This conversation is closed.

Advertising a healthy diet the same way that junk food companies advertise to the public in subversive ways.

We should change the extent of what foods should be allowed to use different psychological mechanisms to subversively in order to increase appetite for said foods. Every day, every year children and adults alike are bombarded with how certain food and drinks can make us feel better and become more popular. Unfortuately, the majority of this advertising is subversive in its ploys and albiet not very good for us. We should tip the scale in the healthy direction by large scale, expensive, advertising schemes to trick children and adults to eat healthier food and drinks. It seems only fair to at least have both healthy and non-healthy along side each other in the social and public media. We cannot stop junk food companies from selling (and pushing) their products but we can make a change to fill our suggestive subconscious with a multitude of products of different quality.

  • thumb
    Feb 25 2013: Actually healthy diets are currently being advertised a lot. Every gardening show, most cooking shows, most cooking competition show, weight loss competition show (like Biggest-Loser), every fitness show, etc etc advertise a healthy diet.

    I don’t think education is the issue, but instead depression.
    Currently the world is depressing with little hope for a better tomorrow, and thus little reason to take the extra effort to eat healthy. Personally I eat healthy, but it is because I know if I don’t tomorrow will have no chance of being better. But on a national and international scale, the future looks grim and has me thinking why not have that junk food.
  • thumb

    Gail .

    • +1
    Feb 25 2013: What you run up against is that all bodies are different. If I were to follow the US government's dietary guidelines, I would be one huge porker. If I eat over 25 carbs a day, I will gain weight. That's how MY body works. Others' bodies work differently.

    today, there are many fat people because they are told to follow dietary guidelines that actually cause them to gain weight. Better that we should be encouraged to learn about our bodies and nourish them with what OUR unique bodies require for maximum performance.
  • Feb 24 2013: Okay it's unfortunate, but who would pay for it?
  • thumb
    Feb 26 2013: In my hometown, Glendale, California, the most popular store is Whole Foods Market, which has all organic food and doesn't seem to advertise. This food is somewhat expensive, more so than non-organic.
  • thumb
    Feb 25 2013: .
    Why not just tell people:
    "Eat living-cells only"?
    (including just killed cells)
    (See the 1st article, point 12 (1), at
    • Feb 25 2013: That is a wonderful idea, unfortunately animal fats have caused large epidemics of heart disease, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. I suppose if you interpreted "eat living-cells only" as pertaining to raw or as close to raw as possible this could be attributed to a more balanced plant rich diet.
      • thumb
        Feb 25 2013: .Yes.
        "Plant rich diet"!
        So, our teeth, colon .... whole body are for plant food overwhelmingly.
  • thumb
    Feb 25 2013: Although I'd fully endorse this idea, the problem is that the opposition have a major advantage, refined sugar. Sugar accounts for the main gains in fat, a variety of diseases, poor blood sugar and the worst one of them all... addictiveness; more addictive as some illegal drugs.
    So the fight needs to come from both fronts: education from a young age in both how to cook and what ingredients do what, as well as the fight from companies to push products that are evolutionally more suitable for the human being (not advocating the paleo diet for everyone), also legal and political pressure (e.g. government advertising, possible taxes (although this is a tricky area to implement))
    • Feb 25 2013: Addictiveness is an important factor to consider in overcoming the unhealthy, fat rich diet of modern day humans. I have read in a scientific paper recently that one of the active chemicals in cocoa is even more addictive than herion and is being used by the tobacco industry to make cigarettes more addictive. The concoction of chemicals in cocoa, after processed, is less effective but ultimately not sugar. Chocolate has long been seen as both great in moderation and mysterious in its metabolic function. I also agree that political action got us here, but we are a democratic political industry. Why not influence the public policy by inserting people that are involved in companies producing healthier foods into the higher power positions.
      • thumb
        Feb 25 2013: I can't say I ever heard of that paper but would be interested in seeing it, another profit-driven venture I'd imagine! I wonder whether the drive to make things more addictive is the industries way to combat wealth of knowledge and awareness around the problems their products and services incur?

        If only they had the mind to embrace change, surely long-term investment in healthier products will drive a transition which ultimately would retain profit. If a proposed tax on soft drinks (which is currently being considered) was used to force improvements in nutritional content with the tax being lifted when a product eventually hit more acceptable levels. Agreed we are a democratic system, but in UK voting, there's such a low level because no one believes anything they do will make a difference; there seems to be a systemic problem of hidden agendas even if rules, regulations and documentation are meant to be transparent
  • thumb
    Feb 24 2013: If we have multinationals that mass-produce healthy food, then it would be easy and possible.