Cartoon characters banned from junk food in Aus?

[Drago]

I figure interesting happenings in the government are usually good miscellaneous convo fodder, and this one's taken my interest...


Labor obesity plan targets cartoons
Cartoon characters such as Shrek could disappear from junk food packaging as part of a plan to fight childhood obesity under a federal Labor plan.

Fairfax newspapers reported that Labor health spokeswoman Nicola Roxon strongly hinted during a National Health Reform Summit in Canberra that Labor could ban the use of licensed characters, as well as toys and other giveaways, to market food and drink to children.

The plan, confirmed by other sources, establishes a point of difference between the two major parties at a time when Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has been accused of mimicking government policies, the report said.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/NATIONAL/Labor-obesity-plan-targets-cartoons/2007/07/31/1185647853168.html (Full article)

At a glance, this seems fair enough. Banning popular characters like Shrek who are used for promotional purposes can really cut back on the product sales; Shrek's on cheese & bacon ball packaging, for crying out loud.

However, this campaign isn't limited to promotional characters like Shrek or whatever's hot at the time; it targets even junk food product mascots, like Toucan Sam or Coco the Monkey. This would mean that, in all forms of Australian marketing, be it Internet, television or right on the box, junk food products would be devoid of their mascots.

What's everyone's two cents on this? Is this as significant as I seem to think? Does anyone think it's a swell idea or a laughable mistake? Should this topic extend to cover the broader topic of childhood obesity? All this and more, to follow...

[mr_pikachu]

Hmm. This does have the potential to be damaging; brand recognition that companies have worked for years to develop could be thrown out the window in an instant.

Even setting aside ideas like the free speech we treasure in America, this could have deep sales ramifications. Consider what would happen if you removed the captain from Cap'n Crunch, for instance. Sales would plummet! (Of course, that particular example might not be a bad thing... Cap'n Crunch really doesn't taste very good. But you get my point.)

And the fact that cartoon advertisements themselves are banned could really cause problems. Consider, for example the impact on the animation and computer graphics design industries; I would expect a significant portion of those jobs are in advertising, and most of those probably have to do with childrens' toys and food.

So yeah, there are plenty of possible negative consequences, some of which are harder to foresee than others. Time will tell what comes of this plan...

[Gavin Luper]

Oh, what a clever plan. We've got to find a way to stop these little kids seeing a Shrek tie-in to their favourite cereal on a TV ad, jumping in their cars and driving down to the supermarket where they purchase the cereal themselves!

Oh wait ... they don't do that ... their parents do.

This plan is a load of crap; there's no common sense behind it. It's the parents who buy these products for their kids; it's the parents who regulate what their young children eat. The blame lies with the parents - at least in the earlier years of children's lives, say, until they're 14 or 15 and start working themselves; then they have their own money, etc.

Honestly, it's ridiculous to blame obesity on whether or not a cartoon is tied in on the packaging of a product, or if there's a Shrek toy with the Happy Meal. The parents take their kids to McDonalds TO HAVE MCDONALDS' FOOD. The Happy Meals are designed for kids: whether or not they have a toy with them is totally immaterial. Assume two parents take their kid to McDonalds for a meal - they can get their kid a small Happy Meal or, let's see, what else is on the menu? Slightly larger burgers with slightly more fat? Why, yes. The issue is that the children are being fed this kind of food BY THEIR PARENTS; the corporations are simply capitalising on this, which is to be expected. What shouldn't be expected is for parents to give their kids junk food - or the money to buy it - more than, hell, once a week, for argument's sake. I believe the core of the problem here is parents not having enough common sense.

[RedStarWarrior]

This is a stupid idea resulting from good intentions. I rather like what has been happening in the US, instead. Restaurants are starting to offer healthier choices, specifically among children-oriented selections. Banning the use of cartoonesque characters isn't going to combat the problem.

[mistysakura]

Well, I kind of agree that exploiting young kids' pester power and their inability to distinguish between ads' ulterior motive of selling stuff and the characters in question isn't very moral. Banning the use of cartoon characters in junk food ads will decrease its 'trendiness'. The characters aren't making parents' resistance to kids' nagging any easier either.

But that's only part of the problem. Ultimately, kids (and everyone else) eat junk food because of its taste, and banning cartoon characters isn't going to change that one bit. Also, kids generaly eat what is provided to them, what is lying around the house. Generally, what their parents are eating or promoting. So if the parent is the one giving kids junk food in the end, banning cartoons isn't going to solve the problem either.

Assuming that kids are either too young to understand the detriment of junk food, or care more about yummy stuff than nutrition, yes they are going to need some guidance in choosing the foods they eat, but I think that that responsibility lies with parents and not the government. Definitely not with the junk food companies or advertisers. It's not worth impinging on freedom of speech for this. Besides, shielding kids from the effects of advertising is hardly an answer. They need to learn to recognise marketing and make their decisions objectively, which in the end will probably be of more assistance in eating healthily.

[Magmar]

This is a stupid idea resulting from good intentions. I rather like what has been happening in the US, instead. Restaurants are starting to offer healthier choices, specifically among children-oriented selections. Banning the use of cartoonesque characters isn't going to combat the problem.

Yeah, and on top of it, many of the traditional "sugar cereals" are offering 25% less sugar as a start. It's an improvement from the sticky tooth-destroying paste that used to result of eating them.

Then again what do I know. I eat Special K. (For special people!)

[classy_cat18]

I think they said that the cartoon characters could be used as long as it's to promote healthy foods. But it won't work. I've tried some of that healthy food...and it sucks. And it's sometimes more expensive. Even if parents buy it, their children will try it, hate it, and go back to their favorite (although mascot-less) cereals.

[darktyranitar]

Hmhm... and here at Malaysia, the government is thinking of banning junk food ads in the hope that the children will avoid being exposed to junk food at an early age.

We'll see how things'll turn out.

[mr_pikachu]

Besides, shielding kids from the effects of advertising is hardly an answer. They need to learn to recognise marketing and make their decisions objectively, which in the end will probably be of more assistance in eating healthily.

That's a good point that I didn't consider at first. Part of growing up is in making mistakes and learning from them. But if we don't have the opportunity to make those mistakes in a setting where the stakes are low (that is, when we have parents to rein us in if we go too far), what's going to happen when the drug dealer down the street tells us how cool we'll be if we shoot up? Or when we see the flashing lights of the local casino? How will we deal with it if we haven't been given the opportunity to make mistakes and thus to know better in the future?

In a way, it's like our immune system. If we don't have a little exposure to things that make us mildly sick, we'll be in trouble when we encounter something that could actually cause serious harm.

To make a long story short, if we don't learn how to gather important information for decision-making (and discard the unimportant stuff, like the cuteness of a mascot), we'll wind up with far worse problems than we'd have if we eat a few too many cookies. Basically, what Ada said.


P.S. By the way, I'm not saying that recreational gambling is bad. I'm saying that a gambling addiction is, just like a drug addiction, etc.

[firepokemon]

Me thinks parents should be parents and just say no. Living in a small town my parents sure didn't take us to Mcdonalds everytime we got to the city. Parents are just lazy and pathetic and liberal losers need to just chill out.

[Roarkiller]

From what I can deduce from the article, I highly doubt that company character mascots, whether Ronald MacDonald or Toucan Sam or Monkey whatever, will be affected in any way.

I especially doubt that breakfast cereal will be affected in any way, at all, from this ban.

Read: They're proposing banning of tie-ins. For promotions. For junk food.

Mascots don't count; they're the company's product and method of recognition, much like company logos. And breakfast cereal don't count because, again, read: they're talking about junk food. I don't see how cereal counts as junk food.

And in most accounts, I highly support the motion.

Real thinkers don't focus on the blame, they focus on the problem. And the problem at hand is obesity, not who controls the paycheck. Where the blame lies on doesn't matter. You can chant long colourful moralistic stories for all they care, and it won't change the situation.

The banning of tie-ins does. And despite what any of you think or say, face it: kids are drawn to them, and parents being parents will rarely turn down their child's request. Public education is a bedtime story in this situation.

What matters is that steps are taken, regardless of who takes it. The ban does not, in any way, step over any boundaries, because if it does, then the same can be said about uber-large health warnings on cigarrette packs.

Be realistic. Junk food sellers have an armada of tactics to push sales. The disappearance of one, which may I remind you is to address a SERIOUS issue, isn't going to make a difference to them.

[Drago]

I haven't been able to scrounge up an article to disprove your theories Roarkiller, but television news reports on the issue focussed on clips of breakfast cereal mascots. There's a chance that this is just the news being really, really stupid and showing things that are irrelevant, or a nasty misunderstanding of Kevin Rudd, but I'm inclined to think otherwise. I'm sorry I haven't provided very sufficient material to prove this point, though.

[Gavin Luper]

Real thinkers don't focus on the blame, they focus on the problem. And the problem at hand is obesity, not who controls the paycheck. Where the blame lies on doesn't matter. You can chant long colourful moralistic stories for all they care, and it won't change the situation.

The banning of tie-ins does. And despite what any of you think or say, face it: kids are drawn to them, and parents being parents will rarely turn down their child's request.

I disagree. Yes, the problem is obesity. But what I'm saying is that what children are fed is almost entirely at the discretion of their parents: therefore, who controls the paycheck is indeed relevant.

Parents being parents ... well ... I recall my parents refusing the pleas of myself and my siblings for junk food throughout our childhood: we were allowed one chocolate bar/lolly on Saturdays, cool drinks only on weekends and possibly a take-away dinner once a week. Other than that, it was standard, healthy food, and not a lot of snacking went on, either. None of us suffered from childhood obesity. Therefore, I think that if parents are responsible and realistic in regulating their children's diets, this would be a far more sensible and practical solution than banning 'tie-ins', which I don't believe will solve very much at all.

[Roarkiller]

Pocket money, unfortunately, sends that argument to the trash can. :rolleyes: My own family rarely indulge in such things, yet my youngest brother is obese (the rest of us are normal). And unfortunately also the most susceptible to advertising, since he is not endowed with much common sense, to be honest.

@DragoKnight: Never saw the TV report, I'm basing my argument on the provided article, which in all sense seem to point that way.