on censuring cereal ads

The British censor Ofcom is threatening to censor sugar ads on the heavily regulated BBC network. The idea is that it is bad for children to consume so much sugar - that it's just not natural, that it rots their teeth, that it makes them fat.

I think this is a bad move for a few reasons. First, sugar is natural. (Though, technically, so is plutonium, but I wouldn't want children consuming it) So there goes that reason. In terms of teeth, we're talking about the British. They are born with bad teeth. Jacked-up teeth is just a part of the cultural heritage - as much as bland food, great rock and roll music and a legacy of imperlialism. Besides, eating sugar is a part of childhood. Why ruin it? The answer lies in moderation.

Yet, I am concerned for larger social reasons. When Ofcom starts regulating sugar cereal advertisements, they have taken over a role that belongs to parents. Besides, who's to say that these companies are marketing to children. Tony the Tiger isn't a children's figure. He's a flesh-eating mammal that can tear a gazelle (is that what they eat?) to pieces. What about the Lucky Charms leprachaun? Again, what child would ever want to meet a leprachaun? They couldn't do anything with a pot of gold anyway. Meanwhile, companies like Disney market from day one - on crazy things like diapers, bottles, etc. There is not a single diaper on the market that does not have some Disney character on it.

What are they supposed to run on children's programs? Beer commercials are funny, but I doubt the kids will get such high-brow humor. Nor would the children understand the complexities of a life-insurance ad. So, the only answer is more toy commercials, which means we are replacing a "part of the nutricious breakfast" with more commercialism. Besides, what happens if kids quit eating sugar cereal? That could lead to an increase in health and eventually overcrowding, overpopulation and higher state-subsidized health insurance.

On a side note, I am embaressed by the actions of the Superhero Union in this respect. The protests are very self-centered. They want to protest, only because they don't want to lose the endorsement money. One superhero (we'll call him "Matban," a well-educated entrepeneur) even carried a sign reading "Respect our first amendment," which is a slap in the face to the people who actually invented a Bill of Rights. Does he think that America's Bill of Rights has any validity in Great Britain?