Ban Ronald McDonald?

[sandinista]

good links, maiforpeace, especially the "Hooked on McDonald's at Age 3", thats awful.

It is. The fact that a parent would take a three year old to McDonalds is sickening, isn't it?

Yah, because advertising saturation has no effect hmmm wonder why they banned cigarette ads in canaduh?

[Coito ergo sum]

good links, maiforpeace, especially the "Hooked on McDonald's at Age 3", thats awful.

It is. The fact that a parent would take a three year old to McDonalds is sickening, isn't it?

Yah, because advertising saturation has no effect hmmm wonder why they banned cigarette ads in canaduh?

Hasn't stopped Canadians from smoking. I've seen them opening those packs with the picture of disgusting diseased lungs on them. They smoke 'em like there is no tomorrow.

But, the advertising saturation could hardly have an effect on a 2 year old if that 2 year old didn't fucking eat a McDonald's burger, could it? Somebody is strapping the poor kid into a child car seat and driving it to the McDonalds. Whoever is doing that ought to know that 2 year olds are not supposed to be eating hamburgers and french fries. If they don't know that, then they ought not have a child.

[sandinista]

good links, maiforpeace, especially the "Hooked on McDonald's at Age 3", thats awful.

It is. The fact that a parent would take a three year old to McDonalds is sickening, isn't it?

Yah, because advertising saturation has no effect hmmm wonder why they banned cigarette ads in canaduh?

Hasn't stopped Canadians from smoking. I've seen them opening those packs with the picture of disgusting diseased lungs on them. They smoke 'em like there is no tomorrow.

Whether people still smoke or not is beside the point. The point is, cigarette ads were banned.

[Coito ergo sum]

good links, maiforpeace, especially the "Hooked on McDonald's at Age 3", thats awful.

It is. The fact that a parent would take a three year old to McDonalds is sickening, isn't it?

Yah, because advertising saturation has no effect hmmm wonder why they banned cigarette ads in canaduh?

Hasn't stopped Canadians from smoking. I've seen them opening those packs with the picture of disgusting diseased lungs on them. They smoke 'em like there is no tomorrow.

Whether people still smoke or not is beside the point. The point is, cigarette ads were banned.

...with only a minimal or marginal effect on sales, even with a concerted effort for 40years now beating the drum that cigarettes are bad. That is the point. Obviously, the ban was a largely symbolic measure. There is not a person in the world who doesn't know cigarettes cause cancer, and yet they still suck em down - advertising or no advertising.

[sandinista]

...with only a minimal or marginal effect on sales, even with a concerted effort for 40years now beating the drum that cigarettes are bad. That is the point. Obviously, the ban was a largely symbolic measure. There is not a person in the world who doesn't know cigarettes cause cancer, and yet they still suck em down - advertising or no advertising.

Still...beside the point. The ads were banned for health reasons, the same can apply to advertising mcshit to children. It's called a precedent. Besides that, there is no doubt that the attitude towards smoking and smokers has changed drastically in the last 20 years.

[Coito ergo sum]

...with only a minimal or marginal effect on sales, even with a concerted effort for 40years now beating the drum that cigarettes are bad. That is the point. Obviously, the ban was a largely symbolic measure. There is not a person in the world who doesn't know cigarettes cause cancer, and yet they still suck em down - advertising or no advertising.

Still...beside the point. The ads were banned for health reasons, the same can apply to advertising mcshit to children. It's called a precedent. Besides that, there is no doubt that the attitude towards smoking and smokers has changed drastically in the last 20 years.

The ads were banned to discourage smoking. Didn't work too much, and the reduction in smoking can easily be attributable to anti-smoking education.

That precedent thing is the problem with measures like "banning this or that advertisement." When the measure is first proposed, opponents say - "but hey that means you can ban whatever you want...." and the proponents poo-poo that saying , "you're just claiming a non-existent slippery slope..." And, then, of course, when something else is on the chopping block, they look back to precedent....

[maiforpeace]

Comparing the ban on advertising cigarettes to junk food is like comparing apples to oranges, particularly in regards to our most recent discussion regarding advertising to children. Last I looked you can't buy cigarettes if you are under the age of 18.

[sandinista]

Comparing the ban on advertising cigarettes to junk food is like comparing apples to oranges, particularly in regards to our most recent discussion regarding advertising to children. Last I looked you can't buy cigarettes if you are under the age of 18.

OK, take children out of the equation. Just from a health standpoint. Cigarette ads were banned for health concerns, fast food is in the same category. Both'll kill ya. I would also add that fast food should be taxed heavier, in the same way cigarettes and alcohol are (in canaduh anyway). The high taxes are justified by the future health care costs of smoking, the future health care costs for obesity and heart disease as well as diabetes are going to be astronomical due to fast food.

[Svartalf]

Well, if most means 60% versus 40% then sure CES.

I don't think you've established any percentage, and you're the one making the positive assertion that advertising to children is excessive and is the cause of obesity.

Children watching child targeted programming are bombarded by advertising targeting children. And among all that noise McDonald's is the most egregious and influential culprit?

Seriously?

Based on the argument leveled against Micky D's advertising, there should not be any advertising for anything directed at children. After all, children will be influenced by advertising to nag their parents for stuff and the parents are powerless to resist.

The solution is right in front of us, use that same suggestive power to target the parents to resist the nagging.
Use those mandatory free public service broadcasting minutes to do it.

There, everyone can feel better now.

and who's gonna lay out the coin for such a massive and pervasive campaign? the state using your tax money when they already can't balance a budget short of throwing the whole country into recession and stopping to properly perform their basic duties?

[Coito ergo sum]

The solution is right in front of us, use that same suggestive power to target the parents to resist the nagging.
Use those mandatory free public service broadcasting minutes to do it.

There, everyone can feel better now.

and who's gonna lay out the coin for such a massive and pervasive campaign? the state using your tax money when they already can't balance a budget short of throwing the whole country into recession and stopping to properly perform their basic duties?

I think Gallstones was being sarcastic.

I would suggest the solution is just to have the government go take care of current problems instead of pretending they know how to address obesity and fast food. They don't. It's hardly the government's business.

You're right - balance the fucking budget. Then when you do that, come back and we'll talk about McDonalds.

[Warren Dew]

If you live in a city, and you walk home from school, the likelihood you will pass a McDonald's on the way home is huge.

Sorry, but this is false. I live in a city, there are no McDonalds' anywhere near the routes to the nearest schools. This is the case not only for most residential areas in this city, but also the other cities I know of nearby.

It's a mistake to extrapolate from your a area. The McDonalds business model depends on providing food at low prices in restaurants with enough area to facilitate rapid customer turnover. That's easy to do in rural areas where land is cheap, but the business model doesn't work in most urban locations, where land prices are much higher than in suburban or rural locations. There are a few places where a McDonalds can make money in cities, but they have to find perfect locations. As a result, the per capita occurrence of McDonalds' seems to be much lower in cities than in the suburbs or rural areas.

The average kid walking to a McDonalds in this city is getting a far more healthy meal experience than he'd normally get, because he'd have to walk a fair distance to get there.

[Warren Dew]

Yah, because advertising saturation has no effect hmmm wonder why they banned cigarette ads in canaduh?

Because Canada likes passing ineffective laws?

[Warren Dew]

and who's gonna lay out the coin for such a massive and pervasive campaign?

Public service broadcasting minutes in the U.S. are free. No big expenditures would be required for Gallstones' suggestion.

[Gallstones]

The solution is right in front of us, use that same suggestive power to target the parents to resist the nagging.
Use those mandatory free public service broadcasting minutes to do it.

There, everyone can feel better now.

and who's gonna lay out the coin for such a massive and pervasive campaign? the state using your tax money when they already can't balance a budget short of throwing the whole country into recession and stopping to properly perform their basic duties?

I think Gallstones was being sarcastic.

I was.



Or maybe I wasn't.

[JimC]

Comparing the ban on advertising cigarettes to junk food is like comparing apples to oranges, particularly in regards to our most recent discussion regarding advertising to children. Last I looked you can't buy cigarettes if you are under the age of 18.

OK, take children out of the equation. Just from a health standpoint. Cigarette ads were banned for health concerns, fast food is in the same category. Both'll kill ya. I would also add that fast food should be taxed heavier, in the same way cigarettes and alcohol are (in canaduh anyway). The high taxes are justified by the future health care costs of smoking, the future health care costs for obesity and heart disease as well as diabetes are going to be astronomical due to fast food.

It would be very trick to decide what should be taxed at a heavier rate... Any food sold on a take-away, ready to eat basis? That could include salad rolls, etc

I think you have to be careful with regulation and taxes. However, I would support a minimalist stance of banning advertising fast food to children, along with the accompanying toy bribes...