[QUOTE=cccritical;30647465]o ok children are having their "minds raided" according to dr. lazor
SHUT EVERYTHING DOWN[/QUOTE]
Difference between his claim and yours was yours was a bullshit anecdote, whereas his was hyperbole based on [url=http://www.bmsg.org/pdfs/BMSG_HER_Food_Marketing_11_Mar_31.pdf]actual[/url] [url=http://www.fmi.org/docs/facts_figs/MarketingCosts.pdf]fucking[/url] [url=http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=marketing+effect+on+children&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart]science.[/url]
[editline]22nd June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glaber;30648313]True, but in their case, cigarettes and Tobacco were a health risk to everyone who was around the smoker. You can't say the same thing about surgery cereals.
To make the comparison more absurd, I have never even heard of anyone getting fat from second hand cereal eating.[/QUOTE]
If you think it became illegal to market cigarettes to youth because of second hand smoke and not damage to the primary user you're insane.
sanius paints a picture like children are becoming zombies because of a rabbit never quite getting his hands on that delicious bowl of cereal
yes, ads ARE making people want what they're advertising, how crazy that they're doing what they were designed for! are ads brainwashing kids into eating trix cereal until they vomit for 3 meals a day 7 days a week? no
cigarettes are a whole different ballgame from cereal, cereal MIGHT make you fat IF you eat more than you should AND you don't exercise AT ALL, whereas smoking WILL kill you and will probably kill those around you too
[QUOTE=Glaber;30648313]True, but in their case, cigarettes and Tobacco were a health risk to everyone who was around the smoker. You can't say the same thing about surgery cereals.
To make the comparison more absurd, I have never even heard of anyone getting fat from second hand cereal eating.[/QUOTE]
You're a conservative right? Which means you get a hardon for saving money right?
Less fat kids saves a lot of money
[QUOTE=Zeke129;30648694]You're a conservative right? Which means you get a hardon for saving money right?
Less fat kids saves a lot of money[/QUOTE]
A US conservative also values freedom and the US Constitution.
You want less fat kids, give them an outdoor recess. Take them to the park, have them play in the back yard. Plenty of better ideas.
[QUOTE=Glaber;30648782]A US conservative also values freedom[/QUOTE]
You're a chuckle and a half.
[QUOTE=Glaber;30648782]A US conservative also values freedom and the US Constitution.
You want less fat kids, give them an outdoor recess. Take them to the park, have them play in the back yard. Plenty of better ideas.[/QUOTE]
Parks are socialism though
Free market says that the land is better served by having a Dairy Queen on it
[QUOTE=Glaber;30648782]A US conservative also values freedom and the US Constitution.
You want less fat kids, give them an outdoor recess. Take them to the park, have them play in the back yard. Plenty of better ideas.[/QUOTE]
reading the dumb article you posted i have actually not learned anything about this regulation
so you are effectively talking out your ass
what else is new
[QUOTE=cccritical;30646158]my mind was "subliminally raided" and I grew up fine
so was yours
I'm 19 years old, 6 foot 2, 151 pounds and not swoll but cut, I ate trix/cocoa puffs/captain crunch/fruit loops/count chocula every damn morning from before I can remember until the end of 5th grade and I'm in better shape than most people[/QUOTE]
The exception does not prove the rule.
[QUOTE=thisispain;30648863]reading the dumb article you posted i have actually not learned anything about this regulation
so you are effectively talking out your ass
what else is new[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.ftc.gov/os/2011/04/110428foodmarketproposedguide.pdf[/url]
"The Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children (Working Group), comprised of representatives from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), seeks public comment on a preliminary proposal for voluntary principles to guide industry self-regulatory efforts to improve the nutritional profile of foods marketed to children. The Working Group has drafted these principles pursuant to a directive from Congress, as set out in the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. As directed by Congress, the Working Group has developed this proposal based on the nutrition, health, and marketing expertise of the member agencies, with the goal of improving children’s diets and addressing the high rates of childhood obesity. Marketing can be an effective tool to encourage children to make better food choices, and voluntary adoption by industry of strong, uniform nutrition and marketing principles, like those proposed here, will advance the goal of promoting children’s health."
Because, you know, the road to food nazism starts with suggesting the equivalent of a food ESRB and asking for industry and consumer comment on various proposals.
[editline]23rd June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=cccritical;30648563]sanius paints a picture like children are becoming zombies because of a rabbit never quite getting his hands on that delicious bowl of cereal[/QUOTE]
Do you not know what the word hyperbole means? Because you use it yourself in the very next thing you say, and I'm wondering if you're misguided or sack of cement dumb.
[QUOTE=cccritical;30648563]yes, ads ARE making people want what they're advertising, how crazy that they're doing what they were designed for! [b]are ads brainwashing kids into eating trix cereal until they vomit for 3 meals a day 7 days a week?[/b] no[/QUOTE]
That thing you just said was either a wild exaggeration used as a rhetorical device, or you honestly believe that rather than being put forward as a "guide" of "industry self-regulatory efforts to improve the nutritional profile of foods marketed to children" the group in question is designed to combat a widespread trix addiction killing 80% of our youth.
The distinction is important, because you're either a massive hypocrite (criticizing hyperbole usage while dishing it out yourself) or a moron, and I need to know whether you're capable of actually understanding anything I say.
[QUOTE=cccritical;30648563]cigarettes are a whole different ballgame from cereal, cereal MIGHT make you fat IF you eat more than you should AND you don't exercise AT ALL, whereas smoking WILL kill you and will probably kill those around you too[/QUOTE]
Wrong on all counts.
Are cigarettes and cereal fundamentally different? Yes. Are they similar enough to merit comparison when discussing regulating potentially dangerous consumables? Yes. There's a reason why [url=http://ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=35967&l=en]people who study the effects of both obesity and smoking on health[/url] consider them [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7908575.stm]nearly equally dangerous.[/url] Of course, you suggest cereal doesn't play a large role in the western world's obesity problems, so let's look at [url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2802%2909678-2/fulltext]an academic paper on the subject[/url] versus your shpiel:
1) cereal MIGHT make you fat IF you eat more than you should AND you don't exercise AT ALL
This should be immediately untrue if you understand anything about the variance in metabolisms between people. Cereal not making you fat doesn't mean it doesn't lead to others being fat, nor does it mean that simply exercising more removes the negative effect of eating it frequently. What we're looking at here is a macroscopic view of the situation, not your life in particular.
[QUOTE]"US and British children are exposed to about ten food commercials per hour of television time (amounting to thousands per year), most for fast food, soft drinks, sweets, and sugar-sweetened breakfast cereal. Exposure to 30-second commercials increases the likelihood that 3—5-year-olds would later select an advertised food when presented with options. Moreover, television viewing during mealtime is inversely associated with consumption of products not typically advertised, such as fruits and vegetables. In an experimental study by Robinson, measures of adiposity increased significantly over an academic year in children in a control school who continued to watch television at their usual rates, compared with children in an intervention school who decreased television viewing by about 40%."
"High glycaemic index foods produce fairly large increases in postprandial blood glucose concentrations and could play a part in appetite regulation. Consumption of meals composed predominately of high glycaemic index foods induces a sequence of hormonal events that stimulate hunger and cause overeating in adolescents. A high glycaemic index diet has been linked with risk for central adiposity, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes in adults."[/QUOTE]
Amazing what happens when you actually do research on a subject before opening your cakehole.
2) "smoking WILL kill you and will probably kill those around you too"
Well, let's see... [url=http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/]according to the CDC[/url], 443,000 people die of smoking related deaths in the U.S. annually. Of those, only 49,400 were secondhand smoking deaths (do the other 89% of smokers just not know anyone?) and 392,683 were actually linkable to smoking. That's pretty good, until you consider [i]one[/i] of the issues with childhood obesity, namely, diabetes, [url=http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/]kills off 231,404 alone.[/url]
Of course, you can argue the latter group pulls more people from a larger set (60 something percent of the population versus 20 something, though diabetes deaths come from a subset of that 60), but you also can't substantiate claims that smoking [i]will[/i] kill someone, only that it [i]has good odds of doing so.[/i] Why do you think consumables with slightly lesser hazards should be immune from what appears to be substantially lesser regulation?
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;30650282][url]http://www.ftc.gov/os/2011/04/110428foodmarketproposedguide.pdf[/url]
"The Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children (Working Group), comprised of representatives from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), seeks public comment on a preliminary proposal for voluntary principles to guide industry self-regulatory efforts to improve the nutritional profile of foods marketed to children. The Working Group has drafted these principles pursuant to a directive from Congress, as set out in the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act. As directed by Congress, the Working Group has developed this proposal based on the nutrition, health, and marketing expertise of the member agencies, with the goal of improving children’s diets and addressing the high rates of childhood obesity. Marketing can be an effective tool to encourage children to make better food choices, and voluntary adoption by industry of strong, uniform nutrition and marketing principles, like those proposed here, will advance the goal of promoting children’s health."
Because, you know, the road to food nazism starts with suggesting the equivalent of a food ESRB and asking for industry and consumer comment on various proposals.
[editline]23rd June 2011[/editline]
Do you not know what the word hyperbole means? Because you use it yourself in the very next thing you say, and I'm wondering if you're misguided or sack of cement dumb.
That thing you just said was either a wild exaggeration used as a rhetorical device, or you honestly believe that rather than being put forward as a "guide" of "industry self-regulatory efforts to improve the nutritional profile of foods marketed to children" the group in question is designed to combat a widespread trix addiction killing 80% of our youth.
The distinction is important, because you're either a massive hypocrite (criticizing hyperbole usage while dishing it out yourself) or a moron, and I need to know whether you're capable of actually understanding anything I say.
Wrong on all counts.
Are cigarettes and cereal fundamentally different? Yes. Are they similar enough to merit comparison when discussing regulating potentially dangerous consumables? Yes. There's a reason why [url=http://ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=35967&l=en]people who study the effects of both obesity and smoking on health[/url] consider them [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7908575.stm]nearly equally dangerous.[/url] Of course, you suggest cereal doesn't play a large role in the western world's obesity problems, so let's look at [url=http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2802%2909678-2/fulltext]an academic paper on the subject[/url] versus your shpiel:
1) cereal MIGHT make you fat IF you eat more than you should AND you don't exercise AT ALL
This should be immediately untrue if you understand anything about the variance in metabolisms between people. Cereal not making you fat doesn't mean it doesn't lead to others being fat, nor does it mean that simply exercising more removes the negative effect of eating it frequently. What we're looking at here is a macroscopic view of the situation, not your life in particular.
Amazing what happens when you actually do research on a subject before opening your cakehole.
2) "smoking WILL kill you and will probably kill those around you too"
Well, let's see... [url=http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/tobacco_related_mortality/]according to the CDC[/url], 443,000 people die of smoking related deaths in the U.S. annually. Of those, only 49,400 were secondhand smoking deaths (do the other 89% of smokers just not know anyone?) and 392,683 were actually linkable to smoking. That's pretty good, until you consider [i]one[/i] of the issues with childhood obesity, namely, diabetes, [url=http://www.diabetes.org/diabetes-basics/diabetes-statistics/]kills off 231,404 alone.[/url]
Of course, you can argue the latter group pulls more people from a larger set (60 something percent of the population versus 20 something, though diabetes deaths come from a subset of that 60), but you also can't substantiate claims that smoking [i]will[/i] kill someone, only that it [i]has good odds of doing so.[/i] Why do you think consumables with slightly lesser hazards should be immune from what appears to be substantially lesser regulation?[/QUOTE]
Thank you :unsmith:
[QUOTE=Glaber;30624077]
This is just tyrannical. I can not believe this.
[/QUOTE]
Yet you support the PATRIOT act and the defence budget.
[editline]23rd June 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Glaber;30648782]A US conservative also values freedom and the US Constitution.[/QUOTE]
unless you're one of them queers.
[QUOTE=amute;30651162]Yet you support the PATRIOT act and the defence budget.
[editline]23rd June 2011[/editline]
unless you're one of them queers.[/QUOTE]
or black, catholic, latino, question them too much, try to be correct about history, muslim, arabic, etc
Definitely overstepping federal power by enforcing restrictive rules on personal consumption of products. It's a matter for individual decision as it's always been and always should be.
You're still a sociopath though Glaber.
[QUOTE=DanRatherman;30659189]Definitely overstepping federal power by enforcing restrictive rules on personal consumption of products. It's a matter for individual decision as it's always been and always should be.
You're still a sociopath though Glaber.[/QUOTE]
It's not restricting what you can eat, only what companies can advertise to impressionable children.
No matter what happens, one party is always going to try and take something away for the good of everybody.
That's why we alternate every few years so they can undo the previous damage and do damage of their own.
You guys realize this isn't a new idea right? Sweden has already done this.
[QUOTE=Habsburg;30662333]You guys realize this isn't a new idea right? Sweden has already done this.[/QUOTE]
And now America is becoming Sweden?
[url]http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-21-2009/the-stockholm-syndrome-pt--1[/url]
What a nightmare!
The reason they're pushing this law is because kids don't know how to make long turn choices for themselves, so they become unhealthy or over-weight in their later years because parents and heavy advertising gave them shit food.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;30671854]The reason they're pushing this law is because kids don't know how to make long turn choices for themselves, so they become unhealthy or over-weight in their later years because parents and heavy advertising gave them shit food.[/QUOTE]
Not even in their later years, lots of young kids are fat already. And the earlier you get fat, the harder it is to lose it later.
Does this mean I'm gonna have to start getting my Twinkies from over the border? :ohdear:
[QUOTE=SurferSasquatch;30687591]Does this mean I'm gonna have to start getting my Twinkies from over the border? :ohdear:[/QUOTE]
No, it means you're gonna have to start getting your Twinkies from the local Grocery store.
Wait... :v:
Ah, I may have misread this article slightly. Despite that I will still state that I don't think consumer responsibility should be out of their hands. If the box has nutritional facts clearly printed on it and consumers are aware of the risks of their diets, than that should be sufficient.
It's just taking consumer responsibility out of children's hands
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
