Canadians back ban on junk food ads targeting kids

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Canadians back ban on junk food ads targeting kids

OTTAWA — The majority of Canadians strongly support an outright ban on junk food marketing aimed at children, a new government-commissioned survey has found.

More than half of those surveyed (53 per cent) said they are strong supporters of banning all marketing of high-fat, high-sugar or high-salt foods aimed directly at kids and youth. Six in 10 strongly support restricting this type of junk-food marketing.

Support for the taxation of junk food and sugary drinks is also "high," with a significant minority strongly supporting slapping a special tax on soft drinks (40 per cent) and junk foods such as chips and candy (37 per cent) to fund programs to fight childhood obesity.

The idea of a tax on soft drinks has taken off in some jurisdictions in the United States and Europe, but not in Canada.

Meanwhile, a solid majority of Canadians strongly support requiring fast food restaurants to list nutrition information on their menus and companies to provide straightforward nutrition info on the front of food packages. Seven in 10 support these labelling moves to provide greater clarity for consumers looking to curb their intake of sodium, fat or sugar.

The survey and accompanying focus groups, commissioned by the Public Health Agency of Canada to gauge the public's appetite for government initiatives to combat childhood obesity, illustrate some schisms between public opinion and how far governments are willing to go.

For example, the province of Quebec is in the minority with its ban on junk food advertising aimed at children. But during eight focus groups held in Toronto, Halifax, Winnipeg and Montreal to further probe attitudes about childhood obesity, participants "expressed concern, often unprompted, with the widespread marketing of unhealthy food choices," the report states.

"This issue was seen as a major contributor to the problem of childhood obesity. Furthermore, there was a general agreement that this issue needed to be addressed if Canada was truly serious about dealing with childhood obesity."

Meanwhile, despite solid support for requiring fast-food chains to disclose nutrition info on their menus, provinces have not made this mandatory. Provinces like British Columbia are opting for voluntary programs such as Informed Dining, which involves a directional statement on the menu or menu board advising customers that nutrition info is available upon request — usually in a pamphlet.

And while survey respondents expressed an interest in clearer nutrition info on the front of food packages, federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq recently defended the way food companies label their food products after a U.S. government science panel concluded in October that front-of-package nutrition messages confuse consumers.

Aglukkaq said consumers in Canada already have "the tools they need to make healthy food choices when they shop for groceries."

Steve Outhouse, a spokesman for Aglukkaq, said Monday that provinces are free to pursue junk food marketing bans at the provincial level. He also said the food and restaurant industries can make labelling adjustments to meet consumer wishes.

But Outhouse quashed the idea of any federal support for a tax on soft drinks.

"Polling is done to gauge public sentiment. Obviously, we don't use it to form public policy," he said.

Last year, health groups called on Parliament to support an excise tax of one cent per litre in order to reduce consumption of soft drinks and help fight the rising number of Canadians who are overweight or obese.

Based on the amount of soft drinks consumed in Canada every year, the Quebec-based Weight Coalition estimates a tax on soft drinks would generate $36 million in revenue that could be reinvested in health promotion programs.

The Ipsos Reid survey of 1,222 Canadian adults was carried out last March, with a margin of error of 2.8 points. The accompanying focus groups were held last June.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
The nanny state again taking over for parents who can't do their job.............

Parents have enough on their hands without unscrupulous marketers targeting kids.

That said, opposing junk food ads would also bring problems of its own. When we first restricted cigarette advertizing, cigarette companies could then better compete price-wise since we had lifted the burden of trying to outspend each other in advertizing, kind of like an imposed truce between them, thus allowing them to redirect those savings towards lower prices.

Of course the government solved that problem by raising taxes on them.

But just be wary that just banning such ads would be anotehr such imposed truce among junk food companies, helping them reduce advertizing spending and thus competing price-wise which could again encourage more consumption of junk food.

but again, that could be countered by higher taxes on junk food too.
 

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
Hopefully, Canadians won't devolve to this sort of oxymoron.

In the US, pizza as a vegetable. First they claim food in schools has to be healthier, then they redefine junk food as healthy.

"Thirty years ago, the Reagan administration caused quite a stir when, as part of an effort to save money on school-lunch programs, it considered a proposal to count ketchup as a vegetable. The idea generated widespread ridicule at the time.
The Associated Press reports that a similar argument is unfolding in Washington once more. The Obama administration, hoping to combat childhood obesity and related health issues, has pushed to bring healthier foods to public schools, following the recommendations by the Institute of Medicine.
Congressional Republicans have other ideas.

The final version of a spending bill released late Monday would unravel school lunch standards the Agriculture Department proposed earlier this year. These include limiting the use of potatoes on the lunch line, putting new restrictions on sodium and boosting the use of whole grains. The legislation would block or delay all of those efforts.The bill also would allow tomato paste on pizzas to be counted as a vegetable, as it is now. USDA had wanted to only count a half-cup of tomato paste or more as a vegetable, and a serving of pizza has less than that.
Or, put in a sound-bite sort of way, Republicans think pizzas are vegetables."

Political Animal - Tomato paste, like ketchup, is a GOP vegetable

"They have affirmed that pizza is a vegetable. Yes, the tomato sauce on pizza is enough for American politicians to define it and allow it to be served as a vegetable in school lunch programs across the US."

Is pizza a vegetable? Well, Congress says so | Lizz Winstead | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
 

TenPenny

Hall of Fame Member
Jun 9, 2004
17,466
138
63
Location, Location
Hopefully, Canadians won't devolve to this sort of oxymoron.

In the US, pizza as a vegetable. First they claim food in schools has to be healthier, then they redefine junk food as healthy.


That's because the food lobby wants to make sure their particular type of prepared food is eligible to be funded by school lunch programs.
 

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
11,282
479
83
59
Alberta
How bout we just legislate new standards for Junk Food Vendors.

Lentil Carrot Burger anyone?

 

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
That's because the food lobby wants to make sure their particular type of prepared food is eligible to be funded by school lunch programs.

It just seems to me that it's a circular propaganda event. Junk food is bad. Let's ban junk food. Junk food includes pizza. What isn't junk food? Tomatoes aren't junk food. Tomato paste comes from tomatoes. Tomato paste is put on pizza. Tomatoes are a fruit but let's call it a vegetable. Therefore, pizza is a vegetable. What kind of crazy people can come up with that sort of reasoning and get away with it? Only in the US, I suppose.
 

Ariadne

Council Member
Aug 7, 2006
2,432
8
38
Pizza is actually really damn healthy.

I would agree that it can be healthy, but I doubt that pizza by the slice sold to teenagers is healthy.

I don't think that changing junk food availability has much to do with anything. I think that people's eating habits, metabolism and all that stuff is set very early in life. I think that lots of daily exercise throughout childhood determines overall lifelong body weight. If parents provided healthy meals at home throughout childhood and established daily exercise or sports, fat children would not exist. Once people get fat as children, they are kind of stuck with it for life.
 

Goober

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 23, 2009
24,691
116
63
Moving
Banning ads is kinda like inhibiting freedom of speech, isn't it?

Well Harper will not do a thing about the high intake of sodium. Packaged food is loaded with sodium.
Lower sodium levels are proven to lower heart attacks.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
So, part of your argument is that parents are too busy to be parents?

Not normally. But when unscrupulous marketers who couldn't give a crap about children's health and who are willing to use all those years of university marketing and psychology classes to their own benefit at the exepense of parents and children, then yes. Remember too that some parents are single, and not always through any fault of their own (widow(er)s for instance).

Pizza is actually really damn healthy.

Oh yes, I'd oppose taxing finished products, but only ingredients. So while no pizza would be taxed, cheese might be for example, along with pepperoni, whereas flour, vegetables etc. would not be. Therefore, certain ingredients would be more expensive.