter's house, and he pretty much only eats pizza, chicken nuggets and fries. He's not obese but he's sure not on a good path, either.
I know it seems like I went to McDonalds/Burger King a lot since I have so many toys lol but I sure as hell know I didn't go as much as what some parents today deem to be acceptable (obviously I'm not insulting all parents right now so don't take it that way if you're not like this, but it's a big problem considering how many children are becoming obese).
I think it's ridiculous. The way to regulate advertising and business is through the people with the dollars, in other words, the parents. If they wouldn't buy their kids that junk, the companies wouldn't bother advertising on those shows.
Personal responsibility. Gets better results than the government every time.
Kind of sad when the parents can't tell their children "no" even to things that are bad for them.
@blonde_apocalypse@xanga - Guess you aren't/won't be that great of a parent, huh?
@seasidehearts@xanga -
They are not taking them off the Market, they are proposing a change in how they advertise by limiting their Marketing to the age group of 2 to 17.
I think this is a solid idea and the fact it must be signed and backed by these companies is a brilliant way to go. We won't be forcing their hands by banning their advertisements, rather they will sign a legal document agreeing not to target advertise to children.
@ncxcorexkid@xanga - Nice try.
That's fucked up
I hope that Reese's ceral will not go away!
@CandiedLilac@xanga - It is to control people's weight.
@Life333888@xanga - No one should control people's weight.
@thisiswhereItellyoueverything@xanga - I totally agree...but...
The US government has a sugar tax and companies here that want to use certain amounts of sugar are forced to 1) move their plants to Mexico or Canada 2) use high fructose corn syrup, or 3) raise their prices, which means they lose out to competing brands and possibly go out of business.
@jamesnorcross@xanga - Nah, they've already set how many times a company can market to children during certain times a day, how long it can be, what time ads for certain age groups can be on the air (condoms, beer etc. are banned during certain times of the day), a complete ban of certain products on any over-the-air broadcasting system (cigarettes).
@mycontinuity@xanga - Well that's hardly an argument. Companies using an ingredient or creating products that are dangerous SHOULD go out of business.