When are people going to take at least a measure of responsibility for their actions? Clamoring for “bans” on almost everything we come up against in daily life is non-productive. Educate the masses to exercise self-discipline would be far more effective. While there may be some evidence to suggest TV advertising of junk food products leads people to become obese, it is by no means the main cause for people’s poor eating habits. A lazy attitude towards food preparation has a lot more to do with it. In fact, laziness seems to be responsible for a lot of what’s wrong with the lack of self-control exhibited by so many these days. On reflection, perhaps a ban on laziness might be a good starting point. Colin Cumner, Adelaide, Australia
Shouldn’t the emphasis be on educating people on healthy foods and how to stay healthy, rather than junk food advertisements. It should be up to the parents to encourage their children to eat healthier. Parents should be thinking what can they do to for their children’s health? Greg White, Atherton
The Government can not be expected to take the place of a lack of parental and personal responsibility. It amounts to a “see no evil” attitude, and that has never been effective. If anything, kid’s will want it more because they’re not supposed to have it. See: underage smoking, underage drinking, etc. Erik Deupree, Orlando, USA
Advertising these days is a lot more sophisticated than just saying “our product is great, please buy it”. They work at you from many angles. They work to encourage selfishness (because I’m worth it), impatience (just do it!) and that you will be socially excluded if you don’t “join in” with all the great people using their product. Ask yourself this. Would you feel happy leaving your children in a room for two hours every night with a (bright and highly paid) advertising executive, trying to sell them their product? This is what you are doing leaving them in front of the TV. You then get people telling you that you are a failed parent when your child suddenly wants something and won’t take no for an answer. All these companies want to do is make money. It would be purely coincidental if this was also in your or your children’s best interests. As an adult you should have learnt to evaluate information fed to you and reject what is not in your interests, but allowing any advertising aimed directly at children seems pretty sick to me. Andrew Snelling, Camberley
The idea is unquestionably a step in the right direction. However, if at the end of the day all mum has time to put in the packed lunch are two slabs of white bread with nutella, a packet of crisps and a chocolate bar, does the campaign not sound all a little futile? Natasha Higgins, London
Advertisement
Not a week goes by where the ‘fast food’ companies get attacked for the most despicable crime of running a successful business. Having just read a leaflet that I picked up in one of these junk food merchants, I’m completely satisfied that what I was eating was of high quality and not even that bad for me. Films like Super Size Me promote ridiculous anti-capitalist views and muddled trendy thinking. If a parent can’t say no to a child then they clearly need lessons on how to be a parent. Fast food should be a treat and if the child can’t understand that, they’ve been spoilt. Besides, there is so much bad language before 9pm and nobody seems very concerned about that. If I had a child, I’d be just as concerned about the stuff coming out of their mouth as what was going in. Sam Nicholson, Basingstoke
Surely this is simply another attempt by the government to micromanage our lives. Too many parents don’t have the courage or brains to say ‘no’ to their children, so the government is doing it for them. I don’t know who is worse, weak-minded parents or overzealous government officials. Nicholas Ord, Guildford
Junk food ads are not the problem; it’s lazy parents who can’t take responsibility for themselves or their children. “Mummy, I want ...” A simple “no” will suffice! Carey Gunn, London
It is not right that advertising should be permitted to influence people’s diets, which should be based on consideration of the body’s need rather than the manufacturers’ representations. A poor diet is responsible, directly or indirectly, for much of the nation’s ill-health, and as advertising contributes to the poor judgments that are made in this area, it ought to be banned outright across the board for all food and drink. Charles Byrnell, Fleet
No, it certainly shouldn’t be banned and parents should take responsibility for their children’s health. Perhaps learning to say no would be a start. Melanie Smith, Slough
Advertisement
It’s a step in the right direction. Why not tax junk food like alcohol and cigarettes are? It is bad for us so why not tax it? Nobody needs junk food especially children. Lara Speir, London
Sorry, but surely the parents should be controlling what their children eat. I know exactly what affected my child as she was growing up in Britain, and in fact it is worse here in the USA: no explanation of additives, etc. The word “no” mean’t she didn’t have the junk food, etc. and she knew that and accepted it. Parents should have the ultimate say in what their child eats. Karen Walters, Denver
Yes, ‘junk food’ ads should most definitely be banned till after 9pm. Jack Potter, Mandurah, Western Australia
Another example of muddled thinking. Do they suppose that such children all retire at 9pm? Of course they do not, many of them are watching the X-rated adult channels with or without their parents’ knowledge. Bernard Parke, Guildford
In my country, adverts about toys used to be banned before 9pm but I can still see around me kids crying and yelling outside shop windows, in their effort to convince their parents to buy them toys. Maybe it all boils down to how parents bring up their children, and to how much effort they make getting across the right messages. Through constructive dialogue you can persuade even a child about the benefits or disadvantages of any product, situation or behaviour. Joy Aifantis
Advertisement
If it is possible to identify which foods are “junk” so that adverts for them cannot be shown before 9 o’clock, then surely it would be simpler to ban the foods in the first place. Martin Pearce, Bristol
On the whole, TV is far too licentious these days. There are many worse things than junk food ads we could look at banning before the 9pm watershed. However, I am all for more control over what can and cannot be advertised, and when. Ban the junk food ads before 9pm. And shouldn’t the watershed really be 10pm anyway? Melandra Smith, Buxton
I don’t think the problem of obesity simply lies with TV advertisements. What about billboards, posters, radio advertisements, flyers? Fast food is always going to be available, so instead of telling people it should never be eaten, people need to learn to eat different things in moderation. Then the real problem can be tackled. Harriet Pearce, Lincolnshire
Banning cigarette adverts didn’t stop people smoking. Heroin has never been advertised, and there are still junkies. I would say a far better use of any funds spent setting up such legislation could be better used in promoting the message that we shouldn’t believe everything we hear in an advert. Simon Clark, London
Please complete the form below and your contribution will be considered for publication. Please restrict your response to 250 words. It may be necessary to edit your comments. Please include your name, town/county/state of residence and e-mail.