I think there would need to be some clarification on what is meant by 'children'. If it's taken to be the usual legal definition of a minor (i.e. someone who is under 18) then firstly it would be a nanny state gone mad to suggest that people as old as 17 aren't fit to make their own choices on what they eat, and it would also be an extremely grey area - how do you aim something at 18 year olds which isn't by implication aimed at 17 year olds (and a lot of 16 year olds for that matter too).And I'm about to veer off the initial topic, but I believe this point is worth nothing anyway: many people are supporting a bill stating that advertising food to children should be illegal. At face value that seems fine but there would certainly be many grey-areas (and thus lawsuits) about to which age-group certain foods/advertisments had been aimed.
Is it morally right to embroider the truth on a CV?
I think there would need to be some clarification on what is meant by 'children'. If it's taken to be the usual legal definition of a minor (i.e. someone who is under 18) then firstly it would be a nanny state gone mad to suggest that people as old as 17 aren't fit to make their own choices on what they eat, and it would also be an extremely grey area - how do you aim something at 18 year olds which isn't by implication aimed at 17 year olds (and a lot of 16 year olds for that matter too).And I'm about to veer off the initial topic, but I believe this point is worth nothing anyway: many people are supporting a bill stating that advertising food to children should be illegal. At face value that seems fine but there would certainly be many grey-areas (and thus lawsuits) about to which age-group certain foods/advertisments had been aimed.