Ontario NDP wants ban on food ads for kids

Do children qualify as "youth"? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] Anyway, I'm putting it in this forum:

G&M

quote:Ontario is facing a “serious problem” with overweight children and must do more to protect them by banning advertising directed at kids, NDP critic Rosario Marchese said.

He plans to introduce a bill Monday amending the Consumer Protection Act to prohibit commercial television advertising for food or drink that is directed at a child under the age of 13.

“We believe that marketers know when marketing works and it does affect dietary choices that children make,” he said.

Dumb question:

Why not ban ALL advertising aimed at kids under 13??

[ 06 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

I would LOVE that. Doesn't Quebec have such a law?

The "food" ads are the worst, though.

And label the foods that are dangerous as dangerous. Warning, may contain...... This product has no nutrient value and will lead to obesity and a host of other health problems including heart disease, diabetes, etc.

Sort of like cigarettes.

quote:Originally posted by Michelle:
Doesn't Quebec have such a law?

Yes it does - an explanation is here.

Good for Marchese and the NDP.

You gotta start somewhere I suppose and the media hype about "Are your kids fat?" makes this a good place to start.

quote:Originally posted by Mercy:
Good for Marchese and the NDP.

You gotta start somewhere I suppose and the media hype about "Are your kids fat?" makes this a good place to start.

I agree you "gotta start somewhere", but are you aware that Quйbec banned all advertising directed at children almost thirty years ago?

And that advertisers spent the next ten years in court until the Supreme Court of Canada finally upheld the ban in 1989?

Is there some reason why the same couldn't be done in Ontario??

quote:Originally posted by unionist:
Is there some reason why the same couldn't be done in Ontario??

Right now we have a phony-majority Liberal dictatorship. They have 22% of the eligible vote propping them up with over 60% of the seats in Toronto legislature and good for 100% of the power. They can tell Rosario and the NDP to go to hell at every turn and most likely will for another four long years. Last one out of Ontario should turn off the lights until the newklear power bills come rolling in. Got any cheap electricity in la belle province that isn't being siphoned off to the States, unionist?

quote:Originally posted by unionist:
Why not ban ALL advertising aimed at kids under 13??

I believe they have done so in Sweden.

quote:Originally posted by Fidel:

Right now we have a phony-majority Liberal dictatorship.

Ok, Fidel. When the NDP forms the government - with a true majority - do you think they should ban advertising to children, as the PQ did thirty years ago - or would that still be too risky?

quote:Originally posted by unionist:

Ok, Fidel. When the NDP forms the government - with a true majority - do you think they should ban advertising to children, as the PQ did [b]thirty years ago - or would that still be too risky?[/b]

Yes, a bagel with cream cheese would be better for them than a High Ball "energy" drink or whatever it is their selling.

And we should ban pharmaceutical advertising.

And I'm appalled over the feds sending out adverts in the mail for kids to join the military. The same enticements are listed on army posters plastered all over our malls where unemployed young Canadians frequent. They list "Over 100 full and part-time job opportunities", Professional fields and technical trades, and most glaringly, Financial aid for your studies. If socialism is good enough for our colonial administrators in Ottawa and our "Yes-yes! aye-aye Uncle Sam" stoogeocrats, then it should be good enough for all Canadians at the same time. I am definitely not a proud Canadian on this day.

I agree unionist - complete ban. That noted, look at the backlash against Marchese's bill. quote: A proposal to ban all television advertising of food and drinks to children under 13 in Ontario is unrealistic in the Internet age and governments should instead concentrate on better educating both parents and children about commercials, advertisers and media observers said Monday.

Quebec has had a similar, and more far reaching, ban on all advertising aimed at children for 25 years but studies suggest the impact is reduced in homes that have cable television bringing in media from other provinces and countries.

The proposed private member's bill in Ontario, introduced Monday, would be even less effective in today's wired world and children need to be taught to be more media savvy, said Jane Tallim, co-executive director of the Ottawa-based Media Awareness Network.

"TV tends to be quite a passive medium. The child watches an engaging commercial and it might encourage them to ask for a particular product," Tallim said in an interview.

"But on the Internet, you have marketers building whole environments that kids become immersed in and that's much more powerful in building brand identity and brand loyalty."

The Media Awareness Network has a game on its website that helps children learn about advertising and how companies target them, and Tallim said that's a more effective approach than trying to implement a ban that just wouldn't work.

The Concerned Children's Advertisers - which represents 16 major food and beverage companies including General Mills, Kellogg's, Kraft, Coca Cola and Pepsico - said Monday that the ban on advertising directed at children in Quebec has not lowered child obesity rates.

The children's advertisers have adopted a new code in which some members will stop making commercials aimed at children under 12, cartoon characters will no longer be used to promote fast foods, and companies will use ads to promote healthier food choices and a more active lifestyle.

"I think that's where advertising can play such a powerful role in promoting healthy active living messages and hopefully helping to shift societal norm for kids," said executive director Diana Carradine.At least the CP reporter had the integrity to mention that Concerned Children's Advertisers is a front group for the junk-food industry but she (or he) reported, straight-up, that the so-called Media Awarness Network opposed the bill - without mentioning that it's a who's who of media conglomerates. This board of directors is like a broadcast industry rolodex. [12]

MNet's programs are funded by its public and private sector sponsors, donors and partners, who include: Bell Canada - CTVglobemedia - TELUS - Microsoft Canad [13]

Insane.

quote:Quebec has had a similar, and more far reaching, ban on all advertising aimed at children for 25 years but studies suggest the impact is reduced in homes that have cable television bringing in media from other provinces and countries.

Kind of makes the case for extending the ban to other provinces and countries, doesn't it?

How would this work? Would Rogers be "forced" to block any and all commercials regardless of the location of the station they are on?

For example if you have digital you can get cbc vancouver to cbc newfoundland. So if the ad ran on cbc vancouver would rogers toronto have to ban it from playing in ontario?

quote:Originally posted by miles:
How would this work? Would Rogers be "forced" to block any and all commercials regardless of the location of the station they are on?

I would hope so. If the U.S. makes child porn legal, I would imagine Rogers would be shut down in two seconds flat if it broadcast that here. I do believe where there's a will, there's a way - if you pass a law, enforce it.

Canadian cable stations already somehow find a way to broadcast Canadian commercials over American feeds. I'm sure they can find a way to block advertising aimed at children.

Does anyone know if this covers ALL food ads aimed at children or only junk food ads? I.e. will ads for milk or apple juice aimed at kids also be subjected to the ban?

Are American stations available in Quebec? How do they restrict those commercials?

The Quйbec law bans ALL advertising targeting children, so that would also include milk and juice ads.

But aren't most ads for milk and real juice directed to the general public?

There are many ways to promote healthier eating among children, for example in schools and CPEs (public daycare centre network).

Do remember that cow's milk is NOT healthy for all children, and too much juice (as opposed to whole fruits) can be a problem.

I remember when I was little, long ago, there was a whole ideology centred on cow's milk, promotions of it in schools etc. One nasty teacher thought I was just being difficult when I told her I was allergic to milk. (I flushed bright red and got horrible cramps - fortunately not the very, very serious respiratory problems allergies can cause)...

Schools back then were very intolerant of any kid with an allergy, slight handicap etc.

I don't see milk ads targeted at kids, but lots of juice ads.

Too much juice is bad. Same is true of water, though. That can kill you.

Do Quebec broadcasters have to screen commercials on American stations?

Yeah, too much of anything is bad for you but if you're going to run food/beverage ads at kids, it's much better that it be juice or water than Coke or Pepsi. Does anyone know what sort of criteria they use to determine whether an ad is "targetted at kids"? It can be somewhat subjective.

[ 09 April 2008: Message edited by: Dr. Hilarius ]

I can tell you that one specific ad I see a lot (especially on APTN) is for Sunny D. This is sugar water and because they add Vitamins they advertise themselves "as the good drink kids go for." That ad might make it onto Quebec television because it is pitching to parents not children. It is still deliberately misleading and aimed at getting our young people to consume products that are every bit as dangerous to their health as smoking.

I think that advertising is at the root of our planets problems but that is another debate. Go figure we have been inundated with consume consume consume and lo and behold mother earth is almost consumed.

quote:Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
I can tell you that one specific ad I see a lot (especially on APTN) is for Sunny D. This is sugar water and because they add Vitamins they advertise themselves "as the good drink kids go for."

Might as well wash a vitamin pill down with a coke [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

There's lots of detailed info on this page for how the Quйbec law reads and guidelines on how it is to be applied.

The distinction between 'targeted at kids' and 'targeted at parents' may simply be where the ad occurs. If you are banning ads for kids, then the simplest way to do it is to prohibit commercials during television shows whose main viewer demographic is under 12.

Is this how Quebec does it?

Most of the TV my kids watch is Treehouse TV, which doesn't air commercials (except plugs for other shows that are also on Treehouse).

quote:Originally posted by Proaxiom:
Is this how Quebec does it?

We cross-posted. Read my link above.

Yes, thanks.

So the show it appears in is a factor in whether an ad is permissible, as are some design characteristics of the ad, and the time it airs.

As far as I can see, it doesn't mention what happens with US broadcasts, though.

For some reason magazine advertising is exempt.

quote:Originally posted by Proaxiom:
For some reason magazine advertising is exempt.

Well, not quite. The magazine can't appear more than once every three months, and even then there's all the criteria in secion 91 that have to be met.

I guess they figure 3 months is enough time for the parents to say "no". [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

Does anyone know if this would include ads that feature athletes, etc.? i.e. the ads that lebron James does for Sprite could be considered "directed at kids" since many kids look up Lebron James.

quote:Originally posted by unionist:

I guess they figure 3 months is enough time for the parents to say "no". [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]

It takes me less than 3 seconds.

Occasionally that will extend to 3 minutes for me to get them to stop their whining about it, using threat of toy confiscation.

quote:Originally posted by unionist:

Why not ban [b]ALL advertising aimed at kids under 13??
[ 06 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ][/b]

Why not ban ALL advertising -- period? (I am not being sarcastic.) I'd be comfortable preserving the phone book model of advertising -- if I want to /seek out/ ads, fine. Plenty of jurisdictions have banned billboards, and tobacco advertisements, for example, have been banned or heavily restricted without eliminating the industry. I'm tired of the onslaught. If a product is appealing enough to consumers, it won't require an entire industry centered around how best to deceive the public to convince us of that.

quote:Originally posted by cco:

Why not ban [b]ALL advertising -- period? (I am not being sarcastic.)[/b]

I'd like to ban capitalism, but my question was more aimed at wondering why the Ontario NDP can't simply propose something which has been law next door for 30 years.

quote: Might as well wash a vitamin pill down with a coke

[img]redface.gif" border="0[/img] Thats what I do

I always say there's nothing like a Jos. Louis and a can of Pepsi to start the day off right.

quote:Originally posted by cco:
Why not ban [b]ALL advertising -- period?[/b]

There are some benefits to advertising. It pays for a lot of things we find useful.

One example being most of the content on the Internet. Also, radio. And television programming, excluding specialty channels that you pay for.

I have a question - how does Quebec determine whether an ad is aimed at a child or not? I can imagine that there would be a lot of grey area there.

From the statute:

249. To determine whether or not an advertisement is directed at persons under thirteen years of age, account must be taken of the context of its presentation, and in particular of

(a) the nature and intended purpose of the goods advertised;

(b) the manner of presenting such advertisement;

(c) the time and place it is shown.

Some descriptive explanation:

quote:The Regulation respecting the application of the Consumer Protection Act provides some exceptions. For example, a television advertisement to announce a show directed to children may be broadcast, provided this advertisement is in conformity with certain requirements listed in the regulation.

Under the Consumer Protection Act, the advertising of certain products (toys, candies and foods) and certain services in children’s programs is prohibited unless the TV advertisement is of no interest to children. Restrictions also apply to certain characteristics of advertisements such as:

1.
the use of themes pertaining to fantasy, magic, mystery, suspense and adventure;

2.
the inappropriate use of children, the use of childish voices, heroes, fantastic or eccentric creatures, and the use of animals;

3.
the use of music that is particularly attractive to children.

The Office de la protection du consommateur (OPC), which oversees the implementation of this legislation, has established guidelines addressed to cases in which advertising is addressed to both children and parents. This type of advertising may only be broadcast during programs for which children between the ages of 2 and 11 account for less than 15% of the audience.

Source.

[ 10 May 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

[Whoops, wrong thread...]

That sounds great. Obviously there is going to be grey area even with that level of detail, and advertisers will try to push the envelope. But if Quebec can do it, I don't see why we can't.

And as you say, I don't see why we can't ban ALL ads aimed at kids. But food is a good start.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081111/kids_arteri...

Well, something definitely needs to be done.  I would like to see a ban on these foods altogether, but that's unreasonable.

the quebec thing along with teaching kids n also parents to know more about what they getting is the solution. One won't work without the other. That how it should be done.

I think the real issue is with adult and child poverty ie. poverty in general across Canada. I think that as it is with youth from higher income households tending to choose higher education more often, children from low income households also tend to have more food issues, poorer overall health and affecting health and state of mind into adulthood.

Canada ranks 25th out of 30 capitalist OECD countries when it comes to social spending. Our two stoogeocratic old line parties want cleaning out of Ottawa and Toronto as an exercise in democracy.

While waiting for poverty to be abolished and the NDP to be elected federally (or vice versa), maybe the ONDP could suggest banning advertising aimed at children, as Québec has done.

I remember when the corporate rubber stamps at the CRTC lifted the ban on  liqour advertising on T.V.

Global ran Kholua commercials during "Saved by the Bell" for the after school crowd.

 The advertising world has never understood the concept of self restraint. 

It must be imposed upon them.

Canada's two old line parties dont care about child poverty or children in general. Children cant vote,  therefore, Canada's appallingly high rates of child poverty compared to 30 other first world capitalist nations will continue to be a persistent problem for years to come under phony-majority Liberal and conservative rule, and vice versa. 

I think our two old line party stoogeocrats would actually need to be banned from running for politics based on how many lies they've told during election campaigns and major policy flip-flops once elected to phony-baloney majority rule over several decades. And people thought this was another boring thread about how much more progressive Quebec is on some minor point than Ontario is after decades and decades of Tory and Liberal rule here.

Fidel, please ask the ONDP to call for a ban on child-targetted advertising. My union has lobbied the NDP, both in opposition and in power, for labour issues - and we have often been successful.

When people raise convincing arguments, the NDP often listen. When people spend all their time saying that the NDP is perfect, there's nothing to listen to.

Who is calling for restrictions on food and beverage advertisement targeted at children?

The McGuinty Liberal dictatorship doesnt act as fast here in Ontario, Unionist. It took some prodding and pushing by the NDP here just to get them to ban trans fats from school cafeterias. 

And the cell phone ban in cars was a big executive type decision for these other 22 percenters in phony-baloney majority power in Ontario. So you can imagine what it's like for the NDP here as the effective opposition provincially.

[Going more slowly...]

Fidel, do you personally support a total ban on all media advertising targeting children under 13?

[And gearing down to glacial speed for your benefit]

According to your own thread title, you do support a ban on junk food advertising targeting young ppl in Ontario, or do you not?

Our Liberals need to take baby steps before jumping on the bandwagon like Quebec has, especially when considering what an advanced social democracy Quebec is compared to Sweden and Denmark and other social democrat strongholds in Europe.

And what about banning of pharmaceutical advertisements? Has Quebec gotten around to that one yet?

Why not think really big?

Nope, Fidel, everything but junk food. Happy?

Québec banned all - ALL - advertising targeting children 30 YEARS AGO.

And we never even were blessed with an NDP government.

Even baby steps would have got you there in 30 years.

But Fidel, someone has to suggest it. Ask for it. Lobby for it. Raise it. Mention it.

You tell me exactly which political party in Ontario will go into the next election proclaiming: "No, the ONDP is wrong, we must continue to allow advertising specifically targeting 0-12 year olds!!!"

I'd like to hear from other babblers on this point. Has anyone suggested this policy? Or would it be another one of those "suicidal" platforms for the ONDP, like so many others?

And dont forget the piecemeal daycare system in place in Quebec since forever, and no thanks to the NDP!!

I too think that all advertising targetting children should be outright banned, permanently. At least, television advertising (I don't mind so much if toy companies want to run ads in print). I was probably in the first generation targetting extensively by advertisers as a child, and I can definately see the effect in later generations as the techniques were refined. The ads generally encourage children to pester their parents for stuff, ie it constitutes an antisocial force in our society. I think there would be tons of support among voters for such measures - its the kind of issue I'd almost consider changing my vote for, except ...

The problem is that it just won't fly even with massive support, and voters know it.  There's just too much cronyism. The corporations would just flip a lid. Even if a bill of some sort passed, it would instantly be neutered and enforced only weakly (there are many good consumer protection laws in Ontario, but you'd never know it from lack of enforcement and general knowledge).

The revenue generated by the most gullible of audiences is just too much to pass up. And it would really be hard to define exactly what is targetted at children. There are even car ads that call on children to harass their parents ... the product may not be directed at children, but now that advertisers have realized the power of children to influence their parent's purchases, even those not selling children's products have jumped on the bandwagon.

But I'm sure there's lots of cronyism in Quebec politics, and yet they managed to not only ban food ads but all ads aimed at children.

That's right! Why, just imagine if the government tried to ban alcohol or tobacco advertising! It would never fly! Do you have any clue how powerful those companies are?! A  better idea would be to do nothing. Whew, dodged another corporate bullet. Now let's see, maybe we can talk about tax cuts...

Far, far less powerful than the constellation of industries that prey on children (and/or their parents) via advertising. Even insurance agencies are now getting in on the act, using children to harass their parents. State Farm just started advertising on Nickelodeon (a kid's cable channel in the US) for instance:

http://tiny.cc/9aLcZ

Daedalus, it's been the law in Québec for 30 years. Nothing is perfect, but this law seems to work. Let's not declare defeat in advance. I started this thread by saying that the ONDP was setting its sights too low. By doing so, it will ironically make it even harder to succeed.

Child obesity a growing problem in Montreal: study

But then again, big pharma doesnt really need to advertise drugs to treat diabetes. Because once people have it, theyre hooked on pharmaceutical products like metamorphin and insulin for life.

So like Quebec has done, so have Sweden and Norway banned all advertising aimed at children. But those countries have also banned drug advertisements aimed at consumers of all ages. And those countries have have had social democrats [60] either in political power or strong opposition for long periods of time. And, social democrats in Sweden and Norway have made great strides toward eliminating child poverty in their countries.

I'll admit I might be a bit pessimistic about its chances for success right now, but realistically speaking its not really a top priority in this province at the moment either. A lot of people in Ontario are in crisis. Have been since the Harris regime - in fact, there are tons of people who were doing better during the Harris years than they are right now, since the Liberals haven't done anything to roll back the Common Nonsense and haven't even managed to keep pace with cost of living increases since then.

The increase to the minimum wage, fighting for health care and so on are the kind of immediate, crisis issues that the NDP is - and very much should be - focused on, particularly as things are getting a whole lot worse quite rapidly right now.

Also I'd like to point out that the hardcore children's advertising was only just firing up 30 years ago. It was still restricted to a few products targetted at children, they hadn't yet figured out that car manufacturers and insurance companies could get in on the act and train children to harass their parents and influence their purchases. It's much different today, there is alot more at stake and it's a much bigger fight. Even if you restrict it to just kid's cereals and snacks or whatever, they'll all sense something in the wind and rally to protect something so very lucrative. It's something that would be met with huge, well-funded, well-connected resistance; possibly still a battle that could be won but perhaps not one that should be sought at the present time.

The argument that "it's not a priority" makes no sense to me. No one offered a choice between raising the minimum wage and banning ads targeting kids.

As for "huge ... resistance", project for me how that would work: "Ads for kids keep Ontarians employed!" "Kids have rights too!" "If they don't learn to consume now, they never will!"

Which political party would publicly oppose a ban on ads for kids? And even if they did, how would that harm the ONDP?

C'mon ... you and I both know that much money and power and connection and access - we're talking about practically the entire corporate world here - there are plenty of ways to sabotage resistance and enlist loads of consent without being so blunt or obvious about it. It's just not that simple ... for instance, how do you define what constitutes "targetted at children" in legal terms? Featuring children in the ads? Featuring cartoon characters? That's what they would attack ... "There goes that crazy NDP again ... banning cartoon characters in television ads ... " or whatever. It's not the principle they'd attack, they'd go after its formulation.

This province has much more immediate problems, and many of them, and only so many things can be addressed simultaneously. Wheelchair access is a wonderful cause, but it certainly wouldn't be my first concern if I was in Sierra Leone! Similarly I think this province is entering quite a serious crisis that really isn't appreciated by those living well above the minimum wage, and there are immediate problems - loads of them - to address right now.

Sorry, I didn't get your answer - which political party in Ontario would oppose this?

This thread has been open for one year, and it's not that lengthy. Your question has already been answered. Please scroll up and read the legal language and the published guidelines for its interpretation - here.

You envision a separate provincial election campaign dealing just with ads for kids?

What exactly has this total ban on advertising aimed at children achieved in Quebec? The CBC article above suggests that child poverty and an increasing rate of child obesity on the island of Montreal are related issues. 

In this province, the ONDP's proposed ban on advertising junk food for children intends to help reduce child obesity and health problems later in life. The ONDP advocates both reducing child poverty as well as banning junk food ads aimed at children.  

Omigod, you're right, the ban on ads for kids didn't eliminate poverty, poor health among the working class, and capitalism. And it wasn't an NDP initiative. Thanks for the wakeup call, Fidel.

ETA: I forgot to answer your question. What the ban achieved was to prohibit advertising aimed at children. Just like the bans on advertising of tobacco and alcohol. But I guess if there are still poor kids, smokers, and drunks, might as well repeal those useless bans.

Well, if it makes you feel better Unionist, I think your funny. Oh, and I think you right.

Well I havent seen many ads for liquor or tobacco targeting children here in Ontario. As far as I can tell, cigarettes arent even on display anymore in our gas stations. And it's still against the law here to serve alcohol to anyone under the age of 19.

And I'm not sure what that might have to do  with increasing rates of obesity among children on the island of Montreal, or even here in Ontario, a province with the largest number of children living anywhere below the poverty line and experiencing rising health care costs due to obesity and related diseases, rising costs of commercially advertised pharmaceutical drugs, etc 

Any of them, maybe both of them. They'd just distort and of course the media (highly beholden to advertisers in particular) will be compliant in such distortions. "The NDP wants to control what kinds of music can be played on television" etc I'm sure the spin doctors will whip up all kinds of stuff if necessary. Not like advertisers have any paucity of in-house talent there.

No, where do you get that? There are alot of immediate, critical things to worry about right now, there should be a very strong focus on economic issues and I think there's only so many other issues you can take on simultaneously before focus is lost. Can't we take a raincheck on this one for a few years? On the economic front, there are so many crises to deal with and it's at a time when the public really, really needs the NDP to focus on work and the economy.

Sure, no problem. After 30 years, what's another few?

BTW, are you sure this is the right time to be raising the minimum wage when so many Ontarians are losing their jobs? Can you imagine what the uber-powerful corporate lobbyists will do with that? "Sure, make it harder to keep Ontarians employed! Good thinking, NDP!" Maybe a whole chequebook full of rain cheques?

So why are you here (in this thread)?  To tell everyone what they are talking about isn't important? 

This is another dodge from the central thread issue. But, yes, now is a good time to put more money into the pockets of those living anywhere below poverty line and with low, nil, and negative disposable income, and especially during a recession.  Of course, this would be part of a Keynesian approach to dealing with poverty and all its adverse effects in a province that has raised taxes on everyone but those most able to pay and levied user fees on everything from health care to recreational facilities and provincial park use. Or iow's, our so-called Liberals have raised priceson things that could be useful in raising overall activity levels and life's enjoyments for working poor families and everyone living below poverty line in this Northern Puerto Rico.

On February 6, 2009, General Mills pleaded guilty to a charge of violating Art. 248 of the Québec Consumer Protection Act when it advertised its Lucky Charms cereal on a website in a way that was deemed to be aimed at children under 13. They paid a $2,000 fine, but more important obviously was the requirement to remove the ads. Source.

On January 26, 2009, the Consumer Protection Bureau announced that Saputo Bakeries had agreed, just before going to trial, to plead guilty to 22 charges of distributing material in child care centres advertising one of their muffin products called "Igor". They paid a fine of $44,000. Source. [74]

Mind you, with all the crime in our streets and plant closures, perhaps we should stop wasting resources enforcing the petty stuff.

I wonder if the fines were large enough to make the illegal ads unprofitable

The law was enough to make the acts illegal. That, besides the fines, is a pretty good start - no? At least it's society saying such brainwashing of children is unacceptable. I just wanted to cite a couple of examples to show that the law is indeed being applied, and even to the internet - although much remains to be done, obviously.

So aside from the specific issue of child obesity -  in provinces like Ontario, are corporations taking advantage of an absence of Quebec style laws against all advertising aimed at children? I'm actually tired of seeing ads for drugs to enhance the sex lives of middle aged and older people here. And I still see ads for junk food which probably appeal to young and old people alike with no specific target audience identifiable. There are no more tobacco shops located inside major grocery stores here though as far as I can tell.

Yeah, they'll fight about that, and they'll fight hard. But it's precisely the right time to be raising the minimum wage, unless we want to lose all but our luxury consumer base. There won't be any jobs without that. It's a timely fight, especially with the rapid demise of Friedman's ideals and the resurgence of Keynes'.

As far as the children's advertising, I really think its a big issue, they are using it to create consent for a consumerist society at a younger and younger age to the degree that younger generations seem to be having increasing difficulty formulating opinions outside of what's spoon-fed to them by the corporate media. Not only that, they are altering children's behaviours and subverting their parents - a direct attack on the social fabric of our households - in order to enlist the children as high-pressure salesmen, against their parents. I'm not saying it isn't an important issue that needs to be addressed soon - on the contrary I think it's very important.

I just think you're underestimating the resistance that will be thrown up against it and the amount of attention that will need to be devoted to making the first crack. It's a precedent alot of powerful interests will fight tooth and nail to smother.

Fidel says it's not a problem in Ontario. Daedalus says the enemy will fight it tooth and nail. Oh well, I'm sure the truth lies somewhere in between. But if it diverts attention from the really big issues, maybe just forget about it.

In the 1960s I drove a big Chev 30 dumptruck with dualies to collect castoffs for Ottawa Neighborhood Services, and take crap to the dump. My assistant (and both of us were in grades 10 - 12 during this time) was a year younger than me, but looked ten years older, probably because he started the day exactly as you suggested (and repeated this diet throughtout the day, before and after lunch). He looked older because his face was completely pimpled out and his hair was greasy and unkempt. I never touched a Jos. Louis or Pepsi until very late in the day, when I needed a quick energy fix, precisely of what it did to my assistant. Teenagers in the 1960s ate a lot of shit, and probably still do, but I know a lot of families today where their kids aren't so careless about what they eat. I even see teenagers eating salads today - hardly ever saw that when I was growing up.

dp

I'd like to see study results for the pluses of Quebec's total ban on kiddie advertising. It's great to say that Quebec has banned tobacco and liquor ads targeting 13 year-olds, but I'm not so sure that is a problem in Canada,  not including remote northern regions where it's easier and sometimes cheaper to buy a twelve pack of beer,  sugary pop and a twinkie than three litres of milk, vegetables and fruit. I'm so far unconvinced that Quebec has eliminated child obesity as a direct result of commercial ad bans aimed specifically at children.

I do tend to believe that junk food might be less appealing to everyone if all junk food advertising in sum total was to be banned. But then again, like prices of pharmaceutical drugs are proven to be reduced when marketing overhead is eliminated, so might junk food become even more affordable than healthy food choices. I think, therefore, the feds and provinces should look at supplementing incomes for poor families based on the Canada food guide, or something. And I really like the social democrats' action plan in Scandinavia for making nutritious meals available throughout the school week to children in all neighborhoods regardless of average income.

Fidel, you have lost it. Québec hasn't banned tobacco and liquor ads targeting 13-year-olds (LOL). It has banned all ads of any kind whatsoever targeting less-than-13-year-olds.

As for obesity, that had nothing to do with Québec's 30-year-old ban. The aim was to protect children (and their parents) from all exploitation via commercial glitz.

Me too. Though I wouldn't want it focussed just on health issues, because I don't think that's even the primary concern about children's advertising. My primary concerns about it are that they are training - brainwashing - young children who don't have the ability to make informed decisions and haven't got the capacity to reject consumerism, developing future generations into compliant consumers at the expense of the social fabric in their households and at the expense of the parental prerogative of bringing children up with the values they see fit to impart. That, to me, is the problem - undermining parents, and fostering harmful and antisocial behaviours.

Alot of children's advertising trains children to get what they want by harassing their parents. Much of it illustrates methods for children to do this. Advertisers have gone so far as to hire child psychologists to run studies to learn how to get children to nag their parents more often and more effectively:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1162415168905488809

They also employ child psychologists to more effectively assault children's self-esteem and a whole host of other revolting techniques of exploitation. It's the exploitation and mental health issues that concern me alot more than the physical health issues. And I would be interesting in seeing a comparative study of these issues in Quebec, relative to other locations in North America where children are freely exploited by sophisticated advertisers. I'd like to see what child abuse rates are like, what mental health issues in youth are like, how parents feel about their ability to protect their children from popular culture and impart constructive values to them, and so on.

Well I'm sorry you mentioned it above in one of your posts. But that's exactly what I was getting at - how would a total ban on ads for children in general affect rising child obesity, the real issue here? The medical people dont seemed to be concerned with a total ban just those ads aimed at pushing junk food on children. Can you point us to something that says a Quebec style ban on all children's ads is required to stem rising rates of child obesity, yes or no?

But as I was saying before and quoting the CBC article pointing to an actual study of child obesity on the island of Montreal, not all children in Quebec are accessing nutritious food or choosing healthy life styles. So why is it, in your opinion, that children there are in danger of obesity and related diseases later in life? And what, specifically, has the all inclusive ban on ads aimed at children in PQ done to protect Montreal children from obesity and poor health later in life?

Well, Profs. Kathy Baylis and Tirtha Dhar, of UBC published a 2007 study entitled, "Effect of the Quebec Ad Ban on Junk Food Expenditure". Here's the abstract:

You can download the full 42-page study here. [87]

Here's some interesting tidbits from the full study:

And from the Concluding Remarks:

from the linked-to study posted by unionist above:

They seem to be focussed on that part of the Quebec law which bans junk food ads aimed at children, yes?

[double post, sorry]

Yes, Fidel, you seemed so interested in the junk food aspect that I quoted you a study which happened to focus on that.

But I - me - Unionist - am interested in banning all advertising aimed at all children. It goes beyond food and obesity. The Québec law never was aimed just at that.

I asked you long ago whether you would support such a total ban. I realize the ONDP hasn't called for it yet. I just thought you might step forward ahead of them for a change. I know, I know, I know, but still...

Oh, and if you actually care about the food aspect, why not take a moment and read the full study? You may find it interesting.

Wow, that's setting the bar pretty high - as if obesity results only from ads!!!

However, here's some more evidence, this time from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research:

So British Labour banned food ads while Australia's Liberal government balked. It's not surprising.

And the report goes on to say about the Quebec ad ban and the effect on household spending on junk food: 

They seem to suggest that Francophones in PQ are less likely to take in English TV and radio programs broadcast from Ontario and the US than Quebec Anglophones. But the focus of the study was to find out how the Quebec ban affects household spending on unhealthy food, not how it affects household spending on toys or children's clothing, etc, iow's, they werent concerned about the total ban's effect on non-food items.

And I see further on that there was a concern about Ronald McDonald ads for car seat belts and toys with junk food themes.

I'm thinking that a anti-junk food law should be carefully worded to include fantasy-junk food themes as well as toys to food ad agendas.Of course, this is all fine for countries like the UK and Australia if they are careful not to sign away national sovereignty with dumb-dumb free trade deals like FTA and NAFTA and allow increasing foreign ownership and control of news media and communications.

It's not just about food. This is from the Canadian Toy-Testing Council in 2001, describing a Media Study Project undertaken with support from Industry Canada:

The study monitored advertising to see if it conformed with the 1993 Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children.

Of course, the whole study was irrelevant in so far as Québec is concerned, which rates only this one mention in the release:

Bravo!

If youre looking for me to agree that Quebec's idea for a ban on commerical ads directed toward children is a good idea, you had me in the first few posts.

Great - now let's get it done in the rest of Canada!

Big Food Inc. will do everything to stop you talking about this
Interview with Robert Kenner (USA)

I refuse to buy any packaged meat with a USDA inspected label no matter what the price is.

Talk about a seamless discussion :) 

I'd like to see them do a study on the psychological aspects . . .  I'd be curious to find out what else children's advertising does to children, and families. I imagine that teaching children how to whine,  browbeat, and manipulate their parents for stuff causes enormous damage to some households. I suspect the poor attention spans of latter-day generations has much to do with it as well.

Is the attention span of older generations much better?  Perhaps you'd like to tell us where we're all going wrong?