The ban on the advertising of convenience foods - Essay Example

The ban on the advertising of convenience foods Standardization: 1.1: In Australia a number of activist groups are against advertisement of certain kinds of foods for children. 1.2: There is however no evidence to prove that such providers of convenient and tasty food would be the reason for the supposed epidemic of ill- health and obesity among children. 1: Contrary to media claims, there is no clear evidence to prove that advertisement of certain foods have a negative impact on children in Australia. 2.1: A recent survey of over 5000 children has shown that childhood obesity has increased by only 5% since 1997. 2.2: Another finding is that children are exercising more significantly than they were in 1997. 2: Surveys show that such claims from the media are based on untested assumption. 3.1: The article quotes an example of a nine year old boy who is fit, intelligent and sportive and burgers and pizzas are among his favorite foods. 3.2: Apart from producing tasty food companies like the McDonald’s also sponsor children sporting activities which also play a vital role in overall child development. 3: Food producers demonized by the media actually strive to promote good health among children. 4.1: Reports linking health problems like diabetes to consumption of fast foods give the notion of only being anti-big business rather than real concern on children. 4.2: Even if justified, merely placing a ban on such advertisements would not help solve the issue. 4: No clear proof to demonstrate a link between children health problems with consumption of fast foods. 5.1: Advertisers have reported that such advertisements do not make children eat anymore than what they normally do. 5.2: Companies advertise in order to increase the company’s market share of what children eat. 5.3: Moreover, before calling for such bans, one should also think about how many children whom these advertisements target will actually be involved in family food shopping. 5.4: In the US where about 30% if high schools have fast food franchises has not seen it necessary to introduce such bans. 5: Such kinds of bans have not been proposed elsewhere as, limiting such advertisements would not have an impact on the actual development of children. 6.1: Banning convenient food advertisements would be a disservice to the companies and the community they serve. 6.2: Advertising freedom needs to be respected in a democratic society. 6.3: The children also need to be educated about food products in order to enable them to make their own food choices. 6: Advertisements in no way force children to buy their products and above all, children need to have the right to such information like all others. C: Children have the right to know about market food products through advertisements and thereby learn to make their own food choices. Evaluation: Certain pressure groups in Australia have called for a ban on the advertising of convenience foods citing that they lead to ill-health among children. This article provides a counter response to such calls and it takes a supportive stand on behalf of the advertisers as there seems to be no clear cut evidence to prove that such advertisements could also be a cause for the supposed epidemic of ill-health and obesity among these children. The article aims to bring out the positive effects of such advertising stating that it would actually be educative for the children. There is no compelling language used in the text. The article genuinely states that children like any others have the right to view such advertisements and thereby make their own food choices. The main argument could be split into six premises. The first two premises aim to counter the media claims by using survey reports that convenience and tasty food advertising are a reason for the supposed ill-health epidemic and obesity among children. In the third premise there is a highlight on how food companies like the McDonalds not only promote healthy food for children but also contribute to the growth of children by sponsoring junior level sporting activities. The next premise explains about the unproven link between health problems like diabetes de to consumption of fast foods. The fifth premise adds a note on the actual purpose of such advertising and makes a reference on the situation in the US. The final premise stresses that every child must have the right to information on food products which would help them make their own food choices and ends on a positive statement emphasizing the freedom that needs to be given to the advertising world in a democratic society. A further explanation of the above premises is given in the below subarguments. The first two subarguments, belie the media claims that providers of convenient and tasty cooking are responsible for the supposed epidemic or ill-health and obesity among Australian children. A survey report is quoted which shows that childhood obesity has risen only by 5% since 1997 and that there has also been a significant increase in the exercising level among children. The third subargument provides an example of an active nine year old boy whose favorite foods include pizzas and burgers. This child is shown to exhibit a good intellect and physique despite being a fast food lover. A highlight is also made on the fact that food companies like McDonald’s in addition to producing good and healthy food also sponsor junior level sporting activities for children. Thus the encouragement that such companies are providing for the children community should be praised rather than condemned. The fourth subargument dwells on the supposed link between consumption of fast foods in childhood and health problems like diabetes later in life; however these reports seem to be only anti-big business, with no real interest and welfare in the development of children. Merely placing a ban on advertisements would not help solve even if such claims were justified in future. The fifth subargument brings forth the advertisers point of view. Advertisers work towards increasing the company’s market share of what children eat. And these advertisements do not make children eat more than what they normally do. The representatives from the advertising world also put forth that the children whom they target would not be the one’s deciding the food purchases for the family. And that being the case, it would be unwise to ban such advertisements. There is a comparison made in this regard with respect to the US stand in this issue. There have been no calls for such bans in the US where there are a higher percentage of fast food franchises in the school level than in Australia. In conclusion the freedom of the advertising world should not be crushed as it would only be a disadvantage for the community. Such advertisements can be used to educate children about the food products as they have the right to know like any others and help them make their own food choices. Read More