I realize it is January; the month everyone who wants to lose weight and start an exercise program does so. Perhaps it isn”t the best time to discuss fast food, but I”m fuming about what will likely become another attack on the rights of Americans. The National Bureau of Economic Research recently funded a study that has produced the conclusion that a fast-food advertising ban would reduce obesity in children age 3-11 by 18% and 14% in children 12-18.
I don”t recall ever meeting a 3-11 year-old youngster who was the head of a household. If anything or anyone can reduce the incidence of childhood obesity in children of that age bracket, it is the parents. Most kids from 12-18 are also still under the auspices of their parents when it comes to what is served in the dining room.
I will grant that from age 16-18, many teenagers make their own choices because they have after school jobs or other activities. Still, it is the obligation of parents to oversee the food choices of American children.
While I know of no U.S. government plan to ban fast-food advertising, at the moment, I believe it is just a matter of time before it will become a major topic of debate in Congress. England and Malaysia have already placed restrictions on fast-food advertisements. We have already observed U.S. communities, L.A. for example, that have placed moratoriums on fast food restaurants within their city limits, in the name of citizen health.
Fast-food and fast-food restaurants have been excessively and, I think, unfairly criticized. Sure, the fast-food places offer some item choices that are high in calories and fat, but no one has to become obese because they eat fast-food.
Obesity is something individuals can avoid by limiting their total calorie intake to a reasonable amount per day and by exercising regularly. A good friend of mine has just lost over 60 pounds on a Taco Bell diet. Not many people would think that a person could lose weight by eating burritos. He swears by it. I”ve seen the proof.
It angers me when government entities enact laws that restrict our freedom, especially when it comes to products that are legal. An excellent example is the broadcast ban on cigarette advertising. I have never smoked a cigarette in my life, but my opinion has always been that, as long as a product can be legally sold to the public, there should not be a ban on all or certain forms of advertising. I find it ridiculous that I can accept cigarette ads in this newspaper, but regional television stations have not been able to run a cigarette commercial for decades.
If I was in favor of advertising bans, I would have chosen alcoholic beverage advertising over tobacco. Instead, we have beer commercials running constantly, especially on sports programming, that targets high school and college age youths and make it appear really cool to drink. The result is that we deal with thousands of teenage deaths every year from auto accidents and suicides related to alcohol. Even so, as long as alcoholic beverages are legal, I would not support a ban against alcoholic beverage advertising.
Americans have the right to choose what they are going to eat and if they are going to drink or smoke. It is a hypocritical society that says certain products are legal for public consumption and then makes it illegal to advertise those products, or at least some of those products, in the media, or some types of media.
Reports claim that the current generation of American youth will be the first not to outlive their parents, primarily because of health issues related to obesity. It will not be the fault of fast food restaurants and their advertising. It will be due to the failure of the parents of that generation to focus on their children”s overall nutrition and exercise programs.
Gary Dickson is the publisher of the Record-Bee. He can be reached at gdickson@record-bee.com or called direct at 263-5636 ext. 24.
