Wall St was down 94 overnight, its biggest fall in a month, while the local market is down 66.
Where is the evidence that junk food ads make kids fat?
|
Australia’s public health establishment doesn’t lack ideas. Another official report into preventative health brings another few dozen recommended regulations, subsidies, cries for greater ‘public awareness’ and demands for further (commissioned) research. This latest edition is the result of the Senate Inquiry into Obesity in Australia put out yesterday in order to avoid being completely overshadowed by the release of a National Preventative Health Strategy that should come out sometime this month. The committee’s proposals are predictable. Limiting — with a view to banning — advertising of junk food to children. Subsidising gym memberships. Even more food labelling. Regulating stupid diet programs. Encouraging urban planners to deliberately design cities that are inconvenient to drive in. We’ve been hearing these ideas for years. Unfortunately, while public health advocates may talk big on ‘evidence-based’ policy, their recommendations almost always fall well below that standard. Take the popular claim that junk food advertising is causing fat kids. The evidence just isn’t there. The federal government’s peak communications research body, the Australian Communications and Media Authority, has concluded that it is near impossible to parse out the relationship between advertising and childhood obesity. At best, advertising could account for 2% of food choice. And the fuzziness of the relationship is clearly reflected in the academic literature: “Despite media claims to the contrary, there is no good evidence that advertising has a substantial influence on children’s food consumption and, consequently, no reason to believe that a complete ban on advertising would have any useful impact on childhood obesity rates.” Yet despite this almost complete lack of evidence — which was acknowledged in the committee’s public hearings — the committee’s report just recommends more stringent regulations on advertising, and, of course, more research. And the Senate was actually quite conservative compared to the waves of doctors and public health activists who participated in the inquiry, agitating for every sort of ban and regulation on marketing to children they could think of. So why such a casual approach to the use of evidence in developing effective public policy, from an industry that prides itself on the close scrutiny of evidence as it affects medical outcomes? Regulation might not be a science, but does nevertheless require careful attention to cost-benefit analysis, and some analysis of efficacy and efficiency. And then governments need to consider the philosophical implications of many regulations — how it relates to responsibility and choice, and who will bear the brunt of the costs. But as we wait for the Preventative Health Taskforce to lodge its report, we’re still seeing no signs that these issues are really being considered. Chris Berg is a Research Fellow with the Institute of Public Affairs. |
|
|
12 Comments
Chris, did you just step out of Dr Who’s tardis, having last dropped in on a tobacco industry spin meeting in the 1970s? Because that claptrap is exactly the line that the tobacco industry ran for 30 years (no evidence that tobacco advertising influences aggregate demand .. only brand share). So now it’s no evidence that Maccas/KFC et al’s advertising has ever played a part in kids eating more calories/day than they would if they never went there, right? BTW, who pays the salaries of you people at the IPA?
Simon
What a pathetic attempt to rationalise the reprehensible!
Junk food is poison. It is filled with fat, sugar and chemical additives which do great harm to our health. Children do not have the wisdom to discern such things. If an attractive,happy person or a cartoon character they love, tells them it’s good stuff and they need it, then that’s what they will believe.
The lack of “evidence” is immaterial and a very poor excuse. It would not be possible to mount an argument in 2009 that excessive fat and sugar are beneficial to anyone. Advertising to children is really brainwashing because they are powerless to discriminate. The cry from the advertisers that parents have the ability to control children’s viewing habits is really quite malicious. Parents are fight a losing battle against the power of a billion dollar industry. Mr Berg’s comments about choice and responsibility are laughable.
The question should be - is advertising junk products to our children BENEFICIAL to them?
How is this lobby group so powerful that we allow such manipulation of our children to continue unabated and people like Chris Berg to be an apologist for them?
IPA “fellow” … say no more. It must be damned hard keeping up the appearance of being taken seriously.
Lack of evidence that junk food causes obesity? It may not in itself cause obesity if it is given as a rare treat by parents. But considering the fat and sugar load it would have to be a factor if eaten several times a week in place of more nutritious food.
McDonald’s and KFC et al wouldn’t saturate TV if they didn’t think they could influence the choice of dinner.Take a look at the adverts that display smiling families having “fun” eating their products.
Not to mention sugar loaded soft drinks such as Coca Cola which many children appear to drink daily.
Let’s ask a different question: Is fast food/junk food unhealthy and causing obesity in children? Yes. Then we should regulate or ban advertising. It has nothing to do with whether the advertising is linked with this.
The report says: “…there is little evidence in this area to support either argument” and “lack of evidence does not mean there is no evidence” and “The reason that there is not much evidence is because it is difficult to study”.
“At best, advertising could account for 2% of food choice.”
In that case McDonalds has no reason to object if its ads are restricted on TV. Obviously they spend billions of dollars (and devised 130 separate ads in just the last year solely for the Australian market) just for that 2% of market share. Yep, Chris Berg has convinced me with his evidence-based argument.
Now let me get this straight. You all seem to agree that watching junk food advertising makes our kids fat. Right? OK . If this is so, then ensure the kids also watch lots of exercise advertising which, on the same logic will make them thin! Problem solved. But if you mean buying and eating the junk food advertised, than a different solution is required. Dont give the kids any money to buy the junk food.
I rely on the academics in the field on this one, or even better the testimony of that Phd in advertising PR interviewed in doco The Corporation. She worked I think for the big scottich restuarant chain if memory serves. That was pretty compelling evidence that they pay big money for advertising to sell fatty food. Burp.
Was it Dick Cavett who said that all this comedy on TV is causing comedy to break out on our streets?
Pester power doesn’t work, and that is why advertiser’s never consider it when they are marketing to children. Ooops, I mean NOT marketing to children.
My two children have never been permitted to watch commercial television. Neither of them are overweight, although they lounge about on the couch fixated on the pixels for the average 2 hours a day. They were recently quite surprised to discover there are other channels besides the ABC. Interestingly they don’t choose to watch them because, they whine, the programs are frequently interrupted with other “stories” that don’t interest them.
Perhaps the question we could be asking is: if children are not exposed to frequent advertising for less healthy food options, are they more or less likely to become overweight? That might be easier to test? I’m interested to hear what others think of that idea.