About banning ads for “certain types of porridge”:
> …the majority of porridge, muesli and granola products will not be affected by the advertising restrictions but some less healthy versions (with added sugar, chocolate, syrup) could be affected.
> Sometimes products may be marketed as, or perceived by consumers to be, healthy but in fact contain surprisingly high levels of saturated fat, salt or sugar.
Pure fruit juice is insanely unhealthy. This is because it circumvents the normal mechanisms that regulate fruit intake, while containing even more sugar.
If you press orange juice yourself, and see the mountain of fruits that are needed for just a liter of the stuff, it becomes quite obvious why drinking fruit juice regularly is not a good idea.
Pure fruit juice is not good for you. It has a super high concentration of sugar. The benefits of fruit are primarily the fiber contents, which is completely missing in juice.
This is comparing cola to oranges; like others said, fruit juices are generally not recommended in amounts greater than 150ml per day according to UK’s healthy eating guidelines.
> Pure fruit or vegetable juices and smoothies should be limited to a combined total of 150ml a day. This is because crushing fruit and vegetables releases the sugars they contain to produce free sugars. Free sugars also include the sugars added to food or drinks, and sugars found naturally in honey and syrups. These free sugars are linked to excess weight and tooth decay.
I know you think this is a gotcha but you're seriously advocating for the banning of advertisements of certain kinds of food? Based on the fact that what, some people aren't smart enough to read an ingredient label?
It is already quite popular to regulate ads about certain edible substances. Nicotine, alcohol and drugs are some examples. Looks like certain ratios of sugar, sodium and saturated fats will qualify too, at least in the UK.
It's not really an "argument" at all. Although it is proof that government policy around advertising bans (like all policy) is not for the good of society, but for the good of the government and their owners.
It’s worth noting that the UK provides free healthcare via the NHS. A healthier nation is in everyone’s interests, as it reduces the long-term costs of treating preventable ailments and diseases caused by poor diet.
Nations without universal healthcare are presumably less likely to concern themselves with the health of their citizens.
Yes. I'm radically anti-advertising so literally any ad whatsoever being removed is a net positive to me. But regardless:
Ads and marketing that paint extremely unhealthy foods as healthy are deceptive, to put it simple. I'm against deception, because then you're not making rational choices. Be that greenwashing, or predatory loans with misleading terms in big letters and hidden small print. I think this is not a bad principle to have.
Btw: we already made laws so that packs of tobacco went from having a cool cowboy on a horse to a picture of diseased gums on plain packaging. I think most people agree that has been a net positive.
No, it’s based on the fact kids are watching the adverts. This isn’t the US, advertising isn’t a free for all and hasn’t been for a long time. It’s not particularly controversial.
> …the majority of porridge, muesli and granola products will not be affected by the advertising restrictions but some less healthy versions (with added sugar, chocolate, syrup) could be affected.
> Sometimes products may be marketed as, or perceived by consumers to be, healthy but in fact contain surprisingly high levels of saturated fat, salt or sugar.
Source: https://healthmedia.blog.gov.uk/2024/12/06/here-are-the-fact...
More details; the pdf in the last link has examples on how scoring (computing NPM score) is done for particular products: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/restricting-adver... , https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nutrient-prof...