Disney to ban junk food ads

[SurferStitch]

Wow!!!

I've never seen people complain about something so benign as I do on this board! My goodness!!

Why slam Disney for doing this?? Does it really affect you that much personally? Will it make you stop watching the Disney Channel? Really.... How does this impact you?

I see no harm in what they're doing. Will it help? Possibly.

Will it hurt ANYONE? Highly, highly doubt it.

If this is such a small, insignificant, worthless thing Disney is doing, and nobody here buys ANY of the junk anyway, then it stands to reason nobody will miss the commercials, either..... right?

Just sayin'.

[Goofster]

I'm glad Disney is doing something about it, but at the same time it doesn't really solve anything. Childhood obesity is the result of parents allowing their children to eat excessively high amounts of calories either in the form of snacks, deserts, etc. Eliminating a commerical for Twinkie's is not going to make any dent in the problem. it seems shallow, I guess.

[Aurora]

Children don't run up to their parents and say, "Mommy, can you please buy this for me? I saw it on a commercial!" Advertising is way more insidious than that. Research has shown that children as young as age 2 express signs of brand loyalty. I don't see anything wrong with Disney trying to boost its image with this announcement.

But here's the rub: What does "meet the company's nutrition standards" mean? Does that mean cereals with boatloads of sugar will still be advertised because they're also loaded with vitamins? It will interesting to see what these "standards" turn out to be.

[JRocker]

business decision
pr move
exhibiting responsibility
showing leadership

All of the above.

Putting the blame on the parents shoulders is all well and good (and justified), but it takes a village to raise a child, and the village has been just as irresponsible as the parent.

You see it on trucks and buildings all the time:

"Not Responsible"

I've even seen it within this thread...

[RBrooksC]

Ok, It does NOT take a village to raise a child. It doesn't take the governement or corporate entity to raise my child either.

It is a dog and pony show that most people are too lazy to recognize.

There is too much of a "wow" factor and NO critical thinking about the deeper implications of any of this.

The LAST thing ANYBODY should want is somebody else telling you how to run your life or how to raise your children.

While what Disney is doing maybe innoculous in itself but that doesn't mean it is a slippery slope that we should NEVER want traverse.

However, again, there are going people who are going to echo the "Please, won't somebody PLEASE think of the children???"

[SurferStitch]

Disney isn't telling ANYONE they have to do ANYTHING. You still have your freedom to decide what to eat.

They aren't telling you to never eat any junk food. They simply won't advertise those things during children's programming. It's their choice to do so, just as it's your choice to feed your kids whatever you want.

And, if you never feed junk food to your kids, then this shouldn't impact you.

And for those who feel this is a joke, and Disney isn't doing enough.... What are they really supposed to do? Go to every manufacturer of junk food and tell them to shut their doors? Really.... what?

Should Disney get rid of everything in their parks that's bad for us? No more Mickey ice cream, or Dole Whips, or French or Italian food, or beer, or just about anything on the menu at Chef Mickey's? Kiss the Food and Wine Festival goodbye. So long Wishes Dessert Party. Want fries with that soy based tofu burger? Tough, can't have 'em.

You can't use the foods offered in WDW as any argument against Disney's stand on junk food ads and consumption. They have to offer normal food, and that means offering the good and the bad, and you decide how much of it you consume. Nobody is forcing that hot fudge sundae down your throat when you could get fresh fruit at the cart nearby.

It's ultimately up to us to decide what to eat. Disney can't, and won't solve the poor eating habits of many Americans. It's not their responsibility to do so.

So, relax. This last move by Disney isn't going to hurt anyone. I don't think they're trying some new-fangled Vulcan mind trick on all of us. It'll be okay.

For those who want to see the guidElines, here they are.... GUIDELINES

[Ian]

I totally disagree that Disney should be let off the hook for the obvious hypocrisy in this decision. You can't reap massive profits peddling your own junk food to tourists on one hand and then try to take the high road on the other hand.

In general, though, I agree ... this is a business decision for Disney. They obviously think the good PR from this will generate more revenue for them in the long run than whatever they were getting from the junk food ads.

[Mousemates]

You can't use the foods offered in WDW as any argument against Disney's stand on junk food ads and consumption.

oh, but I can and do...it is the height of corporate hypocrisy to actually sell what you rather self-righteously refuse to advertise.

[BrerGnat]

oh, but I can and do...it is the height of corporate hypocrisy to actually sell what you rather self-righteously refuse to advertise.

This is the key point that us "complainers" are trying to point out.

It is certainly justifiable to call Disney out on their hypocrisy here. How can you say you have healthy guidelines for food that you are exposing kids to, but then have an entire CANDY store full of packaging plastered with the name Disney and a massive variety of your characters on the packaging? Don't tell me that the giant princess lollipops and Goofy sour sugar are supposed to be for adults? This is just the tip of the iceberg too. This stuff is not just available at the parks. You can find Disney "junk" food all over the supermarket. I'm sorry, but slapping Mater on the cartons of Juicy Juice and trying to call it "healthy" because it's "100% apple juice" is ludicrous. Kids don't need to be drinking apple juice. NO ONE needs to drink apple juice. Apple Juice is not "healthy".

I am all for Disney pushing more natural/whole foods like fresh fruits and veggies, as well as whole grains. Nothing wrong with that. Offering a variety is what it's all about. Giving consumers a choice is essential.

However, claiming that you're going to ban ads for foods you consider to be "junk" because it doesn't meet the company's healthy guidelines is baseless if the company continues to sell the junk elsewhere.

[Goofster]

but slapping Mater on the cartons of Juicy Juice and trying to call it "healthy" because it's "100% apple juice" is ludicrous. Kids don't need to be drinking apple juice. NO ONE needs to drink apple juice. Apple Juice is not "healthy".

Couldn't agree more. It doesn't make sense for Disney to say, 'we'll advertise Mater juice with 180 calories a serving, but we won't advertise a snack-sized bag of Cheeto's with the same amount of calories or even slightly less because that's 'junk food'.' It's just dumb and doesn't do anything to fix the problem.

[Disney Doll]

I see it less as hypocrisy and more of a calculated assessment of what the consumer will tolerate. If they did away with all junk in the parks how much of an outrage would that cause? America is in the midst of a health crisis because of the foods we eat. Something has to change, but forcing a drastic change isn't going to work. A ban on foods isn't the answer until we can change the way we think about those foods. It really isn't as simple as eating less ice cream and chips. There are lots of mixed messages when it comes to what is considered healthy and many, many people are misinformed. A lot of that misinformation comes from advertising. Disney's choice to better regulate the kinds of advertising they allow during their children's programming is a step in the right direction.

If you somehow feel that the lack of junk food commercials is an infringement on your God given American right to raise your kids without interference then by all means sit your kid in front of any number of television networks that do allow junk food advertising and you can retain your freedoms.

[DVCJohn]

First of all let me qualify the fact that I love Disney. That said, This is just another "Politically Correct" PR move done by a big company. If anyone thinks that there is not a way for Disney to make money from this, I have a few "DAMP" acres next to WDW for sale. Have the people of this country forgotten the phrase "Personal Responsibility"??? It should not be up to Disney or a Government entity (Do you understand Mikey Bloomberg) to determine what anyone eats or drinks. People need to control what their kids eat and also learn to push away from the table. Even if portion sizes have increased at fast food or any restaurant, no one is putting a gun to anyone's head to finish it. Before I get off my Soapbox let me say I am personally tired of Big Business and Big Brother sticking their noses where they don't belong. RANT ENDED.

[Mousemates]

Disney Doll -America is in the midst of a health crisis because of the foods we eat.

I'm not sure I would call this (fast food) a health crisis (seems to be a bit of hyperbole to me), but if it is a crisis it isn't an eating crisis its an exercise crisis...too many folks don't get up and move...when I am in exercise mode I can pretty much eat what I want when I want and my weight, blood sugar, cholesterol numbers, etc all stay in the "good ranges."

Something has to change, but forcing a drastic change isn't going to work. A ban on foods isn't the answer until we can change the way we think about those foods.

Wow...a ban on food is NEVER the answer in the USA. No one has the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot eat, how much of it they can eat. The whole nanny state thing is just going to far.

It really isn't as simple as eating less ice cream and chips. There are lots of mixed messages when it comes to what is considered healthy and many, many people are misinformed. A lot of that misinformation comes from advertising

No, a,lot of the time it is as simple as eating less sugary high carb foods....for most of the time weight reduction is simple math...don't consume more calories than you burn.

And contrary to what some may think, my anecdotal observation is that you cannot educate away bad food decisions. The vast majority of people I encounter know when they are overindulging or not eating a well balanced diet. They simply choose to do it anyway... either out of convenience, lack of self-discipline or because they simply like the taste of the other stuff better.

If you somehow feel that the lack of junk food commercials is an infringement on your God given American right to raise your kids without interference then by all means sit your kid in front of any number of television networks that do allow junk food advertising and you can retain your freedoms.

I actually really do consider it my right as an American to raise my children (both of whom are physically active and in good shape) without interference.

And by the way I personally could care less how many Frosted Flakes, Sugar Pops, Count Chocula, Coca-Cola and McDonald's French Fries commercials are (or are not) on the air.
I grew up watching a steady diet of these things during scooby do and bug bunny and didn't start putting on the weight until my metabolism slowed in my 40's. Then I had to cut back and start being conscious about exercise.

My (perhaps naive and to many I suppose antiquated) understanding of freedom of speech though is that one aspect of it is that the people who sell these products have the right to advertise them, whether the food nannies like it or not. If Disney chooses to advertise I'm fine with that, if they (and everyone esle) choose not to that is okay too.

My only beef with them is that if they are going to get on their soap-box and say "we won't advertise for these evil foods, " but actually sell them themselves, it smacks of corporate hypocrisy.

[Disney Doll]

I'm not sure I would call this (fast food) a health crisis (seems to be a bit of hyperbole to me), but if it is a crisis it isn't an eating crisis its an exercise crisis...too many folks don't get up and move...when I am in exercise mode I can pretty much eat what I want when I want and my weight, blood sugar, cholesterol numbers, etc all stay in the "good ranges."

You might not call it a crisis, but there are a lot of experts out there who would disagree.

Wow...a ban on food is NEVER the answer in the USA. No one has the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot eat, how much of it they can eat. The whole nanny state thing is just going to far.

Right, so since this isn't a actual ban on foods why the outrage over one company's advertising decision? Big brother isn't stopping you from doing anything. I'm not sure why people are getting so worked up about this. The passion seems somehow misplaced.

No, a,lot of the time it is as simple as eating less sugary high carb foods....for most of the time weight reduction is simple math...don't consume more calories than you burn.

You are wrong there. In a vacuum a calorie is a calorie, but inside the human body calories are not created equal.

And contrary to what some may think, my anecdotal observation is that you cannot educate away bad food decisions. The vast majority of people I encounter know when they are overindulging or not eating a well balanced diet. They simply choose to do it anyway... either out of convenience, lack of self-discipline or because they simply like the taste of the other stuff better.

Again, an anecdotal observation is not worth much to me. I'll still go with the expert research on this.

I actually really do consider it my right as an American to raise my children (both of whom are physically active and in good shape) without interference.

Yeah, but my point was, how does Disney's lack of advertising take that away from you?

And by the way I personally could care less how many Frosted Flakes, Sugar Pops, Count Chocula, Coca-Cola and McDonald's French Fries commercials are (or are not) on the air.
I grew up watching a steady diet of these things during scooby do and bug bunny and didn't start putting on the weight until my metabolism slowed in my 40's. Then I had to cut back and start being conscious about exercise.

So since you don't care Disney's decision shouldn't really even matter.

My (perhaps naive and to many I suppose antiquated) understanding of freedom of speech though is that one aspect of it is that the people who sell these products have the right to advertise them, whether the food nannies like it or not. If Disney chooses to advertise I'm fine with that, if they (and everyone esle) choose not to that is okay too.

Advertising to children has always been an ethical grey area. Children lack the cognitive development needed to recognize that ads are meant to make things sound better than they are. Commercial speech is not protected under the 1st amendment so regulation is not a violation of free speech.

My only beef with them is that if they are going to get on their soap-box and say "we won't advertise for these evil foods, " but actually sell them themselves, it smacks of corporate hypocrisy.

I think you are reading way too far into this. When did Disney imply that these foods are evil? And don't forget that Disney has taken steps in recent years to provide more healthy options in the park which I really appreciate. You yourself say that banning foods is never the answer so what do you want Disney to do here?

[SurferStitch]

Disney Doll... Thank you. Your logic and reasoning are in tune with how I feel as well.

[Mousemates]

Disney Doll, While I probably should take the time to more fully respond to your queries, this particular issue actually doesn't quite reach the passion level for me that it does for others...so I think I will simply say I remain unmoved by your arguments and refrain from putting everyone through another point by point refutation, which would likely be followed by another from the opposing side.

However, i will point two things...number while there was a time that the courts ruled commercial speech as being largely unprotected, a series of decisions from the 1970's forward has deemed that commercial speech in many case is indeed protected speech under the first amendment... and that the government cannot arbirtrarily step in and say what can and can not be advertised. this was done largely in response to nanny-mindset municipalites that overreached their authority. (If anyone has interest in this regard you can google something like "Is commercial speech protected" or more directly "The Central Hudson Test.")

Other than that my biggest issue with the questioned post was the line--(the bold text was added by me to identify what was to me a key word)

A ban on foods isn't the answer until we can change the way we think about those foods.

That statement strongly suggest you are in favor of banning certain foods in the future....of actually having a governmental agency telling the American citizenry that they are not smart enough, educated enough, nutritionally sophisticated enough to decide what they can or cannot eat.

I will close by saying that in the free market of ideas if you (and the many who share your viewpoint about nutrition) can actually convince people to change the way they think about food, then banning foods will not be necessary. They will simply stop purchasing them...which in a free economy is the way it should work. But remember if they can't be convinced, it might actually mean your arguments were not as compelling as you might have first believed.

By the way, I'm not opposed to any attempts to put good information into the hands of consumers (and when they are minors in the hands of their parents)...but words like "ban" do quickly garner my attention.

Finally, what do I suggest Disney do? Very simply, be consistent. If they really think a product is a key contributor to genuine health crisis, why on earth would they continue to sell it.

[Stu29573]

Well, I'm going to step in it here, so get those flame throwers ready, folks!

Ok, when I get past all of the chatter one thing strikes me: this is a publicity stunt. Its a "First Lady Photo Op" that benefits both parties to a certain degree. Notice that the ban doesn't take effect until years down the road. My prediction is that when that deadline gets here, nothing will change. Everybody (or almost everybody) will have forgotten about it, and it will be business as usual. Cynical? Perhaps, but I have a lot of years under my belt that prove cynicism is often correct- especially if big business or the government are involved.

[dnickels]

However, i will point two things...number while there was a time that the courts ruled commercial speech as being largely unprotected, a series of decisions from the 1970's forward has deemed that commercial speech in many case is indeed protected speech under the first amendment... and that the government cannot arbirtrarily step in and say what can and can not be advertised....

Red herring. No government involvement here at all.

This isn't nearly as big of an issue as we're making it out to be, however for some people the process will go like this
-Complain that Disney is being hypocritical
-However if Disney banned junk foods in the parks they would also complain
-In addition if Disney allowed ANY advertising such as say, cigarettes during morning cartoons, the same people would complain that Disney is selling out to the highest bidder and how dare they show that to my children.
-Rinse, repeat, complain some more.

In short, some people will complain about Disney no matter what they do.

[Mickey'sGirl]

I wonder what kind of reaction there was when advertising cigarettes during children's programming was eliminated. Far as I know, cigarettes can still be purchased just about anywhere.

[Goofster]

Red herring. No government involvement here at all.

-Complain that Disney is being hypocritical

It is hypocritical. If they are going to ban commercials for foods that have more than 2.5 grams of sugar in them (i.e., Fruit Loops), but then turn around and put Nemo or Mater on a Juicy Juice box with 20 plus grams of sugar...its hypocritical. And for me, comes across as shallow.

Is it a great PR move? Yes. Is it going to make a difference? Nope.