A clear majority for a ban: 71 % want junk food advertising banned, against 14 % opposed and 14 % of voters with no opinion.
Men are unanimously in favour. Women also back the measure heavily, but supply the entirety of the opposition: the disagreement is carried by a single group.
The sharpest divide remains generational: the 45-54s approve a ban unanimously, while the over-65s refuse it as a bloc. The 18-24s lean clearly towards yes but retain a share of undecided voters.
The debate does not reproduce that balance of power: it is more measured than the vote. The supportive argument comes down to public health. Junk food is a problem for everyone, and advertising it encourages consumption while normalising its harmful effects.
Opposite, nobody defends advertising for its own sake. The objection concerns the scope of the measure: rather than an outright ban, targeted restrictions, particularly on advertising aimed at children, backed by nutritional education.
One reply adds the two limits the majority camp never mentions: the economic cost of a ban, and the share of individual responsibility, since it is up to each person to watch what they consume. The round therefore pits less two camps against each other than a sweeping principle at the ballot and a careful dosage in the thread.