few days ago I read in the Corriere della Sera, an article, taking data from a U.S. research, a reminder of a tie on which is often discussed: I am referring to the relationship between publicity and power. The study, done by a group of researchers at Savannah, he aims to write up hypothetical diet of 2000 kcal based only on the subject of food television commercials. The result? Awesome: "We would eat 25 percent more than the permissible daily dose of sugar and 20 percent more fat. And less than half the recommended amount of fruits, vegetables and vitamins," said Michael Mink, co-ordinator the project, and also " advertised foods provide too much of nutrients associated with disease, such as cholesterol, get to the point of proposing to the spot of these foods, sentences of warning, a bit 'as is already for drugs or products containing alcohol.
I state now that my intention is not to the merits of the article published by Elena Meli for the Courier, but rather to propose some considerations on the discussion of the relationship (unhealthy) between media and power, with reference research conducted by Michael Mink and his staff.
First, I think the debate on the role of advertising in influencing the eating habits from a procedural defect that affects all the following considerations: we all agree on the persuasiveness of advertising and the media system in general; and we all agree that the problem of so-called junk food is worrying (it is estimated that the social cost to treat diseases related to obesity due to poor infant feeding is twice that of smoking). What I am not convinced of the analysis, and research on the subject, is that it refers to advertising as a subject "unique", as something homogeneous, that thinks and acts the same way. As if there was some sort of organization centrealizzata advertising, which is attributed to everything about a world that is actually made up of a myriad of agencies, large or small, that operate independently of each other. To connect to the research cited, it makes sense to speak of a "diet spot," as if the campaigns were all from one person (the evil) that has an interest in spreading the consumption of junk food? It 's the case in a unified way of considering the large amount of commercials on TV, when they actually come from many agencies, which in turn work for a number of equally important business clients?
I think not. This is not to do the devil's advocate, who defends the system regardless of advertising, but the system is, and as such is rightly considered. It can not be attributed to the system in its totality and wholeness, a "diet", why not falls within the scope , nor in its possibilities. There is no way to direct all agencies to define a proper diet, what you do, you ask each agency to advertise a different product is part of the diet proposed by the associations of nutritionists? Unthinkable.
The second aspect is related to the production process of the countryside, and then the work of individual agency, and not more publicity as a system of secondary culture industry. Schematically to a minimum, the process can be described as, a manufacturer pays an advertising agency because it will develop a creative campaign to promote the product (or brand) of the client. In this process we can understand that the agency has full responsibility for what is communicated, and therefore there are rules governing the contents of the campaigns (of comparative advertising misleading advertising, passing qulle to children, and so on). But the agency only has the task of promoting a product that was developed by a company. Now, first question: the food companies may not have responsibility further the adoption of a diet (incorrectly) as the object of analysis? After all, it is they who decide what to produce, and they are always to decide what to advertise. Of course, here too it is wrong to generalize and consider a unified set of companies operating in the food industry. What fault did those who sell ready-made sauces, if there is another company that same day he brought her snacks, or its soft drinks? And also, second question: Once it was established that the approach of companies (and their marketing directions) is no longer production-oriented, nor the sale, but the consumer and the market, in a dialogical relation, for the company includes needs (and desires) of its public and then offer them, we are confident that the problem lies precisely in the sphere of production and marketing of junk?
initiatives may not serve strong nutrition education, and then turned to the "people" to consumers, rather than a series of populist measures that lead to criticism against those who manufactures, sells and advertises unhealthy products (such as taxes on fast food Romanians, or the proposed warnings of Dr. Mink), which do not reach any results?
In conclusion, it is true, there is a problem of poor nutrition, and it is true, there is a problem of influence unhealthy by those who work in advertising. But apply only to advertising, as the cause of all evils of modern society, it seems to me an attempt to somewhat 'hypocritical to propose remedies.
What do you think?
VR
