Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Cancer Research UK Controversial Ads - Thoughts?
Options
Replies
-
I'm a little confused at how this discussion keeps being refocused to why people in poverty can't afford to eat in a way that keeps them a healthy weight. Considering the staggering numbers as far as the incidence of obesity, I don't see any reason to assume the core reason for the obesity crisis has anything to do with poverty. While obesity may be more prevalent among the poor (and I have no idea whether that's true or not) it's prevalent enough amongst all classes to easily assume there is more to it than just people who don't have appliances and use public assistance to buy food. I'm surrounded by people who have nice homes, go on vacation every year, college educations, two cars in the garage, and are obese. Heck, two of the doctors at my primary care office are overweight enough that they might classify as obese.13
-
I suppose that statistics in the UK (where the ads are) are that it is the lower socio economic groups who are the most obese. I assume its the same in america but I dont know if thats true.
There are always exceptions to the rule, I dont fit into that group but I am certainly obese, at the moment.0 -
I suppose that statistics in the UK (where the ads are) are that it is the lower socio economic groups who are the most obese. I assume its the same in america but I dont know if thats true.
There are always exceptions to the rule, I dont fit into that group but I am certainly obese, at the moment.
I'm not certain stats are really relevant to the OP though? The impression I took away from that article is that there's enough of an issue for the gov't to post warnings regarding a possible consequence of obesity, and there are enough vocal people claiming those warnings are impacting their dignity, as opposed to simply being a source of info regarding an aspect of health.
I personally see nothing in those ads to warrant that response and I'm fairly certain I still wouldn't see shaming even if I were obese.
Stats are certainly important, but this seems more a case of relatively few very vocal people making a social media strawman, trying to make people perceive the ads as saying something that they just aren't.
I dunno, just my 2 cents for what it's worth.3 -
I dont know actually I was just responding to something someone said about cheap food so I commented about that too.
I dont see the ads as controversial, except that the display being in the form of a *kitten* packet doesnt really make sense to me
God you cant say *kitten* on here?? Cigarettes then!0 -
I dont know actually I was just responding to something someone said about cheap food so I commented about that too.
I dont see the ads as controversial, except that the display being in the form of a *kitten* packet doesnt really make sense to me
God you cant say *kitten* on here?? Cigarettes then!
Nah, that filter lol 0 -
I don't see this as bad or fat-shaming at all. My BMI lists me as obese.
I come from a fairly poor family in the UK and grew up eating rubbish, chicken nuggets out of the freezer, microwave burgers etc. Not so much fast food as it's not as cheap here. Only one of my parents worked so time was not a factor. It was definitely a case of not quite understanding or caring how important nutrition is rather than money. They are realising this now as they get older and working on it. If this campaign helps people realise this sooner then it's a good ad in my book.
To be honest the 'controversy' is probably the best thing that could happen to the ad, as more people are now seeing it.3 -
TayaCurragh wrote: »I don't see this as bad or fat-shaming at all. My BMI lists me as obese.
I come from a fairly poor family in the UK and grew up eating rubbish, chicken nuggets out of the freezer, microwave burgers etc. Not so much fast food as it's not as cheap here. Only one of my parents worked so time was not a factor. It was definitely a case of not quite understanding or caring how important nutrition is rather than money. They are realising this now as they get older and working on it. If this campaign helps people realise this sooner then it's a good ad in my book.
To be honest the 'controversy' is probably the best thing that could happen to the ad, as more people are now seeing it.
Being the cynic I am, I actually doubt there is controversy, its just a PR mans way of getting more value for money and highlighting the adverts without needing to have as many!
Everyone knows that being overweight/fat/obese, whatever word or category you want to use is not good for health. I did see one and thought it didnt really have much of an impact, its not graphic enough. Remember the old smoking adverts with the petri dish with black gunge on it, little kids replicating their dad's smoking? Perhaps that wouldnt be allowed now I dont know.0 -
People don't seem to be afraid of things like diabetes and high blood pressure. They don't take them seriously because they are so-called "silent killers." You can go on for years and not really realize you've been damaging your body. BUT - people are absolutely terrified of cancer. And how many in the general public know that obesity can cause cancer and/or worsen it's prognosis? I didn't know until recently.
I think it's important that people are educated - even if some feelings get hurt. People just don't know, and they need to know. Informing the public of a real threat in a way that actually gets their attention is the right thing to do, even if it's scary or upsetting. This is serious stuff. People can make the informed choice to keep risking their lives or they can get serious about fixing the problem...but they need to know.
9 -
As a formerly obese individual, I wholeheartedly approve of these ads. Knowledge is power! In fact, I think they should have even more information on them, like the types of cancers that obesity increases your risk for.
10 -
Pushing a little public education on the risks of morbid obesity isn’t a bad thing. I like the ad - and I think it’s about time that we gave good, sane health information a little PR.4
-
Deleted because I realized after I posted that I was responding to one of the off-topic paths this thread has taken.1
-
RagdollCatLady wrote: »I'll also note that SNAP does not pay for fast food, so it's more true that fast food is NOT cheaper for people on food assistance (in the US anyway).
SNAP does not pay for fast food but it will pay for unhealthy, quick to prepare junk food you can buy in the grocery store. You can get generic/store brand stuff pretty cheap on sale.
Also, SNAP is taken at convenience stores that you'll find in inner city food deserts where major grocery stores are absent. There is a really good series called Weight of the Nation that explains how at these stores the cost of an apple is extremely high compared to the cost of a single size bag of chips. When children and teens go to these stores on their way to school and have a limited amount of money to purchase their lunches, they can buy more junk food than healthy food. This is because the food companies purposely lower the prices of junk food in the inner cities to get kids to buy it.
This is the problem and while technically it is cheaper to eat lower calorie/home cooked food, if you are grabbing something that you need to eat while on a lunch break, walking home or whatever the situation is where you dont have your own food, you're going to go for the chips (I dont know if you mean crisps but the concept is the same) as an apple is not going either fill you up, give you enough calories or satiate you. But the crisps/chips might/will do.
When Im out and about and want something hot to eat the only place I can quickly grab something to take with me is some where that sells fast food or pasties or hot junk food. I cant get something satisfying but healthy for the same money.
(1) For most people this is a problem that can be avoided by planning. (I think the discussion of poor people and food deserts is not precisely right or needs more nuance, but I think it's a distraction.)
(2) When I grab something because I'm out and about and want something, it's always going to be more expensive than if I'd planned and made something myself. I'm not buying it because it's cheaper and I can't afford anything else. In fact, the main times I get stuck buying something when out (for example, at an airport), it's nearly always overpriced.
(3) The claim I keep hearing, and why it bugs me, is that snacky stuff or sweets or fast food needs to be more expensive. Because it's so cheap we can't help buying it. We should make it more expensive and subsidize other foods. My point is that the low (allegedly, I think it's overstated) cost of snacks and fast food and candy doesn't make other foods more expensive, and in fact they are still cheaper overall. So claiming people can't afford to eat well because these other foods are too cheap is a bad and frustrating argument. Yet I hear it (and see it on MFP) over and over again. Similarly, while we could have a discussion about what SNAP should and should be be able to buy, the fact you CAN use it for soda and chips does NOT mean that it's cheaper to buy those foods (I again am not saying there aren't understandable reasons why someone might -- I think snack food is a low cost luxury and source of happiness to some with hard lives -- but it is irrelevant to the claim that people in the population on average are obese because healthy food is allegedly too expensive (not true).
Why not forget about how much fast food or chips or candy costs and focus on specific barriers where they exist. For example, where I live there have been efforts to bring supermarkets to areas without them, SNAP can be used at farmers markets (and pays for more if you use it there), there are vegetable gardening programs in the inner city (as well as lots of public gardens elsewhere). Public transportation is also important, IMO.
But of course all this is irrelevant to the claim at issue here: does the fact that certain kinds of less nutrient dense foods are allegedly cheap mean that eating well is too expensive for the average person (or in fact more expensive than eating an overall nutrient dense and calorie appropriate diet)? No, it does not. Is the population overall overweight and obese at the levels they are because eating healthfully is too expensive? That claim doesn't stand up to any consideration. I am not saying that means there aren't reasons they became obese (I was obese) or things that might be needed to help people lose -- that's one benefit of making it a medical issue and having intervention, IMO -- but the "people can't help it and these ads are bad because fast food is cheaper than cooking" just isn't a good response. And again that is the response I have been referring to and was originally commenting on.
IMO, earlier intervention and treating weight gain as a medical issue (and not something beyond our control) could be helpful.3 -
I suppose that statistics in the UK (where the ads are) are that it is the lower socio economic groups who are the most obese. I assume its the same in america but I dont know if thats true.
Obesity and overweight is getting pretty common among the population as a whole, no? That's certainly the case n the US. Nothing in the original post suggested that the ads are targeted specifically at the very poor.1 -
In a world where feelings are more important than the truth - it's a fairly brave ad campaign.
But - it's the truth, and hopefully some people are listening.
In today's society, truth seems to be avoided as much as possible, there is always an excuse or whining for ones behavior or lack thereof (fat shaming for one). We are each responsible for our life style, our own physical condition and what we put in our bodies for fuel and/or our own personal health. I agree that it is a very brave campaign and I stand behind it!2 -
In a world where feelings are more important than the truth - it's a fairly brave ad campaign.
But - it's the truth, and hopefully some people are listening.
In today's society, truth seems to be avoided as much as possible, there is always an excuse or whining for ones behavior or lack thereof (fat shaming for one). We are each responsible for our life style, our own physical condition and what we put in our bodies for fuel and/or our own personal health. I agree that it is a very brave campaign and I stand behind it!
this post really, really hurt my feelings and might even have damaged my inner-child.
I now need a donut.
..... not my fault.11 -
As it is one public health message among many, I don't find it shaming. It's factual. It doesn't say that overweight or obese people are worthless. It states a medical fact that obesity contributes to types of cancer. I used to smoke and was motivated to stop by advertisements that were based on scientific facts.
I agree with everything you say.4 -
Many cancers are hormone related in that disrupted hormone levels contribute to cancers, for instance, endometrial cancer presents with high oestrogen levels, in the initial stages if the symptoms are recognised for what they are, when progesterone is administered the hormone balance is restored and the pre-cancerous stop their proliferation. Making a great saving on the NHS budget or the Insurance scheme of your choice. Also this can be under pinned by a poorly functioning endocrine system, which can cause diminished growth hormone, low t3 which is responsible for among other things cell replication - too little problems cells are not eliminated as they should be. Cancer is a multifaceted problem. If someone has the knowledge of what a healthy diet should contain in the way of micro nutrients to ensure a well functioning endocrine system. Excess weight is often an unfortunate consequence of poor endocrine function.
An article in last Fridays New Scientist says forget everything we know about nutrition because there is inadequate science to back it all up. There are as many clams for low fat, low carb even keto when it comes to reversing diabetes. Scientific trials often fudge the outcome for the organisation which is sponsoring the work. Identifying compounders at the outset, defining the research parameters from the outset would make the science stand up. They do say eat as well as you can in moderation.8 -
I suppose that statistics in the UK (where the ads are) are that it is the lower socio economic groups who are the most obese. I assume its the same in america but I dont know if thats true.
There are always exceptions to the rule, I dont fit into that group but I am certainly obese, at the moment.
I'm not certain stats are really relevant to the OP though? The impression I took away from that article is that there's enough of an issue for the gov't to post warnings regarding a possible consequence of obesity, and there are enough vocal people claiming those warnings are impacting their dignity, as opposed to simply being a source of info regarding an aspect of health.
I personally see nothing in those ads to warrant that response and I'm fairly certain I still wouldn't see shaming even if I were obese.
Stats are certainly important, but this seems more a case of relatively few very vocal people making a social media strawman, trying to make people perceive the ads as saying something that they just aren't.
I dunno, just my 2 cents for what it's worth.
@Phirrgus just to clarify it's not the government who made the ads it's a cancer research charity.0 -
I suppose that statistics in the UK (where the ads are) are that it is the lower socio economic groups who are the most obese. I assume its the same in america but I dont know if thats true.
Obesity and overweight is getting pretty common among the population as a whole, no? That's certainly the case n the US. Nothing in the original post suggested that the ads are targeted specifically at the very poor.
Agreed, they are not targeting the poor but it seems to be half the argument against the ads on social media "why not campaign for lower priced healthy foods" I have seen on about half a dozen posts already.1 -
We need more of this not less. Society uses ostracism and yes shaming for a variety of social stigmas in order to encourage change or to not encourage similar behaviour. When i see overweight or morbidly obese people at the gym or out and about trying to do something about it they always get respect and i'm sure most people will give them support. Patty beefcake in the chips and soda isle however.. pushing a trolley full of processed cancer even worse if she has her kids with her and they are following in her large footsteps; no support.
People have on one hand become too sensitive and on the other hand not sensitive enough. Severe harrasment isn't ostracism or encouragement. Advertisements that truthfully equate high sugar, highly processed foods to cigarettes are perfectly accurate. Heart disease is the biggest killer and an absolute drain on the system. You are NOT healthy when you are morbidly obese, period.
The main reason the obesity rate in japan is so low is not just because they eat healthier but there is so much more variety. Everywhere you go there is many choices with the vast majority of them being healthy or lesser of two evils when compared to processed food. It is also culturally and socially unacceptable to be overweight without reason such as medical or the miniscule population who train Sumo. The same system will not happen in the west until we take back control of our food, food production and advertising.
As for the advertisements like this i could hardly call it controversial. Those of you who have seen the minerals and precious metals ad "unwatchable" which i will not link here as it is NSFL (DO NOT go looking for it) know exactly what a controversial ad is.6
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions