The advertising sector is the mainstay of the business world
as it promotes sales and increases profits. Anything which is bought and sold
on the market, i.e. commodities, can be advertised. Commodities in this sense
include people, services and products one example of which is junk food. The
growing popularity of junk food in the modern world cannot be denied but is it
really necessary to promote something so harmful? The answer is no; banning the
advertising of junk food and fast food is beneficial both for the individual
and the state.
The main attraction of junk food is the carbohydrates, the
fat and sugar content; it is comfort food, it is filling and it is cheap. This
is hard to argue with but it doesn’t mean this food is healthy and has no long
term drawbacks. Advertisements cannot be justified just because someone likes
the taste of something. Lots of people like the taste of alcohol but
advertising it is forbidden. Similarly, people enjoy smoking but the
advertising of tobacco products is strictly forbidden. Junk food should be in the same category
because it causes obesity, which in turn leads to heart disease, cancer and
diabetes all of which are killers. Laws should be fair: if products that are harmful
cannot be advertised, this should include junk food too. Claiming that this law
should not be applied to junk food because people like the taste or it is cheap
makes no sense. People like the taste of a lot of harmful things and through
more awareness; they can learn to eat a healthy diet without spending too much.
Individuals make up society and what is bad for one, is bad for the other; the
same is true here.
The promotion of junk food via advertisements and increase
in obesity related illnesses, the big killers, affects society as a whole too
since the health services have to deal with these people. The amount of money
spent on treating people with heart or cardio vascular disease each year for
example is phenomenal; plus, it is completely unnecessary. Putting junk food in
the same category as cigarettes and alcohol will solve the problem by reducing
sales and victims. As a result the money saved could be diverted to those who
really need help through no fault of their own. It could be claimed that people
should have the freedom to select what they want to eat and if they want to die
young, that is their problem. However, in a democracy one person’s freedom is
limited by another’s and if the diseases these people inevitably incur impact
society as a whole, society has the right to say no.
In conclusion, no harmful substance should be advertised and
this includes fast food, sugary drinks, sweets and the like. Public health is
the governments concern, which gives them the right to ban the promotion of any
product which is deemed harmful. In this respect, junk food is no different
from alcohol or tobacco.
No comments:
Post a Comment