This is an opinion question, so I gave an explanation on both sides. Yes has 169 words, and no has 174!
YES:
Yes, I believe that TV ads promoting junk food should be banned. They actively promote unhealthy foods in a subtle way. Younger kids watching TV can see the ads with popular faces (Their favorite cartoon character, actor, or other people they look up too), then falsely assume that the junk food is going to be good for you. After they take in the mentality that junk food or unhealthy food is good for you, it will be implemented into their mindset and as they grow up- this will stay with them and promote an unhealthy eating habit. If we banned these ads, there would be advantages and disadvantages. Some advantages would be that the younger generation could possibly grow into healthy eating habits in an easier way or the ads also mess up our body’s way of understanding how hunger feels and can trigger mindless eating. Some disadvantages will be a decrease in junk food ads, less commercial jobs for actors, and a less popular demand for the foods.
<h2>
-----------------------------------</h2>
NO:
No, I do not believe TV ads for junk food should be banned. Kids from the ages 5-14 should not have to worry and be scared about their intake of food, if we do ban those ads it will promote insecurities in eating foods and not only be scared of eating the food for health reasons, but for being shamed or bullied by society. Not only are junk foods when eaten in moderation not detrimental to health in most kids, but when they're going to be taken away it will cause the kids who've become dependent on them for snacks for when they can't cook and don't have help cooking all the time to have to struggle to find something to eat. Of course, banning the ads will have pros and cons, but I truly believe that the cons outweigh the pros. The pros such as promoting a healthy eating habit, showing kids to eat healthy, etc., is VERY important, but there are many many ways we can do this without banning the ads.
<h2><u>
If I helped, please remember to thank, rate, and mark my answer as brainliest if seen fit.</u></h2>
Answer:
C: it says that walking is less costly than other activities because it needs no equipment
Explanation:
if it helped let me know with the rating and thanks <33
Answer:
read is the past tence of read (lol)
Nixon's purpose was when he created the Vietnamization Policy, and Kennedy's purpose was when he created the Peace Corps.
