A government proposal to ban advertising of unhealthy food and beverages to children under 15 is facing criticism for potentially overstepping into parental responsibility and isolating children from reality.

The proposal, spearheaded by Morten Bødskov and Sophie Løhde, argues that children are impressionable and influenced by social media figures. However, critics contend that parents play a more significant role in shaping children’s eating habits. They suggest that instead of restricting commercial freedom of expression, the focus should be on empowering parents to educate their children about making responsible choices.

The argument against the ban suggests that children’s exposure to unhealthy food predates social media. Blaming influencers for children’s cravings for sweets is seen as an oversimplification of the issue.

Parents are in a prime position to discuss choices, temptations, and consequences with their children regarding unhealthy food consumption, using pocket money as a tool for learning responsibility.

Rather than relying on state intervention, it is argued that parents should embrace their role in guiding their children’s choices and fostering healthy habits.

Furthermore, the proposal overlooks the fact that adults themselves often struggle with unhealthy eating habits, suggesting that shifting responsibility onto children is not a sustainable solution.

Ultimately, critics argue that influencers should not be scapegoated for a matter that fundamentally concerns upbringing and parental guidance. Legal products should remain legal to advertise, and responsibility should remain within the home rather than being transferred to governmental bodies.