Click here to go back to the issue outlines list
Related issue outlines: no related issue outlines
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click the icon below to access the Echo news items search engine (2004 file) and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
obesity
children
(see also a list of newspaper items at the end of this outline)
Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
Sections in this issue outline (in order):
1. What they said. 2 The issue at a glance. 3 Background. 4 Internet information links. 5 and 6 Arguments for / against. 7 Further implications on this issue. 8 Newspaper items used in the compilation of the outline.
2004/22: should food advertisements be banned during children's television programs?
What they said ...
'We need to exert more control . . . because kids are susceptible to these ads designed to push their buttons'
Former marathon champion, Robert de Castella
'If something is legal to sell, then, in the absence of an overwhelming public interest case, it should not be illegal to advertise it'
The Australian Prime Minister, John Howard
The issue at a glance
On July 16, 2004, the leader of the federal Opposition, Mr Mark Latham, announced that if his party were elected into government, all food and drink advertising would be banned during all programs that are aimed primarily at children.
The current Government, headed by the Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, has declared that it is completely opposed to such a ban.
The proposed ban has met with a mixed response in the broader community. A number of bodies concerned with community health have supported it. Some media groups, among others, have opposed it.
Background
In Australia the top 10 fast food chains spent $82.2 million on television advertising in the past year, according to Nielsen Media Research, with McDonald's spending $26.8 million and KFC $22.6 million.
Australian studies have also shown that approximately 80 per cent of the foods advertised during children's television programs are for non-nutritious or unhealthy foods. Research further indicates that Australia airs an average of 12 such commercials an hour and thus has more television food advertisements during children's programming times than any other country. This includes the United States and Britain.
Studies have also indicated that Australian children are eating more, with a 10% increase of caloric intake among 10 to 15 year olds between 1985 and 1995.
The British Medical Research Council recently found that most fast food is very dense in calories, that is, you only need a small amount to bump up your caloric intake.
A typical fast food meal is more than one and a half times higher in calories than an average traditional British meal and two and a half times higher than a traditional African meal.
The researchers concluded that a diet high in fast foods would increase a person's risk of weight gain and obesity - even though they may feel that they are eating no more than they would if they ate an average meal.
However the problem does not simply involve increased calories. Studies have also indicated that Australian children and adolescents are less physically active and now spend more time watching television or playing computer games.
Internet information
The Australian Labor Party's policy statement re banning food advertising during children's television programs can be found at http://www.alp.org.au/policy/otherkeypolicies/junkfoodads.php
The Prime Minister, John Howard's, response to this proposed ban can be found at http://www.pm.gov.au/news/interviews/Interview918.html
On June 22 The Sydney Morning Herald published an article critical of the Prime Minister's opposition to banning the advertising of food during children's television programs. The article was titled 'Humbug hot on the griddle' It can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/21/1087669919350.html?from=storylhs
On June 30, 2004, Green Left Weekly published an opinion piece titled, 'Fast food: supersizing kids'. The article considers the caloric content of fast food and suggests that the relative cheapness of foods containing many 'empty' calories means that parents with less income will tend to chose them for their children.
This article can be found at http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2004/587/587p28.htm
On September 23 2003 ABC Radio's The World Today program broadcast a program detailing the findings of a recent study which suggested fast food companies have overtaken toy manufacturers in deliberately targeting young people with advertising on television.
A transcript of the program can be found at http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2003/s954539.htm
On March 19 2004 Hospitality Magazine.com.au published an article titled, 'New healthy kids' menu for golden arches' This brief report refers to changes MacDonald's are making to their menu to make them more acceptable to health conscious mothers. This article can be found at http://www.hospitalitymagazine.com.au/articles/d1/0c01ead1.asp
On April 8 2004 Hospitality Magazine.com.au published an article titled, 'Parenting skills key to reduce childhood obesity' The article considers the importance of parents in determining their children's eating habits. It can be found at http://www.hospitalitymagazine.com.au/articles/69/0c01f569.asp
Arguments against banning food advertising during children's television programs
1. Food advertising can be used to promote good eating habits among children
It has been argued that there should not be a total ban on food advertising during children's television programs as such advertisements could be a powerful means of encouraging children to eat healthily.
VicHealth chief executive Rob Moodie has claimed, 'Junk food preferences among children are a reflection of the advertising dollars spent on selling such products ... When was the last time you saw an ad for a carrot.'
According to this line of argument healthy foods could be advertised to children at least as effectively as unhealthy products currently are.
2. Fast foods or 'junk' foods are not harmful if eaten in moderation
It has been claimed that eaten in moderation fast food or so-called 'junk' food is not harmful. It is then argued that if the food is not hazardous if eaten in sensibly, then its promotion should not be banned.
This point was made by the Prime Minister during a doorstop interview at the federal secretariat, Canberra. Mr Howard stated, 'There's nothing wrong in a fast food meal itself, there's nothing wrong in having a McDonald's, it's how many McDonald's you have.
And if you ban McDonald's advertising you might as well say well let's ban Panadol because if you take too many Panadol it's bad for your kidneys I think. If you take far too many it's particularly bad for everything.
If you ban alcohol you could argue the same thing. Alcohol in moderation is certainly not something to be discouraged, but alcohol in excess can have catastrophic personal consequences.
So this proposal of Mr Latham's to ban the advertising of food is just very ill-judged and ill-prepared and it's a very top of the head kind of proposition.'
3. The sale of fast foods or 'junk' foods is not illegal
It has further been argued that if it is legal to sell a product it should be legal to advertise it. According to this line of argument, if a product is so harmful it should not be advertised then it should not be offered for sale. Merely banning the advertising of the product would be hypocritical.
This point was made by the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, during a debate on the issue in Parliament. Mr Howard stated, 'My philosophical position is that if something is legal to sell, then, in the absence of an overwhelming public interest case, it should not be illegal to advertise it.'
4. Control of children's eating habits is the responsibility of their parents
The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, has opposed a food advertising ban during children's television programs, partly because he claims it would appear to remove from parents their responsibility in determining what their children eat.
Mr Howard has said, 'A ban would absolve parents of responsibility for their children's eating habits ... This government, as distinct from the Australian Labor Party, will never see the state or the government standing in the shoes of parents.'
The current government, headed by Mr Howard, condemns the Labor Party proposal as part of what it refers to as the 'nanny state', that is, it believes that Labor's plan would have Government regulations intruding unnecessarily in personal matters that families and individuals can manage for themselves.
This point was also made by The Age in an editorial published on June 21, 2004. The editorial stated, 'Using proscriptive measures to achieve health outcomes should not be a first step. It is not advertisers or fast food giants who put food into children's mouths. It is parents who make the decisions about what food will be served at home and what food options will be available outside the home.'
5. Children's television programs could not be funded without the revenue from food advertising
It has been claimed that funding received from advertising revenue paid by fast food manufacturers who promote their products during children's television programs is an important source of revenue for television stations. It has further been claimed that without this revenue these stations would not be able to produce or purchase quality programing for children.
Julie Flynn, chief executive of Free TV Australia, has argued that banning food advertising during children's television programs would severely limit the ability of broadcasters to produce high-quality programming.
6. There are other more effective means of addressing weight problems among Australian children than an advertising ban
It has been claimed that banning food advertisements from children's television programs is likely to be an ineffective means of addressing the problem of childhood obesity. Rather, it is claimed, the problem and the solution are more complex than whether or not children watc fast food advertisements on television.
It has been argued that family eating habits and exercise habits are both crucial in their effect on children's weight and fitness. It is also claimed that education programs dealin with both diet and exercise are more likely to be effective than banning advertisements.
This point was made by The Age in an editorial published on June 21, 2004. The editorial states, 'Governments can play a more effective role through educating both parents and children about the benefits of a healthy diet and adequate exercise.'
Arguments in favour of banning food advertising during children's television programs
1. Fast food or 'junk' food advertising effects children's eating habits
Numerous authorities and public figures have claimed that advertising fast food increases its consumption, especially among children. Former marathon champion Robert de Castella has called for the Government to slash the number of 'manipulative' food advertisements aimed at children. Mr Costello has argued, '... we need to exert more control . . . because kids are susceptible to these ads designed to push their buttons.'
A similar point has been made by the Labor Party. In its policy statement on this issue the Party stated, 'Australian studies show that around 80 per cent of foods advertised during children's television programs are for non-nutritious or unhealthy foods, and at 12 per hour Australia has more television food advertisements during children's programming times than any other country, including the US and UK ... children do not have the same capacity that adults have to make educated healthy lifestyle and dietary choices and ... those in leadership positions should take an active role in ensuring that children are given every opportunity to enjoy a long and healthy life.'
2. Fast food or 'junk' food contributes to weight problems among children
It has been claimed that fast food or 'junk' food is a major contributor to weight problems among children. It has been claimed that despite the supposed improvements in the food offerings at some fast food chains, the calorie content of their primcipal products have actually increased over the last couple of decades.
In an article published in Green Left Weekly on June 30, 2004, it was stated, 'Fast foods are becoming more dense, serves are larger and people, especially children, are eating more of them. A standard cheeseburger 20 years ago contained 333 calories; today it registers 590. This shift to energy-dense diets [has been] at the behest of the marketing skills of Ronald McDonald and Colonel Saunders ...'
3. Weight problems are becoming a serious health problem for Australian children
Childhood obesity had been steadily rising in Australia. In the decade up to 1995 the prevalence of overweight children almost doubled and these children have a very high probability of progressing to adult obesity. Obesity is one of the major health problems affecting Australia with around 30 per cent of Australian children currently estimated to be overweight or obese. Along with a concurrent tripling of obesity rates within the population overall, the rise in these figures among children suggests that a major trend is developing.
This trend is of particular concern because many diseases become far more likely in an overweight or obese population. For example, type 2 diabetes, (formerly termed 'late-onset' diabetes) has now begun to appear among Australian adolescents and is being diagnosed in increasing numbers.
It has further been suggested that weight problems among children are concerning because they increase the likelihood of these children being overweight or obese through adolescence and adulthood suffering all the health problems to which this can contribute.
4. Banning food advertisements assists parents; it does not absolve them of responsibility
It has been claimed that Labor's proposal would not remove from parents their responsibility in controlling their children's eating habits. Rather, it has been argued, such a ban would simply make it easier for parents to regulate what their children eat as they would face less pressure from their children nagging them for advertised products.
Tim Gill, Asia Pacific co-ordinator of the International Obesity Taskforce, has stated, 'No one is saying you should take the responsibility away from parents. But really you have to create an environment in which it is easier for parents.'
The ALP in the policy section of its Internet page has expressed a very similar view, stating, 'The task of parents is made easier if their children are not constantly requesting junk food and sugary drinks.'
5. Fast food manufacturers would exploit anything but a total ban on food advertising
It has been claimed that there are no universally accepted guidelines for healthy eating which could be relied upon to preclude commercials by fast food manufacturers.
It has also been claimed that if any food advertising were allowed, fast food companies would extend their product range to include some obviously nutritious items which they would be able to promote during children's television programs. This would then allow them to continue to advertise in a way that would encourage brand recognition.
The Labor Party has suggested that the only solution to these problems would be to ban food advertising altogether during television programs intended for children.
The Labor Party has explained its position in the following manner: 'While there are many organisations who offer general food consumption guidelines, there are currently no guidelines that are specific enough to determine what individual foods are considered suitable for promotion to children so restrictions based on guidelines are not considered feasible.
It is also possible; in fact highly likely, that any restriction based on guidelines would be circumvented by so-called "junk" food companies using healthy foods to continue to promote their brand name.'
6. Banning food advertising would be part of a mixed approach to the problem
The Labor Party acknowledges that a ban on food advertising is not a total solution to the problem of childhood obesity. The Labor Party proposes to make the ban part of a broader program which would include education on better eating habits and promoting exercise among children.
On its Internet site the Labor Party has stated, 'Labor acknowledges that junk food advertising is just one of many elements that contributes to the problem of childhood obesity, and that a ban on junk food advertising to children is alone not an answer to the problem. That is why Labor has developed a comprehensive cross-portfolio policy that promotes improvements in both dietary and exercise habits.'
Further implications
Though banning food advertising from children's television programs will not, of itself, solve the problem of childhood obesity, it does seem a sensible measure to take toward this end.
The fast food industry in Australia spends $82.2 million annually on TV advertising. It seems unlikely that this amount of money would be spent by these corporations unless it were having an impact on their market.
A recent study by Nielsen Media Research has found that lollies are children's favourite treat. The study examined 1.1 million children aged seven to 13 and their buying power through pocket money: 24 per cent get no money; 44 per cent get $1 to $5 a week; 15 per cent get $6 to $10; 2 per cent get $21 or more. The top buys were lollies, toys, food and drinks. The study found 1 per cent of children eat fast food every day and 32 per cent have it once a week
Pocket money, though a factor in the purchasing of lollies, drinks and chips is less a factor in the purchase of fast foods which are generally bought by parents for their children as a replacement meal.
An earlier study of children's favourite foods found that 90 per cent chose hot chips, followed closely by pizza (87 per cent), fish and chips (81 per cent), chicken nuggets (80 per cent), barbecue chicken (75 per cent) and pies, pasties and hamburgers (74 per cent).
The study also found that 81 per cent of children had eaten at a fast food restaurant in the past four weeks and 32 per cent of them at least four times during that period.
The study concluded that junk food preferences were a reflection of the advertising dollars spent on selling such products. Given this, banning such advertisements seems a valuable initiative.
Banning advertising of food during children's programming will however address only part of the problem. Children's eating habits are also profoundly influenced by the high fat convenience meals that are now a commonplace in the family diet. Families in which both parents work mean there is less time than was formerly the case for meal preparation.
There needs to be a community-wide education campaign to assist parents in preparing easy, nutritious meals for themselves and their children. Similar efforts need to be made to improve the quality of food offered for sale at school canteens. Finally, research indicates that reduced activity, not primarily reduced sports participation, is also a major contributor to childhood obesity. If it is no longer safe or practicable for a majority of children to walk to school, alternative forms of activity must be found and encouraged.
Sources
The Age
18/6/04 page 3 news item by Misha Schubert, 'Howard exercises right to counter-attack on child obesity'
18/6/04 page 3 news item by David Wroe, 'Forget TV, parents should control what kids eat, says mother of five'
19/6/04 page 5 news items by Suzanne Carbone, `The bogeymen out to empty your children's pockets'
19/6/04 page 5 news item by David Wroe, 'PM lean and mean on Labor food plan'
19/6/04 page 10 (Insight section) letters including, 'It's simple: ban junk food ads during children's TV
20/6/04 page 3 news item by Lucy Beaumont, 'Chips are stacked against healthy diet for children'
21/6/04 page 8 editorial, 'Labor fails the pinch test on obesity'
22/6/04 page 11 comment by Patricia Edgar, 'Super size Australia'
23/6/04 page 4 news item by Misha Schubert, 'Latham devious, slimy, says Howard'
The Australian
19/6/04 page 3 news item by Maiden, 'Deek's lesson on fat kids'
19/6/04 page 3 news item by Canning, 'PM echoes food gianrs' ad ban fight'
The Herald Sun
22/6/04 page 18 comment by Greg Barns, 'Weight problem ads up'