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?

135

Replies

  • nooboots
    nooboots Posts: 480 Member
    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.
  • Phirrgus
    Phirrgus Posts: 1,894 Member
    nooboots wrote: »
    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.
  • nooboots
    nooboots Posts: 480 Member
    edited July 2019
    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!
  • Phirrgus
    Phirrgus Posts: 1,894 Member
    nooboots wrote: »
    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!

    :D Nah, that filter lol
  • TayaCurragh
    TayaCurragh Posts: 709 Member
    edited July 2019
    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.
  • nooboots
    nooboots Posts: 480 Member
    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.
  • lbrc27x
    lbrc27x Posts: 4 Member
    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.
  • lynn_glenmont
    lynn_glenmont Posts: 10,097 Member
    edited July 2019
    Deleted because I realized after I posted that I was responding to one of the off-topic paths this thread has taken.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited July 2019
    nooboots wrote: »
    lemurcat2 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.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    nooboots wrote: »
    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.
  • oharras
    oharras Posts: 47 Member
    EatPig wrote: »
    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!
  • battersea922
    battersea922 Posts: 43 Member
    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.
  • tinkerbellang83
    tinkerbellang83 Posts: 9,140 Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    nooboots wrote: »
    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.
  • tinkerbellang83
    tinkerbellang83 Posts: 9,140 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    nooboots wrote: »
    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.
  • Phirrgus
    Phirrgus Posts: 1,894 Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    nooboots wrote: »
    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.

    Thanks for the correction @tinkerbellang. This is what I get for skimming articles lol.
  • cheekytacolady
    cheekytacolady Posts: 1 Member
    If it's the truth, then it's the truth. It'll hurt for some people to hear, but we can't pretend it doesn't exist because of that. I don't find the ad to be shaming anyone, just pointing out that something we don't normally associate with cancer can factor into causing it. I don't think I'd feel differently about this ad if I heard it when I was nearly obese.

    I think along with telling people the truth, we also need to give them the tools to change their outcome. If they're told how dire their situation is without telling them how to fix it, they'll feel like they're doomed and have no way to stop it. That can hinder progress.
  • jenilla1
    jenilla1 Posts: 11,118 Member
    NowyTends wrote: »
    ...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.

    This is practically a double-dare. I'm pretty much going to have to search for it now. Hope I'm not traumatized... :/
  • NowyTends
    NowyTends Posts: 110 Member
    jenilla1 wrote: »
    NowyTends wrote: »
    ...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.

    This is practically a double-dare. I'm pretty much going to have to search for it now. Hope I'm not traumatized... :/

    You'll regret it. Don't say i didn't warn you. :(
This discussion has been closed.