Thursday, December 08, 2005
Food Marketed To Kids? Scientists, Badly, Say Bad.
So there's a story from the AP about scientists who say marketing food to kids is bad. Translation: you aren't competent to raise your kids, so somebody else should. And we'll take over for all the good parents too. And decide who gets to make money doing what.
First thing that bothers me: "Food marketing strongly influences what children eat." This from the Institute of Medicine, whoever they are. Somehow I thought that parents decided what kids eat. They either buy the food, or provide the money that kids use to buy food. If parents don't like these so-called bad foods for their kids, don't buy them. Send little Billy to school with a sack lunch.
Second thing: "The report said evidence is limited on whether TV advertising directly causes obesity in children." I had always understood that the only thing that directly causes obesity is food eaten and exercise done. Has TV found a way to beam calories directly from the screen to your hips? And if so, I have to say that I really expected the technology that allows the TV to have some sort of virtual sex with me long before it would feed me. I can feed myself just fine.
Third thing: "I don't think that even the best social marketing on healthy foods can overcome the advertising and sale of breakfast cereals that taste like cookies." This from Diana Zuckerman. She's president of the National Research Center for Women and Families. Again, aren't the parents buying the cereal? Who are these kids who go to the store and buy their own cereal, take it home, and eat it, even though their parents disapprove of the cereal, and without the parents taking it away? Oh yes, they're called adult children who have moved out of mom and dad's place and are living on their own.
These people don't just think parents are incompetent. They also want to force SpongeBob and similar characters to only do advertising for healthy foods. Not only do these people want to tell you what to eat, they want to tell other people what sorts of business decisions they can make with their own intellectual property.
I guess one of the disadvantages of living in a free society is not being able to stifle those whose only goal is taking your freedoms away.
First thing that bothers me: "Food marketing strongly influences what children eat." This from the Institute of Medicine, whoever they are. Somehow I thought that parents decided what kids eat. They either buy the food, or provide the money that kids use to buy food. If parents don't like these so-called bad foods for their kids, don't buy them. Send little Billy to school with a sack lunch.
Second thing: "The report said evidence is limited on whether TV advertising directly causes obesity in children." I had always understood that the only thing that directly causes obesity is food eaten and exercise done. Has TV found a way to beam calories directly from the screen to your hips? And if so, I have to say that I really expected the technology that allows the TV to have some sort of virtual sex with me long before it would feed me. I can feed myself just fine.
Third thing: "I don't think that even the best social marketing on healthy foods can overcome the advertising and sale of breakfast cereals that taste like cookies." This from Diana Zuckerman. She's president of the National Research Center for Women and Families. Again, aren't the parents buying the cereal? Who are these kids who go to the store and buy their own cereal, take it home, and eat it, even though their parents disapprove of the cereal, and without the parents taking it away? Oh yes, they're called adult children who have moved out of mom and dad's place and are living on their own.
These people don't just think parents are incompetent. They also want to force SpongeBob and similar characters to only do advertising for healthy foods. Not only do these people want to tell you what to eat, they want to tell other people what sorts of business decisions they can make with their own intellectual property.
I guess one of the disadvantages of living in a free society is not being able to stifle those whose only goal is taking your freedoms away.
Contributors
Catnip
- Lord Floppington, aka Reverend Doctor Lord Rockefeller
- Google News
- USS Clueless
- Instapundit
- Tech Central Station
- Day By Day by Chris Muir
- JCF
- Transterrestrial Musings
- Sanity's Edge
- IMAO
- Michael Moore Hates America
- Free Will
- One Hand Clapping
- Dilbert
- Patterico
- The Family Guy
- Belmont Club
- INDC Journal
- South Park
- Lt. Smash
- TTLB Ecosystem
- The Llama Butchers
- Mountaineer Musings
- South Dakota Politics
- Panhandle Pundit
- Mean Mr Mustard v2.0
- Tolkien Geek Analyzes LOTR
- Nehring the Edge
- Ace of Spades HQ
- Innocent Bystanders
- What's Alan Watching?
- Letters From Desolation Row
- Link Mecca (Allah)
- So Quoted
- Ask Philosophers
- Blowing Smoke
- Dean's World
- Gateway Pundit
- Power Line
- Wizbang
- Captain's Quarters
- Life In & Around Memphis (Rockstar Recaps)
- Indignant Desert Birds
- Future Poopy Diapers
- Standby
- Herr Professor's Educational Bonanza:
- Joanne Jacobs
- Right on the Left Coast: Views From a Conservative Teacher
Litter Box
- June 2004
- July 2004
- August 2004
- September 2004
- October 2004
- November 2004
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- June 2008
- November 2008
- August 2009
- September 2009