Much like companies are prohibited from advertising cigarettes & alcohol directly to children using cartoon characters, etc.
The federal government should ban sugar-added junk food cereals and other sugar-added foods directly to children.
These junk foods worsen the metabolic and dental health of children and should not be allowed to advertise directly to children. This would include the use of cartoon characters on packaging, product websites with games for children, advertising junk food during childrenâs programing on network TV and on the internet, and placing junk food at a childâs eye level in the checkout lane.
21 Likes
This should be supported by all well meaning folks.
3 Likes
Absolutely! Iâd even go a step farther and put them in only a single, not convenient section with some sort of warning label. The checkout section is really egregious.
1 Like
itâs not the governments job to parent.
1 Like
Itâs not the govermentâs job to parent. True. And.
Philip Morris Zyn nicotine for tweens âupper decky lip pillowâ
When we know tobacco giants Philip Morris International just paid out $1 billion in damages to lung cancer plaintiffs but they can turn around and project $2 billion revenue by year-end 2024 pushing nicotine âZynâ âupper decky ducky pillowsâ to tweens on social media (tuck it up under your lip, no parent need ever know; swift nicotine addiction), THAT is a trojan horse on all of us, using sophisticated psychology to endear their product to the often most clueless end-user; itâs a comfort ducky pillow and nobody need ever know how youâre taking care of yourself.
THAT is federal regulatory capture, federal agencies in cahoots with industrialists.
Hereâs a Zyn-promoting post (donât you want to be that âcoolâ):
ZynCoin
](x.com)
@ZynCoinERC20
](x.com)
âZynny has always been a culture coin. Every good trader owns a Ledger. Every good trader orders McDonaldâs. Every good trader drinks Diet Coke. Every good trader pops Zyn. Every good trader mogs. These are simply the facts. We bring the cult to culture. See you soon Zynbabwe.â
We want to have a say in stuff like this before it messes with a whole generation, we want to be able to intercept bad faith shit, not through a nanny state but through a We the People stand on an issue based on what we have already lived through, what we already know (I worked in hospital in London in the 80s and saw what nicotine addiction did to peoplesâ physical frame and well being (heart-wrenching).
No marketing nicotine anything to tweens & teens.
I think the Philip Morris payout was bad case. Philip Morris shouldnât have paid anything out.
Itâs not the tobacco companies fault that people started smoking.
Nobody from Philip Morris tied anyone to a chair and rammed cigarettes in their mouth.
No one needs to tie anyone to a chair when the marketing profiteers are using every psychological trick in the book to ensnare whichever potential $$$ marketshare they set their $$$$sights on. Even Freudâs nephew, Edward Bernays, did not expect the âspectacularâ results back in the 1920s of tripling the number of women smokers practically overnight with their cigarette as âfreedom torchesâ for women
" âTorches of Freedomâ was a phrase used to encourage womenâs smoking by exploiting womenâs aspirations for a better life during the early twentieth century first-wave feminism in the United States. Cigarettes were described as symbols of emancipation and equality with men. The term was first used by psychoanalyst A. A. Brill when describing the natural desire for women to smoke and was used by Edward Bernays to encourage women to smoke in public despite social taboos. Bernays hired women to march while smoking their âtorches of freedomâ in the [Easter Sunday Parade]"(Easter parade - Wikipedia) of 31 March 1929,[1] which was a significant moment for fighting social barriers for women smokers.
SO effective, âweâ never looked back. Now swim in a matrix web of this systemic duping on a loop.
I donât care about effective marketing. Itâs not force.
Warning labels started over 50 years ago. People still smoked.
Itâs not the tobacco companies responsibility.
Yes, I was adding this very policy when yours popped up as similar. I was putting a time frame on these commercials. No food commercials targeting children between 6AM and 11PM. Definitely no cartoon characters to manipulate children. Parents have enough pressure. Agree with also not putting them at eye level but that is more challenging since children ride in carts also. But they can certainly be removed from checkout lanes.
Parents can also teach children what commercials are so they are not as manipulated. When I was young my parents taught me that the purpose of commercials was to get us to spend money and buy their products so they use methods to influence. They taught us that just because they make a product seem better does not mean it is better. That there are products that cost less and are the same without a brand name on them etc. So I do think parents need to teach. But I also agree that there should be a ban on advertisers targeting children to manipulate them with unhealthy food products. It has too much impact on their health.
In the 1920s and 1930s cigarettes containing stramonium leaves were used as a treatment for asthma. If the product is being used to treat a lung condition people are going to think it is good for them. So I think it was more than the targeting of women in advertising that caused increased smoking.