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.
Should television advertising of fast food / high sugar foods be permitted?
Replies
-
No.
How about people stop blaming others for what they have done to themselves? A commercial on TV doesn't put that food in your mouth. You have to make a conscious decision and effort to get the food and eat it. The commercials are not making anyone fat. This is simply ridiculous.16 -
Slightly OT but hey, it's Debate.
The best thing I've done for myself in the past ten years is get rid of cable and network TV. Netflix or nothing, those are my choices. Yeah, I miss a couple things - but the one huge positive is no commercials.12 -
cmriverside wrote: »Slightly OT but hey, it's Debate.
The best thing I've done for myself in the past ten years is get rid of cable and network TV. Netflix or nothing, those are my choices. Yeah, I miss a couple things - but the one huge positive is no commercials.
Agreed. I can't recall the last time I saw a TV commercial, and as for the ones online (like the much deplored ones at MFP), I tend to not note them unless I try.2 -
cmriverside wrote: »Slightly OT but hey, it's Debate.
The best thing I've done for myself in the past ten years is get rid of cable and network TV. Netflix or nothing, those are my choices. Yeah, I miss a couple things - but the one huge positive is no commercials.
Agreed. I can't recall the last time I saw a TV commercial, and as for the ones online (like the much deplored ones at MFP), I tend to not note them unless I try.
I opted for the HULU option with commercials and the kid's response to this is hilarious. They completely tune out and walk away or moan and complain "What is this?!" "Now I'm not going to buy your product!"3 -
cmriverside wrote: »Slightly OT but hey, it's Debate.
The best thing I've done for myself in the past ten years is get rid of cable and network TV. Netflix or nothing, those are my choices. Yeah, I miss a couple things - but the one huge positive is no commercials.
Agreed. I can't recall the last time I saw a TV commercial, and as for the ones online (like the much deplored ones at MFP), I tend to not note them unless I try.
You don't have to see the ones on MFP either. JS.1 -
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »Slightly OT but hey, it's Debate.
The best thing I've done for myself in the past ten years is get rid of cable and network TV. Netflix or nothing, those are my choices. Yeah, I miss a couple things - but the one huge positive is no commercials.
Agreed. I can't recall the last time I saw a TV commercial, and as for the ones online (like the much deplored ones at MFP), I tend to not note them unless I try.
You don't have to see the ones on MFP either. JS.
My eye just rolls over them, so I don't see them enough to care. I find it funny sometimes when ads become a topic of discussion to look to see what ads are coming up.0 -
I like the solution about making advertising be honest. Ads just flatly lie. Anyone remember the Heart Foundation "tick" of approval? I think McDonald's Filet-O-Fish got a tick as well. Labels lie and hide sugars or preservatives under numbers. Like I have to shop with a chemistry book and a food cypher. A lil more honesty in the industry would help but it will not be the "cure-all". People still smoke and people will still eat their weight in sugar.2
-
Copper_Boom wrote: »I’m inclined to say that since Joe Camel doesn’t grace our television screens, the fast food and breakfast cereal commercials should get lost as well.
What do you think?
People who don't practice restraint are going to not practice restraint regardless. Ads are never ending and dishonest and people can be inclined to do what they please regardless of what they know.
Besides, while I dislike the ads, I do enjoy breakfast cereals and fast food. Ads or not, I'm going to partake.
5 -
I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that the food industry has a major role to play in rising levels of obesity so I would absolutely support a ban on advertsing of these products. Food manufacturers are far far more savvy about the effects that certain food combinations have on our ability to resist temptation than the vast majority of the gen pop do. While it's right to point out that none of this food is addictive, there's no denying the reaction we have to highly palatable foods. The science is clear and the release of dopamine we can experience simply when we think about certain foods is used extensively by the food industry to sell their products.
Try eating 3500 calories of chicken over the course of a day versus eating 3500 calories of muffins or cookies. I'd guarantee you'd be completely stuffed after the chicken and wouldn't be able to eat another mouthful, while you could probably eat a few more muffins.
The desire to overeat is genetically inherent in all of us. We have evolved to prioritise nutrient dense and highly palatable foods over thousands of years and really don't need the food industry bombarding us with images of how much more we can eat.
Misconceptions and ill-conceived notions that lead to the demonization of foods combined with conspiracy theories about the food industry do nothing but cement my stance that the government (made of people with the same propensity for misconceptions and ignorant, though well-intentioned, ideas) has no place regulating the way I eat or how someone else advertises the foods I choose to eat.14 -
Right after Vaping, Drug Manufacturers and Insurance companies are banded as well. Wait, why not save the American population completely and ban all commercials and advertising on TV.
I am not sure why the Government is legislating at all other than for "Truth in Advertising". Hence, you are walking on a slippery slope, and those to me, are where we need to step up and say we can handle it, we do not need Big Brother over seeing every single aspect of our sheep like lives.3 -
I wouldn’t support a ban. And although I can remember a time early in the process of losing weight when food commercials really bothered me, more recently they just seem irrelevant, like ads for men’s shoes. I know I’m not ever going to waste my precious calories on most of that nonsense, so it doesn’t pertain to me anymore.
However, I can’t help but laugh at how many commercials there are for such calorific food when watching actual TV. I do own a TV but never bothered to plug it in since we watch TV shows on the computer. The only time I watch TV is when I’m at my mom’s house or house sitting for an older friend of the same generation as my mom (who is 83 years old). And the battery of commercials for junk food is incessant, the commercials themselves are incessant. It reminds me why I’m paying to watch the same show on a streaming service. What’s most peculiar is that local stations often have delicious sounding ads for stuff that doesn’t even exist in our area, like Applebee’s which pulled out a decade ago, or burger places which are regional but not our region. It makes me wonder about the advertisers, who is spending money on these ads?1 -
Soccermavrick wrote: »Right after Vaping, Drug Manufacturers and Insurance companies are banded as well. Wait, why not save the American population completely and ban all commercials and advertising on TV.
I am not sure why the Government is legislating at all other than for "Truth in Advertising". Hence, you are walking on a slippery slope, and those to me, are where we need to step up and say we can handle it, we do not need Big Brother over seeing every single aspect of our sheep like lives.
Coz how the network earn money from the commercials.. same online, ads.
Don't get me started with vaping. That's another topic.
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that the food industry has a major role to play in rising levels of obesity so I would absolutely support a ban on advertsing of these products. Food manufacturers are far far more savvy about the effects that certain food combinations have on our ability to resist temptation than the vast majority of the gen pop do. While it's right to point out that none of this food is addictive, there's no denying the reaction we have to highly palatable foods. The science is clear and the release of dopamine we can experience simply when we think about certain foods is used extensively by the food industry to sell their products.
Try eating 3500 calories of chicken over the course of a day versus eating 3500 calories of muffins or cookies. I'd guarantee you'd be completely stuffed after the chicken and wouldn't be able to eat another mouthful, while you could probably eat a few more muffins.
The desire to overeat is genetically inherent in all of us. We have evolved to prioritise nutrient dense and highly palatable foods over thousands of years and really don't need the food industry bombarding us with images of how much more we can eat.
Misconceptions and ill-conceived notions that lead to the demonization of foods combined with conspiracy theories about the food industry do nothing but cement my stance that the government (made of people with the same propensity for misconceptions and ignorant, though well-intentioned, ideas) has no place regulating the way I eat or how someone else advertises the foods I choose to eat.
Let’s remember that it was the government which decided the new food pyramid should say that it’s healthy to eat 11 servings of carbs - any carbs - a day, leading to a decade of bread packages prominently featuring the food pyramid and insisting more bread was better health. It is possibly not pure coincidence that obesity rates exploded starting about the time the food pyramid was introduced.
It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a fact that special interests pump money into getting laws and regulations that promote the sale of their products. As a result, the government has a poor track record when it comes to telling people what’s best for them to eat.3 -
I definitely don't think we should ban them, but i'll tell you what - ever since I got rid of cable I don't eat fast food as much.1
-
rheddmobile wrote: »I wouldn’t support a ban. And although I can remember a time early in the process of losing weight when food commercials really bothered me, more recently they just seem irrelevant, like ads for men’s shoes. I know I’m not ever going to waste my precious calories on most of that nonsense, so it doesn’t pertain to me anymore.
However, I can’t help but laugh at how many commercials there are for such calorific food when watching actual TV. I do own a TV but never bothered to plug it in since we watch TV shows on the computer. The only time I watch TV is when I’m at my mom’s house or house sitting for an older friend of the same generation as my mom (who is 83 years old). And the battery of commercials for junk food is incessant, the commercials themselves are incessant. It reminds me why I’m paying to watch the same show on a streaming service. What’s most peculiar is that local stations often have delicious sounding ads for stuff that doesn’t even exist in our area, like Applebee’s which pulled out a decade ago, or burger places which are regional but not our region. It makes me wonder about the advertisers, who is spending money on these ads?
Education is a wonderful disinfectant for commercially driven woo.
I agree - the knowledge gained since joining MFP makes commercial claims laughable. While sitting in a waiting room I noted another woman laughing at the same - we started talking and she was a calorie counter as well and had lost over 100 lbs.5 -
rheddmobile wrote: »I wouldn’t support a ban. And although I can remember a time early in the process of losing weight when food commercials really bothered me, more recently they just seem irrelevant, like ads for men’s shoes. I know I’m not ever going to waste my precious calories on most of that nonsense, so it doesn’t pertain to me anymore.
However, I can’t help but laugh at how many commercials there are for such calorific food when watching actual TV. I do own a TV but never bothered to plug it in since we watch TV shows on the computer. The only time I watch TV is when I’m at my mom’s house or house sitting for an older friend of the same generation as my mom (who is 83 years old). And the battery of commercials for junk food is incessant, the commercials themselves are incessant. It reminds me why I’m paying to watch the same show on a streaming service. What’s most peculiar is that local stations often have delicious sounding ads for stuff that doesn’t even exist in our area, like Applebee’s which pulled out a decade ago, or burger places which are regional but not our region. It makes me wonder about the advertisers, who is spending money on these ads?
Education is a wonderful disinfectant for commercially driven woo.
I agree - the knowledge gained since joining MFP makes commercial claims laughable. While sitting in a waiting room I noted another woman laughing at the same - we started talking and she was a calorie counter as well and had lost over 100 lbs.
While I completely agree, commercially driven woo is a quick watch potentially leading to sweet and tasty instant gratification. Edumacation isn't. Just saying education has the steeper hill to climb.1 -
rheddmobile wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that the food industry has a major role to play in rising levels of obesity so I would absolutely support a ban on advertsing of these products. Food manufacturers are far far more savvy about the effects that certain food combinations have on our ability to resist temptation than the vast majority of the gen pop do. While it's right to point out that none of this food is addictive, there's no denying the reaction we have to highly palatable foods. The science is clear and the release of dopamine we can experience simply when we think about certain foods is used extensively by the food industry to sell their products.
Try eating 3500 calories of chicken over the course of a day versus eating 3500 calories of muffins or cookies. I'd guarantee you'd be completely stuffed after the chicken and wouldn't be able to eat another mouthful, while you could probably eat a few more muffins.
The desire to overeat is genetically inherent in all of us. We have evolved to prioritise nutrient dense and highly palatable foods over thousands of years and really don't need the food industry bombarding us with images of how much more we can eat.
Misconceptions and ill-conceived notions that lead to the demonization of foods combined with conspiracy theories about the food industry do nothing but cement my stance that the government (made of people with the same propensity for misconceptions and ignorant, though well-intentioned, ideas) has no place regulating the way I eat or how someone else advertises the foods I choose to eat.
Let’s remember that it was the government which decided the new food pyramid should say that it’s healthy to eat 11 servings of carbs - any carbs - a day, leading to a decade of bread packages prominently featuring the food pyramid and insisting more bread was better health. It is possibly not pure coincidence that obesity rates exploded starting about the time the food pyramid was introduced.
It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a fact that special interests pump money into getting laws and regulations that promote the sale of their products. As a result, the government has a poor track record when it comes to telling people what’s best for them to eat.
The food pyramid never said "any carbs"...it said 6-11 servings of whole grains followed by fruits and veg. The food pyramid has nothing to do with it...I don't know very many people that actually followed the food pyramid.
6-11 actual servings of whole grains isn't a lot...well 11 might be...but 6 servings of whole grains is not really a lot. 1/2 cup of oatmeal = 1 serving of whole grains...I typically have about a cup most mornings for breakfast. 1/2 cup cooked brown rice = 1 serving of whole grains...I typically have about a cup of brown rice or quionoa, etc for either lunch or dinner...so another 2 servings. A sandwich with two slices of whole grain bread would be 2 servings of whole grains. Right there I'm at 6 servings.
There was nowhere in the food pyramid that just said to eat endless grains or any carb you want.12 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that the food industry has a major role to play in rising levels of obesity so I would absolutely support a ban on advertsing of these products. Food manufacturers are far far more savvy about the effects that certain food combinations have on our ability to resist temptation than the vast majority of the gen pop do. While it's right to point out that none of this food is addictive, there's no denying the reaction we have to highly palatable foods. The science is clear and the release of dopamine we can experience simply when we think about certain foods is used extensively by the food industry to sell their products.
Try eating 3500 calories of chicken over the course of a day versus eating 3500 calories of muffins or cookies. I'd guarantee you'd be completely stuffed after the chicken and wouldn't be able to eat another mouthful, while you could probably eat a few more muffins.
The desire to overeat is genetically inherent in all of us. We have evolved to prioritise nutrient dense and highly palatable foods over thousands of years and really don't need the food industry bombarding us with images of how much more we can eat.
Misconceptions and ill-conceived notions that lead to the demonization of foods combined with conspiracy theories about the food industry do nothing but cement my stance that the government (made of people with the same propensity for misconceptions and ignorant, though well-intentioned, ideas) has no place regulating the way I eat or how someone else advertises the foods I choose to eat.
Let’s remember that it was the government which decided the new food pyramid should say that it’s healthy to eat 11 servings of carbs - any carbs - a day, leading to a decade of bread packages prominently featuring the food pyramid and insisting more bread was better health. It is possibly not pure coincidence that obesity rates exploded starting about the time the food pyramid was introduced.
It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a fact that special interests pump money into getting laws and regulations that promote the sale of their products. As a result, the government has a poor track record when it comes to telling people what’s best for them to eat.
The food pyramid never said "any carbs"...it said 6-11 servings of whole grains followed by fruits and veg. The food pyramid has nothing to do with it...I don't know very many people that actually followed the food pyramid.
6-11 actual servings of whole grains isn't a lot...well 11 might be...but 6 servings of whole grains is not really a lot. 1/2 cup of oatmeal = 1 serving of whole grains...I typically have about a cup most mornings for breakfast. 1/2 cup cooked brown rice = 1 serving of whole grains...I typically have about a cup of brown rice or quionoa, etc for either lunch or dinner...so another 2 servings. A sandwich with two slices of whole grain bread would be 2 servings of whole grains. Right there I'm at 6 servings.
There was nowhere in the food pyramid that just said to eat endless grains or any carb you want.
Given that people completely ignored the other advice, like the advice to eat veg and fruit, and increased cals from fat when we were allegedly low fat, and continue to ignore the (very good) advice that is given now, I am also incredibly skeptical about any efforts to blame gov't advice for people filling up their plates with all that currently constitutes the so-called SAD.
I grew up in the '80s when low fat was allegedly king, and I recall understanding that a good dinner was protein, some reasonable amount of a starch (corn, bread, potato, pasta, rice), and a significant serving of vegetables (and corn did not count and neither did potatoes, they were starches). We ate most meals at home, soda was a rare treat and so was take-out/fast food (and other restaurants, in part because expensive). Mostly we ate at meals, kids had an after dinner snack, often fruit. None of this was contrary to gov't advice, then or later, and it was understood to be common sense. I don't buy for a second that anyone is really confused as to what constitutes good nutrition such that they are eating the so-called SAD (which is a little stereotypical, no one I know really eats that way but everyone on those "look at how bad the average American eats" shows do, so perhaps some do) because they are genuinely confused and think Snackwells are super healthy and vegetables unimportant.
In particular, the egregiously lacking vegetable consumption by the average person suggests that people are just ignoring the consistent nutritional advice. I tend to agree with those who said the advice has tended to emphasize grains more than veg and fruit somewhat (largely because of cost and because in the past getting sufficient cals was harder and overconsumption less of an issue), but given how even the pretty low recommendations are not met, I think blaming that for poor diets is obviously nothing but excuse-making.6 -
But...but...BIG BREAD!!!
We should trust the government to stop them!!
The same government that...well...supposedly got us fat with the food pyramid.
3 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »rheddmobile wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I'm going to play devil's advocate here and say that the food industry has a major role to play in rising levels of obesity so I would absolutely support a ban on advertsing of these products. Food manufacturers are far far more savvy about the effects that certain food combinations have on our ability to resist temptation than the vast majority of the gen pop do. While it's right to point out that none of this food is addictive, there's no denying the reaction we have to highly palatable foods. The science is clear and the release of dopamine we can experience simply when we think about certain foods is used extensively by the food industry to sell their products.
Try eating 3500 calories of chicken over the course of a day versus eating 3500 calories of muffins or cookies. I'd guarantee you'd be completely stuffed after the chicken and wouldn't be able to eat another mouthful, while you could probably eat a few more muffins.
The desire to overeat is genetically inherent in all of us. We have evolved to prioritise nutrient dense and highly palatable foods over thousands of years and really don't need the food industry bombarding us with images of how much more we can eat.
Misconceptions and ill-conceived notions that lead to the demonization of foods combined with conspiracy theories about the food industry do nothing but cement my stance that the government (made of people with the same propensity for misconceptions and ignorant, though well-intentioned, ideas) has no place regulating the way I eat or how someone else advertises the foods I choose to eat.
Let’s remember that it was the government which decided the new food pyramid should say that it’s healthy to eat 11 servings of carbs - any carbs - a day, leading to a decade of bread packages prominently featuring the food pyramid and insisting more bread was better health. It is possibly not pure coincidence that obesity rates exploded starting about the time the food pyramid was introduced.
It’s not a conspiracy theory, it’s a fact that special interests pump money into getting laws and regulations that promote the sale of their products. As a result, the government has a poor track record when it comes to telling people what’s best for them to eat.
The food pyramid never said "any carbs"...it said 6-11 servings of whole grains followed by fruits and veg. The food pyramid has nothing to do with it...I don't know very many people that actually followed the food pyramid.
6-11 actual servings of whole grains isn't a lot...well 11 might be...but 6 servings of whole grains is not really a lot. 1/2 cup of oatmeal = 1 serving of whole grains...I typically have about a cup most mornings for breakfast. 1/2 cup cooked brown rice = 1 serving of whole grains...I typically have about a cup of brown rice or quionoa, etc for either lunch or dinner...so another 2 servings. A sandwich with two slices of whole grain bread would be 2 servings of whole grains. Right there I'm at 6 servings.
There was nowhere in the food pyramid that just said to eat endless grains or any carb you want.
Tell that to the bread manufacturers who prominently featured the food pyramid on the front of breads which were anything but whole grain, along with the claim that you were supposed to eat 11 of them. You see the same sort of thing from modern sugar based cereals which prominently say, “heart healthy.”1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions