Saw this news piece today:
http://chronicle.gi/2018/07/junk-foo...ing-new-rules/
Some of the salient quotes:
"Adverts for Cadbury eggs and Chewits and Squashies sweets have been banned for breaking new rules prohibiting the advertising of junk food to children.
The rulings by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) are the first to result from a ban on campaigns for products high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) across all children’s media – including online and social – introduced in July last year."
"The ASA banned ads on Cadbury’s website for a storybook titled The Tale Of The Great Easter Bunny, written by pop singer Frankie Bridge and featuring children hunting for Easter eggs coloured the same purple as the company’s branding, and an activity pack featuring an image of a rabbit holding a Cadbury-branded purple egg.
It also banned four posts on the Chewits Facebook page about Chewie the Chewitsaurus celebrating GCSE results, going back to school, Roald Dahl Day and International School Libraries Month.
The “advergame” app Squashies World, in which players match pairs of Squashies by flicking them towards each other, must no longer appear.
The ASA told Mondelez UK, trading as Cadbury, Chewits manufacturer Cloetta and Swizzels Matlow, which makes Squashies, to ensure that ads for HFSS products are not directed at under-16s.
The watchdog has made it clear to advertisers that it is not enough for them to filter out users who have told social media platforms they are under 16, on the grounds that some children enter false dates of birth.
Instead, advertisers need to show they have used targeting tools to direct ads away from users whose interests suggest they are younger than they claim."
"ASA chief executive Guy Parker said: “The ban on HFSS ads in children’s online media is working, but it’s important that we enforce it rigorously."
"Last month the Government proposed a 9pm watershed for advertising unhealthy products as part of the second chapter of its childhood obesity strategy."
It's hard to not like any effort to promote healthier children, but this seems like some pretty extensive, far-reaching activity just to stop some adverts. No idea what all this costs the tax-payer but I'll bet it's not cheap.
Surely this should just come down to parents being responsible for educating their children on what constitutes a healthy lifestyle - particularly because such a lifestyle is far more than just not eating sweets.
One might even be able to argue that taking away such advertising from children hurts their development because it removes a chance for them to learn how to think about and respond to advertising and consider what part it should play in a person's life. That could/should be a discussion parents have with their children as they encounter advertising in all it many and varied forms.
Lastly, the chief exec. cited above said that the ban is working. One presumes he means that less ads are being seen, however, in terms of kids being positively affected by this, seeing less adverts, knowing which ones are most effective etc. is it even possible to know if it's "working"? What if none of this is particularly effective? How can anyone even do a cost-benefit analysis? Should money be thrown at this sort of thing when the results/benefits are questionable?
This all just seems like a big waste of time and money to me, and a step in the wrong direction in terms of the mindset we should be fostering in society... but maybe not.
What do you guys think? Another step down the road to the nanny state, or a sensible precaution within a responsible society?