A 9pm watershed on TV junk food advertising will come into force in October 2025, the government has confirmed.

This will come alongside a total ban on paid-for online advertising for junk food, under plans to tackle childhood obesity.

    • yggstyle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      Should be higher up. I knew instinctively it wasn’t the US for reasons … but I did kinda hope.

  • HexadecimalSky@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    Eh? Ads may play a part, but options and parent education are more important. I see people not realizing how bad junk food is for thier kids, don’t have many options or simply dont care.

    A kid can see an ad, but a kid can’t buy it. It’s up to the parents to be telling thier kid no, and giving them healthier options. Far better will be Informing parents better strategies on feeding thier kids and ensuring healthy options are readily available.

    As long as parents think a cup of soda everyday is fine for thier kid and healthy options are prohibitively expensive (Monetarily or time), we will get nowhere.

    • Dagrothus@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      Nah there’s a reason companies invest so much into targeting kids specifically. It works. Kids ask their parents for the garbage they see on TV, parents oblige.

      The personally responsibility argument is bullshit for systemic issues. You think 42% of americans are obese because we’re all coincidentally bad at making decisions and europeans are just smarter? Regulations matter.

      • HexadecimalSky@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        As I said, I think availability and awareness are as big of factors. I 100% believe most Europeans have better access to healthier foods then many americans. Granted ads may spur kids to bug thier parents but if parents did better at saying no, and could give thier kids better options. I think it’s not just a personal responsibility but a communal, a government responsibility to ensure access to information and food are available. When no better options are made available, there is a problem.

    • rbn@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      7 days ago

      I vividly remember pushing my parents to go McDonald’s after I saw an advertisement with the newest Happy Meal toys. I wanted the toy in the first place, the food tasted good as a kid but even then not amazing. I think ads do have a huge influence on which toys and which food kids ask for.

      • HexadecimalSky@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        Fair, that’s the part where I think a parent needs to have the will and authority to say no to their kid, but I understand that can be difficult. This may do some good but as I am sure some loopholes will form and it doesn’t forbid ads 100%, it wont stop Fast Food ads. Even if fast food wasn’t directly advertised, I believe there is more factors, like the availability of healthy options, many families don’t have the time or money to make good healthy meals. This law is a good thing, but I personally don’t see it as a huge win, just a patch that will be touted to solve problems it doesn’t address.

  • rbn@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    Does anyone know how they define junk food in that guideline? Is it based on calories / fat / sugar? Or do they have a specific list of products that are now forbidden in ads? Or a list of companies? Does the ban include product placements (like a kids movie where a family goes to McD? What about ‘normal’ content about fast food (like SpongeBob making krabby burgers)?

    I really appreciate the law but I think it can be quite challenging to draw the line between legal and illegal.

    • CouldntCareBear@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      The advertising standards authority use a nutritional profiling model. If the food is High in Fat, Sodium, Suger (HFSS) it gets a higher score. Some points are deducted if it is high in fruit, veg or nuts. If the food is above a certain point threshold different advertising rules apply.

      This applies to preprocessed food. Not ingredients you would use to prepare your own food.

      I don’t know about your other questions but some of the other rules are interesting…

      You can’t use licensed characters or celebrities to advertise to under 16s.

      You can’t condone or promote unhealthy lifestyle or eating habits. Ie. Eating a massive bucket of ice cream in front of the playstation.

      You must not take advantage of a child’s vulnerability by appealing to emotions such as pity, fear, or self-confidence, or by Suggesting that having the advertised product somehow confers superiority, for example making a child more confident, clever, popular, or successful.

      You must not present your price in a way that suggests children or their families can easily afford it. “Only”. “just”. Etc

      https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nutrient-profiling-model

  • PenisDuckCuck9001@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    Before 9pm? What a random qualifier. Let’s ban shoe commercials on every 2nd Tuesday of months with more than 2 vowels because why not.