• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Should all TV advertising involving food be required to show the sugar content?

Guzzler

Master
Messages
10,577
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Poor grammar, bullying and drunks.
I am thinking of the excesses of Christmas here. The M&S adverts used to have me drooling but if I had seen the amount of sugar per 100g weight of that sticky toffee puddin' would I have bought it?

NB I did not buy it this last Christmas.
 
Id say not - If people are aware enough to care about the sugar conten then they will read the labels before buying stuff, if not theyll at best ignore the content being given on ads etc at worst see it as evidence the nanny state telling them what to do and react against it
 
Aye but remember it was the nany state that got us all to clunk click every trip. That has saved countless lives even in the face of much moaning at first. The same goes for regulations on smokeless fuels and information in the AIDS ads and ads for cigarettes etc etc.
 
I think fines had a massive effect on people eventually adhering to the clunk click message and Im not sure banning adverts for fags had nearly as much to do with people giving up smoking as increased cost through taxation etc did. Wonder how much the fixed penalty charge for sticky toffee pudding eating could be?
 

With regards to the fixed penalty for eating an M&S Sticky Toffee pud the fines would just push production underground. We would then see a flourishing black market with STP dens all over the country

As to the fines for non adherance and heavier taxes etc that came in because people thought they were either above the law or they were so addicted to fags that they were only forced to give up when they could no longer afford it. All things considered, these tactics worked. The same thing is current these days with people ignoring calls to stop using their phones whilst driving, eventually it will become socially unacceptable.
 
Guzzler said:
I am thinking of the excesses of Christmas here. The M&S adverts used to have me drooling but if I had seen the amount of sugar per 100g weight of that sticky toffee puddin' would I have bought it?

NB I did not buy it this last Christmas.
Click to expand...

The name -Sticky toffee pudding gives away the sweetness/googyiness straight away without even looking at the label Also the whole point of advertising is to promote the awareness of the product, to make the consumer buy it, so I can't see it happening anytime in the near future.
 
In other parts of this forum there are complaints about the unintended consequences of the "sugar tax". i.e. lucozade no longer being reliable as an anti-hypo treatment.

Why stop with forcing advertisers to state suger levels?

Surely fat and salt would need to be stated along with typical portion sizes etc.

I think before then the advertisers would give up, and on commercial television, they are the ones paying for the programmes.
 

I agree that if it ever happens it won't be any time soon.
 
I'd say no to that idea specifically, just because it wouldn't affect whether or not I bought it.

But I'm all for certain Nanny State interference. As someone with very little discipline / self control, I do wish that somehow, 'the state' had managed to prevent or dissuade me from ploughing so much sugar into my body over the last 20 years. I just can't think of a mechanism by which they could do that.
 

There are countless advertisements for non food products. Take those annoying ads for cars and the equally annoying ads for shampoo with a model flicking her head around so much that she is almost in danger of whiplash.

Edited to add.
Sugar would be a great first step. As we all know, when producers first brought out Low Fat alternatives for the dieting consumer they did not state that the fat was replaced with sugar.
As to the Lucozade, I am not sure about that one. I have read arguments for alternatives like glucotabs, jelly babys etc but not being an insulin user I am firmly astride the fence.
 
Last edited:
bamba said:
I think before then the advertisers would give up, and on commercial television, they are the ones paying for the programmes.
Click to expand...
If they have to put sugar content in the advertsby law it will be in small print, or direct the viewer to nutrition info on their website where it will be displayed on page # xxxxx.
 
No I don't think so, as there needs to be more. Instead people should be taught that the "of which are sugars" is purposefully misleading and that what should be shown is the total carbohydrate, especially per 100 grams and per average sized serving. This would need to be preceded with public education, that carbs are effectively sugar.

I hate it when there is a label in green at the front making the food appear healthy, only to see the carby truth at the back - how many millions are blissfully unaware of their real sugar input.
 

I agree with you but educating people takes time and it doesn't always work speedily enough to stem the harm that these things (fags, seatbelts, carrier bags etc) can do. One thing I do know is that any hike in manufacturers costs will be passed onto the consumer. There is a campaigne currently striving to change our views on packaging and especially plastics, governments will have to step in and force manufacturers to find biodegradable alternatives whilst educating us on the dangers to the enviroment. You may have heard of the complaints about coconuts being sold in packaging made up of plastic and cardboard, whose bright idea was that?
 
I don't think this is necessary. If I see a cake or biscuits or chocolates or something advertised, I know it's probably not for me. If I want it, I will check the nutrition info myself. People who don't care about nutrition info in the first place probably won't care if they see it on the screen - it's just numbers to them, they don't have any reference points to compare it to, and they'll probably make the same decision about buying the product regardless.
 
For those who are against a nanny state and say people should make up their own minds. I Agree but showing the Sugar Content in All adverts would not be the Govt telling you what to do. It would be them Forcing the Producers to Give you the information with witch to Make your decision. The Debate should be what info to show Fat Content etc.
For those who say info is on labels What about people who need reading glasses like me and are in a busy supermarket and pick up a small tin/package in a dimly lit aisle and try to read label and cant without walking to the dairy or meat depts. to get a better light do we not matter ? (this is just an example)

Producers and in some cases Manufacturers of foods do NOT WANT US TO KNOW they will not tell us unless they are FORCED TO BY LEGISLATION. I would be more concerned about ACCURACY Under current rules they have to show info and are allowed a certain amount of leeway . Why because whenever Legislation Came in 10/20 yrs ago the producers argued it would cripple them if they had to be Exact because of the cost of change. Possibly now they have upgraded their machines to produce faster and faster but have they bothered to look at how to measure the ingredients more ACCURATLY . YES then make the nutritional info more accurate, NO then force them
This is my opinion ,I express It here in the hopes of stimulating a debate because only if we debate change of any sort can we reach a consensus/agreement. As Diabetics we have a particular interest in tis issue .But sugar content should be of concern to Mothers (Teeth ) general public (Weight etc) its not just us we can only influence change if we Start Talking about things we all know are problems.

I Live in Bangkok I am English all my Children/Grandchildren/Great Grandchildren Live in the England just to Establish my credentials to talk about this issue.
 
I have poor eyesight and struggle to read the ingredients list and nutritional values on all products but as I eat a very high percentage of whole foods and because I have the information at my fingertips (phone or device etc)- then this is not a problem for me. As for people who are time poor sometimes that is an excuse because imo there are ways around most problems and with planning and prioritisation one can buy good food and get it on the table.
A lower carb diet is new to me but I have been striving to provide the best, most nutritious food I could afford since having children. I have never liked the Traffic Light System of labelling and, as has been pointed out, it is misleading anyway. If manufacturers are forced to be absolutely honest about their products I cannot see the harm in it even if some people ignore all warnings but today we have an explosion in the numbers of people becoming T2 with all the costs in terms of misery and treatment that that entails.
 
Guzzler said:
I am thinking of the excesses of Christmas here. The M&S adverts used to have me drooling but if I had seen the amount of sugar per 100g weight of that sticky toffee puddin' would I have bought it?

NB I did not buy it this last Christmas.
Click to expand...

I'm old enough to remember when food packaging didn't have the nutrition values we now take for granted. Hello, Del and Rodney.

As to your question, I'd say "no". The more you spoon-feed people, the dumber they get. It's obvious that Xmas pud (drool), mince pies (more drool) and anything else with carbs, in excess, isn't good for anyone with a brain so back to basics and educate in schools, and the home, would be a plan. The explosion in obesity and T2 started a very long time ago, as we know. Terrible dietary advice is the culprit and must be combated at source. The advertisers are only catering to the majority, which hopefully will become the minority. Eventually.
 

I agree with you in that when I was a young Mum information on nutrition was hard to find but if things had not changed and legislation had not been passed that info on packaging is required by law then how much harder would it be now for us as T2s to decide whether a particular food was acceptable? If manufacturers had not been forced to disclose information we would all still be eating thos ENumbers, colourings and additives so prevalent a few years back. The same goes for aspartame. Knowledge is power.
 

You're absolutely right and I hadn't thought that through. Knowledge definitely is power! Which kind of feeds into my counter argument. I can, and do, look up nearly everything I eat, even what my beloved doggie eats! I'd feel patronised if every single foody thing in adverts was analysed and the people to whom it was targeted wouldn't necessarily pay any attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…