Disney to Ban Junk Food Ads on Their Kids Channels

/ Comments (20)

Disney says its programming will no longer be sponsored by junk food. The Walt Disney Co. said Tuesday that it will become the first major media company to ban such ads for its TV channels, radio stations and websites intended for children. That means kids watching Saturday morning children's shows on Disney's ABC network will no longer see ads for fast foods and sugary cereals that don't meet company's nutrition standards. The guidelines won't go into effect until 2015 because of existing advertising agreements.

Are they acting like Big Brother? Or is it a good idea? We can see arguments on both sides. What's your take?

Comments

Just one more step in the wrong direction to a nanny nation. Let's just turn over all our personal responsibility to someone else.

America has forfeited their rights of personal responsibility by be being personally responsible for becoming the obese country in the world. Ignoring the fact that they have let their kids and themselves get fat and I'm paying for it with hight insurance rates. Kids need a nanny because left unsupervised they may hurt themselves. Well American you have hurt yourself and worse yet you've hurt your kids, I guess you you need a nanny.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/obesity_in_children_and_...
The problem of childhood obesity in the United States has grown considerably in recent years. Between 16 and 33 percent of children and adolescents are obese. Obesity is among the easiest medical conditions to recognize but most difficult to treat. Unhealthy weight gain due to poor diet and lack of exercise is responsible for over 300,000 deaths each year. The annual cost to society for obesity is estimated at nearly $100 billion. Overweight children are much more likely to become overweight adults unless they adopt and maintain healthier patterns of eating and exercise.

Big brother is a totalitarian overgrown government concept, so Disney doesn't qualify since they are a private corporation, so I have no issue with them doing this. Now if the government starts to dictate what we can and can not eat then I have a problem with that. Although I guess it could be argued that corporate giants such as Disney may "influence" totalitarian agents to be emboldened by public consent.

Speaking of big brother:
http://civileats.com/2012/06/04/big-apple-takes-on-big-gulp/

Although I believe that soda is detrimental to a healthy lifestyle, NYC has no right to mandate legislation on what New Yorkers drink.

"Kids need a nanny because left unsupervised they may hurt themselves. "

My point exactly. They shouldn't be left unsupervised. It's not the cereal companies at fault here. It's the unaccountable parent who buys it for them.

I don't want my kid to eat crap, so I don't put crap in the pantry. I don't need Disney to help monitor my kid's intake.

NYC bans the Big Gulp. Disney bans sugary cereals and fast food. All ion the name of helping those who won't help themselves. What's next? A ban on video games because they promote lethargy? A ban on texting because it encourages anti-social behavior? A ban on skateboarding because of its inherent physical risk?

It's a slippery slope, really. Somewhere here parents need to step in and parent.

If only they could all just loose weight and be Disney! All of everyones problems solved right there in a nutshell!

And yet they continue to shill junk food to the oversized masses at their theme parks. We've gone down to Disneyworld each of the last few years and it seems their patrons get bigger and bigger each year. I joke that that's where the writers of Wall-E found their inspiration. Yet the sad fact of the matter is that you see more and more fat-asses riding around on their rental hoverounds than you do the legitimately physically handicapped. Pretty soon they're going to need to install a scooter lane (with reinforced tarmac-grade concrete).

Banning advertising won't have an effect. Raising their health insurance rates, now that might.

Dont you think it is important to point out that a company banning products they view as unacceptable is very different than a politician banning something they view unacceptable? Disney provides a service/culture and they can choose what to provide. Management reserves all right.

WHAT? Now what is the little fat kid from "Up" going to eat? He's going to grow up to be Jared from Subway. NOOOOOOO

All and single entities are companies out for self interest and survival whether ethical? Period. Shit, Shinanigans, & ETHICS? Why I thought everyone was over going for this niave bs...? Guess not. Can't even shut up about it! All complainers with no spine, guts, or glory...!

The issue isn't parents that care, these kids are safe. But what about the kids who's parents don't care. Go into King Soopers and watch these poor overweight kids being dragged aisle by aisle as their parent load the carts with frozen pizza and 2 liter bottles of coke. Who protects these kids? Do we just step back and let the corporations produce crappy food that makes them fat and unhealthy?

The government bans other unhealthy things. They create safety standars for airplanes, cars, traffic, buildings. One could argue let them build shitty unsafe cars. Parents won't buy them and let their kids ride in them.

Why let one part of business create things that are unsafe and then make others have strict safety standards?

GUIDELINES: and your on your own judgement. Good luck with that, it isn't anything new. Take it like a man you sissy!

Maybe Disney did this because fat kids can't fit on the rides. No need to buy tickets if Jimmie is too fat to ride and he can't walk a whole day. Guess the family will have to skip vacation.

It's definitely because the fat is holding them down; that is why they are not tall enough yet to ride all the rides! That's definitely what's holding them back. I'm sure of it, and all parties agree, we separated the studies and compared results!

I think that's awesome, and totally unexpected from a corporation of Disney's size/influence. I only wish it were going into effect sooner.

As for the idea that "it's the parent's fault" if they break down from the incessant whining that the ad motivated the kid to throw at the parent in the first place... FUCK THAT.
That is an irresponsible person's cliche cop-out attitude they use to justify doing wrong in the world.

This is a step in the right direction, it's going to HELP KIDS.

CONSTANT: family situations are a constant that ties us altogether with some understanding, and that we constantly deal with behind the 'happening' scenes or even in them or on the side. I don't see the argument of having to justify or explain. It is not necessary.

I do think that it is a Disney quality of ethics to be concerned with childrens health, and it does more good, and is a good benefit without all the hated rebellions from the people who choose different sources of entertainment style to consume and/or be affiliated in some fashion with?

I believe that Disney is taking a step in the right direction. Unhealthy food advertising needs to be limited and controlled. These foods are bad for your health. When cigarette ads were starting to be limited I bet there were people out there that were complaining about it also saying that it was the parents responsibility to stop their kids from smoking.
In the long run that move was good for society and in about 10 or 15 years we will be glad this happened also.

What about the toys being taken outta happy meals...?

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Link = <a href="http://url.com">This is your text</a>
  • Image = <img src="http://imageurl.jpg" />
  • Bold = <strong>Your Text</strong>
  • Italic = <em>Your Text</em>
Rocket Fuel