Advertising to children: right or wrong?
To a kid, everything’s better in a McDonald’s wrapper.
The Chicago Sun Times recently reported, Are your kids McDonald’s brainwashed?
The article follows research by Stanford University’s associate professor of pediatrics, Dr Tom N. Robinson. The study, involving 63 children aged 3–5, had the kids taste the exact same McDonald’s food, wrapped in branded and un-branded packaging. Every time, the food in the un-branded wrappers lost the taste test.
Granted, the study probably would’ve been better if the familiar brand was compared to another familiar brand, rather than to none at all, but do you think advertisers go too far?
A McDonald’s spokesperson said this:
The fact is, parents make the decisions for their children and our research confirms that we’ve earned their trust as a responsible marketer based on decades of delivering the safest food.
Some of you will know that I don’t have any kids, so I’m not qualified to speak on the persuasiveness of fiesty children. To the parents out there, how persuasive can your little ones actually be about what they get?
Cam Beck has initiated an interesting debate on this subject over at Marketing Profs Daily Fix. Cam has this to say:
When are we going to stop looking to government to fix our inability to say “no” to our kids? I really don’t care how much money McDonald’s spends on advertising to children, because three things are true:
1. One Big Mac or Happy Meal, when consumed properly, is not going to kill me or my kids;
2. Thus, marketing them is not an inherently immoral act; and
3. I can always say “No” to prevent excess.
Is it okay to advertise to children?
Pradeep Chintagunta, a University of Chicago marketing professor, said:
I don’t think you can necessarily hold this against McDonald’s, since the goal of marketing is to build familiarity.
Should McDonald’s be held accountable for their advertising actions? Does the responsibility lie 100% in the hands of the parent? I’ve read a lot of mixed reviews on this topic, which I can understand, considering I’ve made it a question of morality. I’m very interested to know what you think here, as I value your opinion, and you (my readers) have previously given me lots of food for thought (no pun intended).
Further resources
- McDonald’s and Mere Exposure
- If It Says McDonald’s, Then It Must Be Good
- Pre-school branding?
- McDonald’s Wrappers: Making Food Tastier?
- McDonald’s burger taste better than plain paper: the power of advertising
Related posts on this site
35 spot-on reader comments to “Advertising to children: right or wrong?”
What are your thoughts?
Simply fill in the form below. All comments are moderated so you may experience a short delay before your comment appears. Comments should be respectful of other voices in the discussion. I reserve the right to edit or delete comments at my discretion.
Personally I think it’s morally wrong for Governments to prohibit large successful firms from advertising their products in a free and open economy. MacDonalds dont sell crack cocaine or guns and knives, they sell burgers.
It’s interesting that the kids perception of taste was altered by the brand, but to me this shows how brilliant a brand MacDonalds is and they should be applauded for it, not chastised. And anyway, for the brand to reach such strength requires a hell of lot more than just advertising. I’m not sure what preventing advertising to kids will achieve.
And how do you classify that an advert is aimed at kids? Is any advert shown on TV before a certain time frame aimed at kids? Are all adverts featuring red-haired clowns aimed at kids?
I’m surprised by the age of the children you are mentioning. 3-5? When a three-year-old is so familiar with one specific brand that everything wrapped in their packaging “tastes better”, this debate is clearly needed.
I agree with Aaron, though: blaming MacDonalds for doing an excellent job with their brand is not the way to go.
That being said, I don’t think these numbers are representative for either Norway nor Australia (the only two countries I’ve been living permanently in).
Since kids base taste based upon the brand only, Then McDonalds could simply make the food more healthy by switching away from so many fatty foods. How much more expensive is it to sell healthy food? I also think we could do a better job of making fruits and vegetables more attractive. They have the image of being bad (not in a health sense) for you! The unhappiness maker!
I’m not a big fan of advertising to young children, but advertising is a fact of life. Unless you plan on never letting your kids leave the house, you have to teach them how to think for themselves. I’ve found we’ve had a lot of talks about “need” vs. “want” in the past few months. It’s hard for my son to understand that while it’s ok to want things, it doesn’t mean they’re good for you or that you should have them all. And I suspect we’ll be having that same talk for many years to come. I got that all the time as a kid and it never sunk in until I was supporting myself for the first time.
I will agree that it is scary how easily children are swayed by advertising. My 2.5 year old’s pre-reading skills now extend to recognizing that a logo can stand for a name and he’s starting to associate products with their commercials. We don’t watch much tv, but we travel often, so he sees logos on the hospitality signs by interstate exits and on billboards as well as hearing commercials on the radio. It doesn’t have to be aimed at young children for them to absorb the message.
I can see young kids being very persuasive, especially if they’ve figured out how to sustain that note that makes you want to take an ice pick to your ears. Working parents don’t get a huge window of time to spend with their kids after work, and I suspect that sometimes it’s easier to get fast food so you can enjoy time with your kid instead of dealing with an evening of tantrums. My husband has about a 2 hour window to spend with our son before bedtime on weekdays. I work from home, so I have the luxury of being able to cook a real meal without being pestered by a small hungry child.
David, do you really think that McDonald’s singles out children in their marketing? I think it is broader based than that. It is much like Disney, where there is appeal on many levels. I suppose you could argue that it is morally wrong to advertise to kids who really haven’t “formed enough sense to make an educated decision”, but kids get their money from their parents, whose responsibility is guiding kids in making the correct decisions.
I’m with Aaron - it’s just burgers and fries for heavens sake. I’m a Burger king guy myself but I admire McDonald’s advertising. All we hear anymore from society is blame the other guy for the dumb decisions we make. I don’t believe advertising can “make” anyone buy something they don’t want. It certainly influences a purchase buy ultimately you make the decision to part with that dollar/pound/euro etc.
The experiment with brand packaging versus generic packagining would work the same with adults. (I think they chose kids because the news media would jump on it). I served friends regular Canadian Club whiskey in a Seagram’s Crown Royal bottle and none were the wiser. It followed a conversation a few months prior where they felt that yes, they would certainly know the difference between the two.
When I was younger we used to get a hold of the Birks Blue box and put regular priced jewellery inside to make whom ever “believe” they were getting Birks for Christmas. We in our industry fully appreciate the seductiveness of packaging. Our culture involves all ages.
I love Mickey because he makes me feel like a kid again. That’s packaging - marketing - brand. He makes kids smile and I see nothing sinister in that. But in reality he is no less a product than McDonald’s Happy Meal. Every time a kids hugs Mickey at Walt Disney World he is strengthening the Disney brand and everthing in our cultural mix that feeds on that, including MickeyDees.
I don’t think banning marketing from kids environments is the answer to the obesity problem. If you don’t want fat kids, don’t feed ‘em junk, don’t put TV and computers in their rooms, lead by example and get active in the community.
- time to get off this soap box.
Aaron, you said “this shows how brilliant a brand MacDonalds is and they should be applauded for it, not chastised”.
Your statement is only true if you actually believe that brand development and the particular fiscal successes of individual corporations supercedes all other values and considerations… like the effect that an individual corporation or corporations (and almost more importantly, their marketing) can have on public health and broad cultural values.
It’s ridiculous to suggest that by the sheer fact that ‘marketing is marketing’ and ‘business is business’ any tactics, positioning, and strategy employed in the pursuit of greater financial profits are inherently beyond reproach. Claiming that the purveyors of products and services, and the marketing that represents them have no responsibility other than to make money is like saying that soldiers at war have no other responsibility than to shoot their opponents in the face indiscriminately.
I agree with cam. the blame does not stop at the government but rather the bad parents…
Its funny how a fat parent will usually produce fat kids, yes fat can be carried through genes but the biggest thing is the bad example lead by the parent which makes the kid get fat.
Stop being lazy, get off the couch, cook fresh dinner and get some exercise…
Advertising to kids is nothing new, before Maccas it was cereal or some play doll etc
Aaron,
You ask a great question about classifying an advert aimed at kids. I don’t think you can do this unless you’re the ad agency. As for prohibiting advertising, I’m against it. If there’s every any debate about a product on the market, it’s the product that should be looked at and not how it’s advertised.
Asgeir,
I’m not sure how representative the figures are of the US, where the study took place. The children were hand-picked from a poor background, and most of them were already familiar with the McDonald’s brand.
Doing a little research, I came across a very interesting blog post about ‘mere exposure‘ which is worth a read.
Dan,
I was thinking something similar. McDonald’s have a huge opportunity to influence the wellbeing of millions, simply by changing their menus to become more healthy. That said, they’re a fast food business, and that’s why they’ve gained such a strong market position. Their strength is in burgers and fries so to change would be detrimental for them.
Caitlin,
Very true, and this goes back to Aaron’s point about classifying who an ad is aimed at. Thanks for your take on things.
Ed,
I can see the errors in my original statement. You know, I reckon you’re spot on about the media jumping on the story because young kids were chosen as the taste testers instead of adults. I hadn’t thought about that.
That’s an interesting story about the whiskey, and one that reminds me of an interview I watched not too long ago:
The chef, Gordon Ramsay, was interviewing Sir Cliff Richard, and Gordon explains it here in his own words:
Gordon has a new enemy.
Swine,
Interesting to get the thoughts of someone on the other side of the fence. I wouldn’t compare selling burgers to killing people though. I know you’re exaggerating the point, and I can tell you’re basing your comments on the morality of businesses.
Jermayn,
Spot on with the fat parent / fat kid comment. I see it all the time. It’s lazy to pick up the first ‘TV dinner’ you see when it takes about the same time to cook up a fresh Thai green curry.
Thanks, everyone, for expressing your opinions here. I think it’s fantastic that blogging opens many doors for debate, but I digress. Thanks.
Well in Norway it is illegal to make advertisements for children like toys or some other things coz according to the politicians children cannot really discern if those things are really good for them. I only saw some children commercials here through Cartoon Network or Jetix which is of course cable tv and the authorities here have no jurisdiction over it or whatsoever.
As a parent, I will cheerfully say it’s the parents responsibility, full stop.
My kids enjoy a trip to McDonalds, but I doubt that we average a trip once every 2 months. The boys would like to go more often (daily!) but if they ask, we say ‘no’ and explain that you can’t eat that kind of food every day, nor can we afford to and they accept that.
Parents who are too lazy to say no, or have too much spare benefits cash, or are too lazy to cook will let their fat little offspring feast at McDonalds and now look to blame everyone else.
Same with smoking - I hate smoking, never touched one in my life, yet grew up watching the Embassy World Darts, Marlboro McLaren F1 team etc. etc. and it never affected me.
Is there too much advertising aimed at encouraging ‘pester power’? Yes. Do parents have to give in to it? Only if they’re too weak to say no.
(Well, that’s my blogging time used up today-hope you’re proud of yourself David ;-) )
An interesting topic. That MC’s qoute is a classic,
Anyone who has children knows that that is not entirely accurate.
However, I see nothing “morally” wrong in advertising to kids. First, I hate that word (morality); it’s too subjective to mean anything; second, where does one draw the line? How about Amazon advertising to kids to buy their books. Aaron is right in the distinction he makes: they’re not peddling amphetamines. Ultimately, what a child consumes should be to a large extent influenced by parents. Taking one’s children to McDonalds is not a cardinal sin (to feed them nothing but hamburgers, might be considered irresponsible, however).
We live in an Open Society with a free market economy. We all have choices; and for those deemed too young to make informed choices, then parents have the responsibility to aid their progeny. Those same parents also have some influence over the amount of time their children are exposed to advertising. If your children are watching TV all the time instead of doing something a whole lot more productive, is it any surprise that the advertising they passively consume becomes more persuasive than their parents’ propaganda?
Had a problem editing my comment, so here’s the rest of it:
@swinefactory
Your soldier and sellers analogy is most certainly flawed. I understand the point you are attempting to make; however, you are not comparing like with like. Neither soldiers nor advertisers are indiscriminate in who they target.
PS: David, what’s the time-out in minutes for your editable comments? Seems short, or perhaps I’m just very slow.
I don’t think there is anything wrong with advertsing for kids as long as its done responsibly. Like a few other people say a few burgers isn’t going to hurt anyone, its only when things are taken to extreme there are problems. I am not a parent, but surely the food of age group in the focus group (3-5) can be more dictated by their parents eg. don’t let them have too much junk food.
When it comes to older children I guess its a different kettle of fish, but I don’t think advertisers are to blame, its our whole way of life. We sit a computers all take, we eat takeaway food, kids play on electronic games and computers instead of running about outside.
Media awareness is such an essential skill in the modern world. I had a class in grade 10 where we tore apart the coverage of the OJ Simpson trial, the first Iraq war and Disney movies… We should have classes like that to teach critical thinking of the media messages at a much earlier age.
David and Johno,
My opinion on this is only partially based on morality; while I think that it’s clear that the objectives of marketers rarely, if ever, take into account the negative aspects of a product that they’re promoting, and that this does, at times, lead marketers into practices that I would definitely classify as unethical, the issue is broader.
Too often we compartmentalize different facets of our civilization (specifically the components of our economies), and marginalize the effect that each component has - marketers simply market, manufacturers simply manufacture, consumers simply consume. While this makes perfect sense superficially, I believe sincerely that this approach leads to a sort of myopia in all of the different facets of economy, leaving to neglect the wellbeing of the whole. A manufacturer, or marketer who does not take into account the wellbing of their consumers, or the ethicality of tactically coercing an inherently impressionable demographic such as minors, fails to consider or take responsibility for the ramifications of their corporate behaviour on society. This is all I meant to illustrate by my ’soldiers and sellers’ analogy: that the end (profit, in the case of sellers) does not justify an ‘any means necessary’ approach.
I agree that an ‘Open Society’ and Free market economy presents everyone with a vast array of choices, value judgements, and ultimately, opportunities to participate, as a seller or consumer, in the economy. My point really isn’t about choices - it’s about the coersion of minors. Government recognizes the vulnerability of minors, and protects them from various types of coersion by ‘age of consent’ legislations. If we recognize that minors are vulnerable to coersion in decisions dealing with sex and substances, why should it be any different with diet? It’s no mystery that decisions about diet can have as many, if not more, effects on a persons life in the long-run, so shouldn’t minors be protected from targtted persuasion to eat increasing quantities of unhealthy food until they’re old enough to consider the risks themselves? If it’s not government’s role to shape the boundaries of corporate behaviour as it relates to the rest of society, who’s responsibility is it?
Don’t get me wrong - I love a good cheeseburger (albeit not that McDonalds crap), but I take great exception to the practice of marketing to kids… they’ve got enough on their plate as it is, and I don’t think that they need to be making brand decisions - especially under 12.
As the parent of 3 kids ages 11, 8 and 5, I can tell you that at an early age kids can identify brands from a mile away! I will also echo the sentiment that it is our job as parents to teach our children how to make their own decisions by being educated consumers. We regularly have discussions about things we see on TV and while we are out and about.
Another job we have as parents is to teach our children the importance of moderation and portion control. I think that this is one area where parents of today miss the boat more often than not! A regular McDonalds kids hamburger meal with small fries and milk or juice to drink is plenty of food for them to eat at one sitting. Just because they offer super sized or double cheeseburgers doesn’t mean you have to get them. Yet, how many parents opt for the super size or let their kids get 3 scoops of ice cream when 1 is more than enough?
Marketing to any demograph isn’t wrong.
We tell ourselves stories, lies, about the products we buy. The same stories the marketing tries for years to brand in our minds. So when the time comes to connect the dots we make decisions. We tell ourselves what we feel about a certain product.
It is our choice to believe in the stories that are being told. I bet many of the people that think its morally wrong is because its unhealthy. I say many, not all. But not because other food is better for you but for the fact that movies like “Super Size me” that can get movements started on health awareness from fast food.
So do I think its morally wrong to market to kids, no. Most likely the kid chose the Mcdonalds wrapper over the unbranded was because when they bit into it they could relate to something: Playgrounds, Favorite Happy meal toy, or whatever pleasant thought linked to it. You can’t really relate to anything if it doesn’t link to something in your mind.
Why is it that to most North Americans it seems perfectly rational to legislatively sequester children from movies and music that deals with ‘questionable’ or ‘controversial’ subject matter, but somehow irrational to sequester them from cholesterol, fat, and hormone laden food made with genetically modified ingredients (foods that are highly controversial in most of the developed world outside of North America), and the coersive & misleading messaging that markets it…? Lets keep their minds ‘pure’, but feed’em - hell, SELL’em - garbage.
It boggles the mind.
Swinefactory:
Yes I agree the Government does sequester children from questionable movies and what not. Its done by the rating that is given to the movies. Much like in the food industry having laws that require labels on products. Cigarettes are much like the same. Can’t buy a pack without reading giant bold print “Danger”.
Many years ago people were passionate about how dangerous cigarettes were to our young ones and what not. The people tried and failed at making a difference. The true difference, is that people will do what they want regardless of someone else telling them. They do what they tell themselves.
Great debate!
I think McD’s advertise on many levels. Certainly, the ads that show the free toys that come with happy meals are aimed directly at children. They also have ads (here in Ireland) where they aim directly at tired parents by promising a free hostess to help with the kids when you visit. I also see they are advertising new healthy meals with carrot sticks and water. Eh, hello? Why would you go to McD’s for that. Buy a carrot and turn on the tap at home.
Ultimately, it all comes down to personal responsibility (or parents being responsible for their kids), something a lot of people ignore these days. Nobody HAS to respond to advertising.
I think Char hit it on the head when she said “Another job we have as parents is to teach our children the importance of moderation and portion control.” Absolutely.
I don’t have kids. However, I know ads can make them very persuasive.
Keep in mind that kids are in fact allowed into rated R movies when they’re accompanied by a parent. In both the movie case and the fatty foods case, the parent is responsible for exercising discernment.
It’s an honour that you’d spend your full day’s blogging quota contributing to the discussion here! Your boys would be proud.
John,
The time-out for editing comments on my site is 15 minutes. Here’s hoping it didn’t take you that long to re-read your thoughts after submitting them. ;) Perhaps there was a glitch on my site, in which case I’d really appreciate you letting me know if it happens again.
Engtech,
I think it’d be great to teach our youngsters about the media. I never had any classes like you did when I was a kid, and in general I think the education systems should focus more on real world skills, like how to communicate properly, or applying for jobs etc.
Swine,
Thanks for keeping the discussion going. It’s great to see more than one side to the debate.
Char,
It’s crazy how McDonald’s chains in the States have a whole different portion bracket than they do here in Europe. Here we get regular, medium and large, but I think you have extra large and super size too?
Brett,
Thanks for dropping in. You could be spot on about the kids relating the food to a playground, or a happy meal toy, for instance. Most likely, it’s the fact that they’re simply familiar with the brand, and with familiarity comes trust.
Jennifer,
Good of you to join in. Personal responsibility is the key, and I agree that Char hit the nail with moderation and portion control.
Cam,
Great discussion on your marketing site. Thanks for that, and for the valid point about movie ratings.
Brett - you said “Many years ago people were passionate about how dangerous cigarettes were to our young ones and what not. The people tried and failed at making a difference.”
I guess it’s a bit different in Canada: Advertising tobacco has been illegal since 1988, and it’s been illegal for a tobacco company to sponsor ‘cultural’ events (which they typically did to circumvent the no-ad law) since 2003. I assumed that there were parallel mandates in the US, but it seems that this isn’t the case. That said, according to wikipedia, it has been illegal to advertise cigarettes on tv or radio in the US since 1971, so clearly similar opinion exists south of the border as well.
As far as movies are concerned, in most provinces we have the ‘AA’ rating (adult accompaniment) which requires parental supervision under the age of 14. On the other hand, movies rated ‘R’ are restricted to anyone under 18, regardless of accompaniment by a legal adult.
I think it would be salient to point out that in both the case of tobacco and media marketing, there is no advertisment targetted at minors for products deemed unsuitable for minors, so it’s not fair to compare the role of a parent in guiding a child’s relationship to a product that wasn’t marketed to them, versus one that was. In either case the role of the parent in helping their child to make good decisions, and protecting them from bad ones is paramount, but this can become a very difficult task when a child or adolescent has been emotionally manipulated by marketing to associate consumption of goods with happiness.
No matter how you slice it, or dress it up, modern marketing isn’t simply about the distribution of product or service knowledge, or increasing the visibility of a brand - it’s about fabricating a fantasy vaule system in which people are subtly coerced to identify with a lifestyle and designing and marketing products that purportedly help the consumer to fulfill this lifestyle goal. Above and beyond the responsibility of parents to help children decode marketing messages, and become media literate, modern marketers are incredibly effective at their job, and are often much more persuasive than a parent can be.
It’s the job of a business to make money. If their products appeal to kids (and are legal for their consumption), then advertising to kids isn’t a problem at all. It’s the parents’ job to regulate what messages get to their kids and how (to a large degree), and it’s also their job to teach the kids how to make better choices. That’s certainly not a company like McDonald’s responsibility.
The following blog post over at adliterate explores the ethicality of different marketing approaches when dealing with children:
http://www.adliterate.com/archives/2005/03/the_ethics_of_m_1.html
…and you may want to give the following resources a read before you say that ‘advertising to kids isn’t a problem at all’.
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/children.html
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241591579.pdf
Hey thanks swinefactory, Yeah I don’t know all that much about Canadian Law, but now I do :) I now have a better appreciate for your view point.
I like Jennifer’s take on “Ultimately, it all comes down to personal responsibility (or parents being responsible for their kids), something a lot of people ignore these days. Nobody HAS to respond to advertising.” Advertising is an art of persuasion. The advertiser can coat their message with sugars but he has no power to make you flip open you wallet to make a purchase if you don’t want to. The control is with the consumer.
No, not really. You’d want to think so, but more often than not, no sir. How else do you explain the fact that pre- and just-barely-pubescent kids are the ones who keep the scummy likes of 50 Cent, Eminem, and Snoop Dogg aflush with green? Those children’s purchasing choices aren’t being governed or steered by the adults entrusted with their care.
Same with McD’s. Yes, there should be parental control in place to ensure that burgers, fries, & chemical-laden strawberry shakes are the exception rather than the norm but there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary. Many parents just aren’t paying much attention to anything their children consume - be it food, media, whatever.
So maybe it IS the government’s place to step in. What’s the difference between a cigarette and a Whopper? Neither one will kill you today. Think carbs aren’t just as addictive as nicotine? I’d suggest they are…
But mostly, what concerns me most is the advertising that’s in the schools. You may choose to exert a great deal of control over what your kids consume at home, but what about those many hours that they’re at school, bending to the will of peer pressure and the crushing forces of manipulative advertising?
The way the fast food & “big soda” companies prey upon kids in school is kinda like shooting fish in a barrel. I wish more parents would get riled up by this exploitatory behavior… We’re sheepishly allowing these companies to grow future consumers from the ground up…
Been a while, but I thought that this might be an interesting addition to the thread:
No child left behind … over at McDonald’s
The mentions of cigarette advertising are so far incomplete. Everybody who has the least thing to do with advertising needs to know the whole story behind the history of generating doubt from the early 1950s through the massive judgements intended to punish the industry in the 1980s.
Without going through the whole story, let me tell you about the verdict itself. Lots of people think that it was to compensate the millions of injured people who bought into their fantasy. As the trial went forward, the court discovered that there had been a series of incredibly evil decisions made. Combined, they added up to a horrific total prompted by nothing more than a simple commercial venture. The court decided that the acts of the defendants merited a punishment that would dwarf the imagination. Certainly the public relations firm got off and the advertising agencies were held blameless. But the idea sprang from the brow of a public relations professional.
That’s it. There are online archives and a book. Nobody can wash their hands with a simple “It’s the parent’s fault.”
Mc Donalds even use sugar on their salads to create an addiction (I guess you know sugar causes addiction)….I really don’t believe McD delivers the “safest food” as they say. A lot of studies are being made around sugar this days, and it seems there is a lot of info hidig around the subject….creepy.
What you’re talking about is often referred to an intentional marketing. It’s targeting a specific group of people. There’s nothing wrong with that as long as the group of people have the abilities to make choices for themselves.
Most people don’t think young children can make good choices for themselves. That’s why they have parents to make those choices for them or to guide them as they get older.
I recently did a series of posts on intentional marketing on my blog. I’ve linked to the first in the series above.
On the other hand, we can use McDonald’s advertisement to nourish our kids. Every time we ended eating at McD, i save their packaging in my bag, (ie: Happy Meal boxes, Large Fries Boxes, etc). Don’t get me wrong here, i will explained. The purpose of the Happy Meal Boxes taken home is to package my vegetable meal with McD’s. Every time i offer vegetable to my kids, there is a McDonald packaging comes with it. As if for the kids, the vegetable are from Mcdonald, so they will eat it. We cant really blame McDonald for the so-called brainwashing of our kids. Instead make a move to adjust with the interest and likes of our kids. We parents can control our kids anyway.
Elementsofinternaitonalmarketing: *Some* people think children can’t make rational decisions? OMG how disingenuous can you get? Do you write speeches for the Republican party?
Our legal system recognizes and neurological research backs up the fact that children gradually gain the ability to make rational decisions, understanding acts and consequences over time. Puberty is generally held to be a point where they begin to be able to make decisions similar to adults. Maturity doesn’t happen until around twenty years of age. The more distant the consequence, the more maturity it takes to make a decision. Choosing a food that is fun to eat but unhealthy is a decision that children are particularly unequipped to make.
It is not a parent’s choice to oversee. It is a parent’s obligation to the community! This is a well established legal principle. It is referred to as “law.” If you allow your little darling to climb into my car and pretend to drive, any consequent damage will be paid by your liability insurance. If he or she uses granny’s crystal candy dish as a frisbee, the same thing goes.
Just look at food marketing and diet marketing and wonder about the ability of adults to make healthy decisions. Is it the marketing industry’s responsibility to commit suicide? Of course not, but there are things that just have to piss off people and giving passive-aggressive answers couched in disingenuous language is not responsible either. Crafting copy for a Airborne pays the same as if you had worked for a good guy. The difference is that Airborne has a similar business plan to the gypsies who put motor oil on your driveway and short change you on the way out.
Bob Calder’s last blog post…The Wisdom of Crowds Questioned