Advertising restrictions and childhood obesity in Britain and America

Restrictions on the Free Market: The Gateway to Infringing on Successful Business Models and Eliminating Consumer Free Will

In Great Britain, advertisers are not allowed to use children in food ads aimed at young people, as well as in ads for foods that are high in fat, salt, or sugar which are included in programming aimed at children under 16 years of age. These government restrictions are based on the ever-increasing problem of childhood obesity which exists in the United Kingdom. Comparably, in the United States, the American Academy of Pediatrics has called for a ban on food ads within television shows aimed at children. In response, some of the country's most prominent food and drink manufacturers, fearing media attacks and limited consumerism, agreed to voluntarily devote at least half of their advertising to foods and lifestyles that are considered "good" for children. However, despite this promise by manufacturers, this has not happened, and as a result, the Federal Communication Commission is considering modernizing the rules on commercial time during children's television programming.

With the ever-increasing problem of childhood obesity throughout the world, and especially in modernized western societies, it appears as though the whole of society is simply looking for a credible direction in which to point their blaming fingers. Companies whose business models have always existed under free market guidelines, with the rule of supply and demand governing their business dealings rather than government oversight and regulation, have done so for years in a manner that seeks to maximize publicity and therefore profits, for their respective market corners. Additionally, companies such as those in jeopardy of losing their long-held business rights, have long provided significant boosts to western nations' respective economies.

No amount of advertising or company-targeting has the ability to force consumers to adhere to company beliefs or buy the products advertised. No matter how many times an advertisement for a "McDonald's Value Meal" runs during consumer-watched programming, the truth remains that no McDonald's executive or employee will ever come to that consumer's door and force-feed their product to that individual. As such, companies are not to blame for doing their part to increase their profits. The western consumer has a capable brain and with it has the knowledge-base to understand what is and is not good for their respective body. Companies existing in the free market should not be restricted in a manner that limits their target audience, and problems like childhood obesity remain based not in the way the free market is handled, but in the realm of parenting and education for all children in these nations.

History of Regulation of Children's Advertising and Parental Duty

The existence of free-market standards have long allowed companies to advertise under the guidelines of their own proven-to-be successful business models, and additionally, these business models have long contributed immensely large sums of money into national economies throughout the world. In looking at the aforementioned issues plaguing America today, one can better understand how this situation can be handled by understanding how the government has handled this issue in the past and learning from the mistakes that presented themselves.

In the 1970s, both the FCC and the FTC completed extensive examinations of advertising directed at children. The FCC issued a policy statement asking networks to voluntarily limit the commercials aired during programs directed at children, and the general public found that these limitations were fundamentally unfair for advertisers (CTRPS, 1974, pp.1). As such, the FTC received harsh political and public response to this proposed rule-making, and the Washington Pose called this proposal, "a preposterous intervention that would turn the government into a great national nanny" (the Washington Post, 1978, pp. 22).

While some might say that while these provisions dealt with the capacity of commercial broadcasting and not the content, one can certainly apply the "national nanny" factor to the problem being faced today. In the case of commercial regulations on businesses and their advertising, as impressionable as children are, it is up to a child's parents to say yes or no to their children regarding what their children ask of them. Today, multitudes of issues dealing with children are blamed on external things, and society rarely sides with the heart of the matter, which comes down to parental responsibility. While advertising can act as a temptation for children, essentially it is a parent's duty to regulate their children, and not for the government to regulate the advertisement of foods that are deemed "unacceptable" in the minds of many parents.

Value of the Free Market

In viewing the information at hand, reasonable individuals can immediately see that markets need to be free to be fully functioning. When the government interferes in the market and begins dictating what market participants can and cannot do, resources cannot flow to their most efficient capacity. Author HaJoon Chang, in his recent book, notes:

"If people cannot do the things that they find most profitable, they lose incentive to invest and innovate. Thus, if the government puts a cap on house rents, landlords lost the incentive to maintain their properties or build new ones. or, if the government restricts the kinds of financial products that can be sold, two contracting parties that may both have benefited from innovative transactions that fulfill their idiosyncratic needs cannot reap the potential grains of the free contract" (Chang, 2011, pp. 23).

In essence, people must be left free to choose, and this must be mirrored in the market. While the United States has seen times of economic disparity and struggles, this nation, operating under the standards of an essentially free market has not done too bad in the slightest. The role of information in the free market has always been the center of its success and the success of the companies that operate within it. This information is not limited to the business-end of dealings, with information coming in on a constant level regarding consumer tastes and preferences. This information goes both ways, which is essential for the functioning of the free market.

While this information comes and goes in the free market, so does it in the realm of advertising and consumerism. Companies advertise, consumers follow suit with their response, and these companies continue with or adjust their advertising methods to better suit themselves and their consumers. It is this give and take that has made the American business world and its economy so generally successful since the country's inception as a nation. Consumers know what they want and companies understand how to give these desires back to the consumers. In the arena of business, it is rare for any company to succeed who plays their consumers for fools, and companies in the realm of fast food and junk food do not play their consumers for fools either. Rather is the consumer base that plays the fool in many situations, ignoring the nutrition facts and general understanding that these foods are not good for anyone in large doses, consuming these products en mass, and placing the blame on advertisements rather than themselves, where the finger should be pointing. As such, the free market, as well as its advertising, should never be restricted. What should be restricted, however, are the hasty and ill thought-out actions of consumers, who continue to eat products regularly that any health-conscious individual simply would not.