Aripyanfar wrote:
Other people are utterly shocked and bewildered that such ideas could be even suggested. WTF is wrong with food and snacks and the drinks that they drink all day every day? Why do you want me to suddenly pay twice as much for my food and my kid's food? How shocking cruel and insensitive and classist that is. Most people couldn't afford it. What the hell is wrong with you that you are asking for a ban on advertising snacks and food that is aimed at kids during children's TV programmes? What else is the point? You can't put companies out of business, that isn't fair. You think my kids are going to eat a salad sandwich and an apple for lunch with a bottle of water? Oh ha ha. Think again. I'd like to watch you try.
Its a little different in the UK with mass advertising campaigns fromm people like Jamie Oliver (Nobby will no doubt hate him) and other chefs all advertising organic food and accessible healthy food options.
We are now being told about our eating choices and claiming not to know about risks to your health from your diet is simply a poor excuse in the United Kingdom.
Aripyanfar wrote:
I'm not saying that adult individuals don't have a responsibility to hunt down their own and their kid's problems, and do something about them on an individual and community basis. They have a responsibility to make themselves aware of problematic issues so that they can vote in governments that make the right policies. I'm just saying it's not quite so simple as "They did it all to themselves."
Actually, in many cases it is. Anyone who took up smoking in the UK in the last 20 years has done it to themselves. With "Smoking kills" clearly written on the side of packets and advertising banned since forever and anti smoking campaigns in place on TV, in doctors surgeries and in schools that is definitely the case that taking up smoking is ignoring all advice and being irresponsible. The same is now occuring for food abuse and exercise with campaigns reaching a crescendo of publicity resulting in government action.
Aripyanfar wrote:
Would you find it interesting that my private health insurance will pay $100 a year for a pair of sports shoes, and will subsidise certain gym or yoga type classes?
Not surprised at all.