Advertisements of Certain Sorts of Foods That Aim at Young Consumers - Assignment Example

ESSAY: Standardization 1: The Australian government has been asked to ban advertisements of certain sorts of foods that aim at young consumers. 1.2: Such advertisements are blamed for the supposed epidemic of ill-health and obesity among children. 1.3: There is however no clear evidence to hold such providers of convenient and tasty cooking. 1: Advertisement of certain sorts of foods does not make children less healthy. 2.1: There is no clear proof to ban convenience food advertising 2.2: A recent survey shows that childhood obesity has risen by only 5 % since 1997. 2.3: The survey also found that children were exercising significantly more than they were in 1997. 2: There is an untested assumption that children are poorer in health now than in the past. 3.1: Food producers like McDonalds actually aim to promote good health among children. 3.2: In a cited example, a child who can be taken as model of good health has burgers, fries and pizzas as his favorite foods. 3.3: Companies like McDonalds also sponsors many junior competitions. 3: In fact good health enjoyed by children may in part be attributed to such food companies. 4.1: Research reports demonstrate that consumption of fast foods in childhood can lead to diseases like diabetes later in life. 4.2: But such reports are only anti-big business and are not interested in children’s eating habits. 4.3: Even if such concerns were justified they cannot be dealt with by merely placing a ban on advertising. 4: There is no clear proof that links children’s health problems with consumption of fast foods. 5.1: Advertisements do not make children eat any more than what they normally do. 5.2: They actually aim to increase the company’s market share of what children eat. 5.3: The children targeted are 10 year olds, and would they be making purchasing decisions in the family? This also has to be thought of. 5: Limiting the advertisements the children see is not going to make a big difference. 6.1: If such bans were appropriate, then there would be more precedents for such bans in countries like US, where children eat a lot more of such foods. 6.2: US which has 30% of high schools have fast food franchises, does not see a need to ban such advertising. 6: Such kinds of bans have not been thought of elsewhere. 7.1: Such bans would be a disservice to the company and also to the community at large. 7.2: It is the only way for producers to share information with the community. 7.3: Children like other consumers have the right to such information. 7.4: It allows them to be well educated about their food choices. 7.5: Merely watching such advertisements is not a force to buy the products. 7.6: Being a democratic society, we ought to respect the advertising freedom of such food companies. 7: Children must be educated in order to make their own food choices in a democratic country like ours. C: Children do have the right to view food advertisements and thereby to make their own food choices. Evaluation: The main purpose of the argument is to contradict the claims made by certain lobbyist groups that advertising of convenience foods cause ill-health among children. This has been written in response to the calls from a certain section of the media to the government to ban advertisements that propagate convenience and tasty food for children. The article notes that there is no clear cut evidence to blame such advertisements as the reason for the supposed epidemic of ill-health and obesity among Australian children. The author takes a supportive stand on behalf of such food companies. Without being persuasive, the article states that children like any others do have the right to view such advertisements and make their own food choices. The main argument has seven premises. The first two premises aim to ascertain the fact that there is no clear evidence to prove that convenience food advertising has been the reason for the supposed ill-health epidemic and obesity among children. In the third premise, the author explains 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. In the next two premises, the author stresses that children’s health problem’s cannot be solved by just banning such advertisements. In the sixth premise, a note on the situation in US is made. In the final premise it is concluded that children have the right to such information and to make their own food choices. This is a very positive statement which emphasizes on the freedom in a democratic world. A better clarity of thought about the argument could only be obtained through evaluation of the subarguments. The first two subarguments, contradict the claims made by lobbyist groups that providers of convenient and tasty cooking are responsible for the supposed epidemic or ill-health and obesity among Australian children. A quote is made from a survey showing that childhood obesity has risen only by 5% since 1997 and that the exercising level among children has also risen significantly. The third subargument provides further support to the first two. It states the fact that food companies like McDonald’s not only aim at providing good and healthy food but also contribute to growth of children by sponsoring sporting activities. This is a good enough evidence to show that such companies are really interested in the health and growth development of children. An example of an active nine year old boy is given. This boy, who can be taken as a model of good health, has burgers, fries and pizzas as his favorite foods. The fourth subargument brings in the issue of health diseases. There have been reports that claim that consumption of fast foods in childhood, lead to diseases like diabetes later in life; however such reports are projected as being only anti-big business. And even if such reports are justified, merely placing a ban on advertisements would not help solve the issue. The fifth subargument explains what influence these advertisements could actually have on children. These advertisements will not make children eat more than what they normally do. In addition it is highly questionable whether those young children whom such advertisements target would be making purchasing decisions at home. The sixth subargument is a comparative argument where it has been pointed out that such bans have not been thought of in countries like the US where 30% of high schools have fast food franchises. The final subargument points out that such advertisement are the only way for producers to share information with the community and their advertising freedom should be respected. A ban on them would be a disservice to the company and also the community at large. For the conclusion, this being a democratic society, children like others have the right to such advertising information and to make their own food choices. Read More