If eating junk food and watching television lead to obesity, a sedentary lifestyle, and a road marked by diminished health and increased illness, then kids living in Britain are about to get a whole lot healthier.

Think about this:

According to the March 19, 2007 issue of TIME magazine, British broadcasting regulator Ofcom will phase out all commercials on children's programming that promote junk food containing high fat, sugar, and salt.

The ban will begin at the end of the year.

Am I required to like pink? Although I am a breast cancer survivor, working at a cancer-related blog that will admittedly feature a whole lot of pink this month, personally I am not fond of the color pink. Much to the chagrin of family and friends, I am fond of black and white -- and of course the classic color of denim. It suits my personality.

I began wearing black when my children were toddlers. Toddlers tend to hang on at knee and thigh level and toddlers are known for a tactile kinesthetic state of being that makes hands sticky with such things as peanut butter and jelly or finger paint. Black is very forgiving a color in that way. It's practical in sorting piles of clothing on laundry day. Black makes deciding what to wear in the morning a no-brainer. Function became my personal fashion as I stayed with black, and as trends come and go, some years I am in and some years I am out.

I am drawn to, and will support, companies that operate from a social responsibility of giving back to the community. However, I take a rather jaded view of the true intention of some companies bandwagon approach to the pink breast cancer awareness theme. Advertising Age has an interesting article titled Breast Cancer Awareness Strategy Doubles Sales of Campbell's Soup that highlights the company's projected profits by introducing the classic red and white can of condensed tomato and chicken noodle soup in a pink ribbon version. In a normal month, Campbell's sells the Kroger chain of grocery stores 3.5 million cans of these two soups. With the pink ribbon cans, the company has sold 7 million cans to the grocery chain and has been given special placement displays outside the soup aisle at Kroger.

Campbell's spokesman John Faulkner is quoted as saying, "We certainly think there is the possibility of greater sales since our typical soup consumers are women and breast cancer is a cause they're concerned about." Campbell's will donate 3.5 cents for every pink can of soup it sells, or $250,000 dollars to the Susan G. Komen Foundation. How much is 7 million cans of soup times 50 cents a can anyway?

I am merely using Campbell's soup as an example of the mind-dizzying number of companies who have gone pink in October. I like Campbell's soup, it reminds me of childhood and simpler times. I will continue to feature companies promoting pink products this month. Part of the sales goes to breast cancer organizations. But I am more impressed with some than others. Before you purchase a product that is promoting itself pink as part of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, ask how much of the purchase price is going directly to breast cancer charity.

When we get to a time when companies who promote a breast cancer awareness pink product donate ALL the profits from that product to breast cancer prevention research and a cure, I will go pink. Ms. Black-and-White will buy pink, wear pink and own pink.

One hundred percent of the net proceeds from Warriors in Pink merchandise will benefit the Komen Foundation. The collection includes t-shirts, men's thermal wear, gear and temporary tattoos for kids. The items feature bold symbols that represent the warrior spirit of taking charge, living out loud, harnessing power and standing together.

Ford's long standing efforts to the fight against breast cancer has supported the Komen Foundation for twelve years and has contributed more than $87 million in donations.

The cast of ABC's Greys Anatomy will help Ford by appearing in a communication campaign designed to raise awareness of the Warriors in Pink. The doctors and interns of Seattle Grace Hospital show their passion for Ford's Warriors in Pink clothing with a series of ads starting September 4th. Characters such as Derek Shepherd, Preston Burke, George O'Malley, Alex Karev, Richard Webber, Callie Torres, Christina Yang, Miranda Bailey and Addison Shepherd appear in the upcoming ads.

The Ford Motor Company raised over $1.6 million dollars from its Lilly Pulitzer designed breast cancer awareness scarf in 2005. The 2006 scarf will feature Warriors in Pink symbols and is available starting in October at www.fordcares.com.

It might be celebrity gossip but news is flying around the internet that Nike has offered Jennifer Aniston a record deal for her celebrity endorsement in exchange for donations that will benefit cancer research. It is being reported Aniston will be appearing in both television commercials and print ads for Nike.

According to the buzz, it might be the most Nike has ever offered for a celebrity endorsement. For Jennifer Aniston? Is she that popular? I am not being snarky. Really I am not. I just didn't know she was popular on the level that Nike would offer her the most money they have offered anyone for a celebrity endorsement.

Not long ago, Sheryl Crow publicly thanked her family and friends Jennifer Aniston and Courtney Cox for keeping her spirits up during the first days after breast cancer diagnosis. Maybe there is something to the Nike deal. If the amount of money being reported is true, and it is earmarked for cancer charity -- then it's worthy of a mention at The Cancer Blog. We appreciate any sizable donation to cancer research.

In television ban on junk food ads, I posted about UK's Food Standards Agency, FSA, recommendation for a ban on television advertising of junk foods in an effort to curb the continuing weight gain of children. The Telegraph UK is reporting that the FSA will be taking the ban one step further by suggesting that the ban extend to all forms of media, including websites, computer games, cinemas, packaging and school sponsorship.

This is a brainstorming effort of potential actions that might be taken in the campaign against childhood obesity. Other suggestions being batted about is a store loyalty card that rewards consumers for choosing healthy foods over junk food containing high levels of salt, fat and sugar.

According to the Telegraph UK, there was a White Paper published two years ago in which the government promised to take action against food advertisers who target children by early next year. In what has been called a draconian regime, the FSA has devised a system of nutrient profiling to identify offending food products. The obesity issue is real. Is this the answer?

UK's Food Standards Agency, FSA, is suggesting a ban on television advertising of junk foods in a continuing effort to curb the rising number of overweight children. The FSA's three possible actions that could be taken in relation to television food ads, as reported by Reuter are:

1. Ban all food and drink ads during television programs that are made specifically for children, or that appeal to children of nine and under, which covers a broad range of programs like The Simpsons.
2. The first ban option except the restricted food advertising would simply be for junk food high in fat, salt or sugar.
3. Limits on the number of food and drink ads shown per hour at any time when children are likely to be watching.

No celebrities or animated figures will be allowed in food commercials aimed at children. What happened to the parental NO? Unless you have your child doing the grocery shopping alone, how is junk food making it into the home? I can understand a need to make certain lunch programs at school are regulated to ensure healthy foods are being served to our kids while they are away from home, but are we really all that incapable as parents of saying no when asked for the latest sugary-treat? Or, while the regulatory agencies wrestle over the fine print of the new proposed bans, why don't we just turn off the television, get up and go take a walk with our kids?

Every parent knows the pitfalls of Saturday morning cartoons and the commercials plastered between cartoons. As a parent, you can count on your children coming and extolling the latest greatest breakfast cereal or toy and adamant about getting it. With my children, I counter with lessons about Madison Avenue advertising and the massive amounts of money they sink into finding out what will appeal to the consumer and how to appeal to them. For children, advertisers sell fun.

Researchers took a good hard look at the advertisements for oncology drugs appearing in cancer magazines and found them to be a bit misleading. It does make sense if you are trying to sell a product that you would emphasis the benefits and minimize the less attractive aspects of the product when advertising them, but these products are drugs and not toys or breakfast cereals, and the impression can lead the consumer to believing something that simply isn't true. For cancer patients, advertisers sell hope.

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute first noticed that the benefits of the drug appear in large text while the side effects and risks appear in smaller text. According to the researchers conclusion, the ads are designed in such a way that the consumer might not appreciate the dangers of the drug. There was a time when prescription drug makers did not advertise, in the same way lawyers did not advertise. Of course, we are so bombarded each day with prescription drug advertisements that I doubt many of us can remember when advertising directly to the consumer wasn't the norm. I am certain doctors everywhere are seeing patients each and every day come in and request a drug because they saw it advertised by the drug company wanting to sell more of the drug. In this study, the magazines that were analyzed were CURE, Coping with Cancer and MAMM.

Heather Crowe never smoked, but she was diagnosed with lung cancer. After 40 years of working as a waitress in smoked-filled restaurants, she became a lung cancer victim of second-hand cigarette smoke. Four years ago, she began a campaign of lobbying the Canadian government to pass a law banning smoking in all public places. In television ads for Health Canada, Crowe described herself as the face of cancer caused by second-hand smoke. Eventually, Crowe convinced the Ontario Government to pass the Smoke Free Ontario Act. On May 31st, all bars, restaurants and indoor public places must be 100 percent smoke-free. The act will ban any smoking in any enclosed public places and will add restrictions to the promotion, handling and display of cigarettes in stores. As a result of her efforts, Crowe is credited with accomplishing more in tobacco control to protect public health than any other one person. She had told people she wanted to live long enough to see the anti-smoking legislation go into effect.

Sadly, Crowe died one week before she could see that happen, but not before she accomplished what she set out to do, and her legacy to protect the health of the public from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke will live on for generations to come. Crowe was 61.

That there is an effective cervical cancer vaccine about to hit the market is encouraging news. Any successful and safe cancer prevention method is good news. Recently, a public service announcement, PSA, has been airing on television attempting to raise awareness about the virus that can lead to cervical cancer. The PSA I am seeing is coming from Merck, one of the drug companies that will be selling the vaccine. Unless I am mistaken, not once does the PSA mention the vaccine -- only the virus associated with cervical cancer. I believe this is intentional. I believe the drug company might be anticipating a resistance from the parents of teenage daughters to the vaccine based on ethical and moral grounds. If I were a drug company, I would quickly and reasonably decide to try to keep the vaccine above the fray of ethical and moral objections by promoting education about the virus.

Vaccines are a preventative measure against virus, not a treatment for after-exposure to a virus. As such, the ideal population to reach with a cervical cancer vaccine that protects against the sexually-transmitted human papilloma virus, HPV, will be teenage girls before they become sexually active. I predict it is going to be a controversial issue and debate where sexual activity of teenage girls becomes the focal point and not the potentially life-saving cancer prevention vaccine. I am betting the current awareness-raising ad campaign from the drug company in the virus link to cervical cancer is an attempt to minimize the debate with an educational approach. That's my hunch.