The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/all/20080408012921/http://www.theglobeandmail.com:80/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080406.wndpadban0406/CommentStory/National/

Skip navigation

 Login or Register

NDP bill would ban food, drink ads aimed at kids

The Canadian Press

Latest comment posted at 11:29 AM EDT 06/04/08

MP says Ontario facing serious problem with overweight children ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ...we guess that some people, especially minors, need to be saved from themselves....
  2. Jim **** from Canada writes: Interesting that someone can go to jail for a long time for selling marijuana to children, but if they sell them transfats and sugar, which have known harmful effects, they will just get rich.
  3. Zug Zwang from Canada writes: Why ads towards kids?

    Why not parental stupidity? Afterall, it was via my parents that I bought such foods seeing as I had no income.
  4. James Follwell from Charlottetown, Canada writes: Not a reasonable constraint on freedom of expression. Better solution is to have parents and teachers create better awareness in children of the nature and power of advertising. They are going to need to excercise insight and discretion - and sell control - in their lives in due course. Anyway, I doubt that children are all that more suseptible than a lot of adults to advertising. Removing information from the market place simply makes markets work less efficienctly and it anyway such measure would motive firms to find more insidious ways to reach thier market segments, be they children or suseptible adults. I see what I consider egregiously offensive and even mendacious advertising every day in the media, but that is just modern life. Get used to it early, kids, and be wise.
  5. Bill G from Calgary, Canada writes: Actually, I agree with this, but I would also expand it for any advertising directed at children.
  6. Lumber Girl from Railtown, Canada writes: It is up to the parents to kick their kids asses out the door to play and exercise and to eat properly. In our house exercise is a very important part of our life(exercise disguised as fun and play!)
    My son is eight and has fallen victim many times to the onslaught of TV ads. I have bought anatomy and science books that are age appropriate and shown and explained to him what excessive crap food will do to your body. Don't get me wrong, we are chocolate addicts in every sense of the word and enjoy McDonalds once and a while. It is amazing how children will retain and understand especially if a decent example is set by the parents.
    When my son was seven he started to notice the bombardment of christmas toy commercials flooding the TV and says to me 'They make the toys look way better and more fun on TV than they are in real life mommy' I said '
    'You got it figured out, partner' I answered.
  7. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: Jeremy F from Alberta....we disagree, it's a question, only with respect to the health and quality of life implications for our populace, rather, more importantly, to the financing of our socialized medical system....in essence, we aren't really free to harm ourselves....
  8. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: Even though the advertising industry repulses me, I don't know many 7 year olds that do their own shopping. While t.v. advertising may influence our children, isn't it the parent's responsibility to feed their kids a healthy diet and ensure they get enough exercise? Isn't this a part of every parent's job as a parent? By the time a child becomes a teen with thier own income they should have learned about a healthy diet. Hopefully the good eating habits instilled by good parenting will lead to good decisions when they're on their own.
  9. Nassar Ben Houdja from Canada writes: Include drugs, alcohol, violence and anything else though only sold by customer testimonials, surely once nanny baaaans something, all good childern will curtsey and scamper off to have a glass of milk, pasturized of course, for unpasturized is illegal, like other white stuff that the juvinile delinquents who disobey nanny get.
  10. Vote NDP in the next federal/ provincial election from Toronto, Canada writes: This measure is another step that the NDP is taking to protect working families and people in need.

    We need to seriously ban junk food ads marketed to children. It's a win-win situation. Food companies can save on advertising costs and children won't be influenced by ads. Otherwise, health care costs will continue to rise as children are getting obese..

    Gym classes is an option. Just provide the resources to do it (i.e gym teachers, equipment etc...)
  11. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: Why not simply ban the sale of any junk food....period......they harm everyone equally..........
  12. John Paolozzi from Vancouver, Canada writes: '... and actually agreeing to volunteer to coach school teams without demanding extra pay they way it was in the past.'

    Are you a communist or something? Do you work for free? Do you know anything about what teachers go through before expecting them to hang around using even more of their free time taking care of your kids?

    Times have changed. Teachers now have to deal with bigger classes, kids on drugs, kids bring weapons, kids having sex, you name it... cut them some slack.

    And ban all advertising aimed at kids. Let them figure out how to be an individual on their own without some slick creep from Madison Ave telling them that the only way they can achieve this is with some product they don't need.
  13. Fake Name from Canada writes: Nassar, are you implying that banning unpasteurized milk is an affront to your freedoms? If you enjoy ingesting bacteria that much, you can always stir some sewage into your milk ... personally, I'll stick to the one I know won't make me sick.
  14. Andrew E from Canada writes: Ban, ban, ban.... yet to believe the left, it's Conservatives who want to control our lives. Sounds a lot like their other mantra, tax, tax, tax. I guess you have to pay for the bans somehow.
  15. scott thomas from Canada writes: Andrew, do you think it's right for intelligent adults to manipulate the desires of children so that they can make money off of them? Isn't there anything behind the phrase, 'stealing candy from a baby?'
  16. Mike Sumners from Toronto, Canada writes: More Nanny State nonsense from the loony left. Why not let the parents set the limits on what the kids can eat?!?!
  17. Brian Todd from Canada writes: stretch above your commentary has been noted, particularly ...'without demanding extra pay'... In essence today one gets nothing without paying for it and in fact a lot of times one pays and does not obtain anything close to what should be provided. How many of your co-workers etc do something for nothing? If one catches the bus you have to pay, if one uses some electricity you pay, if one works overtime you expect to get paid, etc. One would think there is 'good citizenship' whatever that may be but in the final analysis no one cares without thinking about their wallet first.
  18. BOC the Magnificent from Canada writes: ban the silly saturday morning captain Crunch, remove Donald and the Hamburgler, nay I say! Nay! Far better to take little Sally and little Junior out for a nice healthy walk or better still manage that they get daily exercise. Then, with gleeful cheer, we may all pig out!

    The great and Glorious Bocman has spoken
  19. David H from Calgary, Canada writes: My God, what has happened to individual and parental responsibilities? It has never been required of the State to legislate common sense. No laws can protect someone from their own stupidity. Enough with this nanny state mentality.
  20. Jamie Wilson from Englishtown, Canada writes: I have no serious objection to the ban but I doubt it will have any significant effect as advertisers will find other ways (product placement in TV programming and movies for example) to reach their target audience.
  21. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: David H from Calgary...parental responsibility is greatly reduced in single-parent family home where the parent is working one or two jobs to make ends meet....in some Vancouver area schools, the majority of kids come from a single-parent home....
  22. D Le5 from Canada writes: perhaps addressing the problem on various levels would help?
    I grow tired of people whining that this or that shouldn't be done b/c there is only one solution in their minds.

    Believe it or not some problems are actually quite dynamic and so too the solutions must be. Banning junk food ads targeting kids is one piece of the puzzle, in conjunction with increasing exercise, educating parents (given the mount of info already out there I can't understand how parents can't know this already), tax junk food moreso and use the funds for programs, etc etc.

    Once again if anyone cares to look at the research on the effects of modeling and advertising on youth (or even adults) you may understand why this idea isn't so horrible.
  23. matthew parsons from Canada writes: If more parents weren't scared of their children, got rid of the XBOX, and gave them a smack when they desreved it, well, we wouldn't be having this issue. Ads aimed at kids, who apparently have the money lying around to go out and buy it. How about the parents just saying 'NO'? The NDP is supported by less than 15% of the country, why do the media even pay attention to them?
  24. BOC the Magnificent from Canada writes: matthew parsons from Canada writes: The NDP is supported by less than 15% of the country, why do the media even pay attention to them?

    --------------

    The reason being that almost all progressive, health related issues were and are sponsored and driven by the NDP. The others cater to the profit people only those darn little nippers seem to give a damn for us little folk.
  25. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ....the Socialists led the way in the Wars on Tobacco and on Pollution, before Gordo and the Socreds had their moments on the Damascan Road.......and now the Socialists their attention to the War on Obesity....
  26. Matt Stiles from Vancouver, Canada writes: If the media's power wasn't so centralized and educational counter-campaigns were permitted on the airwaves, we wouldn't have a need for such legislation.

    The PROBLEM is overlegislation of the media, making it harder to gain mainstream market share, regardless of the quality of journalism. I don't see how adding more legislation can possibly be construed as the SOLUTION.
  27. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: Matt Stiles from Vancouver...give the Neocons, a chance and the only non-commercial media outlet in Canada, CBC English radio, will start airing commercials....
  28. Patrick Rioux from Ottawa, Canada writes: Ban propaganda like 'An Inconvenient Truth' from public schools. Better yet, ban public schools. Best of all, ban politicos from office who reject the idea of limited government. Unrestrained government power has destroyed more than Captain Crunch ever did.
  29. The Religious Left from Canada writes:
    D Le5 from Canada writes: I grow tired of people whining that this or that shouldn't be done b/c there is only one solution in their minds.

    Well then you'll get tired of these boards fairly quickly :) If these issues were simple they would have already been solved. Good post though. I got overweight as soon as I stopped growing, and it was definitely the combination of eating junk and lack of exercise.

    I will echo those stressing the importance of Gym class. I struggled in a co-ed school with an awful Phe program with 1hr a week that stressed teaching cooperation over real athletics. I later moved to an all boy's school where I got some real exercise every day and I went from a problem child to an excellent student. I think many people underestimate how much physical exercise can help academics.
  30. harry carnie from Northern,B.C, Canada writes: Why not ban 'stupidity'?.......no ...that would eliminate some political parties....could not have that.
  31. Ryan Ginger from Ottawa, Canada writes: Banning advertisements doesn't go far enough.

    It is an established fact that regular consumption of soft drinks, fatty junk foods and high-sugar diets directly contributes to obesity and other health risks in children. It is harmful and therefore constitutes child abuse when parents feed this to their children. Ban the foods. Period.
  32. dave s from Canada writes: Advertising should be banned period. An industry that does its best to make us feel uncomfortable about who we are so that we will continue to consume at unsustainable rates in order to prop up a false economy that is based on the exploitation of the third world, in my opinion is just a virus, nay a cancer! on society. Think about the good the 90 billion dollars spent on convincing us to buy stuff could do. Advertising is an insult. More relevant to the content of the article - children are exposed to millions of ads throughout their lives. Think that affects them? I think so. I don't want my kids seeing ads for junk food and then having a fit when I want to give them healthy food. Advertising for children is insipid. BAN ALL ADVERTISING FOR CHILDREN! BAN ALL OUTSIDE ADVERTISEMENT! BAN ADVERTISEMENT FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS! I'll vote for anyone who runs on that platform. Hell, I'll volunteer to help the campaign.
  33. Happy Canuck from Canada writes: Instead of banning junk food adds, why don't the healthy eating groups make adds like the anti-smoking, anti-drunk driving groups do? Market that to kids. I promise of you show an obese girl being picked on, not being able to find fashion that fits, and never getting a date or an obese boy getting picked last for sports teams, breaking a chair he's sitting on and getting laughed at and sitting by himself stuffing his face with chips you'll have a lot less fat kids.

    We spend so much time shunning smokers, excessive drinkers, and druggies, maybe we should spend more time shunning obese people. Obesity kills too!
  34. Phil H from Canada writes: James Follwell from Charlottetown, Canada writes: ... Removing information from the market place simply makes markets work less efficienctly ...

    That's a gem! The goal of most commercial advertising is to provide information to the market place so people can make informed decisions. Right. Thanks for my morning smile. You obviously applied as much critical thinking to what you learned in economics class as the average eight year old does to a fast food commercial.
  35. Ron White from Canada writes: This law would last about 30 seconds in the courts. How about 'restraint of trade' and censureship to start off with. I am sure our lawyer readers could come up with a few more.
  36. Gerry Pankhurst from westport ontario, Canada writes: It's really beneath the wisdom of the Westporrt Oracle to comment on this bill but I will. It will nowhere and the NDP will, once again, prove they are little more than a futile, time consuming, ornament in the Canadian political scene.
  37. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: 'Nassar Ben Houdja from Canada writes: Include drugs, alcohol, violence and anything else though only sold by customer testimonials, surely once nanny baaaans something, all good childern will curtsey and scamper off to have a glass of milk, pasturized of course, for unpasturized is illegal, like other white stuff that the juvinile delinquents who disobey nanny get.'

    Huh?? What is this 'other white stuff that the juvinile delinquents who disobey nanny get'?
  38. Kevin Desmoulin from Toronto, Canada writes: It is good idea but how to enforce it, I mean kids like to eat they do not care if pizza is being eaten by people older then them on TV.
    and the most kinds have already seen the ads for them.
    How do you get rid of Ronald Macdonald the Clown a icon of fast food. Too idealistic and not very practical.
  39. Winter of Discontent from Ottawa, Canada writes: 1. Got Milk?

    2. Apples from your Ontario farmers.

    Yep, ban those too as their geared towards healthy eating by kids. Stupidity reigns in the NDP by attempting to 'ban' advertisements of foods towards kids. At what age is a kid not a kid? What food constitutes healthy, neutral or unhealthy... other than with transfats?

    Till then I'd better go have a kids yogurt popsicle.
  40. brian bishop from Brantford, Canada writes: Welcome to the NDP's version of Orwell's 1984, ban everything!

    Has anyone considered teaching these children about what's good & bad? Are these children not in an educational institution from the ages of 5 to 17 anyway!

    Don't these children not also have parents who's responsibility it is to feed cloth & shelter them among other things.

    While I have no love for ads, which is why I canceled my cable & then my satellite subscriptions & go without television now, your taking rights away from businesses to market their products.

    Alright so their not the healthiest products, but if your going to allow these products to be produced, then it should go without saying that the producers have a right to market their product also & as they see fit.

    Since when do children make dietary choices, especially those under the age of 13!

    Sorry your right I do recall seeing plenty of 12 & 13 year olds pushing shopping carts around the grocery store. Then they loaded up the SUV & drove home after paying for the groceries with their credit card!
  41. Tree Hugger from Parksville, Canada writes: We are all nearly helpless in the grip of advertising. Children more so than adults. The least we can do is ban advertising directed at children.
  42. Peter Douglas from Canada writes: What about saving our youth from drug dealers and sexual predators?.....Oh right...we don't want to challenge these bad guys as they might respond in a negative way against our law makers. Cowards! Get the Meth out of the schools.....not the chips!
  43. D McAnn from Canada writes: I think we should ban the NDP. What has happened to personal/parental responsibility?
  44. Joe V from Canada writes: This seems like a reasonable idea. Children are impressionable and not yet able to make critical judgments as well as adults. They can thus easily be indoctrinated by propaganda, ads, etc., as has been shown many times throughout history.

    If an ad is explicitly targeting children, knowing that they will not be able to critically analyze the offering, it really should not be on the air.
  45. J M from Calgaristan, Canada writes: Not going to work in THIS country. Not with Stephen 'pass the chicken wings' Harper beholden to the industrial chemical and agri'food' industry. The junk food merchants of death (lobbyists) will be flooding Ottawa with free prok rinds for all the conservatives for the foresseable future.
  46. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: D McAnn from Canada....parental responsibility is greatly reduced in single-parent family home where the parent is working one or two jobs to make ends meet....in some Vancouver area schools, the majority of kids come from a single-parent home....the Socialists led the way in the Wars on Tobacco and on Pollution, before other leaders had their moments on the Damascan Road.......and now the Socialists turn their attention to the War on Obesity....heck, somebody has to!....
  47. One Eye Open from calgary, Canada writes: This won't fix the problem. The problem is that the nutritionists, in their arogance, won't admit that they are wrong. Dr. Barry Sears, discovered back prior to 1995 what the problem is. Since then, many people have come up with amazing supposedly 'new discoveries' that support his arguements.

    A balanced diet, in which we eat equal portions of carbohydrates, protien, and fat will help people lose weight, and gain strength, while increasing mental awareness. The key is in the kind of carbohydrates we chose to eat. Processed carbohydrates get absorbed into the blood stream too quickly, and spike insulin levels. This causes all sorts of problems.

    In his book, 'Enter The Zone', Dr. Sears shows how by treating the food we eat as the most power drug there is..., we can prevent all sorts of disease, including diabetes and cancer. We can even reverse these diseases... Of course... nutritionists have attacked him, because they have a stake in this...namely their careers.
  48. sidney Goldberg from writes: The best thing that can happen to children is to re introduce Phys Ed. The child who is busy burning off caleries playing, volleyball, basketball, tennis etc is also reducing their chance of being over weight. More important parents need to get their kids involved in sports and that means all kids. An example the mother who has started a soccer team for children with a disability. Banning companies from advertising to children sounds like an NDP propasal. Where is the NDP proposal demanding physical education programs at all elementary and high schools, the real solution to a serious problem. The NDP should perhaps consider that children who are busy with sports, band class, dance class are children with no time to get in trouble. The NDP loves to say we have to get to the root of the problem, now is they actually meant what tey say. Sydney Joel goldberg
  49. One Eye Open from calgary, Canada writes: The ban is a nice idea, because kids may see something on 'Tree House' they might want to eat. However, it is usually up to mom & dad to purchase the food and prepare it for them.

    In our house, the 'mute' button gets pushed anyway, as soon as the commercials come on.

    BTW, it's quite childish, the way some posters turn articles like this into partisan bickering, and name calling......... My 4 year old acts more adult-like.
  50. John Deriso from Edmonton, Canada writes: You know, this seems like a good idea, but how does one create an advertisement that children won't see and comprehend? It's not as if there is a secret language adults speak. If you aim a soft drink commercial at an adult, is there any child stupid enough to not know what 'Drink Pepsi' means?

    So, generally, I would think that this law would be so unenforceable as to be worthless.
  51. Vincent Clement from Windsor, Canada writes: How about the NDP focus on more physical activity not controlling what people can and cannot do?
  52. The Last Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    Mike Sumners from Toronto wrote:
    More Nanny State nonsense from the loony left.

    Yes Mike,
    It is the looney left that banned tobacco for children .........
  53. dean spence from Canada writes: Why don't the various porkers in the legislature just set an example?
    And, yes, BTW, I do set an example.
  54. Foremost Authority from Western, Canada writes: How about managing obesity within their own caucus. Have you seen some of the porkchops in there?
  55. Prairie Boy from Canada writes: What affects children is peer group acceptability. I have heard this song and dance in the old tobacco companies target children I have always asked the question, how? They can't advertise at all. When some people get an idea in their head they become crusaders in some great and noble endevour...in their mind.
  56. stand up mimi from Canada writes: We ban all kinds of things that are deemed to be excessively harmful to us, so it's not as if this is a mad descent into nanny state-dom, as some are claiming. And yes, we all know that parents are the ones with the biggest responsibility and are the most effective guard against poor eating habits in their children. But the fact remains that many parents, for whatever reason, let their kids eat this junk, and lots of them are obese. There is no good reason to allow advertisers to target an impressionable segment of our population with this poison. If you don't believe it's poison, read up on the ingredients.
  57. Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes:
    Foremost - fewer porkers in the NDP than in Harper's fat-a$$ caucus.

    LOL
  58. Foremost Authority from Western, Canada writes: Does anyone know if there are any such bans in Europe? It seems to me that they are much fitter even without any ban. Anyways, they would still get bombarded by US adds.
  59. Foremost Authority from Western, Canada writes: Ricky for a Centrist Canada from Canada writes: Foremost - fewer porkers in the NDP than in Harper's fat-a$$ caucus.
    -------

    True, but there there are many more members and they are not the ones bringing up the motion.

    Cheers
  60. Prashanta Dhakal from Canada writes: It's obvious that we cannot just expect parents to do their part - obesity rate wouldn't be 25% among children if that were the case.

    We already make it mandatory for children to go to school; but why bother? Parents know to send their kids to school! Let's scrap all protection aimed at children because parents know best.
  61. matthew parsons from Canada writes: It's bad enough that physical activity at school is so restricted. and thats because so many people start whining when their kid gets hurt playing, or when their kid always gets picked last for the team. Thats why kids need to make fun of obese kids. Public humiliation IS the best motivator.
  62. Alastair james Berry from Nanaimo BC CANADA, Canada writes:
    The NANNY SOCIETY at it's best!

    THE POOR LITTLE DEARS DON'T KNOW WHAT TO EAT!
    SOME ARE ACTUALLY GETTING FAT!
    'THEY HAVE UNDER DEVELOPED BRAINS,DON'T YOU KNOW?'

    And people wonder why we have a problem with disaffected youth wearing 'hoodies' who have no interest in political parties, education or the future of Canada but who seem to revolve in a world dominated by endless parties, pot, tight jeans, sex and heavy metal music!

    Treat teenagers as ADULTS and they will respond as ADULTS!

    GIVE CHILDREN RESPONSIBILITY!

    Reduce the age for riding a motorcycle, drinking beer or having sex to age 15 but make sure that if teens take up adult habits they will be held responsible for every and all consequences of their actions by the Laws and Courts of CANADA!.

    Let Teenagers grow up and take an active part in Society.
    Stop putting them down and treating them like IMBECILES!
  63. Polygon Window from Canada writes: I'd love to be able to understand the prohibitionist mentality that says that somehow banning the right combination of substances and actions will convince people to make 'good' lifestyle choices. It doesn't work.

    In any case, banning advertising to children is a canard: parents are ultimately responsible for what gets purchased and consumed in a household. This is yet another case of meddling politicians keen to be seen doing something -- anything -- 'for the children'.
  64. Ed Long from white Rock, Canada writes: How about the NDP fully supporting adult, parent and teacher, lead play and recreation periods.

    I think some people spend more time walking their dog than physically playing with their kids.

    The ads are not the problem, the amount of time in front of the TV and computer are the problem ... and parents and teachers are the solution.

    Speaking of which, I'm outta here and outside.
  65. Matthew McKenzie from Thunder Bay, Canada writes: I dont think banning food and drink ads towards children will work. How about getting kids outside and playing. Parents should probably restrict the hours of video or computer games that they can play.

    And how about more physical education in schools?
  66. Fred Heff from cowtownCalgary, Canada writes: The political police want your vote !

    They want to be the official opposition.

    NDP = No dam police Just say no.
  67. Adam Smith from Canada writes: The National Socialist Party will start banning things as soon as they get into power! There's a shock.
  68. Lou Dobbs from Vancouver Island, Canada writes: My kids laugh at the McDonalds ads because they think the food is terrible. All they have to do is try something once to find out the lack of truth in advertising.

    If they're going to try and ban something, I would prefer a ban on toy adverts directed towards kids.
  69. Nickstar One from Canada writes: '.....MP says Ontario facing serious problem.....'
    It's a serious problem alright but it isn't food, drink, wisps of smoke, bars, restaurants, cars, etc, etc.
    The serious problem in Bantario is Ban Mania and the mind-numbing, completely uncompromising rigidity of 'zero tolerance' that Bans invoke.

  70. A good Canadian from Canada writes: “What kids see on television is high in calories and low in nutrients,” he added. “That's generally what kids watch on television.”

    ----------------------------

    Then how about banning children from watching that TV, and make them go and do physical activity instead?

    Isn't this the same party who wants to legalize marijuana?
  71. The Special One... I Am Fantastic from Canada writes: Stop letting paedophiles out of jail. Once arrested let them rot for life. Instead of the food, drink ads how about making the kid friendly video games too outrageously priced to buy and then the parents will not buy them.
    Start financing more minor sports so that they are affordable. Maybe then a parent will buy hockey gear for a child as opposed to the latest Wii game.
  72. Don Quixote from the wet Banana Belt, Ont., Canada writes: The Kids will consider the NDP of the coming decade as the SPC (Starvation Party of Canada) if this continues.....
  73. stand up mimi from Canada writes: While I agree that the ads themselves are not necessarily the main cause of obesity in kids, they are a big part of the bad food culture that has developed here over the last few decades. We let advertisers speak directly to kids to convince them to ingest tons of high fructose corn syrup. We can't necessarily ban the adult ads, but surely we don't have to tolerate those that are obviously and directly aimed at children. Advertising aimed at children tends to be underhanded, but I think junk food ads have the potential to cause the most problems. And it's just one part of the whole insidious junk food (and processed food) industry that is contributing a great deal to poor health in Canada. And yes, kids need to get outside and exercise, too.
  74. Sam Ruisser from Richmond BC, Canada writes: Lets ban TV shows for kids because they affect them too. Better, lets ban kids all along. That is the best way to save them!!
  75. Layton's Mustache from Calgary, Canada writes: Typical socialists. Just can't shake that need to get involved in everyones life, which is the hallmark of good Ontario governance.
    Any wonder why things are so whacked out there? You'll be the first province in Canada with cyber-parents. Instructions on how to parent are downloaded from Pravda Central.
  76. Bradley Strider from Canada writes: I agree with Sam. Kids are simply fatties in training. We need a zero-child policy. Any women becoming pregnant will be subject to a hefty fine, redeemable only if she decides to abort. It has to be done. For the good of the race.
  77. Walker fromtheevilempireofAB from Calgary, Canada writes: So what happens when the kids grow up? They're just magically going to know what's good and bad from them? How about a little discipline???

    You are the parents! Say NO, educate your children, and instead of leaving them to an xbox; try getting them involved in some sports.

    You can't send your children out into the world in a protective safety bubble. Best you teach them something other than they can get whatever they want with a temper-tantrum.
  78. evelyn robinson from Canada writes: cripes are we getting to be a nanny state
    The governments should tend to national affairs and allow people to make their own decisions and what they can eat. geesh
  79. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes:
    Since when is legislation preferred to education?
  80. Dan Shortt from Toronto, Canada writes: I think we can look forward to these types of notices posted in convenience stores, grocery stores, concession stands:

    Under 18 as of today's date? Not allowed to purchase candy-bars, chocolate, soda-pop, or potato-chips.
  81. scamp the from Canada writes:
    If you ban it, they won't come.

    oh how sad politicians are.
    How many ads are there promoting marijuana use...yet people still do it.

    Last I checked, kids don't earn enough money to go out and buy themselves mcdonalds. Parents do. If we're at a point in our society where parents cannot say no to a child's whining for coco-puffs or mcdonalds...then that's your problem...not the adverts themselves.

    I have a better law.
    we ban politicians from making laws banning things.
  82. stand up mimi from Canada writes: Layton's Mustache writes: 'Typical socialists. Just can't shake that need to get involved in everyones life.'

    Yes, and while we're getting rid of government involvement, maybe we should rid ourselves of that communist policy that says all children have to go to school, too. And what's with banning lead paint? If the market can bear it, lead paint should be on all baby toys. The only reason it's banned is because we are a nanny state.

    Say it again three times and maybe that will make it true: Nanny state nanny state nanny state.
  83. Robert Marshall from Scarborough, Canada writes: I think the problem will not be solved by simply banning the use of advertising to young children.

    The reality is that our culture has been changing over the years ... people these days tend to come home tired from a long day of work and the parents simply don't want to or have the energy to be active in front of their kids. Every time I go out during the evening for a walk I have consistently seen less and less individuals actually outside enjoying the weather. I often see homes with their lights turned down and people probably inside watching TV or entertaining themselves with another electronic means.

    I think that this is a much deeper problem then what a lot of people would like to admit. People aren't going out and seeing their neighborhood as much or getting to know their neighbors as well because of a greater push for safety and security. The times that people are physically active tend to be in a more structured manner (i.e. going to a gym, playing some type of leagued sport, etc). I don't see a lot of children just having fun playing a casual game of road hockey or soccer on a summer or spring afternoon.

    So I think the problem is more then just advertisers manipulating children ... it's more of a social-cultural problem in general.
  84. stand up mimi from Vancouver, Canada writes: Robert Marshall - Excellent post. I would argue this social-cultural problem has a lot to do with the way we've structured our communities. In suburbs, the car rules, and kids hardly ever walk or bike to school any more. Parents are tired because they've just spent an hour in traffic getting home from work. You can't live, work, or shop in the same neighbourhood like you used to, and you can't let your kids walk to school, so that takes its toll on families, who are driving around like crazy all morning and evening. No wonder when you walk through a suburban neighbourhood in the evening, especially a newer one, it seems abandoned. It's a bit creepy, actually.
  85. Still Learning at 77 from Canada writes: It would be sad to limit what the corporations to have a say in what our childern eat. Your kids do not have to listen to what they say do they? The corporations waste money on advertising because it has no effect on our childern. Most kids believe in the tooth fairy and some adults too.
  86. i have to laugh from Toronto, Canada writes: Junk food shmunk food... healthy nutrition starts at the top. In this country, it's Stephen Harper. And what an example he is. If our country's Prime Minister did the equivalent of a Jenny Craig celebrity commercial, that alone would speak volumes. Unfortunately, Mr. Harper couldn't care less about his country's 'growing' problem, especially among children and youth. It's a shame and an embarrassment. Set the best example you can, Mr. Harper, for the health of your country's population. Get rid of that mountainous gut.
  87. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ....lost in the name-calling confusion by those who can only see in black and white is the fact that obesity is a severe problem for many of our chidren and adults, not only with respect to the quality of life but it also taxes our health systems...at least the NDP has the courage to propose a solution...we can't we debate this rather than the politics of it?.....

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top