14 Jul 08
Considering that tobacco advertising is regulated and it is illegal to sell tobacco to people under a certain age, should McDonald's (and other fast food companies) be subjected to the same laws regarding targetting children in their advertising campaigns seeing as how the ingredients of their products could pose just as serious a health risk as tobacco?
14 Jul 08
Originally posted by The SnapperA big mac can pose a health risk equal to tobacco?
Considering that tobacco advertising is regulated and it is illegal to sell tobacco to people under a certain age, should McDonald's (and other fast food companies) be subjected to the same laws regarding targetting children in their advertising campaigns seeing as how the ingredients of their products could pose just as serious a health risk as tobacco?
Can you back this up, before we get into the discussion?
14 Jul 08
Originally posted by shavixmirHow about not regulating either of them. Regulation is like telling lies, once you make one you need another ten to cover the first and so on and so on.
A big mac can pose a health risk equal to tobacco?
Can you back this up, before we get into the discussion?
Provided they don't make false claims, which would be a type of fraud, advertising is a type of expression and and people should be able to feely exercise it.
14 Jul 08
Originally posted by The Snapperheavens no. we have already a ton of regulations going on. at the end of each commercial slice, networks are obligated to show the message "Alcohol, tabacco, fats, sugar and salt in large quantities can be hazardous to your health". I am fairly sure that the majority of the population already know it is bad for you. but they do it anyway. i don't need someone to write on the cigarette pack "smoking kills" "smoking leads to impotence". or as it is discussed in my country, putting pictures of lung cancer, throat cancer on the pack to disgust smokers into quitting.
Considering that tobacco advertising is regulated and it is illegal to sell tobacco to people under a certain age, should McDonald's (and other fast food companies) be subjected to the same laws regarding targetting children in their advertising campaigns seeing as how the ingredients of their products could pose just as serious a health risk as tobacco?
the money spent on those campaigns should be spent with convincing kids that, for example, smoking is not only bad but there are cooler ways to be cool than smoking
14 Jul 08
Originally posted by shavixmirSorry, I was just expressing an opinion based on the increasing obesity epidemic in Western countries (Australia is officially the fattest nation on the planet).
A big mac can pose a health risk equal to tobacco?
Can you back this up, before we get into the discussion?
I'm not sure about the actual statistics but I'm pretty certain it's safe to say that this type of food is probably among the most unhealthy.
Eating one Big Mac isn't going to do you any harm. Nor is smoking one cigarette. But, if it is 3 Big Macs a week for 10 years, then that would be a problem.
Maybe I wasn't clear, but my main point shouldn't have been directly comparing the actual health risks, but more the deliberate targetting of children in advertising campaigns and movie tie-ins and so on. Tobacco and alcohol are prohibited to minors, so why should fast food companies be able to pressurise time and money starved parents to fill their children with crap which is doing them no good at all. If an adult wants to eat Big Macs all day long then go for it, but children can't make an informed decision about it until, maybe, it's too late.
14 Jul 08
Originally posted by The SnapperWell, I'm not actually sure that eating 3 big macs a week for 10 years is actually unhealthy.
Sorry, I was just expressing an opinion based on the increasing obesity epidemic in Western countries (Australia is officially the fattest nation on the planet).
I'm not sure about the actual statistics but I'm pretty certain it's safe to say that this type of food is probably among the most unhealthy.
Eating one Big Mac isn't going to do you any harm. ...[text shortened]... r it, but children can't make an informed decision about it until, maybe, it's too late.
Along the same lines you could ban advertising sweets, toys (one's with no creative merits what-so-ever), crisps, package holidays, etc.
But, to be honest, I really don't care about advertising. They can advertise shooting heroin for all I care. If people are dumb enough to be suckered, then it's probably just as well the life expectancy is shortened.
14 Jul 08
Originally posted by The SnapperNo -- in fact, neither tobacco, nor Happy Meals should be regulated as they are both legal products. Moreover, government and trials lawyers should back the hell up and quit trying to protect us from ourselves.
Considering that tobacco advertising is regulated and it is illegal to sell tobacco to people under a certain age, should McDonald's (and other fast food companies) be subjected to the same laws regarding targetting children in their advertising campaigns seeing as how the ingredients of their products could pose just as serious a health risk as tobacco?
14 Jul 08
2 edits
Originally posted by shavixmir…Along the same lines you could ban advertising sweets, toys (one's with no creative merits what-so-ever), crisps, package holidays, etc. ….
Well, I'm not actually sure that eating 3 big macs a week for 10 years is actually unhealthy.
Along the same lines you could ban advertising sweets, toys (one's with no creative merits what-so-ever), crisps, package holidays, etc.
But, to be honest, I really don't care about advertising. They can advertise shooting heroin for all I care. If people ...[text shortened]... umb enough to be suckered, then it's probably just as well the life expectancy is shortened.
Correct me if I am wrong but I don’t think many people would claiming that toys (one's with no creative merits what-so-ever) and package holidays are bad for children’s health?
…If people are dumb enough to be suckered, then it's probably just as well the life expectancy is shortened….
Those people that are “suckered”, include young children that are too young to understand such things as ‘saturated fat’ and ‘sodium content’ and the relationship between diet and ‘cholesterol’ and ‘hart disease’ etc. Those children would also probably have their life expectancy shortened. Are those children “dumb” or just haven’t yet been educated about the risks?
I agree with Snapper.
P.S. I thought advertising of junk food to children was already banned -at least in the UK?
I know it has definitely been banned on UK TV.
14 Jul 08
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterIf only America could have applied this logic to Iraq.
No -- in fact, neither tobacco, nor Happy Meals should be regulated as they are both legal products. Moreover, government and trials lawyers should back the hell up and quit trying to protect us from ourselves.