Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

London Plans To Ban Junk Food Advertising On Public Transport (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the setting-precedence dept.

Junk food advertising could be banned from the entire Transport for London network under proposals announced by Mayor Sadiq Khan, as he tries to tackle rising levels of childhood obesity in the city. From a report: "I want to reduce the influence and pressure that can be put on children and families to make unhealthy choices," Khan said in a statement announcing the proposals to ban advertisements for unhealthy food and drink on London's trains, buses and bus shelters. The mayor also proposed a ban on new hot food takeaway stores opening within 400 meters of schools.

London has one of the highest childhood obesity rates in Europe -- nearly 40 percent of 10-11 year-olds in the capital are overweight or obese, according to the statement. Children from poorer areas are disproportionately affected by the "obesity epidemic," Khan said, adding that young people from Barking and Dagenham in East London are almost twice as likely to be overweight as children from the upmarket Richmond neighborhood.

18 of 175 comments (clear)

  1. Why is this here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not tech. Not even tech related.
    Maybe Sadiq could start with banning ads for political junk ideology, like his own, which leads to far more deaths like encouraging boys to NOT be athletic or active leading to... obesity.

    1. Re:Why is this here? by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But I'm torn...is it really the government's business to play nanny, and try to prevent stupid people from behaving stupidly?

      If you expect the government to pay for the consequences, they should also have the right to prevent.

    2. Re:Why is this here? by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you expect the government to pay for the consequences, they should also have the right to prevent.

      Well, I don't expect the government to pay for the consequences....

      At least in the US.....and if the UK is like the US, I wish they'd stop subsidizing the farming and mass production of the very foods that are causing the obesity epidemics in our nations...and others around they world.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    3. Re:Why is this here? by zieroh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But I'm torn...is it really the government's business to play nanny, and try to prevent stupid people from behaving stupidly?

      I think it's a legitimate function of government to prevent corporations from preying on the unwary public, especially those who aren't otherwise well-informed.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    4. Re:Why is this here? by war4peace · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But I'm torn...is it really the government's business to play nanny, and try to prevent stupid people from behaving stupidly?

      Reality says "yes".
      Remember the government proposal is an effect, you will have to look up the cause.

      I mean, in this day in age....does not pretty much everyone not already know that pre-processed junk food is bad for you? That overeating processed carbs and SUGAR will cause obesity?

      Reality says "no".
      Most people won't give a fuck. They buy and eat whatever tastes good, is heavily advertised and is available nearby.

      Is it that somehow, the general public is now so fucking stupid they don't know this, and that these subway ads sway their behavior in such an unavoidable fashion that they must be protected from ads?

      Reality says "yes".

      People have always been fucking stupid. Also, the human body is wired to respond positively to sugar. Also, cheap food is usually bad and poor people choose cheap food.
      But yes, these are not the only issues causing obesity. Fact of the matter is that most edible stuff that's available in supermarkets and not only contains various types of sugar in one form or another, from meat to bread to pickled peppers and mustard. THAT practice (putting sugar in food products it doesn't belong) needs to be banned, and right away.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    5. Re:Why is this here? by sabri · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you expect the government to pay for the consequences, they should also have the right to prevent.

      "The Government" is not paying for anything. It's the tax-payer's money, taken by threat of force.

      That said, this is yet another indication that the freedom of speech is non-existent in the U.K.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    6. Re:Why is this here? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So if they foist some universal health care package on me, which I didn't ask for, they can then dictate pretty much all aspects of my life?

      Well that degnerated fast.

      Yes they "foisted" some universal healthcare package on us which happens to get on average better outcomes than the US system for about half the cost per capita. Apparently the foisting works.

      And as for "them" dictating aspects of your life? Firstly, this is TFL who are refusing to advertise harmful products, not the national government (the one doing the foisting). Secondly, refusing to accept advertising from some global megacorps is hardly dictating "pretty much all aspects of your life". You're still free to go to McDonalds as often as you like.

      That is why socialized anything should NEVER come with the automatic assumption that they have the right to prevent.

      It doesn't.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Why is this here? by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well that degnerated fast.

      Yes, it has. It started downhill with the talk about "if you expect the government to pay for", which isn't a fact that is in evidence.

      Firstly, this is TFL who are refusing to advertise harmful products,

      No, actually, it is a proposed ban by the City of London. The Government.

      Secondly, refusing to accept advertising from some global megacorps

      It's not a ban on advertising from "global megacorps", it's a ban on fast food advertisements "from companies like McDonalds". There are a lot more fast food restaurants than just McD's. From TFS: "A large percentage of the advertising that would be affected comes from 'a handful' of major companies and brands," which means a large percentage would be for a lot of small companies -- not "global megacorps".

      Also from TFS: "Mayor Khan also proposed a ban on new hot food takeaway stores opening within 400 meters (1,300 feet) of schools." That would include Uncle Bill's Chippy Shop, run by Uncle Bill and his family. Clearly not "global megacorps".

      You need to rein in your hatred for "global megacorp" and your attempt to justify stupid laws because they would only impact those you hate, because those stupid laws will hurt a lot of small players, too.

    8. Re:Why is this here? by Obfuscant · · Score: 3, Informative

      The question is, does the advertising on junk food cause more people to purchase junk food than otherwise would? The answer is self-evidently yes. (by following the money).

      The answer is not as simple as that. It will increase the amount spent at the advertiser's stores, otherwise they wouldn't do it. Does it increase the size of the overall market?

      We had a "Burgerville" move in to replace a local Wendy's. (Wendy's made the stupid decision to simultaneously close many of their stores for a system-wide remodel; some of them never re-opened.) They're the "high class" fast food with $6 burgers. Across the street is a McDs that doesn't seem as busy as it used to be, and one block away is a Burger King that I know isn't as busy because it is boarded up closed. New store, new ads, but the market didn't expand to keep everyone in business.

      So this move will obviously reduce the amount of junk food ingested.

      There your "it's obvious" argument fails. A customer who is likely to buy a McD product based on the ad is already likely to buy something from any convenient store he passes by. Advertising sometimes tries to increase a market; sometimes it only redirects the existing market to make different choices.

      It's not a great leap to think that this will in turn reduce the amount of obesity.

      Uhh, yeah, actually it is. You're now two levels away from "obvious". If someone doesn't see an ad for McD, does that mean he will eat something more healthful? Or will he just buy junk food from a convenience store (or the main grocery), or some other cheap stuff that isn't good for him but is quick and easy to consume? If you aren't reminded of how convenient McD is, will you find a grocer with fresh produce, buy the parts to make a balanced dinner, go home and take the hour to prepare and eat it, or will you just stop in the shop on the corner and pick up some takeout of something else?

      Are those people who used to stop at the BK in my town now eating well-balanced, nutritious meals prepared fresh? Or are they in line at Burgerville or McD?

      If you are a consumer already primed to eat well, then a McDs ad will be irrelevant. McD and other fast food ads are targeted at people who are already going to make poor choices in their foods, and that's what causes the health problems, not which of the many fast food places they pick to consume their poor food choices.

    9. Re:Why is this here? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The way it used to work is that the government built houses and rented them out cheap. They were decent houses too, with facilities near by.

      That kept the private house builders and landlords honest. They had to offer something better than the already pretty good baseline. It kept prices down too.

      Didn't always work, but when it did it was far better than what we have now.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Perhaps you should worry about... by dejavux · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All the knife, and acid attacks going on in your city.

    1. Re:Perhaps you should worry about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, it's a warzone out there
      https://www.statista.com/chart/13767/london-homicide-rate-in-perspective/

    2. Re:Perhaps you should worry about... by giggleloop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You people have to stop getting your news from Fox and Breitbart. The homicide rate in London is not even 1/30th of the US' worst cities, and is nearly half that of New York (all per capita).

  3. Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron. by Chas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Terrorism? "Oh. We'll just have to GET USED TO IT!" You know, like they do in 3rd world hell-holes where terror attacks are a daily thing.

    Rape gangs? *TUMBLEWEEDS*

    Police are ineffectual fops because criminals are ARMED and they AREN'T? And have to wait, sometimes for HOURS, for armed backup? *CRICKETS*

    Violent crime going through the roof? "NOBODY NEEDS A KNIFE!" And then they arrest a guy with a potato peeler.

    Fast Food? "OMGWTFBBQ! The evil has revealed itself! GET THEE BEHIND ME SATAN!"

    Just fucking pathetic.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron. by coastwalker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Public health measures used to be debatable without crazy lies diverting attention. There is a problem with Western diet as shown by the epidemic of diabetes (approaching one in two people over the age of 50) whilst violent crime in London is comparatively low https://www.statista.com/chart...

      The question is how do we tackle the crisis in public health? Do you have any suggestions other than repeating messages from Russian trolls who want to destroy our society? What is it with you people who have latched on an obsessive hatred to the extent that it supersedes the ability to talk about anything else?

      Whether banning fast food advertisements is a useful move is debatable. I think that a great deal more attention needs to be paid to researching the causes of obesity and the Western diseases that are correlated with our diet. Research that must be done with government money and not food industry money as has often been done in the recent past. There is a lot of evidence coming to light that says that sugar and a lack of dietary fiber in our diet is much more of a problem than saturated fat or lack of exercise or overeating. The sugar causes metabolic disease and the lack of fiber damages our gut microbiome. Reducing fast food intake does not in itself address these two issues completely.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    2. Re:Sadiq Khan is an inbred moron. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd rather take the incredibly small risk of being in a terror attack than put up with all the TSA / NSL / armed idiots everywhere bullshit you suffer with.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  4. A bit of overreach by Ayano · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I get the whole 'healthy lifestyle' campaigns to battle obesity, but this essentially groups junk food with cigarettes which was similarly banned in the US from public 'mass media' advertisement (tele/billboard).

    At that point you're classifying categories of comfort food as 'junk'. How long is it until chocolate is also junk food? Junk food is only dangerous by over indulgence. Smoking however is deliberate damage to the lungs, even if 'moderated' just like alcohol is to the brain. Oddly enough alcohol has no such advertising ban, as they 'self moderate' to only legal drinking age markets supposedly.

    --
    I don't read AC
  5. "Junk Food" is a slang term. by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd be curious how they are going to come up with a legal definition for what is and is not junk food. Does it have to be like Cheetos and Mountain Dew, or will McDonald's no longer be able to advertise either? And if fast food is no longer allowed, do we have to set the standard of a casual dining restaurant? You can get healthy food quickly. too depending on the business.