http://www.optusnet.com.au/news/story/abc/20060905/16/business/1733597.inp

I don't generally like censorship and this seems like a drastic step to take. But obesity is now at epidemic level and getting worse. Surely the health of our children [and of our health service] is more important than the bottom line of the modern equivalent of snake oil salesmen.

Agreed. No problems bringing in legislation against smoking and alcohol but apparently our legislators cannot do the same here - which apparently will have far greater economic fallout.

There are a lot of problems with the processed food industry. To buy unprocessed home brand bulk food such as oats, lentils, flax etc. you have to search aisles of processed fluff that contains enough sugar, salt, palm oil etc to be harmful. To take Kellogg’s as an example they produce what they call a health food as it contains some percentage of the daily requirement of some obscure vitamin. The supermarket shelves are full of this rubbish as part of the marketing game is to saturate the readily accessible shelves with their product. The unprocessed healthier and cheaper products are placed at foot level or some other difficult to access spot. The companies on my avoid at all cost list are Kellogg’s, Nestles, Kraft, Arnott’s and all the others that make this processed, high calorie rubbish.

I won't buy Kraft products anyway. Kraft's parent company is Philip Morris. Have a look at:
http://www.newstarget.com/002362.html

"And Kraft Foods, of course, is the company that manufactures some of the most popular food products -- such as Oreo cookies and Velveeta cheese food -- that, like cigarettes, are manufactured with ingredients now well known to be associated with various health problems in humans."

And Kraft uses the same marketing consultants as its tobacco parent company to convince kids to eat more and more Oreo cookies.

What puzzles me about all you wonderful people looking after my welfare is why you have a thing about advertising.

I could understand (although not necessarily support) a campaign to ban junk foods from our supermarkets. That has three effects:

1. If successful, it would remove the root cause of the problem, rather than just one of its many symptoms

2. It puts a stake in the ground as to the level of importance the issue actually has - e.g., would you make it party policy? if not, why not?

3. It would force everyone involved to stop whingeing in generalities (it is bad for us) and be specific about what is bad for us how it is bad for us, and why we should be deprived of it

Tinkering around the edges of a problem like this is easy. All you have to do is wind yourself up to the heights of do-goodership and pontificate about how nasty advertisers are forcing people against their will to devour stuff that is poisoning them.

If the products concerned are illegal, it should be illegal to advertise them. If they are legal, there should be absolutely no reason to place a ban on advertising them.

If what Peracles says is right about the safe food being legal, toxic food not being illegal, then we are not talking about prohibition.

The companies have the choice to change their recipes, and the Government that represents common people, has the right to insist on standards. What we are looking at for real change is regulation. This does not have to be so draconian, but rather in cooperation with the companies to ensure healthy food is kept to a standard...

Banning advertising looks like taking away more freedom of speech, or prohibition. At the same time, the advertisers need regulation making them accountable to tell the truth.

Companies have a right to profit. Advertisers have a right to profit too. Consumers also have a right to the truth so that they can make real choices. We don't have enough of these standards in Australia.