A Children’s Rights Perspective on Food Advertising to Children

In: The International Journal of Children's Rights
View More View Less
  • 1 Flinders University, Australia
  • 2 Barrister, Owen Dixon Chambers, Melbourne, Australia, chrisnehmy@vicbar.com.au
  • 3 Flinders University, Australia
  • 4 Flinders University, Australia

Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

€25.00$30.00

This article applies the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child to the regulation of food advertising for the prevention of childhood obesity, evaluating the advertising regulation in six jurisdictions against the principles of the Convention. It finds that the Convention would support strict regulation of food advertising for the prevention of childhood obesity; and in particular that such regulation would be appropriate to the model of co-operation between the state and parents that the Convention posits. The article also raises the question whether the grooming of children as consumers through advertising might be a form of economic exploitation.

  • 68

     See, e.g., Freeman (2007), above, note 67, 56–59; Rita Shackel, ‘The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child: A review of its successes and future directions’ [2003] Australian International Law Journal 21, 54–55; John Tobin, ‘Beyond the Supermarket Shelf: Using a Rights-Based Approach to Address Children’s Health Needs’ (2006) 14 International Journal of Children’s Rights 275.

  • 69

    Freeman (2007), above, note 67, 70; Michael Freeman, ‘The Best Interests of the Child? Is The Best Interests of the Child in the Best Interests of Children?’ (1997) 11 International Journal of Law and the Family 360, 375–77.

  • 73

    Freeman (2000), above, note 71, 287.

  • 74

    Freeman (2007), above, note 67, 56 (footnotes omitted).

  • 86

    Freeman (2007), above, note 67, 67. See also Tobin, above, note 68, 283 (describing the ‘tripartite relationship of accountability between parents, the State and the international community’).

  • 93

     See Freeman (2007), above, note 67, 30–31 (arguing that art. 3(1) ‘could have offered a checklist of factors’); Woolf, above, note 72, 208.

  • 94

    Freeman (2007), above, note 67, 5.

  • 97

    Freeman (2007), above, note 67, 28.

  • 107

     See Freeman (2007), above, note 67, 45–47; Detrick, above, note 83, 90.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 401 165 18
Full Text Views 243 30 4
PDF Downloads 34 16 0