Not only is the typical consumer uneducated about nutrition, but the fast food is "normal" for our culture.
What's "normal"? Of course, a statistical measure. Soooo, if you eat a "normal" diet and get a "normal" amount of exercise, then you have a "normal" risk of heart disease, obesity, adult-onset diabetes, etc. Oh, darn. -Ben -----Original Message----- From: Gary P. McNeel, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 3:15 PM To: CF-Community Subject: RE: The Anti Terrorism Act.. See below... > -----Original Message----- > From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, October 03, 2001 10:17 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: The Anti Terrorism Act.. > > > > I disagree here Raymond. Advertising works. MacDonald's > > targets children heavily. Why? Because it works. True, > > parents can say no. But how often do we give in, on many > > things, to things we know are bad for us. I doubt there are > > many of here, who, drinking a bit much when younger, did not > > think, "I will regret this in the morning." > > I never denied advertising works. So should we ban advertising? Should > we make everything "butt simple" so that idiots don't get confused? As > for parents giving in, that is 100% your fault, not MacDonald's. As for > giving in in general, that's because we are humans. While I somewhat agree with you on where fault lies, let's face it, advertising (adverenticing) works. The part of telling your 4 year old, "No honey, we can't go to MacDonald's and play on the play ground because the food has little or no nutritional value," can be tough. They cry, like, really easily. Especially if their friends are going. I do not mean to single out MacDonald's here either, they are an example. Something in their marketing formula works. In the past 20 years Burger King, Chick-fil-A (mmmmm) and other have followed the same model. You don't do that unless it pays off. The real issue is that most of us (how many people DO NOT ever discuss things like we do) don't pay attention to nutrition, etc. Me included. I am a notorious fast food eater outer. I have been changing that, thank you. Part of it is our instant gratification society. Again, led by marketing. There is a book called, I think, "Are they selling her lips". Great book. One side of me says, "This is the way to market", the other is conflicted and says, "man, I am kind of misleading people." > > My point is - it feels like your saying MacDonald's shouldn't do ads > showing how juicy/good tasting their food is. There is NOTHING wrong > that. If you are overweight and don't have the willpower to say no, > that's your fault. It's like those dang drug commercials. Half the > commercial is a list of all the side effects. Can't we all be adults and > know that all drugs have side effects, and it's our responsibility to > find out what they are? When did Mac focus on the juicy burger? More like Batman cups and kids meal action figures and playgrounds. Because we are educated or watch Discovery channel, we think others are too. Many people never learn much about nutrition or what is good for them. I amazed at the people I meet that seem to have no education in history or sciences or health. I just assumed people were taught all this stuff I take for granted. I am also not saying it is false advertising, only somewhat misleading. The shot you talk of of a juicy/good tasting burger IMPLIES that it is healthy. We should all know it is not. But marketing works and it aims at a base instinct, eating good tasting food. These are very hard to control. I bet that, if you are heterosexual, when you see a woman's breasts, your eyes dilate. There is no amount of will power that can control it. It is built into us. It is an assessment of the opposite sex, a potential mate, that we have, and it works well. It is an instinct. Advertising uses it all the time. > > > > Oddly, alcohol does not target children. Alcohol even go so > > far as to say must be over 18 and please drink responsibly, > > or something to that effect. Smoking commercials do target > > the very young. They know that they have to trap you before > > I can't remember a recent smoking ad that was targeted to children. No, lost trials and the threat of more litigation ended that. They are forced by law to not do it IN THIS COUNTRY. They are even forced by law to tell people it is dangerous. This was in no way voluntary. Publicity brought this change about. > > > you reach about 18-20, or you most likely will never start. > > Look at third world countries. THEY GIVE IT AWAY TO THOSE > > CHILDREN. Think about why Kraft was all over the Balkans > > delivering "food". You will also a lot more Philip Morris > > manufactured cigarettes there being smoked by kids. That is > > their target market. Also look a Joe Camel, clear marketing > > aimed at kids. Look in all of the magazines aimed at young > > adults. Cigarette adds abound. > > But they fixed that. Joe is dead. In America. Now they use other approaches. It is not "fixed", just a different tactic. Also, how does your statement answer the entire paragraph. How many people that are enticed to smoke in other countries at an early age move here and bring that habit? > > > that little yellow stain on her front teeth?" But a kid, > > focused on being a grown up like mom or dad, yearning to show > > independence, may buy into smoking. Peer pressures don't help > > either. Lack of aggressive education about the effects of > > smoking are not there. Like most of our world today (politics > > and environment especially), there is no long term thought to > > consequences of actions we, even as individuals, take today. > > I have seen kids say, "I will quit when I am ready". Well, > > from a previous thread here, we know how hard that can be. > > > > But this can be applied to _so_ many things. We are human. We are > imperfect. Nothing can be done to fix that. Exactly. We are human and marketing people know it and pray on it. Believe me, I know. I did it for years. In fact your company does it. Buy this product and your productivity is increased and .... Feature, value, benefit. Etc. Part of the game. My point is that we can take advantage of these "we are only human" weaknesses quite easily. The question is, is it morally ethical? BTW - Why do we allow cigarettes and not marijuana? Or alcohol? Is allowing a drug like nicotine or alcohol to the public irresponsible? Why not? How many people die each year from them that MAY not have died otherwise? If we legalized other addictive drugs, how would they change the landscape? -Gary > > -RC > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-community@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
