Mar 21 2008

Will bans on marketing food to kids do any good?

In trying to figure out what to do about childhood obesity, the comments on the recent post raise issues worth pondering. Anna, for example, points out that food ads are banned in Norway but that kids are still getting fatter (although to a lesser extent than in the U.S.). She writes: “I just don’t think it [the ban] makes enough of a difference, even if it seems like a good idea on some fronts. It is the larger culture of commercialism and consumerism that surrounds children in Westernized countries, and if Norway can’t regulate commercial influences away, the US certainly can’t.”

Maybe not, but this view leads to two possibilities for dealing with childhood obesity on the policy level.  One is to do nothing (because doing something won’t do any good anyway).    The other, which I prefer, is to start taking actions, one at a time, in the hope of creating an environment more favorable to healthy eating for kids.  A ban on marketing seems like a reasonable first step, as does doing something about school food.  These might make it easier to teach kids (and parents) some critical thinking around food issues, some cooking skills, and something about where food comes from and why it matters.  The long-range goal is to create a food environment that promotes healthy eating as the default.  This means doing something, even if the results aren’t immediately obvious.   That’s why I’m so in favor of calorie labeling, marketing restrictions, school food improvements, efforts to move supermarkets into low income neighborhoods, farmers’ markets, CSAs, and everything else that makes it easier to eat better.  Eventually, they may add up to something that registers on weight surveys.  And that hope keeps me going.  How about you?

12 comments
Share |
Tags:

Comments

[...] admin wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptA ban on marketing seems like a reasonable first step, as does doing something about school food. These might make it easier to teach kids (and parents) some critical thinking around food issues, some cooking skills, and something about … [...]

[...] barry@rustybrick.com (Barry Schwartz) wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptA ban on marketing seems like a reasonable first step, as does doing something about school food. These might make it easier to teach kids (and parents) some critical thinking around food issues, some cooking skills, and something about … [...]

[...] tsfiles wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptAnna, for example, points out that food ads are banned in Norway but that kids are still getting fatter (although to a lesser extent than in the US). She writes: “I just don’t think it [the ban] makes enough of a difference, … [...]

In agree. A change in our national eating habits will have to be borne out of equipping our fellow Americans to be better consumers, cooks and eaters. Via education, improvements to school lunch/food for purchase, and eliminating the urban food desert we should see some changes. Perhaps not by the 2010 deadline the CDC targeted, though I like the aggressive timing.

[...] [...]

[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]

[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]

  • sandy winz
  • March 23, 2008
  • 9:20 pm

Hi! I have orderd from this place a number of times and am very pleased to share. They have great kosher organic and natural food products.
Here is a link http://www.wholeandnatural.com
Enjoy!!!
p.s. I used a code try if it works for you bldc08

Working through the problem backwards, it’s clear that banning advertisements geared towards children would decrease consumption of (currently) advertised foods. Companies advertise because it increases the likelihood someone will buy their product. Companies advertise because it works. If people were going to buy their products irrespective of ads, companies wouldn’t pour millions into their advertising campaigns. So, if that advertising would stop, there would clearly be some sort of change in consumption. Whether that would mean a change towards healthier foods is another matter. It’s a risk I would be an experiment I would be perfectly willing to engage in.

Well, but what if banning marketing to kids is ineffective AND costs a lot of money, as I suggested in my comments on your original post? I’m not a libertarian by any means, but whenever regulation is proposed, I think we have to remember that regulations cost money to interpret, implement, and enforce. Every time a regulation is proposed, we should be asking ourselves, “Will it be interpreted, implemented, and enforced in a way that accomplishes the desired end?” If the answer to that question is Yes (doubtful in this case, for all the reasons I mentioned on your previous post), the second question should be, “And will the costs associated with interpretation, implementaion, and enforcement be outweighed by the benefit to society?” That is, it is imprudent to roll out a regulation that costs each taxpayer, say, $40 a year to roll out if the average taxpayer benefit is only $5.

In the case of food marketing, I don’t know those answers – does anyone? Until we do, I think it’s an irresponsible use of our money to regulate something just because we hypothesize that regulations might do a little good.

  • Anton
  • March 24, 2008
  • 2:21 pm

Well, at least you are proposing this as an ‘experiment’, as taking some sort of shot at it, admitting that it is only a good guess.

Try 10 or 20 things and see what, if anything, happens.

I’m not sure how to put into place legislation that will cause children to eat fewer calories and to move more. As you say, that is the root of the problem. How do you regulate and policy that?

I think you are trying to aim a wobbly and unpredictable tool at an ill-defined and vague target.

  • Kieran
  • April 17, 2008
  • 2:40 pm

I am all for the idea of banning the marketing of unhealthy foods towards young kids. I remember being a kid and getting ecstatic when I knew a new happy meal toy came out, or Mc Donald’s started up something like the monopoly game. I feel as adults we don’t really notice how persuasive some of these companies’ marketing schemes are. We either aren’t paying attention, or are simply not seeing the advertisements because they are strategically placed to catch children’s attention. I feel that companies target children for five years or more, specifically during their vulnerable years. I don’t know anything about the ban in Norway, but if it is relatively new I could see how quick results may not be apparent because once a kid has established these habits they wont just go away because of a lack of advertizing. Just as most everybody said, I believe that the ban is just a step in the right direction. Children’s entire health environment needs to improve from their schools to their households to really make a push towards healthier lifestyles

Leave a comment