Soda Ban In New York Spreads To Boston, Worries Local Restaurants

Not necessarily. That assumes the only way to change behavior is to restrict and I don't think that is true. Advertising works, right? There are other possibilities, for example, requiring PE in schools isn't restricting freedoms (kids already don't control that time/space).

 

Advertising does not work, spreading information does not work and will not change the behavior of the people who are at highest risk.

 

Advertising does not work? Er, I think you're wrong on that one. There is a $70 billion a year business built on the data that shows advertising does indeed work, and that data is expansive.

 

I did more than 3 years of research with BCM dealing with nutrition, diet and feeding habits of low income families. One of the things we looked at was how to change their behavior. Advertisement does not work. Giving them a book or pamphlet of info does not work. Sitting with them and telling them their kid will end up obese with diabetes does not work. Their attitude is the problem, all I ever heard was some form of "I need to feed my kids no matter what it is" and they have a problem with people "telling them how to raise their kids".

 

Haha, I didn't say the advertising industry doesn't work, I'm talking about in this situation, sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

Not sure if you're now saying advertising works, but not for low income families? I don't think that's correct either.

I certainly can't speak to your personal experience, other than to say we can't let that experience be definitive in the face of a huge amount of data that says otherwise.

For example: "Research suggests that low-income and ethnic minority youth are disproportionately exposed to marketing activities.25 A Kaiser Foundation report found that among children eight to eighteen years old, ethnic minorities use entertainment media more heavily than majority youth do. African Americans and Hispanics spend significantly more time watching TV and movies and playing video games than do white youth.26 African American youth also watch on-screen media (TV, DVDs, videos, movies) more than Hispanics and whites do, and Hispanics watch such media significantly more than whites do. Television is especially prevalent in African American and low-income households. Media use differs, as well, by socioeconomic status. Low-income children watch TV for more hours and have significantly higher levels of total media exposure than higher-income children.27 Consumers in low-income households, who are heavy viewers of daytime television, are more likely to view television advertising as authoritative and as helpful in selecting products, and they may prefer it to print media.28 Because of their heavy media use, ethnic minority and low-income youth are exposed to a great deal of food advertising at home. Research has found that such advertising can affect children's food preferences after even brief exposure.29 A study of media use among Latino preschoolers confirmed just how influential such commercials can be. Sixty-three percent of mothers said that in the past week their preschooler had asked for a toy advertised on television, 55 percent reported that their preschooler had asked for an advertised food or drink, and 67 percent noted that their preschooler had asked to go to an advertised store or restaurant.30 Older elementary school children exposed to television commercials for sweets and other snacks were more likely to choose candy and sugary drinks and less likely to choose fruit and orange juice when offered a snack.31" Childhood Obesity, Spring 2006

 

What you posted in no way refutes what I researched or what I said. Minority and poor children are exposed to more advertising, it does affect them by making them ask for more "toys and sugary foods" as your study pointed out, all of that is correct. None of that speaks to their parents willingness or ability to feed them healthier food, to which I was speaking. Whats more, as your article points out, kids will ask for toys and food when advertised at. Do you think their going to run up to their parents like "Mom mom! I want a ceaser salad for dinner like I saw on TV!"

 

Sure it does. When it says low income families are more likely to see advertising as "authoritative and helpful in picking products" it indicates an affect on behavior by the decision makers. Again, I am not an academic with an advertising focus, nor an advertising guru, but the data doesn't seem to run your way.

I think that is a myopic example. They might say "mom, mom, I want to go out and play." They might say "mom, can we get some fruit." They might say a million other examples that could be healthier, and that isn't even getting to negative ads (This is bad, avoid it).

BTW: I'm not suggesting advertising alone would solve the problem, but neither will the ban on big sodas.

 

I went and read the study you posted, I can better see what you're saying about advertising being effective, but I don't agree that it results in any kind of significant behavior modification (in a long term sense) and no where in the article does it say that it does or will. I believe we're just running in circles about the level of effectiveness of advertising on these people.

 

Significant is relative. I agree in this particular situation it would have to be part of a much larger change in policy, but again that is also true of the ban. By itself advertising will not solve the problem (giving credence to your experience based position), but it could be part of the solution.

 

Can someone explain exactly how Michelle Obama becomes the 'Face' of this story?
Is it because the OP is unable to place the blame on a white male independent former republican? Since that is exactly who inacted such policies.

You are what we think you are . . . .

Rocket River

 

Yet . . she did not institute it.
I think the person that DID the deed should get the credit.
I think it cripples your comfort zone to put BloomBerg's face on BloomBerg's Soda Ban.

Rocket River