I agree with Pericles, if its legal, advertise it, that's they way the world works as it should be.

The only way to combat junk food, is introduce proper food standards supporting only food without additives, dairies and preservatives or chemicals. It would increase farming, introduce more fresh food restaurants and takeaways, instead of microwaved deep fried poison food. It would destroy multinational food monopolies, opening up many more small businesses, a very good idea. It would promote employment, as all food would mostly have to be grown in our country to classify as fresh and be prepared in house.

Pity that will never happen, but there's more money in factory created junk food and sympathetic medicine for the elite, than in fresh grown non toxic illness free eating habits and preparation.

But who wants sanity in the world, let's just make scratches in the sand of our wants, then watch them wash away with the tide. Whilst we have another bite.

We are getting into some surprisingly fertile territory here.

saintfletcher says:

>>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.<<

If we as a society believe that advertisers should be legally obliged to tell the truth, why is it not with even greater vehemence that we demand that our politicians be held to the same standard?

Of the two, it is the politician that has the greater effect on our society.

Yet we treat them and their utterances in much the same way as we treat the advertising industry: we are constantly exposed to their messages, can parrot one or two of the more memorable catch phrases and recall their facile sound-bites, but we are fundamentally cynical about their relationship with the truth.

And now comes the suggestion that of the two it should be the advertiser who is taken to court to justify the veracity of the claims made for their product.

Rather than take aim at an industry that merely makes money out of exaggeration, hyperbole and a flirtation with the outer edges of veracity, should we not target those whose actions directly affect our lives, liberties and security?

Pericles

"Rather than take aim at an industry that merely makes money out of exaggeration, hyperbole and a flirtation with the outer edges of veracity, should we not target those whose actions directly affect our lives, liberties and security?"

Apparently that's what we get to do at election time.

I'm glad you said "apparently", scout.

>>Apparently that's what we get to do at election time.<<

At election time, we are asked to choose between two political parties, neither of which is obliged to a) tell the truth, b) actually perform the acts they represent to us that they will perform once elected or c) be measured in any way on the performance of their duties, in a way that would allow us to pay them an amount commensurate with that performance.

Every time, we are asked to buy a pig in a poke, sight unseen, by signing a blank cheque.

How can that be less damaging to our health, safety and well being than a few advertisments?

What makes you think that I may be concerned about your welfare, Pericles? As you are [presumably] an adult Australian, you are legally entitled to do a number of things which some younger Australians are not entitled to do. For instance, I doubt if anyone really cares if a shopkeeper sells you cigarettes, or if you are invited [in a polite, non-threatening manner] to join others in various sexual acts. But both of these things would be illegal if you were under the stipulated "legal age".

And as we are all aware, there is no logical consistency about which products are legal and which are illegal. For instance, why is tobacco legal and marijuana illegal? And perhaps more illogically, why is the well known natural anti-depressant, kava, illegal in Western Australia, but legal in the rest of Australia?

What I believe should be addressed is the deliberate targeting of children by unscrupulous advertisers who are not telling the truth. Eating fattening junk food is depicted as fun. Well, it's hardly fun to be obese, particularly at a young age. And it's hardly fun to be dying prematurely, from a self inflicted condition.

I don't believe in being overprotective of adults, who are hopefully mature enough to make their own considered choices. But we already try to protect our children from exploitation in all sorts of ways.

As for politicians being forced to tell the truth. If we waited for that to happen before trying to enforce honesty in advertising, well we'd wait for ever, wouldn't we?

Well said Rex