A kerfuffle in Australia has arisen over an advocacy ad that likens abuse of food with abuse of heroin, and I like it. The tagline asks a question not unlike I've asked before: If we acknowledge that whole classes of food are junk, why do we eat it?

From the Australian Broadcasting Co. story:

The Sydney-based agency that produced the ad says existing health advertising is not working to curb the problem. It says it wanted to shock parents into action. But health experts say it has gone too far.

In the advertisement, a mother walks into a room carrying a brown paper bag. She sits down at a table next to her little boy who is colouring in. She takes out some heroin and a syringe and ties a tourniquet around her son's arm. The words on the screen say: "You wouldn't inject your children with junk - so why are you feeding it to them?"

Yeah, it's pretty raw, so I can see the objection, but I don't support it. Yes, it's shocking, and it is certainly impolitic. Perhaps it isn't the best way to persuade, and of course, that's the point of ads. If I carried the responsibility for the ad, I might have hesitated.

But the implication, that hooking a kid on heroin is not far from mindlessly feeding him pizza and ice cream because "that's what he likes," or "she won't eat anything else," or whatever, is not acceptable. Parents insist on their kids' brushing their teeth or washing up before dinner from a young age, because it's important.

But so is teaching good nutrition. Going even further, to actually feed them crap instead of just sanctioning it, is clearly irresponsible and possibly worse.

Story tip from Crop To Cuisine.