How should junk food be regulated?

[Classic Iconocl]

[Rosie Cotton]

If someone wants to clog their arteries with this shit, then by all means let them. It's not the government's job to decide that kind of thing.

[ASsman]

The only thing that should be regulated is what children can cram in their little fat mouths...

Starting at home obviously, and ending at school... Atleast let them eat one healthy meal a day, good god.

[Classic Iconocl]

Regulated for children, hmmm....

"I'd like a quarter pounder with cheese."

"Can I see some ID?"

[ms.peachy]

I favour strong limits on marketing directly to children.

[open letter]

i agree that an out right ban on advertising of junkfood is out of the question but a ban on advertising the food directly to children should be brought in

[EN[i]GMA]

Hilarious.

I could SWEAR I missed the part of the Constitution where it gave the government the power to this...

Tell me, do you care about people's health and safety?

If so, mandate that people wear full football armor and helmets around wherever they go, as they would clearly reduce injuries and death.

Do you agree with this?

Or do you wish to hold on to some vestige of freedom?

How in the fuck can Uncle Sam know what's best for me to eat?

[EN[i]GMA]

And killing the people who are not intelligent to eat properly will be beneficial to the human race and its gene pool.

[King of Rock II]

limits on advertising would be a good thing, especially advertising thats aimed at children.

[Classic Iconocl]

Just think... Morgan Spurlock could be the Food Czar!!

[Funkaloyd]

I could SWEAR I missed the part of the Constitution where it gave the government the power to this...
Not everyone here is from the States, and if the Constitution was written simply as a list of the things that the government can do then there'd be no need for the legislative branch.

If so, mandate that people wear full football armor and helmets around wherever they go, as they would clearly reduce injuries and death.
Pff, armour for sports. Americans are such pussies.

[D_Raay]

I favour strong limits on marketing directly to children.
Exactly...

[DroppinScience]

The only thing that should be regulated is what children can cram in their little fat mouths...

Starting at home obviously, and ending at school... Atleast let them eat one healthy meal a day, good god.

Sounds about right.

[Ali]

I favour strong limits on marketing directly to children.I favour strong limits on the amount of TV you let your kids watched unsupervised and the type of food you provide for them at home.

Less TV = less advertising

More home-cooked meals = less junk food

It's not rocket science.

[GreenEarthAl]

I think junk food should be regulated by we the people.

I think that the biggest thing that needs to change in terms of the law is that the people need to be able to educate with greater protection from lawsuits.

Morgan Spurlock needs to be able to make "Super Size Me" movies without having to cary huge insurance or retain lawyers. People trying to educate people about the effects of triglycerides(sp) and rancid meat should be allowed to do so more freely. Consumer groups should be able to air commercials of their own on Saturday morning that tell the truth about junk food without McMegaCorporation slamming a seven figure lawsuit "you're hurting our business! Wah! Wah! Wah!" If your business is hurting us, we should be able to try to stop it from hurting us without the government and the corporations ganging up to extract revenge and silence us.

[open letter]

if we didn't have channels on t.v. that are intierly devoted to kids t.v.,disnie channel and nik junior and nicalodian then there would be less for the kids to watch and they mite do somthing else like go outside ond play sport to fill there time

[Qdrop]

I favour strong limits on the amount of TV you let your kids watched unsupervised and the type of food you provide for them at home.

Less TV = less advertising

More home-cooked meals = less junk food

It's not rocket science.
(y)

it's the parents responisbility......

along with the schools who should provide healthy meals and remove crap food from the vending machines in the cafeteria. that should be the limit of gov't intervention in junk food...

[enree erzweglle]

If something has an expiry date of, say, more than a week, then school cafeterias shouldn't sell it. No soda, chips, candy, or lunch cakes should be seen in school cafeterias, IMO.

When my son was in grade school, the meals were fundamentally good and they didn't have vending machines. In high school, the entire wall west side of the cafeteria was all vending machines. The regularly offered hot food was pizza and french fries and every day, they had specials (some of which weren't too bad). They had "salads" every day but no one ever bought them and so they were always watery and brown.

When I was a kid, we didn't even have a cafeteria in elementary shool/junior high. Everyone packed or you didn't eat. When I was in high school, there was a cafeteria that served home-cooked food. Most everyone packed; I certainly did. We couldn't afford to eat at the cafeteria.

I do think most of this falls back to the parents, but if the parents are part of the fast-food nation, then they're probably going to be packing their kids those Oscar Meyers "lunchables" because they're easy/convenient, just like fast food. And this paves the way for another generation of bad, overweight eaters.

[ms.peachy]

I favour strong limits on the amount of TV you let your kids watched unsupervised and the type of food you provide for them at home.

Less TV = less advertising

More home-cooked meals = less junk food

I agree that those things are very important as well. However, I still believe that the marketing of foods with little or no nutritional nutritional value should be more stringently regulated.

I want to stress, it's not just about TV commercials. Experts who have researched this point to the 'culture of saturation' of children's environments and the pervasiveness of the efforts to enroll children as life-long brand consumers. The levels of exposure to direct marketing that children experience is quite a bit higher than you may realise.

It is also important to realise that children are not small adults. The are developmentally different. Young children are not capable of grasping the concept of advertising as a selling tool and do not examine the messages and motives of advertisers critically.

Yes of course it is essential that parents take their measure responsibility seriously, but advertisers know that even parents with the strongest will can on occasion be worn down with 'pester power'. (And let no one among us who does not regularly have to trawl the supermarket aisles in the company of a demanding child claim that we'd "never give in". People have all sorts of ideasof how they will and won't be when they have kids, but once you do, it's a whole different ball game. I'm told.) Anyway, the main concern with branding is that even if the child can't buy it for him or herself NOW, they will seek out certain brands once they are able.
The heavy marketing directed towards youth, especially young children, appears to be driven largely by the desire to develop and build brand awareness/recognition, brand preference and brand loyalty. Marketers believe that brand preference begins before purchase behavior does. [28] Brand preference in children appears to be related to two major factors: 1) children's positive experiences with a brand, and 2) parents liking that brand. [28] Thus, marketers are intensifying their efforts to develop brand relationships with young consumers, beginning when they are toddlers. [29] Marketers know that toddlers and preschool children have considerable purchase influence and can successfully negotiate purchases through what marketers term the "nag factor" or "pester power". [28] A child's first request for a product occurs at about 24 months of age and 75% of the time this request occurs in a supermarket. The most requested first in-store request is breakfast cereal (47%), followed by snacks and beverages (30%) and toys (21%). Requests are often for the brand name product. [28] Isler, et al, examined the location, types, and frequency of products that children ages 3-11 requested of their mothers over 30 days. Food accounted for over half (54%) of total requests made by children and included snack/dessert foods (24%), candy (17%), cereal (7%), fast foods (4%), and fruit and vegetables (3%). [30] Almost two-thirds (65%) of all cereal requests were for presweetened cereals. Preschool children made more requests than the older elementary school children. Parents honored children's requests for food about 50% of the time, soft drinks (60%), cookies (50%), and candy (45%). [28] These findings show that food advertisers spend large amounts of money targeting children, in an attempt to build brand loyalty and to persuade them to desire a particular food product, starting when they are toddlers.

If you'd like to see where that info came from, have a look here. (http://www.ijbnpa.org/content/1/1/3)

[Classic Iconocl]

COP: Come over here, son. I noticed you shaking you leg just now. You ain't on sugar, are you?

KID: No way, man. I don't do that stuff.

COP: How about you empty your pockets so I can verify that? You got anything on you I need to know about? Knives? Guns? Bombs? Corn chips?

[EN[i]GMA]

Not everyone here is from the States, and if the Constitution was written simply as a list of the things that the government can do then there'd be no need for the legislative branch.


Pff, armour for sports. Americans are such pussies.

Yes, the Constititution is a list of things the government can do. It is an exclusive list.

And the why don't you support the wearing of armor?

Why do you support the use of superflous 'u's that do nothing but further complicate the language?

[EN[i]GMA]

I think junk food should be regulated by we the people.

I think that the biggest thing that needs to change in terms of the law is that the people need to be able to educate with greater protection from lawsuits.

Morgan Spurlock needs to be able to make "Super Size Me" movies without having to cary huge insurance or retain lawyers. People trying to educate people about the effects of triglycerides(sp) and rancid meat should be allowed to do so more freely. Consumer groups should be able to air commercials of their own on Saturday morning that tell the truth about junk food without McMegaCorporation slamming a seven figure lawsuit "you're hurting our business! Wah! Wah! Wah!" If your business is hurting us, we should be able to try to stop it from hurting us without the government and the corporations ganging up to extract revenge and silence us.

I agree.

[EN[i]GMA]

If something has an expiry date of, say, more than a week, then school cafeterias shouldn't sell it. No soda, chips, candy, or lunch cakes should be seen in school cafeterias, IMO.

When my son was in grade school, the meals were fundamentally good and they didn't have vending machines. In high school, the entire wall west side of the cafeteria was all vending machines. The regularly offered hot food was pizza and french fries and every day, they had specials (some of which weren't too bad). They had "salads" every day but no one ever bought them and so they were always watery and brown.

When I was a kid, we didn't even have a cafeteria in elementary shool/junior high. Everyone packed or you didn't eat. When I was in high school, there was a cafeteria that served home-cooked food. Most everyone packed; I certainly did. We couldn't afford to eat at the cafeteria.

I do think most of this falls back to the parents, but if the parents are part of the fast-food nation, then they're probably going to be packing their kids those Oscar Meyers "lunchables" because they're easy/convenient, just like fast food. And this paves the way for another generation of bad, overweight eaters.

A lot of it has to do with kids being kids.

A lot of it has to do with adults being lazy.

[ms.peachy]

GMA']A lot of it has to do with kids being kids.

A lot of it has to do with adults being lazy.
A lot of it has to do with big business deliberately targeting your children, with zero regard for their health and well-being.

[Schmeltz]

Ms peachy, why do you hate freedom?

[NoI'mClarence]

its not the governments decision, but i eat too much junk food, so it would help me personally

[NoI'mClarence]

Ms peachy, why do you hate freedom?
Schmeltz, why do you not care about the health of the children of america (aka-me)

[EN[i]GMA]

A lot of it has to do with big business deliberately targeting your children, with zero regard for their health and well-being.

I must have missed where it says it's 'big businesses' job to look out for children.

They sell products.

Nothing more, nothing less.

People obviously like these products as they continue to buy them.

If people liked and/or wanted healthy products, they would market healthy products and you would have nothing to complain about.

This marketing can 'target' whatever group it chooses, but its effects are not directly tied into marketing. There are innumerable other factors.

Yes, I understand, we're facing a 'health epidemic'. But don't most people know that?

How many years have people been harping on this fact? Ask most people about the health of people in the U.S., what would they tell you? That Americans are to fat, eat to much junk food and don't get enough excercise.

It's not a big secret. 'Big businesses' hasn't been covering this up very well, because it's on the news every single night, diabetes this, heart-health that.

Why isn't it having an effect? Quite simply, because people don't care.

Will restricing advertising to children help? I doubt it. They'll want the food just same, they'll get it just as easily and the underlying fact that people simply do not put stake in their health will be missed.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink is a nice little saying isn't it? Well it's true.

These children are the wards of their parents, and it's the parents job to regulate what they eat.

[EN[i]GMA]

Ms peachy, why do you hate freedom?

Good question.

I really hate to use that phrase, it makes me sound like Bush, but a lot of people on here do hate freedom.

Often they're right, people should do this, people should do that, but what they aren't right about is people should have the right to make mistakes. Even fatal ones.

[ms.peachy]

GMA']You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink is a nice little saying isn't it? Well it's true.

Indeed. I've already provided a link to a very well researched and informative article that I believe outlines my position and the reasons for it quite clearly. You can read it or not, I don't care, but you can't say I've not made the deliberate attempt to state my case, and provided qualified research to back it up. So drink or don't, up to you.

[enree erzweglle]

GMA']A lot of it has to do with kids being kids.

A lot of it has to do with adults being lazy.
I do understand that the problem is multi-faceted.

Just make it easier for kids to make healthy choices and one way to do that is to remove junk food vending machines from schools and eliminating cafeteria contracts with places like McDonalds. Normally, I disagree with this sort of tactic--people should have to learn how to make choices for the right reasons. In this case, though, I think I'd rather risk it and do what I can to establish healthy habits and then teach my kid about decision-making through other means.

There's really nothing you can do about lazy parents. You can just hope to positively influence them and the generation they're raising.

You know those little packs of Hostess snack/lunch cakes that serve 6 mini chocolate donuts? Did you know that there are two servings in that one package?

[Funkaloyd]

Why do you support the use of superflous 'u's that do nothing but further complicate the language?

[EN[i]GMA]

Indeed. I've already provided a link to a very well researched and informative article that I believe outlines my position and the reasons for it quite clearly. You can read it or not, I don't care, but you can't say I've not made the deliberate attempt to state my case, and provided qualified research to back it up. So drink or don't, up to you.

I've read it.

I'm not disputing it's claims.

[EN[i]GMA]

unkaloyd][kwote=NGMA]Why do you support the use of superflous 'u's that do nothing but further co
http://www.bartleby.com/185/

More specifically: http://www.bartleby.com/185/31.html

And I quote: "American, in general, moves toward simplified forms of spelling more rapidly than English, and has got much further along the road. Redundant and unnecessary letters have been dropped from whole groups of words, simple vowels have been substituted for degenerated diphthongs, simple consonants have displaced compound ones, and vowels have been changed to bring words into harmony with their analogues, as in tire, cider and baritone (cf. wire, rider, merriment). Clarity and simplicity are served by substituting ct for x in such words as connection and inflection, and s for c in words of the defense group. The superiority of jail to gaol is made manifest by the common mispronunciation of the latter by Americans who find it in print, making it rhyme with coal. The substitution of i for e in such words as indorse, inclose and jimmy is of less patent utility, but even here there is probably a slight gain in euphony. Of more obscure origin is what seems to be a tendency to avoid the o-sound, so that the English slog becomes slug, podgy becomes pudgy, slosh becomes slush, toffee becomes taffy, and so on. Other changes carry their own justification. Hostler is obviously better American than ostler, though it may be worse English. Show is more logical than shew. 4 Cozy is more nearly phonetic than cosy. Curb has analogues in curtain, curdle, curfew, curl, currant, curry, curve, curtsey, curse, currency, cursory, curtain, cur, curt and many other common words: kerb has very few, and of them only kerchief and kernel are in general use. Moreover, the English themselves use curb as a verb and in all noun senses save that shown in kerbstone. Such forms as monolog and dialog still offend the fastidious, but their merit is not to be gainsaid. Nor would it be easy to argue logically against gram, toilet, mustache, anesthetic, draft and tire."


The letters are cleary superflous, the remanents of other languages that are better left out.

Don't novelties and silent letters needlessly complicate the langauage?

Its like addinge a silente 'e' to the ende of everye worde that endede in a consonente.

It makes no phonetic sense and does not add anything to the langauge, other than a hint at, perhaps, the word's etymology, but if that is easy enough to figure out anyway, as is the case with most words, you should leave it out.

There's a difference between changing something fundamental to the language for phonetic reasons, like the 'ph' -> 'f' sound for instance, and taking out things that quite simply serve no purpose.

And since both 'quote' and 'enigma' make perfect phonetic sense, there was no reason to change them.

Armour and colour however, are anamolies.

[Ali]

I agree that those things are very important as well. However, I still believe that the marketing of foods with little or no nutritional nutritional value should be more stringently regulated.Agreed(And let no one among us who does not regularly have to trawl the supermarket aisles in the company of a demanding child claim that we'd "never give in". People have all sorts of ideasof how they will and won't be when they have kids, but once you do, it's a whole different ball game. I'm told.) There's a word called 'no'. If your kids don't hear it from you at home, at the supermarket, wherever, they will hear it from Society at some stage. Preparing your children for a world which says no is far kinder than giving them everything they want, whenever they want it. Spoiled brats do not succeed in a world which requires that you earn something which you want (and makes you want things you don't need, or which are bad for you). Leading by example is another thing. You can't gorge yourself on junk food and then withhold the same from your kids. Laziness is a factor. It's a lot easier to leave your kid in front of the TV while you take a break, or take them to MacDonalds so that they can play in the entetainment area. Of course, you have to allow your kids to try junk food, and compare it with your own efforts in the kitchen... shouldn't be hard to beat :rolleyes:

You can ask me how things are going in a year or two... my son is due to be born tomorrow, so soon I'll be having to put all the above into practice :eek:

Fortunately, neither my wife nor I watch TV, just DVD's sometimes, we hardly ever eat at restaurants (which is hard in Paris) and NEVER eat Mac fucking Donald's. We both like to cook and love to read, so hopefully we'll set a good example for him so when he does eat fast food, he'll realise that it's not as good as the food we give him and that the book is always better than the movie, or TV series.

Sanctimonious, or what?!? :o

[ms.peachy]

Agreed There's a word called 'no'. If your kids don't hear it from you at home, at the supermarket, wherever, they will hear it from Society at some stage. Preparing your children for a world which says no is far kinder than giving them everything they want, whenever they want it. Spoiled brats do not succeed in a world which requires that you earn something which you want (and makes you want things you don't need, or which are bad for you). Leading by example is another thing. You can't gorge yourself on junk food and then withhold the same from your kids. Laziness is a factor. It's a lot easier to leave your kid in front of the TV while you take a break, or take them to MacDonalds so that they can play in the entetainment area. Of course, you have to allow your kids to try junk food, and compare it with your own efforts in the kitchen... shouldn't be hard to beat :rolleyes:

You can ask me how things are going in a year or two... my son is due to be born tomorrow, so soon I'll be having to put all the above into practice :eek:

Fortunately, neither my wife nor I watch TV, just DVD's sometimes, we hardly ever eat at restaurants (which is hard in Paris) and NEVER eat Mac fucking Donald's. We both like to cook and love to read, so hopefully we'll set a good example for him so when he does eat fast food, he'll realise that it's not as good as the food we give him and that the book is always better than the movie, or TV series.

Sanctimonious, or what?!? :o
LOL Ali I do believe I shall print this out, put it away for for 3 years, and then mail it to you, in a great big card that says "So how's that all workin' out for you?"

I don't mean to wish sloth and gluttony upon your progeny or anything like that. And frankly I do think you have an advantage being in France, where the culture for kids isn't as saturated with corporate tie-ins. (However as France clearly "hates freedom" even more than me, you lose points there :p )

I do believe though that you will find yourself in a short time making some degree of compromises that you never anticipated.

But congratulations on the imminent arrival of your baby! May you all be blessed with health and happiness.

[ms.peachy]

GMA']I've read it.

I'm not disputing it's claims.
Well if you read it, then surely you noticed this statement:
Children, especially young children, are more susceptible to the effects of marketing than adults. Numerous studies have documented that children under 8 years of age are developmentally unable to understand the intent of advertisements and accept advertising claims as factual. [22] The intense marketing of high fat, high sugar foods to young children can be viewed as exploitation because they do not understand that commercials are designed to sell products and do not have the ability to comprehend or evaluate advertising. The purpose of advertising is to persuade, and young children have few defenses against such advertising. Older children and teens can be manipulated by the strong emotive messages in advertisements. [24] It can be argued that children, especially young children, are a vulnerable group that should be protected from commercial influences that may adversely impact their health, and that as a society that values children, there should be greater social responsibility for their present and future health.
And that is essentially the crux of the issue, for me.

[Phantom Menace]

We're developing a new super breed of human which requires no teeth. Gnawing is on it's way out, gumming is on it's way in. Teeth will go the way of the tail.

Regulation will be achieved with the assistance of Psyllium fibers.

[Ali]

LOL Ali I do believe I shall print this out, put it away for for 3 years, and then mail it to you, in a great big card that says "So how's that all workin' out for you?" L:DL I know, I know... as soon as Reality sets in all the ideals will most probably go out of the window in favour of "five minutes of peace and quiet!!!".

But we're going to give it our best shot. Mrs Ali's got the same values as me and is equally loathe to leave him in front of the TV. We've built up quite a library of all our favourite childhood books, which we will read to him and which he can read later. We have the added advantage of having our rent and expenses paid for us while we're here in Paris (I'm on a IT rollout project), so she doesn't have to work and theyrefore has more time to spend with him. Being a schoolteacher, she's quite good at keeping young minds occupied.

But yeah, it's not going to be easy to say no when he wants something.

[GreenEarthAl]

Once upon a time I wrote a book about all this.

[ChrisLove]

Once upon a time I wrote a book about all this.


GEA, you are a one man marketing machine!

Enigma - You seem to me to be overly defensive of the free market, we have a situation where the market, with its current (obviously less than total) level of freedom is delivering a non optimal result. The current market forces are making people fat and unhealthy. To simply say that this is the fault of lazy and stupid people may be true but it does not fix the problem, it seems to me that some government intervention here could deliver a better outcome to society as a whole. Is that so wrong?

[EN[i]GMA]

GEA, you are a one man marketing machine!

Enigma - You seem to me to be overly defensive of the free market, we have a situation where the market, with its current (obviously less than total) level of freedom is delivering a non optimal result. The current market forces are making people fat and unhealthy. To simply say that this is the fault of lazy and stupid people may be true but it does not fix the problem, it seems to me that some government intervention here could deliver a better outcome to society as a whole. Is that so wrong?

No, it's that I don't 'market forces' are making anyone fat.

Yes, the market is a willing participant, but 'the market' can no more force you to eat than I can.

Do I think it adversely affects children? Possibly, but only as much as it's allowed to by parents and guardians.

Kids have the propensity to indulge themselves without taking count of the consequences, parentes have the responsibility to look out for the best interests of the children, and marketing wants to sell a product.

Obviously, these modus opurandis collide.

But what is it that marketing is doing that is so uncouth and hurtful? Are they missrepresenting their products? Than perhaps they are commiting fraud. Are they trying to convey a certain 'image'? Certainly, but one's tendancy (Gullability, even) to fall for this, is not an innate trait. It is learned. If children were taught properly, and given limits and given boundries, there would be no 'epidemic' in regards to what they consume.

If people won't listen to the deluge of information out there, if people can't instill certain values in their children, and if people can't behave with enough sense, than the consequences of their actions are deserved.


I don't think government has the right or the privilege to tell people what they can or cannot eat, show on TV(Aside from controlling public airwaves), print in magazines, or proliferate using other forms of media.

I dislike the precedence this sets.

I also doubt it would fix the problem. If people don't know how to eat properly, or willfully choose to not eat healthily, how will this solution help matters?

The fact remains the same: What you eat is your responsiblity. What your children eat is your responsiblity.

Until this axiom is proven wrong (Or ignored, as is the liklier case), government has no business in regulating this particular part of the food industry.

Inspections? Great, I can deal with those. Mandated labels? Fine with me. Honesty in advertising? Always.

But flat-out restrictions (Borderline censorship)? No.

[ms.peachy]

I repeat:

Children, especially young children, are more susceptible to the effects of marketing than adults. Numerous studies have documented that children under 8 years of age are developmentally unable to understand the intent of advertisements and accept advertising claims as factual. [22] The intense marketing of high fat, high sugar foods to young children can be viewed as exploitation because they do not understand that commercials are designed to sell products and do not have the ability to comprehend or evaluate advertising. The purpose of advertising is to persuade, and young children have few defenses against such advertising. Older children and teens can be manipulated by the strong emotive messages in advertisements. [24] It can be argued that children, especially young children, are a vulnerable group that should be protected from commercial influences that may adversely impact their health, and that as a society that values children, there should be greater social responsibility for their present and future health.

Protecting children is more important to me than protecting shareholders.

[EN[i]GMA]

I repeat:



Protecting children is more important to me than protecting shareholders.

I understand, but protecting freedom trumps even that.

And that would not be of significance if parents were doing their job.

And tell me, how do you go about this?

[ms.peachy]

GMA']I understand, but protecting freedom trumps even that.

And that would not be of significance if parents were doing their job.

And tell me, how do you go about this?
How about children having the freedom to not be thought of as nothing more than market targets and bombarded with manipulative propaganda? As I stated earlier, the advertisiers are not just selling what the kids can get their parents to buy NOW, they are creating a market for what they can get off of them when their parents aren't around.

Even the best and most attentive parents are not with their children 24 hours a day. When you have schools that do not offer healthy options, that have vending machines and fast food franchises, parents are up against it bigtime.

Of course parnets have a great deal of responsibility in teaching their children to make good choices. But when the messages are constantly and consistently undermined from every angle, there is only so much they can do. As a society, I feel we can do better for our children than simply shrug it off.

[open letter]

they could put a limit on the nimber of fast food outlets

and make it so that they had to be aleast a few miles apart so the there are less of them

and forse them to give out a nutrional guide with every meal

[iceygirl]

i saw a segment on gma today about a 8 year old (i think), 5'2, 220 lbs.

[EN[i]GMA]

How about children having the freedom to not be thought of as nothing more than market targets and bombarded with manipulative propaganda? As I stated earlier, the advertisiers are not just selling what the kids can get their parents to buy NOW, they are creating a market for what they can get off of them when their parents aren't around.

Even the best and most attentive parents are not with their children 24 hours a day. When you have schools that do not offer healthy options, that have vending machines and fast food franchises, parents are up against it bigtime.

Of course parnets have a great deal of responsibility in teaching their children to make good choices. But when the messages are constantly and consistently undermined from every angle, there is only so much they can do. As a society, I feel we can do better for our children than simply shrug it off.

Well, first off, none has that right. It isn't one.

People can think of you what they will, and 'bombard' you with whatever you consent to.

I don't but the argument that since parents aren't around 24 hrs. a day they can't be effective. If they teach and enforce correct eating habits, the illicit food the child might procure is tangential.

And I don't think schools should be selling junk food. Bet let's put this into perspective. I go to a high school that does just this, and very often, I buy the junk food there.

It's an unhealthy collusion. When confronted with Doritos or other snack foods (Most which I don't really even like) and some shitty amalgamation they call a lunch, it's no surprise what I'm going to choose.

So I think that yes, they should be removed from the schools and in turn, school lunches should be broadened and improved.

And I agree, as a society we can do better.

As a government though, we should stay the hell out of the way.

[EN[i]GMA]

they could put a limit on the nimber of fast food outlets

and make it so that they had to be aleast a few miles apart so the there are less of them

and forse them to give out a nutrional guide with every meal

Why?

Why limit the numbers? If people enjoy these places and have a serious demand for them, why should the government be able to undermine their whims?

Why spread them out? That achieves nothing other than preliferating them around an area.

Why force them to give out a nutritional guide? The nutrition facts are available upon request, most people simply don't care.

[ms.peachy]

So why should governments make any laws that specifically protect children in any ways, then?

I mean, hey, why do we need child labor laws? Or laws against minors consuming alcohol? Or driving? Why have compulsory education?

[EN[i]GMA]

So why should governments make any laws that specifically protect children in any ways, then?

I mean, hey, why do we need child labor laws? Or laws against minors consuming alcohol? Or driving? Why have compulsory education?

Good question.

But should we make laws that do EVERYTHING to protect children?

Should we make children wear safety helmets 24/7? That would make things safer, but I think most people would find it an egregious abridgement of freedom for little gain.

Tell me, what lengths are you willing to go to to 'protect' children?

[yeahwho]

I wonder how many parents buy stock in the corporations who's demographics are aimed directly at their children? To some it's an investment in the future. Perhaps, funding a college education or additional mortgage from dividends paid out by major fast food corporation stocks. I have no statistical information, but I'm willing to wager a large percentage of investors are parents who would be paying lobbyist's to stop such regulation.

Just some thoughts on how this monster feeds itself.

[yeahwho]

And on a related note....finally a thread caught up with ASsman's avatar.

[open letter]

GMA']Why?

Why limit the numbers? If people enjoy these places and have a serious demand for them, why should the government be able to undermine their whims?

Why spread them out? That achieves nothing other than preliferating them around an area.

Why force them to give out a nutritional guide? The nutrition facts are available upon request, most people simply don't care.
and thats why alot of people who go to mc donalds,kfc all the other dumps end up fat and dieing and ,in countrys that acctualy have a fair health care system paid for by the goverment, use up valuable resores and time being kept alive so they can just go over the street and get some more fast food and then go back and waste more tax payers money

if i had it my way people who do that wouldn't get be aload near a hostpital

they go to a fast food restrant they suffer the consiquenses

[EN[i]GMA]

and thats why alot of people who go to mc donalds,kfc all the other dumps end up fat and dieing and ,in countrys that acctualy have a fair health care system paid for by the goverment, use up valuable resores and time being kept alive so they can just go over the street and get some more fast food and then go back and waste more tax payers money

if i had it my way people who do that wouldn't get be aload near a hostpital

they go to a fast food restrant they suffer the consiquenses

Interesting! You say that it's not fair for society to pay for the health ills of individuals!

I agree.

[open letter]

GMA']Interesting! You say that it's not fair for society to pay for the health ills of individuals!

I agree.
inless it is not of there own doing

if somone stabs you it isnt your falt and so you deseve treatment

but if you your self get injorged during attacking somone forget it ,its your own falt so you done get treatment

it is the ultimate health care system ,it gets ride of all the violant and dangerous people while leaving all the desent foke to get on with there lives (y)

[Ace42]

GMA']
Why do you support the use of superflous 'u's that do nothing but further complicate the language?

Like the dropping of the "superflous" U in Aluminium?

Just like it was dropped from Titanum, Osmum, Lithum, Potassum, etc?

"Yah, let's simplify the language by randomly dropping letters - that makes great sense!"

Let's change the spelling of 'cheque' which signifies its etymology (as in 'exchequer') and differentiates it from the verb "to check" because more homonyms make a language SO MUCH EASIER TO USE.

The yanks changed their spellings as an "Up yours" to the English, and as such ended up with a lame-duck bastardisation full of even more holes and inconsistancies than the original compound language contained. No doubt this has a lot to do with the pisspoor literacy of some of the posters here.

Quite frankly making a language different *just to be different* is not reconciled with a drive to "simplify" it, and the idea that the changes from international English were to "simplify" it is quite frankly ridiculous. It is demonstrably inferior in a number of ways, and that is the price America has to pay for the childish spite of its founding fathers.

"American English" ain't.

[Ace42]

GMA']Yes, the market is a willing participant, but 'the market' can no more force you to eat than I can.

Indeed, subliminal messaging can't over-ride concious decision making processes, which is why it is perfectly legal and unrestricted.

Oh wait, it is illegal for precisely the reasons you described, thanks to BING BING BING - government intervention.

Marketing is more about finding ways to get around current subliminal messaging laws than working away from it.

And of course, Heroin is legal because "The dealers can't force you to take it any more than you can." - no problems there!

[EN[i]GMA]

Like the dropping of the "superflous" U in Aluminium?

Just like it was dropped from Titanum, Osmum, Lithum, Potassum, etc?

"Yah, let's simplify the language by randomly dropping letters - that makes great sense!"

Let's change the spelling of 'cheque' which signifies its etymology (as in 'exchequer') and differentiates it from the verb "to check" because more homonyms make a language SO MUCH EASIER O USE.

The yanks changed their spellings as an "Up yours" to the English, and as such ended up with a lame-duck bastardisation full of even more holes and inconsistancies than the original compound language contained. No doubt this has a lot to do with the pisspoor literacy of some of the posters here.

Quite frankly making a language different *just to be different* is not reconciled with a drive to "simplify" it, and the idea that the changes from international English were to "simplify" it is quite frankly ridiculous. It is demonstrably inferior in a number of ways, and that is the price America has to pay for the childish spite of its founding fathers.

"American English" ain't.

Such elitism over such a triviality.

Well, the fact is, American English is easier to learn and speak.

For example: Which is more logical, 'center' or 'centre'?

'ter' and 'tre' obviously make different sounds, but yet, in this case they make the same sound?

So much for consistancy.

Tell me, do you spell 'jail', 'jail' or 'gaol'? You do know the latter is the correct British spelling right?

Let's see here. 'Rail', 'nail', 'fail', 'pail', 'gaol'? How does this anachcronism make the language better?

Tell me, does the 'ae' make words any easier to pronounce? Yes, I know of the etymology, but what makes 'haemorrhage' different from 'hem' in the sewing sense? Why have 'haem' and 'hem' make the same sound (Yes, I do know the reason)?

If you want an academic look at the differences, read H.L. Mencken's book, but stop with this petty garbage.

The British variant is not demonstrably better than the English version.

I don't even want to get into the differences in vocabulary.

And I don't see how changing 'cheque' to 'check' needlessly complicates anything. The differences between a noun and a verb are profound and apparent, to the point which confusion between the two is a rare mistake.

British English is also more rarified than it needs to be.

For example:

dumb is literally, speechless
smart is literally well-dressed
mad means literally insane
scenarios relate only to the theatre
postures only relate to the gym
parameters only deal with a parabola

These words, which in American English are versatile and vibrant are static and nearly useless in British English.

Don't let me catch you using even the slightest hint of an Americanism, lest I readily lambaste (Or is it lambast) you.

Remember Ace, things happen 'at' weekends, not 'on' them.

[Ace42]

GMA']Such elitism over such a triviality.

Well, the fact is, American English is easier to learn and speak.

Yeah, the fact is precisely that. If you are an ill-informed boob living in a dream-world. Oh yeah, that just summed you up to a T, so I guess you are totally vindicated.

For example: Which is more logical, 'center' or 'centre'?

The latter. Anyone even vaguely aquainted with the roots of the English language (Germanic and Latin predominantly) would know precisely why the second spelling is both correct and sounds as it does. The spelling reflects the development and changing usage of the word, its origins thus give its current usage shades of meaning that are totally lost if you arbitrarily (and the US butchering of the language is *totally* arbitrary, almost by specific design) change the standards.

Centre has the same stem as "centrifuge" - by changing the spelling to "center", a centrifuge (and thus centrifugal force) should thus be "centerfuge" and "centerfugal force"

They aren't. Thus causing even *more* confusion.

'ter' and 'tre' obviously make different sounds, but yet, in this case they make the same sound?

"Obviously make different sounds" ? What rot. "Ter and Tur" obviously make the same sounds, by your argument the two should be used interchangeably. Likewise, by your argument, "Center" should be prounounced "kenter" or spelt "senter".

The "cent" (100) prefix has as much etymological significance as the "tre" suffix, and yet I get the feeling you'd be unwilling to lose that. Double-standards and hypocrisy.

And clearly "tre" doesn't make a different sound, otherwise "centre" would be pronounced "Sentry"

So much for consistancy.

'Centre' is totally consistant with the rules for transposing old words from their stems into modern English. It is the US version that is inconsistant.

Tell me, do you spell 'jail', 'jail' or 'gaol'? You do know the latter is the correct British spelling right?

Again you expose your ignorance. There is no "correct" spelling - the two are synonymous homophones. They are different words from the same origins. "Jail" is the correct 'English (international) spelling' as much as the latter. The difference is spelling is a regional variation - both have the same stem (Gaviola from the vulgar latin) "Jaiole" from the standard French, "Gaiole" from the Norman.

If you check the Middle English (which was being used two centuries before the US was even discovered by the English) you will see both "Jaiole" and "Gaiol" were in use.

So how do you define the "correct British spelling" ? Presumably the same way you came up with the figure of 100% for adult male Swiss gun ownage. You pulled it out of your ass.

Let's see here. 'Rail', 'nail', 'fail', 'pail', 'gaol'? How does this anachcronism make the language better?

The latter was commonly pronounced "Gay-ole" anyway. As a regional variation, it thus conveying information about the regional and social origins of the person using the term. From this, information can also be inferred about the facility in question. Furthermore it tells people about the origins of the word, and thus the historical context of it. The term "Jail" is perfectly permissible for those who are unfamiliar with the term, anyway.

Tell me, does the 'ae' make words any easier to pronounce? Yes, I know of the etymology, but what makes 'haemorrhage' different from 'hem' in the sewing sense? Why have 'haem' and 'hem' make the same sound (Yes, I do know the reason)?

Like you know that 100% of Swiss adult males have guns? You need to work on your credibility. The "ae" doesn't make the word easier to pronounce, infact spelling has no effect on pronunciation at all. A word could be spelt "zzzzzzzzzz" and be pronounced "Hello" - if you were not an ignorant buffoon, you'd know that the order of lines has no effect whatsoever on the vocalisation.

Pronunciation is thus irrelevant to spelling - writing is not designed to convey sounds, but to convey a literal meaning. I am not writing this so that you know "How it is supposed to sound" but so that you know what I mean. To sacrifice the meaning of the words for ease of speech (not use, it is quite contrary to ease of use in a written format) is a false economy.

Again, by your argument the US English is still inferior to the international English as it is *equally* divorced from the phonetics which you prefer as international English, and is actually *more* divorced from the origins and significance of the spelling which would allow phonetic meaning to be deduced.

God gave dictionaries phonetic spellings so that plebs could prounounce the words correctly without hearing them, there is no need to butcher the spellings to make this feature redundant.

If you want an academic look at the differences, read H.L. Mencken's book, but stop with this petty garbage.

Yes, I could read a book written in "bastardised English" by a dumbass yank, or alternatively I could re-read one the numerous texts I studied for my degree, the lecture notes, and historical texts, backed up by numerous bodies of international academics.

Not that I think the book actually contains anything relevant anyway - I suspect you are just bullshitting as per usual, just like you did with the Swiss gun statistics.

The British variant is not demonstrably better than the English version.

I think what you meant to say is "The international standard is not demonstrably better than the American variant."

It is America which differed from the accepted standard in a hissy-fit of post-colonial pique. It did so *solely* in order to mark it as distinct from the England it had rebelled against, and as such the claim that it "simplifies" the language is a complete fabrication and a nonsense. It "differentiates." And as *proper* English words have their spelling fixed for a reason (with some exceptions, but as these are invariably adopted in US spelling to, are irrelevant) usually involving historical precedent, to change them is to divorce the words from their origins.

I don't even want to get into the differences in vocabulary.

If you know as little about it as you do about the subject in hand, that is probably wise.

And I don't see how changing 'cheque' to 'check' needlessly complicates anything. The differences between a noun and a verb are profound and apparent, to the point which confusion between the two is a rare mistake.

"Check" is also a noun which can be used adjectivally. If one was voting in a ballot, and said of their voting:

"I put a check in the box" - that could mean either 'I put a tick mark in the box on the ballot paper' or "I put a credit notice ('cheque' in proper English) in the ballot box in order to bribe the officials"

Homonyms do *not* make the language "simpler" - especially when they are also homophones too.

British English is also more rarified than it needs to be.

For example:

dumb is literally, speechless

Indeed, which makes perfect sense. "Dumb" meaning stupid only exists because stupid yanks were confused by the Germanic word "Dumm" - and the result ended up with the branding and castigation of mutes as "stupid".

Way to go America - disabled people need even more stigma attatched to them!

And, back to the actual point, correct spelling, by your argument it should be "dum".

smart is literally well-dressed

Also literally "painful". Infact, that is the stem of the word is synonymous with "sharp" (a 'sharp' suit is a common expression, as is a 'sharp wit') and thus to say "smart only means well-dressed in (proper) English and has a static meaning" is infact a gross misrepresentation. You are merely looking at one of several usages and saying "look, it is so rigid and unfixed" - actually it has more diverse usage and a quite significant change in meaning. Totally undermining your point.

mad means literally insane

And in US English "ecstatic" literally means "very happy." Until the Americanisation rarified it, in the UK it meant a much more vibrant and diverse "frenzied to the point of 'madness'"

And it also means "to anger" - and has for over a millenium since the anglo-saxons recorded the term "gemaeden" meaning "to infuriate [to the point of madness]" To suggest that the US language is somehow "more vibrant" because they have *less* usages for the word is 'bonkers'.

postures only relate to the gym

Except in the numerous texts where "political posturing" has been described over the last century?

parameters only deal with a parabola

Usage Note: The term parameter, which originates in mathematics, has a number of specific meanings in fields such as astronomy, electricity, crystallography, and statistics. Perhaps because of its ring of technical authority, it has been used more generally in recent years to refer to any factor that determines a range of variations and especially to a factor that restricts what can result from a process or policy. In this use it often comes close to meaning “a limit or boundary.” Some of these new uses have a clear connection to the technical senses of the word. For example, the provisions of a zoning ordinance that limit the height or density of new construction can be reasonably likened to mathematical parameters that establish the limits of other variables. Therefore one can say The zoning commission announced new planning parameters for the historic Lamping district of the city. But other uses go one step further and treat parameter as a high-toned synonym for characteristic. Eighty percent of Panelists reject this use of parameter in the example The Judeo-Christian ethic is one of the important parameters of Western culture. ·Some of the difficulties with the nontechnical use of parameter appear to arise from its resemblance to the word perimeter, with which it shares the sense “limit,” though the precise meanings of the two words differ. This confusion probably explains the use of parameter in a sentence such as U.S. forces report that the parameters of the mine area in the Gulf are fairly well established, where the word perimeter would have expressed the intended sense more exactly. This example of a use of parameter was unacceptable to 61 percent of the Usage Panel.

These words, which in American English are versatile and vibrant are static and nearly useless in British English.[/quote]

Yes, if you ignore all the facts

Don't let me catch you using even the slightest hint of an Americanism, lest I readily lambaste (Or is it lambast) you.

Because figures of speech which have originated in America (and as such are 'Americanisations' despite having no 'national' grounding) clearly equate to correct spelling and grammar...

Enigma, you are easily the person most full of shit on this forum. Congratulations.

[ms.peachy]

Oh fer cryin out loud. If you guys insist upon engaging in this COMPLETELY POINTLESS argument about American vs. English spelling, can't you give it it's own thread?

Or maybe just fucking get over it already? Yes, we use, pronounce and spell different words differently. SO WHAT? Could it be, shock horror, that we're different countries? And that maybe it's not actually all that important if you write 'colour' or 'color'? Maybe?

[Funkaloyd]

It may be off topic, but it's far from pointless. American stupidity has something to do with everything these days, and this is just another aspect of that.

...In fact, if it weren't for their culture of dumbassedness, you might not have to worry about those advertisements targeted at children.

[enree erzweglle]

[American] culture of dumbassedness

(y) this made me laugh.

Every single American should be required to travel abroad to see America from the outside in. (Although there are too many Americans who are too full of themselves to get the point.)

[ms.peachy]

It may be off topic, but it's far from pointless. American stupidity has something to do with everything these days, and this is just another aspect of that.

...In fact, if it weren't for their culture of dumbassedness, you might not have to worry about those advertisements targeted at children.

Different etymologies of language have nothing to do with 'stupidity'. American English derives from the times of a Tudor King, thus it has had a differernt evolution. Name-calling and insult slinging do nothing to support either position, they only serve to reveal your own lack of ability to mount a cogent argument.

This so-called 'culture of dumbassedness' that you speak of is in no way exclusive to the US. Visit any city centre in England on Friday night at chucking-out time, or any sink estate, and you will see any number of examples.
And, the debate about advertising to children is actually a rather hot topic outside of the US at the moment. The EU health and consumer affairs commissioner is presently reviewing data nad preparing to draft legislation. Try informing yourself about things of which you speak next time. Then maybe you won't look so 'stupid'.

I say these things as an American looking from the outside in.

Too bad this thread has devolved to this point; I was actually rather enjoying the civilised discussion. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted. (Or "whilst" it lasted, if you prefer. I can do either.)

[enree erzweglle]

Different etymologies of language have nothing to do with 'stupidity'.
This is true. But you have to admit that culture of dumbassedness was a good phrase. It's true that we can't claim it exclusively for ourselves, though, but we're pretty damned close. :D

[Ace42]

Indeed, the globalisation of predominantly American culture / society (including gangs and gun-crime) has resulted in the US exporting its problems.

Now it is just that idiots have a particularly American flavour.

American English derives from the times of a Tudor King

A Stuart King. And infact the language was identical then, so it wasn't "American English."

Infact, "American English" was intentionally adopted with the declaration of independance, much later, and thus was instigated under a Hanoverian King.

[enree erzweglle]

I was sad to see how Americanized Sydney (Australia) had become in the 11 years between my most recent visit there and the one before it. When I first went there, I felt like I was somewhere else and walked around wide-eyed. This time, though, the only time I got that "I'm not home" feeling is when I went into the outskirts and visited the small towns. But when I was in downtown Sydney, other than the obvious architectural landmarks and the fact that there are fruit vending carts right on the streets (!) I wouldn't really have known that I wasn't in parts of the U.S. or Canada.

I loved those fruit carts.

[ASsman]

Anyways....

The same way kids aren't targeted with rated R movies, they shouldn't be told to buy shitty food ,constantly (then again being fat and eating garbage seems to be the new American way) ....

CASE CLOSED.

[ms.peachy]

A Stuart King. And infact the language was identical then, so it wasn't "American English."

Yes you're right, my mistake. I do mix up the royal houses sometimes. I'm not from here, I'm still working through a few things. It's why I can't be on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire - I'll doubtless get stuck somewhere around £500 grand with a question about Mary Queen of Spots or whatever. Stuart it was.

My point wasn't, though, that they were different at the time; it was that over time they have naturally diverged and evolved into distinctly different forms but with a common origin. Kind of like old-world and new-world monkeys.

Language is a living thing. I just think it's pointless to assert that one is better or worse than another. What does it prove? Nothing, it just allows blowhards to exercise their self-righteous muscle.

[Classic Iconocl]

A language that refuses to evolve due to arbitrary elitism, retains as much relevance as a lard turd up a whale's ass.

Words are inherently subjective, despite the self-righteous efforts of linguistic fascists.

[bb_bboy]

The reasons behind any of the changes from English to American English are as irrelevant as whether or not people agree or disagree with those changes. After these useless debates end, the fact will remain that we (Americans) do have an established and recognized language system. The fact that you think the changes are stupid does not mean that those who learn it correctly based on its own particular set of rules are stupid. The stupider approach would be to live in America and insist on learning and locally using a language meant for use in a different part of the world. This is a hard concept to grasp when living in countries that absorb and devour imported cultural idiosyncrasies and customs, but it is a reality.

If you are too stupid to either correlate the meanings from words that are spelled nearly identically among different languages (think about the idea of cognates to understand more about this idea) or infer their meanings from familiar contexts, then just ask. Knowing the meaning of the word but making sarcastic and abundantly useless commentary about an established system of language isn’t going to make it change. It will simply demonstrate your inability to think.

[Ace42]

I do mix up the royal houses sometimes.

I'd wager 90% of sub-college-students wouldn't be able to name three prominent Tudors. And that's if they recognised the term at all. For a foreigner, merely knowing a royal line that is several centuries extinct is a gold-star effort.

[yeahwho]

Vincent: And you know what they call a... a... a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Paris?
Jules: They don't call it a Quarter Pounder with cheese?
Vincent: No man, they got the metric system. They wouldn't know what the fuck a Quarter Pounder is.
Jules: Then what do they call it?
Vincent: They call it a Royale with cheese.
Jules: A Royale with cheese. What do they call a Big Mac?
Vincent: Well, a Big Mac's a Big Mac, but they call it le Big-Mac.
Jules: Le Big-Mac. Ha ha ha ha. What do they call a Whopper?
Vincent: I dunno, I didn't go into Burger King.

[open letter]

Vincent: And you know what they call a... a... a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Paris?
Jules: They don't call it a Quarter Pounder with cheese?
Vincent: No man, they got the metric system. They wouldn't know what the fuck a Quarter Pounder is.
Jules: Then what do they call it?
Vincent: They call it a Royale with cheese.
Jules: A Royale with cheese. What do they call a Big Mac?
Vincent: Well, a Big Mac's a Big Mac, but they call it le Big-Mac.
Jules: Le Big-Mac. Ha ha ha ha. What do they call a Whopper?
Vincent: I dunno, I didn't go into Burger King.

hell yeah

[Classic Iconocl]

Lest we forget, one man's junk is another man's Big Mac.

[Ali]

Vincent: And you know what they call a... a... a Quarter Pounder with Cheese in Paris?
Jules: They don't call it a Quarter Pounder with cheese?
Vincent: No man, they got the metric system. They wouldn't know what the fuck a Quarter Pounder is.
Jules: Then what do they call it?
Vincent: They call it a Royale with cheese.
Jules: A Royale with cheese. What do they call a Big Mac?
Vincent: Well, a Big Mac's a Big Mac, but they call it le Big-Mac.
Jules: Le Big-Mac. Ha ha ha ha. What do they call a Whopper?
Vincent: I dunno, I didn't go into Burger King.There are no Burger Kings in France, not since 1990 anyways.

[Ali]

If you are too stupid to either correlate the meanings from words that are spelled nearly identically among different languages (think about the idea of cognates to understand more about this idea) or infer their meanings from familiar contexts, then just ask. Knowing the meaning of the word but making sarcastic and abundantly useless commentary about an established system of language isn’t going to make it change. It will simply demonstrate your inability to think. Can I just point out that it was an American who diverted this thread onto (or is it "into", smartarses) the subject by criticising the use of the u.

Luckily, I am ignoring most of the ignoramuses who want to drone on about petty crap, so the thread remained untainted. :D

[GreenEarthAl]

I think junk food should be regulated by we the people.

I think that the biggest thing that needs to change in terms of the law is that the people need to be able to educate with greater protection from lawsuits.


Here's a link to the trailer for McLibel:
http://www.cinemalibrestudio.com/mclibel/McLibelTrailerMed.html