No Ciggaretts, No Booze, No R Rated Films

[soundman]

Activists urge war on snacks

By Anjira Assavanonda

The National Economic and Social Advisory Council (nesac) yesterday called for prompt government measures to control snack and junk food advertisements in the interests of children's health.

The council made the statement during a seminar it organised to follow up on the government's work in tackling junk food problems.

The cabinet on April 3 ordered agencies to regulate children's snacks in terms of nutrition, labels, sales outlets in schools and product advertisements.

Prawit Leesathapornwongsa, chairman of the consumer protection working group, said there had been no progress in controlling junk food ads.

According to Dr Prawit, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is working to improve the nutritional value of snacks.

It is also wants manufacturers to be required to add warning labels to the packaging, while the Education Ministry has banned the sale of snacks considered junk food in all state-run schools.

The Public Health Department also wants to promote alternative snacks that are healthier for children.

"However, in the area of commercial adverts, we have seen no action at all, as if there was no host agency tackling the issue," said Dr Prawit.

In its recommendations to the cabinet, the council insisted junk food ads should be banned from children's television programmes. The producers of the ads should also stop using child actors or popular cartoon characters to endorse unhealthy snacks.

It said the ads should contain a message warning against eating the snacks more than twice a day.

Dr Prawit said the cabinet should not lose any more time in taking action.

Assoc Prof Vithaya Kulsomboon, manager of the Consumer Protection Project at Chulalongkorn University, cited a study which says two-thirds of TV ads are devoted to junk food. On average, there are 42 ad spots in one TV programme lasting a combined 15-20 minutes.

The most frequent snack commercials advertise potato chips, followed by candy, chewing gum and jelly.

What is the country be-coming?

Edited July 6, 2007 by soundman

[kmart]

I wonder when everyone will be issued with a little red book?

Having said that, there are some seriously fat Thai kids wobbling around the malls these days.

Unfortunately, the parents of these kids might think that children choking on their own neck fat look lovely and prosperous. Its that tricky education thingie again....

[bkkmadness]

I think it's great, people eat too much junk food in this world. Full marks to a government that doesn't let its kids don't have to be bombarded with junk food commercials all the time, might give them a chance for a healthier life. Look what happens in America, obesity is out of control and the population is suffering for it.

Edited July 6, 2007 by bkkmadness

[Mid]

Singapore is starting to look like fun city .

[Who, me ?]

good intention, but hopefully the way to "protect" kids health will not lead to something more ....disturbing

[soundman]

I think the issue here is not whether the kids eat too much junk food. I'm sure we would all agree that in many cases they do. Going to the supermarket & watching people buying a trolley full of chips, chocolates & two minute noodles is a familiar sight.

I think the issue here is small pressure groups with tremendous influence over certain ministers in the govternment being able to put a blanket ban on anything that is considered to be slightly not in synq with their master plan for a pure soceity.

Soundman.

[jbowman1993]

Glad to see the conspiracy theorists are never too far away. Even for an issue as obviously subversive as this one..........

[bkkmadness]

good intention, but hopefully the way to "protect" kids health will not lead to something more ....disturbing

Can you expand on that....?

[bkkmadness]

The National Economic and Social Advisory Council (nesac) yesterday called for prompt government measures to control snack and junk food advertisements in the interests of children's health.

The cabinet on April 3 ordered agencies to regulate children's snacks in terms of nutrition, labels, sales outlets in schools and product advertisements.

According to Dr Prawit, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is working to improve the nutritional value of snacks.

It is also wants manufacturers to be required to add warning labels to the packaging, while the Education Ministry has banned the sale of snacks considered junk food in all state-run schools.

The Public Health Department also wants to promote alternative snacks that are healthier for children.

In its recommendations to the cabinet, the council insisted junk food ads should be banned from children's television programmes. The producers of the ads should also stop using child actors or popular cartoon characters to endorse unhealthy snacks.

It said the ads should contain a message warning against eating the snacks more than twice a day.

How can anyone say the above points are not good for the country and it's kids? Should have been done years ago across the world.

Assoc Prof Vithaya Kulsomboon, manager of the Consumer Protection Project at Chulalongkorn University, cited a study which says two-thirds of TV ads are devoted to junk food. On average, there are 42 ad spots in one TV programme lasting a combined 15-20 minutes.

The most frequent snack commercials advertise potato chips, followed by candy, chewing gum and jelly.

Selling unhealthy food to children is big business, I'm happy for anyone that wants to slow down the trade a little.

[Scott]

The difficulty with the decision making process here is that once again it hits at certain freedoms. In this case, advertising. They did the same thing with alcohol and tobacco. Food, however, is a staple and probably should be handled differently.

First of all, people need to be educated about healthy eating and you don't see that in this country. Secondly, places like schools need to educated and control what is readily available to children and this isn't exactly a control issue but it is an educational issue in schools.

Third, manufacturers need to be ENCOURAGED to make snack food as healthful as possible. Not using transfats and other ingredients known to be unhealthful.

Finally, parents need to understand that snack foods are a treat and not the main part of the diet. Until that happens, not much else matters.

[blizzard]

i dont see many fat thai kids wobbling around the malls.

[bkkmadness]

The difficulty with the decision making process here is that once again it hits at certain freedoms. In this case, advertising.

Anytime a law is put into place a freedom is taken, can't stop making laws because of that reason we'd have anarchy.

[Jockstar]

i dont see many fat thai kids wobbling around the malls.

Look harder! There are more and more fat Thais nowadays. When i used to teach Thai kids. I'd ask them what their favourite food was. Most would answer pizza. Also the kids could be seen stuffing crisps , chocolate and soft drinks down their guts at lunch time. Its a big problem with the young kids. I think its a great idea to try and tackle this.

[chinthee]

Singapore is starting to look like fun city .

Suddenly, the ban on chewing gum looks moderate. What's next, all farangs have to wear long pants and long sleeves?

[Mid]

The difficulty with the decision making process here is that once again it hits at certain freedoms. In this case, advertising.

Anytime a law is put into place a freedom is taken, can't stop making laws because of that reason we'd have anarchy.

then again an educated population wouldn't need these laws ,

the objective is excellent ,

the methodology saddening .

[farang prince]

Singapore is starting to look like fun city .

Suddenly, the ban on chewing gum looks moderate. What's next, all farangs have to wear long pants and long sleeves?

Well, Chinthee, it certainly would beautify Thailand if that were to happen.

[bkkmadness]

The difficulty with the decision making process here is that once again it hits at certain freedoms. In this case, advertising.

Anytime a law is put into place a freedom is taken, can't stop making laws because of that reason we'd have anarchy.

then again an educated population wouldn't need these laws

Why not? The reason I say that is because the junk food industry aims at children, nice easy targets and certainly not responsible enough to choose their own diet.

I was reading another post the other day about a guy who didn't want to have his kid eating those chinese made junk snacks that were found to be dangerous. But what can the guy do, the kid brings them back from the school canteen everyday?

It'd be easier for the guy to feed his kid correctly if he wasn't battling a school selling these products to his kids, that's where the laws come in.

And look at MacDonalds, brainwashing the kids with there food promotion , it makes 'good diet' education is an uphill struggle because the junk food sellers have huge advertising budgets to tell the kids their version of a 'good diet'.

It'd be easier to educate kids on healthy diets if you didn't have so much competition telling them otherwise, again that's where the laws come in.

[Mid]

Why not? The reason I say that is because the junk food industry aims at children, nice easy targets and certainly not responsible enough to choose their own diet

as with a multitude of other responsibilities that are passed off to governments ,

this responsibility belongs with the parents .

[bendix]

The difficulty with the decision making process here is that once again it hits at certain freedoms. In this case, advertising.

Anytime a law is put into place a freedom is taken, can't stop making laws because of that reason we'd have anarchy.

then again an educated population wouldn't need these laws ,

Would you define the US as an educated population? Perhaps the lawmakers are getting in early and trying to prevent Thailand turning into an obese nation with the resultant health issues.

Prevention is better than cure, and what is being proposed seems far from draconian. Sounds like common sense to me.

[Mid]

EDITORIAL

Enacting laws willy-nilly?

How quickly we seem to forget. Under the administration of Thaksin Shinawatra, it took four or five years before we began to really question whether the ends justified the means. The reason was that for a long while we liked what was happening. Even though the Thaksin administration's efforts came at the expense of the basic democratic ideals and political and social morals that we, as a nation, had built for ourselves with the 1997 ''People's Constitution'', we did not object.

The Post Publishing Public Co

[chinthee]

Enacting laws willy-nilly?

It does seem to be a race to push through as many nonsense silly laws as possible under the interim government. However, the theme of the laws seems to be consistent as under Thaksin's administration.

Control the populace as though they are infants. Do the thinking for them because they are not able to think for themselves. A cultural thing?

[bkkmadness]

Why not? The reason I say that is because the junk food industry aims at children, nice easy targets and certainly not responsible enough to choose their own diet

as with a multitude of other responsibilities that are passed off to governments ,

this responsibility belongs with the parents .

Can parents stop junk food advertisers? Yes they can, but they have to go through the government first to make laws to get it done, which is precisely what they are doing.

You come from an odd society where responsibilities are not in part handed to governments for the benefit of the people.

[Mid]

Can parents stop junk food advertisers?

wrong question .

[bkkmadness]

Enacting laws willy-nilly?

It does seem to be a race to push through as many nonsense silly laws as possible under the interim government.

Can you explain which one of the laws that are trying to push though is silly nonsense?

[bkkmadness]

Can parents stop junk food advertisers?

wrong question .

And the right question is....?

[ThaiPauly]

I have to say that this is one of the Government;s GOOD ideas.

I see fat Thai kids a lot these days, children that don't have fat parents......the snacks they buy now were not around 30 years ago. Some parents have not got the guts to stand up to heir kids so they become obese at an early age.

McDonalds....they are terible. They say that they are trying to overcome the problem of selling fast food by introducing healthy options like salads. How many people have you ever seen in McDonalds ordering salad? It's just a case of them wanting to con the population into thinking they are doing their bit. If Maccy Dee's stopped selling Burgers and just sold salads how long before they went out of business ?

[Mid]

how do parents protect their children from big business ,

education .

[bkkmadness]

how do parents protect their children from big business ,

education .

So with that in mind you would advocate cigarette advertisements in schools?

Would you also advocate tobacco companies paying a children's cartoon company to make some of the most popular cartoon characters smoke cigarettes?

You'd have no problem with these things as the parents should be educating them differently?

You can't even consider the problem in the future that might go like this:

Parents: 'dont smoke its bad for you'

Kid 'but doremon smokes 40 a day and says he enjoys it'

Parents ' doremon is wrong, the big tobacco companies are using him to sell dangerous drugs to you'

Kid 'mum, I've 4 years old, I don't know what you are talking about'

ok, tongue in cheek example but you can see the point?

Edited July 6, 2007 by bkkmadness

[Mid]

So with that in mind you would advocate cigarette advertisements in schools?

nope , nor alcohol or porn .........your point is very weak .

personal responsibility is an alien concept here obviously .

[bkkmadness]

My point is weak?

My point is that parental responsibility is combined with government laws to help a society. Your point is that tobacco companies should be allowed to advertise in schools even if parents deem it irresponsible for them to do so.

The real point which has totally gone over your head is that it's parental responsibility that is the reason these laws are being changed.