16 ms·
UK bans daytime TV ads for cereals, muffins and burgers
- mentalgear 2y agoI hope other countries take action soon. It's deeply irresponsible how we allow advertisements and Big Sugar/Fast Food companies to exploit colorful cartoon characters and misleading health claims to hook people—especially children—on excessive sugar and fat consumption. This not only fosters unhealthy eating habits but also conditions them to crave specific branded flavors from an early age.
- whycome 2y agoAre adults not allowed to like colourful cartoon characters? Fruit flavours?
- daseiner1 2y agoParent commenter didn’t write anything to the contrary; obviously the median child gets more excited by those two things than the median adult. I really loathe these sort of “gotcha” comments.
- whycome 2y ago> Parent commenter didn’t write anything to the contrary; Did I imply that? Are "colorful cartoon characters" the part that's "deeply irresponsible" or just the misleading health claims? If you prevent the latter then you don't have anything to attach the former to. > I really loathe these sort of “gotcha” comments. I don't get what part of my comment was the 'gotcha'
- pixxel 2y ago> I don't get what part of my comment was the 'gotcha Watching day-time cartoons will do that.
- akira2501 2y agoYou're telling me this ad appeals to you in your demographic? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJmM2CSn2ao https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJmM2CSn2ao
- whycome 2y agoIsn’t the issue there the claims of “fruit flavours” easily misinterpreted as having actual fruit and including vitamin c prominently when it’s just fortified.
- BowBun 2y agoYou've moved the goalpost! No, the issue is that fruit flavors and cartoon characters are abused to appeal to children. That is what the original comment said and which you only half replied to! The video provided to you was an example of such - cartoons and 'fruit flavors' to hook kids on wanting sugary cereals for breakfast.
- whycome 2y agoMoved goalpoast? > No, the issue is that fruit flavors and cartoon characters are abused to appeal to children. That is what the original comment said That's not what they said. They said: > It's deeply irresponsible how we allow advertisements and Big Sugar/Fast Food companies to exploit colorful cartoon characters and misleading health claims to hook people I don't think the cartoon characters is the part of the problem to address. And I think that aspect becomes irrelevant when addressing the actual problem. (And 'Fruit flavours' was my addition and question not theirs) What part of my comment "only half replied"? I asked two questions in relation to the comment. I mentioned "colourful cartoon characters" and "fruit flavours" because those are examples of things that "appeal to kids" even though they have wider audiences. Canada (and other countries?) want to ban flavours from e-cigarettes because of the appeal to youth (and limiting it to just mint, menthol and tobacco). Why should an adult be limited to mint as a flavour for an age-controlled product? Why shouldn't an advertiser be allowed to use colorful cartoon characters? Moved goalpost? Aren't we saying the same thing here? The video, and similar breakfast cereals, are perfect examples of the actual problem. It uses the combination of cartoons and false health claims. The false health claims are the parts that are problematic - that's the part to eliminate. The informational part of that video (and the box information design!) is meant to appeal to (read: mislead) adults, not kids. Allowing false health claims for unhealthy products is an issue. Miseducating parents and adults about what's healthy is an issue. Suppressing how terrible excess sugar is for children and adults is an issue. Allowing lines like "how about fruit flavours"? (in video) and showing pictures of fruit is an issue. Allowing producers to hide how unhealthy something is by saying it's "healthy when part of a balanced breakfast" is an issue. Even now, nutrition information or prominent labels for cereals can include the values (eg protein) when one consumes it with milk! Change that and what does that video or other ads for cereals become?
- hecticjeff 2y agoI don’t think this goes far enough. Kids see adverts for this stuff in so many other places, TV is just one small step. Take a kid into a supermarket and there’s junk food advertised everywhere.
- Dinux 2y agoIt's a first step. The larger point here is awareness.
- tonyedgecombe 2y agoWhen you think about it none of the ads are for healthy food. When did you ever see an advert for Broccoli on the television? Probably best to ban all food advertising.
- lijok 2y agoBaffling to me how advertising to those without a stable source of above living-cost income is allowed in the first place. Let alone advertising to children.
- zabzonk 2y agoHow do you select for "those without a stable source of above living-cost income?
- lijok 2y agoNo idea. That's for the advertising firms to figure out.
- chrisjj 2y agoRation TVs, obviously :)
- kjkjadksj 2y agoSell your cereal to free school breakfast programs so those kids are literally spoon fed your stuff by the government. When they complain to their parents they want it at home, make sure you can trade food stamps for your cereal.
- Cthulhu_ 2y agoThey still get stuff though. Daytime advertising for toys is basically aimed at kids' birthday / christmas wishlists, pocket money, etc. If you add it up, that's hundreds of whatever your currency is per year across birthdays, gift giving holidays, and family / extended family.
- jsheard 2y agoCan we do gambling ads next? We banned tobacco ads and then seemingly forgot the lesson that it's actually bad to let advertisers shove addictive and self-destructive products in the publics face, including to former addicts at risk of relapse.
- optimalsolver 2y ago>Can we do gambling ads next? As long as we ban ads for stock trading platforms (i.e. gambling for the professional classes) at the same time.
- jsheard 2y agoI don't disagree, but stock trading ads are in some ways already more strictly regulated than gambling ads here. Gambling ads are required to have a vague "please gamble responsibly" statement, but ads for CFD trading platforms are required to have a prominent warning stating the exact percentage of their accounts which lose money (often >75%). The gambling ads don't have to tell you the real odds of coming out ahead. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM_zuudkSnY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KM_zuudkSnY
- stego-tech 2y agoI think a fair and reasonable advertisement policy is to ban all advertisements during "children's programming hours", or 0800 to 1600 when school is not in session. During "Prime Time" hours of 0500-0800 and 1600-2300, adverts should be limited to luxury goods (e.g., fashion), government PSAs, and non-addictive goods or services (NO drugs, NO tobacco, NO gambling, and NO stock trading, to name but a few). Between 2300 and 0400, allow "free reign" on subscription channels but still bar "vice" or addiction ads. We've got a century of data showing laissez-faire approaches to advertising results in maximum harm to a society, and ample recent data from the internet age showing how dark patterns in psychology are exploited by advertisers to drive outcomes. We have to do better, and the UK's step is at least an attempt to stem the harm. I can't fault entities from at least trying to do better.
- 2y ago
- Winblows11 2y agoWhat about adverts on YouTube and TikTok and other online platforms? I doubt kids/teenagers watch much TV at all these days.
- xxs 2y ago"This government is taking action now to end the targeting of junk food ads at kids, across both TV and online.", it's a quote from the article, it's very likely they'd ban ads targeted at children.
- chgs 2y agoI expect a lot of pushback from the new u.s administration about any online regulations.
- xxs 2y agoThe regulation would apply to the UK. UK brands and goods sold in the UK, by established/registered companies the UK. Not possible to sell any retail goods of the sorts w/o a registration in the UK, so stopping them advertising won't be hard. I don't think US administration would be able to do anything, much like GDPR.
- chgs 2y agoTarrifs and other threats
- spacebanana7 2y agoWhat about Mr Beast video sponsored by McDonalds (for the sake of specificity, a new McMuffin available in every country on earth)? > I don't think US administration would be able to do anything, much like GDPR. We live in a different world to the mid-late 2010s. For better or worse, I'm fairly confident Musk and Zuckerberg will have input on US trade policy on these issues.
- 2y ago
- Pet_Ant 2y agoWell I didn't understand how -besides the cereals maybe- are unhealthy > Breakfast cereals including ready-to-eat cereals, granola, muesli, porridge oats and other oat-based cereals. until I re-read and saw this: > But the new restrictions will not apply to healthier options such as natural porridge oats and unsweetened yoghurt. So I think it's not clear in the first sentence but "ready-to-eat" is meant to apply to all the items in the list and not just the cereals.
- deskr 2y agoIt's very strange they say porridge oats are banned, then go on saying "natural porridge oats" are not. In my mind porridge oats are natural and you don't have to say that. If you have something else you need to say so.
- dmart 2y agoI’m assuming they mean stuff like Quaker oatmeal packets which are half sugar.
- jay_kyburz 2y agoMy kids love natural porridge, however there is a constant battle about how much honey they are allowed to drown them in. :)
- chrisjj 2y agoI am amazed honey is not on this list of "junk" foods.
- datavirtue 2y agoIt's on mine. Refined sugar with water, pure and simple. It doesn't get a pass.
- Dylan16807 2y agoAre any other toppings on the list? If it's just standalone foods I'm not surprised.
- dageshi 2y agoGood thing they made this move once daytime tv was basically irrelevant to anyone under 40 or it might've had some impact.
- gwerbret 2y agoDirect quote from the article which I'm sure you read: "This government is taking action now to end the targeting of junk food ads at kids, across both TV and online."
- kjkjadksj 2y agoBecause when kids go on the internet they always end up in regulated age appropriate areas.
- genewitch 2y agothis is silly, though. If the kids are in "adult" areas then they're still not going to see ads for lucky charms because lucky charms isn't marketed for adults. and the several posts "an it harm none do what thou wilt" on this topic are silly too. My breath takes oxygen out of the atmosphere. Me drinking a glass of water takes that water out of the ground (or stream, or lake), making you unable to drink it. Every footstep changes the terrain. It sounds good in text form "as long as they're not harming anyone but themselves" but what about smoking? assume someone lives alone so they're not second-handing anyone else, they're still a burden on the system. there's still poison being sprayed on tobacco crops, diesel being burned to harvest and transport, plastics being used to manufacture the cigarettes, and so on. There's external costs to literally everything except living in a log cabin made from local logs in the middle of a forest and only foraging and hunting for food. And even then i am sure i could argue that has unbalanced negative externalities. If you're going to attempt to make a point, make sure it makes sense from more than one angle, first.
- tomp 2y agoWow, what's wrong with burgers? I mean, certainly you can get bad meat, and maybe it's easier to conceal in a burger than in a steak, but ... how about literally all other processed meat that is invariably processed more than burgers? Salami, sausages, hot dogs, ... I personally love burger, and consider it one of the finest foods. Fortunately, there's a very easy way to know the quality of a burger - if they ask you, how well you want it done, it's high quality! Shitty burger places like McDonalds and Burger King don't want to risk selling you a medium-done burger... Funny enough, UK is one of the better places for high-quality burger, much better than e.g. Switzerland or Slovenia! My favourite in London is (was? 2019) Honest Burger...
- Karellen 2y ago> Also on the banned list are products such as chickpea or lentil-based crisps, seaweed-based snacks and Bombay mix as well as energy drinks, hamburgers and chicken nuggets. The foods mentioned in the article are not an exhaustive list of all the foods for which the government has banned advertising. It's possible they've also banned ads for salami, sausages and hot dogs, but the article didn't mention it. Probably because, compared to burgers, there aren't that many ads for salami, sausages and hot-dogs during daytime TV, so it's not seen as much of a problem, or as worth mentioning. But because you mention it - how many daytime ads do you see for high quality burgers, like Honest Burger, as compared to ads for McDonalds and Burger King?
- cma 2y agoMcDonald's burgers are 100% beef. What's the problem? If the bun and other parts of the burger are ultra processed, whatever that means, well, that's the same for their chicken sandwiches, right? If the problem is the salt or seasonings, why not ban ads for salty burgers over a threshold or burgers with the specific problematic seasonings?
- nradov 2y agoSalt is not particularly a problem unless someone has a genetic predisposition to hypertension or doesn't drink enough water.
- ApolloFortyNine 2y agoI could see supporting with this, but it does seem like an abuse of the 'for the children' argument for this. Children pretty much have to eat what you give them until they get a job. Also some chicken nuggets are bad, but some average a gram of protein per 10 calories, which is a pretty good ratio, and especially for frozen food. Can't help but think this is too broad.
- bobthepanda 2y agomore so in the past, there was a lot more food advertising directed at kids, because the thought was that kids could annoy their parents enough to drag the whole family to an establishment. and some marketing tricks work a lot better on children because of their social settings and general impulsiveness (e.g. "All the cool kids have Lunchables")
- chgs 2y agoThe milky bar kid is strong and tough The red car and the blue car had a race Turn the milk chocolatey Keep hunger locked up tip lunch I have tried to avoid adverts for 20 years, but the adverts of my childhood (not just ones aimed at kids - autoglass repair and replace, safe style do buy one get one free, dfs sale ends Sunday, ronseal quick drying wood stain does exactly what it says on the tin) The brainwashing is sickening.
- WWLink 2y agoHEAD ON! APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD!!!!!
- laurieg 2y agoI still remember phone numbers from radio ads I heard as a kid. I don't have any phone number memorized apart from my own
- robertlagrant 2y agoAll red wants to do is stuff his face! Overeating bad, according to that ad. Other than Milky Ways.
- ojagodzinski 2y agocool but nobody watches TV this days.
- anticorporate 2y agoI mean, that's objectively disproved by the advertising industry who is profiting from these ads. Maybe you and I aren't, but lots of people are.
- Eumenes 2y agothis is exactly the type of policy you'd expect from a governing body that is completely out of touch with the working class. I can imagine the cambridge, UCL, and oxford graduates patting eachother on the back after the meeting, congratulating themselves on solving childhood obesity.
- userbinator 2y agoIt's what you'd expect of a country that's rapidly diving into Orwellian dystopia.
- hermitcrab 2y agoDo you actually live in the UK or is this based on Musk tweets?
- Argonaut998 2y agoNTA but I went to London for new years two years ago and it was worse than Musk’s tweets. “See it. Say it. Sort it” Ugh
- hermitcrab 2y agoI live in the UK. It is far from perfect and the laws restricting the right to peaceful protest (enacted by the last government) had a very unwelcome authoritarian edge. But I don't see it "rapidly diving into Orwellian dystopia". Also London, is very different to the rest of the UK, in many ways. >“See it. Say it. Sort it” You know that the UK has a long history of terrorists placing bombs on public transport?
- pixxel 2y ago> I live in the UK Do you live in all of the UK?
- userbinator 2y ago
- jsyang00 2y agoYes, it's the ads. After all, we know how economical and fast it is for people to access healthy meals. I look forward to the speedy eradication of all obesity problems
- anotheracc88 2y agoThe perfect. Enemy of the good.
- jackjeff 2y agoIf only I ever watched ads on live TV I would have noticed…
- amelius 2y agoCan we have one or several months without ads of any kind? Perhaps then we can appreciate a world without ads more. It might also reduce the environmental burden of overconsumption.
- petesergeant 2y agoMove to the UK and only watch the BBC, and yes
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- b800h 2y agoThat's not ad-free. You have to put up with ads for a load of BBC programmes which will almost inevitably contain a slew of progressive messaging.
- tonyedgecombe 2y agoThe BBC is ad free in the UK.
- aembleton 2y agoPlenty of guests on shows promoting a new film or book. We still have billboards advertising stuff.
- dylan604 2y ago
- jasonlfunk 2y agoI just hope that the US can ban ads for pharmaceuticals.
- zabzonk 2y agoI hear crumpets are also frowned on - my favourite breakfast food!
- steviedotboston 2y agowhat about sausage rolls and meal deals?
- paulpauper 2y agofuture headline: A UK man was found dead in his flat after his TV broke. apparently he had starved to death after not being reminded of the existence of food by the ads.
- cryptozeus 2y agoGood that they are trying but “ …aired after the 9:00 pm” running ads after 9 pm is even worst. If you need to consume sugar you might as well do it in day time.
- xxs 2y agoIt's about kids, ads targeted at kids (according to the article)
- wrboyce 2y agoA lot of the regulations around what is and isn’t allowed on TV in the UK change at 2100, we call it the “watershed” which is regulated by OfCom (the communications ombudsman). https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-standards/what-is-the-watershed/ https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/broadcast-st...
- contingencies 2y agoThe significant background that the UK just delivered a House of Lords enquiry in to the food system[0] which recommended a "complete ban" on junk food advertising and that the government ban junk food vendors from regulatory feedback. You can bet the consumer packaged goods (CPG) AKA 'junk food industry' - the likes of Mondelez, etc. - are actively resisting these changes with all manner of false reports, shoddy advertising doublespeak and back-channel arrangements. Given this background, the ban is relatively light touch. Expect further developments. [0] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5901/ldselect/ldmfdo/19/19.pdf https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5901/ldselect/ldmfdo...
- blackeyeblitzar 2y agoWhat about alcohol? Or other carb heavy or sugar heavy products? Why these?
- seabass-labrax 2y agoAs referenced by beejiu elsewhere on this thread[1], it applies to all foods products based on their nutritional content; there are no exemptions. Alcohol, however, does appear not to be covered by these new rules, but there are existing restrictions about advertising alcohol - [2] is one document on the topic, although I can't immediately tell if it's out of date. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42360734 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42360734 [2]: https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/d3683dc1-189e-413c-86d91dfb62dd818b.pdf https://www.asa.org.uk/static/uploaded/d3683dc1-189e-413c-86...
- rsynnott 2y agoAdvertising alcohol to children is, of course, already illegal.
- JSDevOps 2y agoThis will make zero difference these days.
- phyzix5761 2y agoHelp me understand. The UK government basically said that parents are not responsible enough to make dietary decisions for their children so the government needs to step in and do it for them? Does that not seem like an overreach? Its not like 4 year olds are driving to McDonald's by themselves and ordering burgers. The parents are the ones being targeted here.
- Argonaut998 2y agoThe UK is so far gone with government overreach at this point. They don’t seem to mind.
- widdershins 2y agoI'm not sure what you're getting at. They banned certain advertisments at a particular time of day. They didn't ban parents from giving their children whatever thet want to give them.
- forinti 2y agoThey're not prohibiting anyone from feeding these things to their children. A lot of people will continue to do so. The government would have to spend a lot of money on counter-campaigns to keep the public well informed and it probably wouldn't have the desired effect on children. Finally, and this is a very important point for me, children cannot enter into business deals/contracts; commercials are business proposals; hence there should be no ads targeting children.
- majormajor 2y agoIt's more "we don't want corporations selling unhealthy junk to have direct access to influence super-impressional kids" - cause guess what, in that case? You can be a perfectly responsible parent dietary-decision-wise, but have your kids whine and complain constantly because the kids aren't informed about the problems of it and just want the tasty shit they saw all the ads for. Would you allow salespeople into your home to pitch your kids on stuff all day if they were in-person instead of on a screen? Why not complain about the overreach of irresponsible companies trying to convince kids who have no way of knowing better to start damaging their long-term health?
- pessimizer 2y ago[flagged]
- narrator 2y agoIs there a name for an ideology that says all social and economic problems can be solved through mass psychology? You could call it psychohistory perhaps, but there's got to be a newer term. Seems like it's the dominant ideology of a variety of technocrats. Yes there are psychological aspects to governance but more and more it's becoming the only solution to all problems. Obesity is skyrocketing? It's the psychology. People don't like unlimited immigration? Get out the mass psychology. People perceive that inflation is out of control. Get out the mass psychology. Market is down. Employ mass psychology. People don't give a crap about a war that they have no stake in. Mass psychology. I guess propaganda works and it's very cheap, lol.
- Waterluvian 2y agoI think it’s traditionally called advertising.
- nonrandomstring 2y agoPublic Relations - Edward Bernays [0] Propaganda - Edward Bernays in 1928 [1] Public opinion - Walter Lippmann 1947 [2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Relations_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Relations_(book) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_(book) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion_(book)
- ausbah 2y agosomething involving ppl following whatever the political or media firestorm of the moment is, and most ppl more likely to just follow whatever the party line is?
- ajb 2y agoThe recent fashionable term is "nudge theory"
- switch007 2y agoSee also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_Insights_Team https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_Insights_Team as an implementation
- quotemstr 2y agoWhat's TV? Some kind of primitive multicast YouTube? Anything TV related is irrelevant nowadays
- democritas 2y agowish we wouldn't keep demonizing fat though, if you decrease one form of energy intake (sugar) you have to increase another form of energy intake, no problem with this being fat, as long as it's naturally occurring in the environment and thus among our adaptations.
- aembleton 2y ago> if you decrease one form of energy intake (sugar) you have to increase another form of energy intake We have an obesity problem in the UK. We need to reduce overall calorific intake.
- jamesu 2y agoOne thing I noticed is during UK Daytime TV is there are a comical amount of funeral and life insurance ads, it's incredibly depressing.
- eterm 2y agoThat's the demographics of who watches daytime TV. Also note that advertising of prescription pharmaceuticals is already banned, which would likely be another large advertiser were that not the case.
- genewitch 2y agoin the US the marketing of pharma isn't targeting the average consumer, it's targeting doctors. or so i've heard. It does boggle, though, because that's a lot (a lot) of money in any given market to reach less than 0.1% of the market, assuming they're even watching the channel at that time. In the same vein, and as further evidence, whenever i'm in a car that isn't mine and an ad plays, especially on siriusXM, there's a good chance it's for ziprecruiter or linkedin job listings or something. How many hiring managers (or small business owners?) are listening to that ad? 25? 100? 1? Most of my online ads are for $100,000+ network gear and the like because i'm adjacent to that industry. I just loaded edge and went to youtube to see what's up and i got an ad for an electric car (i won't own one manufactured in this century), an ad for an adblocker (pie), and i guess google caught on because i can't get any other ads to show up (i clicked a couple dozen other videos and couldn't get another pre-roll to show up). advertising has never been relevant to me, i've only ever gotten out a credit card because of one online ad, ever, and i ended up never receiving what i paid for, so there you go, lesson learned. I haven't owned a TV since 2003, no subscription services (including CATV or Sat, netflix, etc). So when i see ads or hear them, they stand out, pretty strong.
- tonyedgecombe 2y agoPlus adverts for stair lifts and laxatives showing the healthiest looking old people you have ever seen.
- ch0wn 2y agoA good move but it's still mad to me that we're banning junk food ads while fossil fuel ads are still allowed which are creating damage many orders of magnitudes greater than a muffin ever could.
- emrah 2y agoSo UK doesn't have freedom of speech any more? If the products are bad for people/kids/etc, why not ban the products instead of just the ads?
- Retric 2y agoUK never had freedom of speech the way we think of it in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_Kingd... I highlighted the explicit loophole here: “Article 10 – Freedom of expression Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
- rfrey 2y agoIs it legal in the US to directly market cigarettes to children? Why not?
- Retric 2y agoAn interesting wrinkle in the cigarettes example is it’s illegal sell them to kids. So advertising to kids is actively trying to conduct an illegal transaction.
- NicuCalcea 2y agoAs far as I know, the US bans all tobacco advertising on TV. And obviously adults can still smoke.
- Funes- 2y agoWhat about no ads, at all? Have you ever thought of that? Just stop and consider the ramifications of such a ban. Most junk on TV and the Internet would not exist once people were forced to pay directly for consuming (eugh) it. YouTube would go back to what it was almost twenty years ago, for one. Imagine a Google with no ad-ridden, SEO-tweaked, LLM-generated sites in the results, not a single mainstream media outlet to be seen... one can only dream. Now, for junk food (the actual subject of this thread), I wager its sales would be severely diminished, or heavily diversified between other, less successful brands, at least.
- magwa101 2y ago[dead]
- tim333 2y agoGlad they got that through - the argument's been going on for ages. Here's a 2006 "Total ban for junk food ads around kids' shows" article https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/nov/17/health.food https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/nov/17/health.food But I don't think they did sugary breakfast cereals because Kelloggs et al made a fuss.
- robertlagrant 2y agoGiven so many kids watch the state-funded CBeebies, which doesn't need ads, or YouTube or Netflix, which presumably this won't cover, this is probably just another chance for TV companies to stop broadcasting kids' content at all.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- veunes 2y agoYep, the government is challenging the normalization of sugar-laden diets... But I can't help wondering if it’s addressing the symptom rather than the root cause