The American Academy of Pediatrics reports that obesity rates among children and teenagers have increased dramatically as compared to generation ago (Neuman, 1). This increase in obesity rates has been attributed to the more than 40,000 fast food advertisements that children and teenagers are exposed to annually (Neuman, 2). Food marketers use cartoon characters, celebrities and toys that coerce children into asking for these foods from their parents and undermines the authority of parents (Nestle, 1). These foods have a high content of fat, sugar, salt and calories which contribute to the occurrence of hypertension, diabetes, heart disease and obesity. The above information shows that food companies should not be allowed to market their products to children since children are incapable of making correct choices about food.
Nestle asserts that since children are gullible and easily coerced, food companies take advantage of this by using cartoons, placing their adverts during kids programs, celebrities and toys to sell their products to children (2). This craftiness in advertisements ensures that children demand for these unhealthy foods from their parents and even undercuts parental authority on food choices. The fact that children are unable to comprehend the difference between healthy and unhealthy food and are instead convinced by these adverts shows the importance of banning these adverts.
Coupled with the lack of physical activity among modern children, these advertisements drive them to eat these unhealthy foods that in turn cause obesity, hypertension and diabetes. This is reflected in the $350 billion that is spent annually on health care mostly treating these non-communicable diseases that are a product of poor food choices and a sedentary lifestyle (Metzel, 1).
Recent research shows that the regulatory approach has been very successful in dealing with issues that are of national concern, a good example being smoking. It is not the knowledge that smoking kills that reduced smoking; it was the deliberate effort of banning cigarette adverts, introducing age limits for cigarette purchases and restricting smoking zones (Nestle, 2). The same should be done for obesity, hypertension and diabetes by restricting food advertisements to children and the selling of junk food in school and other areas that are not food stores. This approach, researchers believe, will be more effective than just paying lip service to the importance of healthy eating.
On the other hand, these companies insist that marketing to children is their constitutionally enshrined right and they constantly block attempts any attempts by the FTC to make them label their foods (Nestle, 2). They also insist that child nutrition is the sole responsibility of parents and they should not be blamed for poor food choices that parents make for their children.
Though these food manufacturers say that the choice of a child’s nutrition is the role of the child’s parent, it is impossible to ignore the effect that advertising has on children. If these adverts had no tangible effect in influencing the food choices of children, these companies would not spend billions of dollars each year on advertising. They spend this money because they know that it works. It is immoral for these companies to insist on continuing to advertise yet they know very well the negative effect that these adverts have on the health of children.
Works Cited
Nestle, Marion. “How Regulation Really Does Change Eating Behavior” the Atlantic. Com September 2012
Neuman, Willam. “U.S. Seeks New Limits on Food Ads for Children” New York Times 29 April 2011
Metzl, Jordan. “The Exercise Cure” Medical Examiner. 30 December 2013
