According to Wootan, in Regulating Food Advertising to Children, she notes that, “studies show that food marketing attracts children’s attention, influences their food choices, and prompts them to request that their parents purchase products.” She makes a good point in that companies have stronger ways to influence a child’s food choice than the parents do, which include cartoon characters, celebrities, and toy giveaways. On the other hand, Liodice argues that it is our first amendment right to free speech and therefore, free advertising. He cites the Surgeon General’s conclusion in regards to childhood obesity, “there is no simple or quick answer to this multifaceted challenge.” I think Wootan has the stronger argument because it is simply immoral to advertise harmful things to children. Liodice is on the defensive and claiming that everyone needs to do their part, but it can start with the food advertisers. This will make everyone else’s efforts more effective when children do not have the desires to eat this food, or throw temper tantrums in the supermarket over cereal brands.
I agree with you that Wootan has the better argument. There are many products that are unhealthy for children but are still being advertised because many people keep buying the products and most companies don't really care that they are hurting their consumers' health as long as they are still able to get their money. Most tobacco products find ways to advertise to make smoking look cool to young people even though most people know and are aware that smoking has ill effects on a person's health. Even mcdonalds advertises their products with toys to attract younger children even if it could lead to childhood obesity.
ReplyDelete