Ontario NDP wants ban on food ads for kids
Sun, 2008-04-06 08:56
#1
Ontario NDP wants ban on food ads for kids
Sun, 2008-04-06 08:56
#2
Do children qualify as "youth"? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] Anyway, I'm putting it in this forum:
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080406.wndpadban040...
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 [b][i]ALL[/i][/b] advertising aimed at kids under 13??
[ 06 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Sun, 2008-04-06 09:13
#3
I would LOVE that. Doesn't Quebec have such a law?
The "food" ads are the worst, though.
Sun, 2008-04-06 11:41
#4
Polly B
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.
Sun, 2008-04-06 12:12
#5
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]Doesn't Quebec have such a law?[/b]
Yes it does - an explanation is [url=http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law....
Sun, 2008-04-06 17:06
#6
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.
Sun, 2008-04-06 19:40
#7
quote:
Originally posted by Mercy:
[b]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.[/b]
I agree you "gotta start somewhere", but are you aware that Quйbec banned all advertising directed at children almost [b]thirty years ago[/b]?
And that advertisers spent the next [b]ten years[/b] in court until the Supreme Court of Canada finally [url=http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1989/1989rcs1-927/1989rcs1-927.html]upheld the ban[/url] in 1989?
Is there some reason why the same couldn't be done in Ontario??
Sun, 2008-04-06 20:07
#8
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Is there some reason why the same couldn't be done in Ontario??[/b]
Right now we have a phony-majority Liberal dictatorship. They have [b]22%[/b] of the eligible vote propping them up with over [b]60%[/b] of the seats in Toronto legislature and good for [b]100%[/b] of the power. They can tell Rosario and the NDP to go to hell at every turn and most likely will for [i]another[/i] 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?
Mon, 2008-04-07 14:10
#9
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Why not ban [b][i]ALL[/i][/b] advertising aimed at kids under 13??
I believe they have done so in Sweden.
Mon, 2008-04-07 14:30
#10
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
[b]Right now we have a phony-majority Liberal dictatorship. [/b]
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[/b] - or would that still be too risky?
Mon, 2008-04-07 15:28
#11
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]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[/b] - 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, [b]Financial aid for your studies[/b]. 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.
Mon, 2008-04-07 16:49
#12
I agree unionist - complete ban. That noted, look at the [url=http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iCyBcLCmAN8S5nIshG4c1QPMH8... against Marchese's bill[/url].
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 - [b]without mentioning that it's a who's who of media conglomerates[/b]. [url=http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/corporate/about_us/board/index.cfm... board of directors is like a broadcast industry rolodex.[/url]
[url=http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2008/05/c7105.html]MNet's programs are funded by its public and private sector sponsors, donors and partners, who include: Bell Canada - CTVglobemedia - TELUS - Microsoft Canad[/url]
Insane.
Mon, 2008-04-07 17:03
#13
Scott Piatkowski
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?
Mon, 2008-04-07 17:10
#14
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?
Mon, 2008-04-07 17:52
#15
quote:
Originally posted by miles:
[b]How would this work? Would Rogers be "forced" to block any and all commercials regardless of the location of the station they are on?[/b]
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.
Mon, 2008-04-07 18:11
#16
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.
Wed, 2008-04-09 08:39
#17
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?
Wed, 2008-04-09 08:49
#18
Are American stations available in Quebec? How do they restrict those commercials?
Wed, 2008-04-09 09:10
#19
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.
Wed, 2008-04-09 09:21
#20
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?
Wed, 2008-04-09 11:59
#21
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 ]
Wed, 2008-04-09 12:14
#22
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.
Wed, 2008-04-09 12:17
#23
quote:
Originally posted by kropotkin1951:
[b]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." [/b]
Might as well wash a vitamin pill down with a coke [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2008-04-09 12:32
#24
There's lots of detailed info on [url=http://www.pubzone.com/fc/child-que/index.cfm]this page[/url] for how the Quйbec law reads and guidelines on how it is to be applied.
Wed, 2008-04-09 12:34
#25
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).
Wed, 2008-04-09 12:36
#26
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]Is this how Quebec does it?[/b]
We cross-posted. Read my link above.
Wed, 2008-04-09 12:40
#27
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.
Wed, 2008-04-09 12:48
#28
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]For some reason magazine advertising is exempt.[/b]
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]
Wed, 2008-04-09 12:57
#29
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.
Wed, 2008-04-09 13:29
#30
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
I guess they figure 3 months is enough time for the parents to say "no". [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
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.
Wed, 2008-04-09 17:39
#31
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]
Why not ban [b][i]ALL[/i][/b] advertising aimed at kids under 13??
[ 06 April 2008: Message edited by: unionist ][/b]
Why not ban [b][i]ALL[/i][/b] 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.
Wed, 2008-04-09 17:49
#32
quote:
Originally posted by cco:
[b]Why not ban [b][i]ALL[/i][/b] 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.
Wed, 2008-04-09 17:51
#33
quote:
Might as well wash a vitamin pill down with a coke
[img]redface.gif" border="0[/img] Thats what I do
Wed, 2008-04-09 18:24
#34
I always say there's nothing like a Jos. Louis and a can of Pepsi to start the day off right.
Wed, 2008-04-09 18:32
#35
quote:
Originally posted by cco:
[b]Why not ban [b][i]ALL[/i][/b] 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.
Sat, 2008-05-10 08:54
#36
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.
Sat, 2008-05-10 09:09
#37
From the statute:
[i]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.[/i]
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.
[url=http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law...
[ 10 May 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
Sat, 2008-05-10 09:17
#38
[Whoops, wrong thread...]
Mon, 2008-05-12 04:00
#39
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.
Wed, 2008-11-12 13:15
#40
Polly B
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.
Thu, 2009-03-19 15:10
#41
Rexdale_Punjabi
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.
Thu, 2009-03-19 18:02
#42
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.
Thu, 2009-03-19 18:16
#43
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.
Thu, 2009-03-19 18:33
#44
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.
Thu, 2009-03-19 21:43
#45
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.
Thu, 2009-03-19 21:45
#46
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
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.
Thu, 2009-03-19 21:51
#47
[url=http://ontariondp.com/ban-advertising-aimed-children-under-13][color=ora... is calling for restrictions on food and beverage advertisement targeted at children?[/b][/color][/url]
“The Government of Ontario should….explore policy options to control food advertising targeting children similar to those now in place in Quebec, where advertising of some products to children under 13 is prohibited.”
Former Ontario Chief Medical Officer of Health, Dr. Sheela Basrur, Healthy Weights, Healthy Lives, 2004
“The Medical Officer of Health recommends that … Health Canada, Industry Canada and the Ontario Ministry of Government and Consumer Services prohibit all commercial advertising of food and beverages to children under the age of thirteen years;”
Dr. David McKeown, Toronto Medical Officer of Health, February 8, 2008
“Recent evidence shows that marketing affects food choice and influences dietary habits, with subsequent implications for weight gain and obesity…The central question is therefore perhaps not whether to deal with the matter of food marketing to children, but rather how to deal with it in an effective way. A start would be to ensure that health is put in its rightful place at the centre of further policy development concerning the marketing of food to children.”
World Health Organization, Marketing Food To Children: The Global Regulatory Environment, 2004
“The Committee shares the concerns about the potential association between food advertising to children and increased childhood overweight and obesity.” Standing Committee on Health, House of Commons, March 2007 Report
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.
Thu, 2009-03-19 23:11
#48
[Going more slowly...]
Fidel, do you personally support a total ban on all media advertising targeting children under 13?
Thu, 2009-03-19 23:50
#49
[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?
Fri, 2009-03-20 00:03
#50
According to your own thread title, you do support a ban on junk food advertising targeting young ppl in Ontario, or do you not?
Nope, Fidel, everything but junk food. Happy?
Our Liberals need to take baby steps before jumping on the bandwagon like Quebec has ...
Québec banned all - [b]ALL[/b] - advertising targeting children [b]30 YEARS AGO[/b].
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?
Fri, 2009-03-20 00:06
#51
And dont forget the piecemeal daycare system in place in Quebec since forever, and no thanks to the NDP!!