Another push for plain packaging – for food

October 9th, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Stuff reports:

If the Government is serious about reversing the obesity epidemic, it must introduce tough new rules on the packaging of children’s treats, Consumer NZ says.

The consumer advocacy group is calling for the control of marketing gimmicks on food packaging – particularly cartoon characters, free toys and on-packet puzzles targeting children.

Consumer chief executive Sue Chetwin said under-13s were particularly susceptible to tricks of the advertising trade. With a person’s lifelong food preferences formed at an early age, if companies rope them in young, they’ll likely be hooked for life, the watchdog’s report says.

American researchers have found children preferred the taste of McDonald’s-branded food over that in , even though both were identical – and the same effect was seen with cartoon characters like Dora the Explorer.

Chetwin said licensing kids’ characters from companies like Disney was costly, and companies would not invest the cash unless they knew it would pay off.

Of course, but do you ban marketing just because it is effective?

New World currently has a evil genius promotion where you can buy a toy cupboard store for your kids if you shop there, and then every time you shop there so much spending gets you a toy item for the toy store.

I’ve had reports from mums that their kids are now demanding they only shop at New World, so they can get extra products for their toy stores. They love being able to play shop. They face full scale tantrums should they now shop anywhere but New World. Some marketing executive has earned a very large bonus.

But who is losing out here? It’s Countdown. Families are not generally doing extra grocery shopping to get the toys. They are choosing New World over their competitors.

Do we want a country where the Government approves marketing schemes. I don’t. You can push for measures like plain packaging, and then instead they’ll do promotions like toy stories. So what next? Require a Government agency to approve all promotions for all businesses? It’s a nasty slippery slope.

Consumer was asking the Government to set out a framework specifying what marketing techniques could and could not be used on children’s food packaging.

Health Minister Tony Ryall said the Government had no plans to introduce such regulation.

Good.

Food and Grocery Council head Katherine Rich said many food and beverage companies already regulated themselves, including Mars and Coca-Cola.

But she doubted government regulation would earn public support.

“Do they really want plain-packaged chocolate: no Cookie Bear, Milky Bar Kid or Freddo Frog? Obesity is clearly an issue but banning all childhood fun is not the answer.”

The fun police!

Tags:

77 Responses to “Another push for plain packaging – for food”

  1. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    I’m just really surprised that pre-teens are evidently doing their own grocery shopping. I remember when I was ages 0 – 13 my mother did the grocery shopping. She used to buy Weetbix instead of Cocoa Puffs and, if I nagged her as a 6 year old she probably ignored me. Because this was the bad old days of the early 1990s, if I made a scene in the supermarket because I wanted something bad for me, she probably would have smacked me. Thankfully, we now live in more enlightened times where such rank abuse is criminalised.

    Weird that it never occured to me as a pre-teen that I could have simply forced my parents to buy me unhealthy food.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. shoreboy57 (137 comments) says:

    Chetwin has become the mouthpiece of serial troughers Boyd Swindburn & Otago Uni

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. adamsmith1922 (890 comments) says:

    Why has Chetwin become the mouthpiece for all these lobby groups? A number of which appear to be anti business and ultimately if they succeed anti-consumer as there will be no choice and we will need to queue for our approved food and drink.

    Why is Consumer NZ so resolutely anti-consumer?

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Jack5 (4,917 comments) says:

    Secular puritans strike again.

    Just as the Christian puritans and the Islamic fundamentalists like monochrome – black or white or only both in their clothing – the health and green fanatics want no colour on our food packaging.

    Let’s get a religious revival going! Better zealots on street corners with signs reading, “Repent! The End is Nigh!” than all these busybodies trying to make our choices and decisions for us in food, in transport, and trying to make our lives bland.

    Sadly, the Consumers’ group has joined the secular crusade. It used to be a source to find which home appliance brand would fail first. Now it’s on the green band wagon. Banning cartoon figures and free toys on food kids like? For fuck’s sake! Next it will want to ban McDonalds from giving little kids cheap toys and trinkets and make it close its little playgrounds. And Santa Claus – will he have to go from department stores?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. nickb (3,675 comments) says:

    Wait – didn’t National introduce plan packaging for tobacco?

    What is the difference?

    Fat fucks kill themselves with food at a probably greater rate then smokers kill themselves with lung cancer. Look at the obesity and diabetes epidemics.

    And that is putting aside alcohol which probably causes more societal damage than both combined.

    Seems like there is a lot of inconsistency

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. JeffW (324 comments) says:

    It seems to me that the only reason obesity is an issue for society rather than the individual and family, is because we have a public health system. If we moved to an insurance system, with the premiums being paid by government up to an appropriate level, with premiums above the standard being to the account of the individual, we may see less smoking and less obesity.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Harriet (4,622 comments) says:

    This compliance takes away the power of us being greatly useful in a free society.

    The useful idiots will support it though.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Yoza (1,680 comments) says:

    Of course, but do you ban marketing just because it is effective?

    Corporations preying on children is as about as low as it can get.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    nickb – you are right insofar as each marginal case will make the next one more palatable. In my opinion this is the biggest blind spot for “establishment” figures on the right. If you can’t articulate a limiting principle, then you shouldn’t accept changes regardless of where their ultimate logic leads you. Not to rehash gay marriage again, but this was one of the most overlooked points of discussion on that matter.

    It’s just where we are at the moment that there’s a ratchet effect for social change and control. You can hold off change, and occassionally win rearguard actions, but you can’t reverse the direction.

    In the end, I think the petty tyrants like Chetwin will win out.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Dazzaman (1,132 comments) says:

    The real question here is, What idiot parent would be blackmailed by their sprogs to shop at the expensive New World in order to purchase bloody toys?!!

    The lunacy of some people……

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. George Patton (351 comments) says:

    Hugely surprised that a Consumer organisation is opposed to labelling and branding of products. That sounds ANTI-consumer to me…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Rick Rowling (823 comments) says:

    ATTENTION NEW ZEALANDERS!

    You are TOO STUPID to make your own informed decisions.

    You are TOO STUPID to avoid being controlled by marketers.

    FEAR NOT, we, the socialist elite will protect you from your stupidity.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Perhaps Consumer NZ feels that better information for consumers would basically be short messages like ‘this product is full of salt, fat and sugar that you probably don’t need’

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Yoza (1,680 comments) says:

    New World currently has a evil genius promotion where you can buy a toy cupboard store for your kids if you shop there…

    There is a huge difference between grocery stores running general promotions and corporations packaging toxic by-products masquerading as food in wrappings designed to appeal to society’s youngest and most vulnerable.
    This is a form of institutionalised child abuse, children are being manipulated by marketing professionals to adopt a behaviour which has been scientifically proven to have a seriously damaging affect on their health.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. transmogrifier (522 comments) says:

    Absolutely, monumentally, head-shakingly ridiculous. What the hell is happening to people’s critical reasoning?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Redbaiter (8,039 comments) says:

    More Cuban stuff.

    NZers, a country that once valued independence and individualism now ready to vote themselves into totalitarian communism.

    Whenever will we be free of this repellent big government syndrome?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Yoza,

    You mean some parents don’t want to do the hard work of parenting by telling their children they can’t have something they want? Chetwin said it herself – food preferences are set early. That means parents can very easily keep their children from developing a taste for junk food by simply denying it to them when they are young, have no money and no means of transportation.

    So who’s the abuser? The company for wanting to sell a product that, used in moderation, won’t do you lasting harm. Or the parents who give in the demands of an 8 year old?

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Alan Wilkinson (1,850 comments) says:

    Relax Yoza, it’s been scientifically proven that marketing only harms children who are so thick they would otherwise have grown up to be socialists and/or bureaucrats.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Cato
    Perhaps that parental responsibility can be supported better by the rest of the community through packaging guidelines. After all, we don’t give parents a choice about many other things relating to keeping their children healthy and safe (water fluoridation, car seat restraints, not leaving them alone, etc, etc).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Yoza (1,680 comments) says:

    So who’s the abuser? The company for wanting to sell a product that, used in moderation, won’t do you lasting harm. Or the parents who give in the demands of an 8 year old?

    The answer is obvious, the corporations that spend billions manipulating children with sophisticated marketing campaigns. Parents have a hard enough time raising children without having to worry about them being brainwashed into demanding garbage by unscrupulous ‘professionals’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Yoza (1,680 comments) says:

    Not surprising to see so many Kiwibloggers supporting corporate child abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. James Stephenson (2,096 comments) says:

    Oh do fuck off Yoza. When I grew up confectionary companies used to advertise kids’ sweets on TV, and I’m damn sure that my kids’ sugar intake is absolutely no different from mine.

    Trebor ‘Double Agents’: http://www.double-agents.co.uk/Double%20Agent%20TV%20commerical.htm

    You want to ban something? Ban “educational” computer games and stupid Japanese cartoons

    You want to ban something? Ban “educational” computer games and stupid Japanese cartoons.

    What’s different in this generation, is that my go-to entertainments were a football, a bike and a skateboard and I went round to my mate’s house to ask his mum if he was “playing out” rather than picking up some social-media’d device.

    At the end of this summer, 10, 11 and 12 year old kids will start their football season with fitness training. Fucking fitness training, for 12 year olds! Fitness used to be something that just happened to kids that age.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Alan Wilkinson (1,850 comments) says:

    “Parents have a hard enough time raising children without having to worry about them being brainwashed into demanding garbage by unscrupulous ‘professionals’.”

    Obviously you are talking about the public health, environmentalist and socialist nutters that infest our taxpayer funded institutions.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. James Stephenson (2,096 comments) says:

    Made a bollocks of that editing :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Jack5 (4,917 comments) says:

    Oppose Yoza (see hist 12.52) and you are “supporting corporate child abuse”.

    What vile rubbish you spout, Yoza. Next you will be calling Santa Claus a paedophile.

    Fuck of back to your kennel at the Standard, Yoza.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Rick Rowling (823 comments) says:

    Yoza’s buzzwords and phrases are out in force

    “society’s youngest and most vulnerable”, “institutionalised child abuse”, “corporate child abuse”, “spend billions manipulating children”

    All this because some yoghurt has a picture of Dora the Explorer on it (and today’s parents are obviously too vulnerable, victimised and stupid to choose a healthy alternative).

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Rick Rowling (823 comments) says:

    Yoza: “Parents have a hard enough time raising children without having to worry about them being brainwashed into socialist ideology by unscrupulous ‘teachers’.”

    FTFY

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Yoza, mikenmild – can I tell you something that might shock you?

    If my 4 year old tells me he wants a milky bar today, it’s not a big hassle to say “no” – and that’s really the end of it. It doesn’t significantly add to the burden of parenthood. At least, it doesn’t in the same way that the criminalisation of mild corrective smacking does. I am a grown man. He is a child.

    We don’t need ‘community support’ in favour of tighter legal regulation of what colours and pictures private individuals can and can’t display on their products which I am not forced to purchase and which young children do not have the wherewithal to purchase. So thanks for your support, but it’s not needed.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    A loud and clear Fuck off! to all petty tyrants, do-gooders and control-freaks of Consumer NZ.
    I expect Mrs Chetwin to run as a Green Party candidate any time, any day.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Cato
    That doesn’t shock me. I am sure you are capable of parenting a 4-year-old. It is a shame that not all parent are as capable, but you are possibly only concerned with your own family requirements.
    BTW are you Cato the Elder or Cato the Younger?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    “Carthago delenda est.”

    Actually, I am opposed, down to my very bones, to the idea that ordinary people aren’t capable of parenting their children without the firm legislative of guidance of people such as Yoza.

    I am also hostile, albeit at a lesser degree, to the state using its coercive powers to try to modify the behaviour of its own citizens. Sometimes, I grant, this is necessary but only sparingly so – when the public interest is so compelling and the limiting principle so clearly articulated that the intervention is warranted.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. KevinH (1,160 comments) says:

    We already have plain packaged goods available now, i.e. No Frills, Budget and Homebrand, therefore that choice is available to consumers now. These products are popular with shoppers, and these products also include processed brand name foods in plain packaging.
    There is little need to take Sue Chetwin’s idea further because it’s already taken care of, besides we are not in North Korea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    The consumer advocacy group is calling for the control of marketing gimmicks on food packaging – particularly cartoon characters, free toys and on-packet puzzles targeting children.

    Must childhood be devoid of any fun because fatties can’t control themselves and their parents will not intervene?

    Consumer chief executive Sue Chetwin said under-13s were particularly susceptible to tricks of the advertising trade.

    I want my children to be “tricked”. I want them to be excited by a cartoon character. I want them to feel that there is something special when they get a treat. Otherwise may as well just hand them the sugar jar and a spoon.

    With a person’s lifelong food preferences formed at an early age…

    I ate a very limited list of things when I was a child. Today I eat most things. My experience is that ones tastes change as you age. I don’t really eat many sweet things but as a kid I used to get a bag of lollies at the supermarket and promptly dine on them until I felt sick.

    American researchers have found children preferred the taste of McDonald’s-branded food over that in plain packaging, even though both were identical – and the same effect was seen with cartoon characters like Dora the Explorer.

    Of course they like the McDonalds brand and Dora the Explorer better. They’re telling you what they like. They aren’t abstracting purely about taste. They are evaluating the whole experience. Branding is a better experience. Is it a crime to have a fun experience as a child? Must it be taken from them? Heartless bastards.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Concerned (41 comments) says:

    God help us should such people gain control.

    Can anyone tell me how Consumer NZ is funded?

    .

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    The older, vengeful Cato then.
    It’s nice to argue consistently from principles. I can only imagine, therefore, that you are resolutely opposed to state regulation of anything parents could conceivably do for themselves.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Consumer NZ is funded primarily though membership subscriptions.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    mikenmild (7,572) Says:
    October 9th, 2013 at 12:50 pm

    Cato
    Perhaps that parental responsibility can be supported better by the rest of the community through packaging guidelines. After all, we don’t give parents a choice about many other things relating to keeping their children healthy and safe (water fluoridation, car seat restraints, not leaving them alone, etc, etc).

    Packaging is not unhealthy and unsafe. The PARENTS are. You do not support parental responsibility by targeting scapegoats.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Yoza (788) Says:
    October 9th, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    Parents have a hard enough time raising children without having to worry about them being brainwashed into demanding garbage by unscrupulous ‘professionals’.

    So give in every now and then. You’re not saving your children by enforcing some ridiculously strict diet. They are children. Where our bodies fall apart theirs can handle almost anything as long as parents exercise some balance. The unhealthy ones are where no balance is employed. Little physical activity. A bag of chips after school while they watch TV. Takeaways every other night.

    Giving children treats isn’t unhealthy. It’s called a treat for a reason. If you have it all the time then it isn’t a treat!

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Yoza’s fellow socialists knew how to keep the people nice and thin.

    State retribution for tiny thefts, such as stealing a potato, even by a child, would include being tied up and thrown into a pond; parents were forced to bury their children alive or were doused in excrement and urine, others were set alight, or had a nose or ear cut off. One record shows how a man was branded with hot metal. People were forced to work naked in the middle of winter; 80 per cent of all the villagers in one region of a quarter of a million Chinese were banned from the official canteen because they were too old or ill to be effective workers, so were deliberately starved to death.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/maos-great-leap-forward-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Camryn (551 comments) says:

    San Francisco, a leader in this kind of nonsense, banned the practice of incorporating a free toy with a fast food meal (e.g. McDonald’s Happy Meals) a year or two ago. McDonald’s promptly started to sell toys for 5c with any purchase of a Happy Meal. McDs also did not change the price so ended up pocketing a larger margin all round – either 5c more if you buy the toy or the cost of the toy if you don’t. You’d think the interfering ninnies would learn when almost every one of their stupid interventions ends up doing either nothing or something contrary to what they intended… in this case, adding to McD’s bottom line.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. burt (8,042 comments) says:

    If the Government is serious about reversing the obesity epidemic, it must introduce tough new rules on the packaging of children’s treats, Consumer NZ says.

    IF the Government was serious about the obesity “epidemic” then ACC levies would be increased for fat people !!!!! We have a monopoly state control device – we should use it in accordance with the command and control socialist mentality that put it in place or disband it !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. swan (659 comments) says:

    “There is a huge difference between grocery stores running general promotions and corporations packaging toxic by-products masquerading as food in wrappings designed to appeal to society’s youngest and most vulnerable.”

    Yoza,

    Dont worry that doesnt actually happen in the real world.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. RRM (9,668 comments) says:

    I agree with the observation that a lot of really really shit products are clearly designed and packaged in a way that is intended to maximise their appeal to small children.

    But for FUCK’S SAKE, anyone listening to all of this would think parents were helpless victims in the whole business of going shopping for groceries with kids, instead of the ones with the cash in their pockets and, hence, the control… :neutral:

    Stuff kids want presents a wonderful opportunity to any parent. Call it bribery if you like.
    RRM is willing to occasionally reward good behaviour with sugary treats. When they grow up they are going to have to learn to do what they’re told, when they’re told if they want their employers to *bribe* them with cash.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. burt (8,042 comments) says:

    Can cars be plain packaged as well please – it’s not fair that some people have nice cars and some don’t – Come on Nanny National – behave like Labour and sort this out for us please.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    burt
    I think the Soviet bloc tried that with cars and got poor results (Ladas and Trabants, for example).

    I do however think there is a distinction to be drawn between mandating types of products that are available and providing clearer information for consumers.

    Perhaps this call from Sue Chetwin is really more about marketing Consumer NZ through raising a controversial subject.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    @mikenmild. I wrote what I wrote.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Sam Buchanan (502 comments) says:

    “Do they really want plain-packaged chocolate: no Cookie Bear, Milky Bar Kid or Freddo Frog? Obesity is clearly an issue but banning all childhood fun is not the answer.”

    Personally I don’t think the packaging is the problem, but I wonder at the mentality of people who claim that the only fun things in their childhood were marketing gimmicks. We don’t have to all pretend that corporate advertising is really some sort of happy clappy entertainment for little kiddies.

    “NZers, a country that once valued independence and individualism now ready to vote themselves into totalitarian communism.”

    Red, you are excelling yourself lately! And you are right – it’s either the ‘individualism’ of buying Cookie Bear-emblazoned chocolate chip bikkies or a meagre slice of totalitarian black bread in the gulags. No other choice is possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. burt (8,042 comments) says:

    mikenmild

    burt
    I think the Soviet bloc tried that with cars and got poor results (Ladas and Trabants, for example).

    This is a very important first step from you. This shows an acknowledgement that some socialist policies are complete failures. Now over time start to look at other socialist policies and notice that on balance the entire ideology is sick and fails every time it’s tried. Good luck on your journey…. These first steps are significant and show promise for free and independent thought which as we know is completely at odds with socialism.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. All_on_Red (1,489 comments) says:

    The EU Govt just voted against plain packaging and it looks like Oz is going to end up in Court over their ban.

    “An important matter, on which the Parliament voted, was an amendment to introduce a requirement for ‘plain packaging’ for tobacco products. To date, only Australia has introduced such a requirement; their law is now subject to challenge before the World Trade Organization, by five countries (Ukraine, Honduras, Cuba, Dominican Republic, and Indonesia). The amendment was today rejected. This rejection is greatly to be welcomed. ‘Plain packaging’ requirements would be a very serious invasion of intellectual property rights, in this instance trade marks. Tobacco products remain legal products, and such requirements would have the effect of prohibiting companies from using valuable trade marks, for which protection has been legally obtained, and on which customers rely when making purchases. Registered trade marks, and the goodwill established by their use over many years, are undoubtedly property rights, and thus entitled to protection under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (Art 17) and the European Convention on Human Rights(First Protocol, Art 1). The rejection of this amendment by the European Parliament should be heeded by governments, such as the Irish and UK Governments, and the Scottish Parliament, which are or have been considering the introduction of plain packaging requirements for tobacco products.”

    http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/breaking-news-european-parliament-says.html

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Sam Buchanan (452) Says:
    October 9th, 2013 at 2:07 pm

    Personally I don’t think the packaging is the problem, but I wonder at the mentality of people who claim that the only fun things in their childhood were marketing gimmicks. We don’t have to all pretend that corporate advertising is really some sort of happy clappy entertainment for little kiddies.

    But it’s not just a marketing gimmick or advertising to children. Dora, or whoever, is a real personality for them. Only the adult sees it in such shallow terms as a “marketing gimmick”. That is one of the sad things about being an adult is that you become unable to appreciate such simple things. As a kid you play matchbox cars and build little cities out of VHS cases and your parents books. As an adult you drive a real car in a real city and it couldn’t be more boring!

    Cheap toys and marketing gimmicks aren’t the only fun things for a child, but why must they give it up?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    burt
    Thank you for patronising me. Is there anything else I can do to win your approval?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Yoza (1,680 comments) says:

    Weihana 1:26 pm

    Yoza (788) Says:
    October 9th, 2013 at 12:51 pm

    Parents have a hard enough time raising children without having to worry about them being brainwashed into demanding garbage by unscrupulous ‘professionals’.

    So give in every now and then. You’re not saving your children by enforcing some ridiculously strict diet. They are children. Where our bodies fall apart theirs can handle almost anything as long as parents exercise some balance.

    I have three daughters, the oldest eleven the youngest eight, and they are not on any kind of Spartan dietary regime – they eat as much shit as most kids (my oldest daughter is off watching the One Direction movie with one of her mates and my middle daughter is gone off to watch Smurfs 2 with one of her friends and they both have as much money to spend on as much junk food as they can afford after paying for their tickets).

    The thing that really pisses me off is the sinister nature of the advertising industry and the way they intentionally go after the very youngest children with sophisticated, narrowly targeted, marketing campaigns. These children do not understand they are being manipulated and this manipulation is setting them up for future marketing campaigns targeting them in more sophisticated ways as the way they understand the world grows in complexity.

    The right are prone to whining about social engineering campaigns being orchestrated by imaginary socialists, but when private interests spend billions on ubiquitous social engineering programs through Public Relations, Advertising and Communications agencies we don’t hear a peep. As guardians of those who will grow to inherit our places on this planet the onus is on us to protect our children from the insidious hostility of self indulgent corporate agendas. Taking a stand against corporate propaganda campaigns is just one of the more obvious fronts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Nigel Kearney (922 comments) says:

    Yoza, I’m sorry that evil corporations have made your kids obese. My two girls eat McDonalds every week (though they prefer fish and chips despite the plain packaging) and have somehow remained slim. I wish there was some secret I could share with you, but unfortunately it’s a total mystery how these things happen to some people and not others. I hear there is an epidemic so maybe try not letting them be around fat people too much.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Yoza (789) Says:
    October 9th, 2013 at 3:34 pm

    …setting them up for future marketing campaigns targeting them in more sophisticated ways as the way they understand the world grows in complexity.

    I think you explain your position well, but I guess I’m just not bothered by such concerns. I see such increased complexity and life-hurdles as something that makes people more intelligent and more adaptable. Sure they’ll be taken advantage of for a while. This is why they have parents isn’t it? But people adapt to the world around them. I just don’t see the risks as being that high and I think its incumbent upon individuals to cope with the normal challenges in life which includes people trying to manipulate you.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    There is an obesity epidemic (accompanied by diabetes and other conditions) but your children will probably only suffer financially by being forced to pick up the bill for others’ poor choices of diet and lifestyle.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. OneTrack (2,837 comments) says:

    Burt – “Can cars be plain packaged as well please – it’s not fair that some people have nice cars and some don’t – Come on Nanny National – behave like Labour and sort this out for us please.”

    Don’t worry, Labour and the Greens will be along in 2014 and they will do their best to make sure we are all equal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Basically, Yoza is railing against the existence of the concept of ‘marketing’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. OneTrack (2,837 comments) says:

    Basically, Yoza is railing against big American companies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Mikenmild – just to be clear, there is no obesity ‘epidemic.’ The word epidemic implies some malady foisted “on the people” and which is externally imposed on individuals. Being overweight isn’t a disease – though it can be the result of a disease and (more commonly) poor choices and poorly developed self-control.

    There is an obesity problem, I’ll grant, which is the logical result of a society which holds instant, personal gratification to be the highest ideal.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    I won’t quibble about whether is is an epidemic in epistemological terms; let’s just say obesity is a growing (!) problem that will impose significant costs on others apart from on those who become obese.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    mikenmild (7,585) Says:
    October 9th, 2013 at 4:10 pm

    There is an obesity epidemic (accompanied by diabetes and other conditions) but your children will probably only suffer financially by being forced to pick up the bill for others’ poor choices of diet and lifestyle.

    I don’t think marketing regulations are going to change that. Someone can eat greasy fish and chips every night with no marketing gimmicks and achieve the same outcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Weihana
    I tend to agree, but I wouldn’t dismiss some action on packaging completely. Food companies tend to get round these sorts of restrictions fairly easily (99% FAT FREE!!!) but clearer labelling might help.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    mikenmild (7,588) Says:
    October 9th, 2013 at 4:23 pm

    I won’t quibble about whether is is an epidemic in epistemological terms; let’s just say obesity is a growing (!) problem that will impose significant costs on others apart from on those who become obese.

    Don’t worry. Ray Kurzweil (hallowed be thy name) assures me that we will soon engineer ourselves not to get fat. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    Great – then we won’t have to exercise any self control. It will be a Brave New World.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Yoza (1,680 comments) says:

    Nigel Kearney 4:00 pm

    Yoza, I’m sorry that evil corporations have made your kids obese.

    My kids are a long way from obese, if anything I think they would be described as having athletic physiques.

    Weihana 4:08 pm

    I just don’t see the risks as being that high and I think its incumbent upon individuals to cope with the normal challenges in life which includes people trying to manipulate you.

    I just think it is sinister to surreptitiously influence the extremely young to indulge in unhealthy behaviour as a means of increasing corporate profit margins, I do not think there is any argument that anyone could offer which would justify the morality of such an activity. As this is Kiwiblog, such a simple observation must be spelt out as clearly as possible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Cato (1,095 comments) says:

    How on earth do your kids maintain athletic physiques in the face of “corporations” abusing them with their advertising?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Perhaps Yoza is more educated than the usual targets for such advertising.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    This epidemic when did it start, is there a ground zero i.e 23 September 2001?

    What is “defining” this epidemic” who is defining this epidemic or are fuck wits just assuming there is an epidemic because some other fuck wit says there’s an epidemic.

    Why should my life be deprived of colour in packaging because some fat bastards got not no self control.

    A better plan would be to have some one stand at the checkout and and take out all the chips and dips from the baskets of fat bastards . ” Sorry fat prick, you can’t buy that.”

    Lastly,what will put more weight on? two packets of potato chips or 2 kgs of spuds. I am assuming that a patrol group will be set up to go kitchen to kitchen at meal times to make sure spuds arent being fried or the brocalli isn’t being done tempura style.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Yoza

    You expose your kids to the evils of the Mana Party and you’ve got the gall to mention child abuse regards a bit of advertising.
    Dear oh fucking dear. CYPS are on the way to your house matey.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Left Right and Centre (2,887 comments) says:

    There’s all kinds of shit in this world. If you’re a parent, it’s up to you to look after your children as best you can. It’s up to you to protect your children from shit. Up to a point – it doesn’t matter what anyone else does. They can’t force you to buy shit and allow your children to eat shit.

    The parent is in control. The child is not.

    The market should decide in this case. If enough people stopped buying shit for their children, no more shit will be on sale. Someone must be buying it. Who are they?

    McDonalds/ KFC/ Burger King/ Dominoes etc all remain open – I never spend one dollar at any of them. Someone keeps them all ticking though. Who are you??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Left Right and Centre (2,887 comments) says:

    Interesting? If a child is fat – they can end up with more fat cells by the time they reach adulthood. And I think that means it’s easier to load up your lard arse later in life. Thankfully then I was never ever even close to overweight before my mid 20s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Left Right and Centre (2,887 comments) says:

    paul:

    ” Sorry fat prick, you can’t buy that.”

    hahahaha…… that’s my whole weight management plan!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Left Right and Centre (2,887 comments) says:

    How does a child start liking McDonalds food if they’ve never been there? Exactly ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    LRC, I have lost 5kg now with only 3 runs a week and a few diet tweeks, plus knocking Friday drinkies back to about once every 3 weeks. It is showing in my running times.

    It is surprising how easy it was to lose it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Left Right and Centre (2,887 comments) says:

    iKea – good shit cuz. That’s the one. Only three a week? Three is a lot. Energy equation is your servant.

    I ate 1.5kg of shit late Tues night. 800g condensed milk, 350g butter, peanuts, shaved coconut, ginger crunch mix, biscuit mix, custard powder icing. I ate like a fat cunt for one glorious session. I wish I was doing it right now.

    The upside was when I ran this a.m. I went out and smashed the kms start to finish. I almost liked it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    LRC, most of that crap I would not even call “food”. Sort your shit out. They are not treats, they are rubbish.

    Kea has spoken ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Left Right and Centre (2,887 comments) says:

    iKea – I’m a living contradiction. I want to eat everything and yet for 12 months I haven’t.

    I want to line up 5 kilos of condensed milk… grab a teaspoon… make that 10 kilos just to be on the safe side…..

    Last night I had one tin condensed milk and then half way in I added chopped peanuts, shaved coconut and golden syrup. After that I started scrambling for something else. Ginger icing sugar again with peanuts, golden syrup and shaved coconut. Fuck was it ever good.

    I now have no butter, eggs, icing sugar, custard powder or condensed milk in stock. That might help not eat any of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.