Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

How fab is it that junk food ads have been banned from Childrens tv??!!!

99 replies

Carmenere · 17/11/2006 19:01

I can't believe that no one has started a thread on this so far today. It is really really good news for our kids. I know it is not enough but it is a major step in the right direction.
Sweden banned junk food ads during childrens tv years ago and they have the lowest rate of childhood obesity in Europe.

OP posts:
speedymama · 21/11/2006 14:30

I have no loyalty to brands and our family is brand averse. I will teach my sons that just because something is advertised on TV, on billboards, on the radio, in magazines does not mean you have to go out and buy it.

Heathcliffscathy · 21/11/2006 14:31

agreed polly.

ds doesn't like ads either. mainly because his much adored grandfather had told him he hates adverts because they are all saying 'do this! buy that!'

Twiglett · 21/11/2006 14:33

DS doesn't like ads because "they just want all our money mummy so they can go out and buy themselves more things"

Heathcliffscathy · 21/11/2006 14:35

yup. job well done.

doesn't mean that it's not a [very slightly not in a big fanfare way] good thing that macd's can't advertise between peppa pig and lazytown does it?

Piffle · 21/11/2006 14:36

So is it just me who chooses, buys and cooks my kids food in the world or does everyone elses children go to the supermarket - choose, buy and cook the unsuitable crap themselves?
Should ban it when parents are watching if you ask me...
No brainer

dinosaur · 21/11/2006 14:37

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request.

KathyMCMLXXII · 21/11/2006 14:47

So how old do you reckon a child has to be to learn to view adverts critically, then?

Agree absolutely that they need to be taught, and that that's far more realistic than thinking we can insulate them forever, but isn't there a case for protecting them from adverts as much as possible up until they're old enough to grasp it?

Heathcliffscathy · 21/11/2006 14:51

nevermind that they should just have the headspace to be able to watch a programme made for them without being bombarded with exhorations to buy, eat etc like adults are.

pollypeachum · 21/11/2006 14:54

I just thank my lucky stars for CBeebies!

Heathcliffscathy · 21/11/2006 14:56

yup.

better programmes.

apart from backyardigans which ds is obsessed with atm.

speedymama · 21/11/2006 14:58

I must be thick. If they are not going to show children orientated adverts during children orientated programs, what are they going to show? How to consolidate your debts when you grow up? What are they going to do with the space between programmes on commercial channels?

Heathcliffscathy · 21/11/2006 15:02

persil ads? etc etc etc etc.

Aderyn · 21/11/2006 15:04

How about no ads at all, since, as an earlier poster pointed out, they make money from the merchandise associated with Children's programmes.

Twiglett · 21/11/2006 15:07

of course I'm far happier to teach my children that pigs wear clothes and talk and that finnish people are naturally annoying

speedymama · 21/11/2006 15:08

Ah, but Persil is a brand and impressionable children will think their clothes will not be as clean without it and so will pester their parents to buy it.

wannaBe1974 · 21/11/2006 15:36

I personally think that childhood obesity has less to do with McDonalds and more to do with the invention of the ready meal. These days a lot of people don?t/can?t cook, simply because, they don?t have to. You can go to the supermarket, buy virtually anything you like in ready-made form. Just take it home, stick it in the oven and voila, a ?tasty, nutricious meal?. And if you are of the persuasion where you buy everything in ready-made format, then it?s highly likely that you?re not going to bother looking at the package to see what the product contains. I also think that the source of childhood obesity lies with the parents. Rarely do we see obese children with hourglass figure parents now do we?

As for less children?s television ? well bring it on. Yes we have the ability to switch off the tv, but reality is that we are bombarded with it. And most of it is utter crap that I would be quite happy for my child never to have to be exposed to. If you have sky then there are upwards of 15 children?s television channels, most of which play for at least 18 hours a day. Do children really need that much choice of what to watch? Do they hell.

And adverts ? well all I can say is ? isn?t sky plus a wonderful invention! I do so love this ability to pre-record programmes and watch them .. oh, I dunnow, quarter of an hour later, but with the added benefit of being able to fast forward through each and every advert!

wannaBe1974 · 21/11/2006 15:46

and having read the rest of the thread now I agree with twiglet. I don't think it's such a wonderful thing. I actually think this ban will make no difference, none what so ever. Parents will still feed their children crap, they don't do so just because the child has seen it on tv and asks for it, they do it because it's convenient and the kinds of parents who feed their children so much crap that it makes such a difference to their lives generally can't be bothered to cook proper meals for them anyway, so that's not likely to change.

Did a ban on cigarette advertising reduce smoking? I think not. Smoking has only been reduced fairly recently, with the shock adverts on packets, various smoking bans coming into force etc, and more information about the harmful effects of smoking. But cigarettes haven't been advertised on television for at least 20 years.

edam · 21/11/2006 15:51

Lack of exercise a big issue in childhood obesity too. We should never have stopped sending them up chimneys.

Do think this is generally a good thing - don't want all that power and money used to target my boy before he's old enough to have critical reasoning faculties. This isn't a full stop but it's a step in the right direction.

ITV's a mess anyway, God knows what will happen to it esp. since Murdoch intervened and Branson's stymied. Don't they have to produce x amount of kid's TV under their licence, though? Maybe they should pester the govt. for more public information ads like the old Charlie the Cat says be careful about crossing the road/playing with matches etc. etc. etc.

edam · 21/11/2006 15:52

If advertising makes no difference, why do companies spend so much money, time and effort making them? Who was it who said he knew half his advertising budget was wasted but he didn't know which half?

LittleSarah · 21/11/2006 15:57

Well, I think it is a good small step. Of course parents have to say no but it could make it just that little bit easier.

The ITV and no kids TV is pretty complicated anyway. They have recently been allowed to show fewer children's programmes by Ofcom as they really aren't that interested in being a public service channel anymore, especially with everything going digital by 2009. Edam is right in saying it is a mess at the moment and it isn't even definite that we will have ITV at all in a few years. In their reply to Ofcom they mention getting rid of their public service obligations completely or they will just jack in ITV and form a new digital channel.

Sorry to go on there!

speedymama · 21/11/2006 15:57

My 2yo DTS do not watch TV because I do not have it on during the day time and by the time it goes on, they are usually in bed. They have DVDs and if they want to watch one, I let them but I decide when, usually after 5pm and then that is only about three times a week.

We do not have Sky but if we did, just because the channels are there, does not mean you have to watch them.

The TV producers provide you, the consumer with choice. You can choose to watch what they provide or not. I exercise my choice by using my on/off button.

wannaBe1974 · 21/11/2006 16:33

sm I too exercise my right to use the on/off switch and believe that parents have the choice. I simply meant that if children's television programmes were reduced it really wouldn't be that big a deal since there's so much of it already anyway.

Furball · 21/11/2006 17:36

On the link given it says that coronaion street is to lose cadburys. I don't quite get that, surely it's got to be mostly adults watching that, unless of course it is on whilst the children are still around.

Also the ban should be on the manufacture of the food in the first place. It obviously sells otherwise they wouldn't produce it, but I can't imagine even contemplating buying half the stuff Kraft churn out, with their Dairylea Lunchboxes, cheese strings and now they have kindly introduced biscuits you can dunk in fromage frais, yuck! Why would we want to buy it? We are told that it's healthy and if you don't know any different, then you don't know any different.

What about kids that can go to the shop with their own pocket money? They're never going to choose an apple or banana are they?

DominiConnor · 22/11/2006 19:10

I see it as tokenism.
The government spends huge money on trying to win Olympic medals (and failing), but sells off school playing fields.
Even after Jamie Oliver school meals in this country are a disgrace, yet they whing about McDs.

If there's something I don't want my kids to eat, I don't buy it.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page