CELPIP Reading Part 4 Practice Test: Banning Junk Food Ads For Children

Ottawa is weighing rules that would prohibit advertising foods high in sugar, salt or saturated fat to children under 13, not merely on television but on websites, apps, video games and the social media accounts children frequent. Violations could cost companies up to $50,000 apiece. Quebec has banned most advertising directed at children since 1980, and health advocates who have campaigned for a decade want the rest of the country to follow. Manufacturers have lobbied vigorously against such restrictions, insisting that existing industry guidelines suffice.

Dr. Nadia Fournier, an Ottawa pediatrician, confronts the consequences of poor diets weekly. Nearly one Canadian child in three is overweight or obese. “Young children can’t distinguish entertainment from a sales pitch,” she explains, “and that makes them effortless targets.” She cites research indicating that Quebec families purchase less fast food than comparable families elsewhere.

Greg Haldane of the Canadian Food and Beverage Council dismisses the ban as superfluous. His members already observe a voluntary code restricting children’s advertising, and “whatever commercials promise,” he contends, “parents, not governments, decide what lands in the grocery cart.” He also warns that the definitions are so sweeping they could capture cheese and yogurt, which contain fat or sugar yet are generally considered nutritious.

Marketing professor Martin Ellery doubts the restrictions are workable. A generation ago, restricting Saturday-morning cartoon commercials would have reached most children; today they watch gaming streamers and influencers, many compensated by brands in ways that are seldom obvious. The ban deserves a chance, he concedes, but only if regulators receive substantially more staff and funding than currently planned.

Elena Marchetti’s non-profit youth soccer league in Mississauga depends on a fast-food chain whose logo adorns its jerseys and whose sponsorship keeps registration under $100. “If that counts as advertising,” she admits, “I have no idea how we’d replace it.”

Lorraine Tessier, a Winnipeg mother of three, believes the debate misses the point. “My kids crave chips not because of commercials but because chips are cheap and fresh vegetables aren’t.” A bag of apples costs her almost twice what it did five years ago. Making healthy food affordable, she contends, would accomplish far more.

Public comments will be accepted until March 31.

As a Grade 2 teacher, I strongly support this ban. Mr. Haldane takes comfort in 6. Choose…self-regulationparental vigilanceQuebec’s precedentnutrition labelling, but if those rules were working, Dr. Fournier would not be confronting 7. Choose…families unable to afford vegetablesan epidemic of overweight childrenchildren hooked on screensa shortage of young patients in her clinic. Quebec’s experience also shows that limiting ads 8. Choose…hurts small neighbourhood businessesalters shopping habitsbarely registers with childrenworks only on television. Children deserve that protection everywhere in Canada.

I do sympathize with Ms. Marchetti; nobody wants to see 9. Choose…the cost of playing climbjerseys stripped of logosvolunteer coaches put out of workleagues merging for families already stretched thin, and perhaps a public fund could replace corporate sponsors. Professor Ellery is right that online marketing will be harder to police, but that is a reason to 10. Choose…ban children from social mediaconfine the rules to televisionpostpone the rules indefinitelyequip regulators properly, not to give up.

As for Ms. Tessier, cheaper vegetables and protection from clever marketing are hardly mutually exclusive.