Today the Environmental Working Group (best known for its “Dirty Dozen” list of pesticide-laden produce) released a not very surprising report detailing the insane amounts of sugar in children’s cereals. Kellogg’s Honey Smacks, at nearly 56 percent sugar by weight, won the top prize, packing more sugar (20 grams per cup) than a Hostess Twinkie.
While most media outlets dubbed it the “Happy Meal toy ban,” the ordinance passed in San Francisco last year didn’t ban anything. The law just placed a few reasonable nutrition guidelines (a maximum of 600 calories per meal and limits on fat and salt, for example) for restaurants using free toy incentives to lure kids into a lifetime of bad eating habits. In a rare victory for children’s health, the bill passed despite heavy lobbying by McDonald’s. Read rest at Grist…
A colleague sent me this hilarious email message from one Tom Forsythe, vice president of corporate communications at General Mills. It seems that the mega cereal company found itself on the receiving end of a barrage of emails complaining about its opposition to the voluntary marketing to children guidelines proposed by the federal government. (I wrote about Big Food’s lobbying assault recently for Food Safety News.) So what else is the maker of Reese’s Puffs and Lucky Charms to do but put its PR machine into overdrive by explaining itself. Here is the company’s pathetic attempt in its entirety.
The kind folks at Nourish interviewed me recently. Here it is, cross-posted from their site.
Michele Simon: It’s quite simple. Food companies convince us to buy unhealthy foods with very sophisticated marketing plans that target specific populations, including youth. Companies want to get children hooked on their brands early so that they will win over life-long customers. The industry says we advocates have no “proof” that food marketing influences people’s eating habits, but if marketing didn’t work, why would food companies spend billions of dollars a year doing it?
When McDonald’s sneezes, the media jumps. Such was the case yesterday when the company announced it was giving the Happy Meal a makeover. Well not really, but that’s how it got reported, because the media loves simple stories. But when it comes to marketing and PR by multinational corporations, nothing is ever that simple.
Today is the deadline to file comments with Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children. Industry is fighting back hard. See Marion Nestle’s explanation here and submit your own comments here. This is what I just submitted: (I will be writing more on the industry lobbying soon.)
While I commend the IWG for recognizing that the current industry approach is a complete failure, I do not support the idea of voluntary regulations. The food and media industries have demonstrated time and time again that they cannot be trusted to protect children. The voluntary system has gotten us into this mess, so how could it possibly get us out of it? We need government to step in and do its job to protect children from corporate predatory marketing. It’s time for FTC to stop complaining that it does not have the authority to regulate and ask Congress to fix that problem. It’s also time for the smart lawyers at FTC and elsewhere to come up with feasible solutions that will stand up to First Amendment scrutiny. This can and must be done. Now, before it’s too late.
I just returned from a 2-day meeting in Brussels. I was asked to participate with other experts from around the world (mostly from Europe) to address the problem of cross-border marketing of unhealthy food to children. In the age of satellite TV, the Internet, and other technologies, one country’s standards may be insufficient to protect children from being exposed to junk food marketing. Because the meeting was not open to the general public, I cannot share all of what was discussed (the standards are still in draft form), but I can highlight a couple of presentations made to a larger group of “stakeholders.”
When it comes to food, everybody’s got an opinion. Same goes for parenting. Mix the two together and you’ve got the makings of a culture war. Witness the recent scuffle between Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama over the White House’s rather tame Let’s Move campaign aimed at ending childhood obesity.
So last month, when the Center for Science in the Public Interest announced it was filing a class action lawsuit to stop McDonald’s from using Happy Meal toys to market to children, the fierce and ugly backlash against the mother of two who was brave enough to attach her name to the case was predictable.
Continue reading →
The Center for Science in the Public Interest, that venerable organization that never seems to tire of studying the same problems over and over again, has once again demonstrated that food and media companies are failing miserably when it comes to improving its marketing practices toward children. The report gives 3/4 of companies reviewed a failing grade for either having weak policies or having no policy whatsoever. The report’s poster child (so to speak) is shown here, Chuck E. Cheese’s “pizza maker,” which doesn’t actually make pizza, thankfully.
From the press release is this horrifying product description:
Candy company Topps also got an F. That company makes, among other things, Baby Bottle Pop, a powdered candy sold in a miniature baby bottle, eaten by dipping a candy nipple in a sugary powder and licking it off. Over the years Topps has retained the services of the Jonas Brothers and the Clique Girlz singing groups to convince children to purchase that infantilizing product, whose 140 calories all come from sugar.
Gross. Since this is hardly earth-shattering news, the real question is when we are going to see any political will to do something about it. While Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” program is admirable for its emphasis on school nutrition and food deserts, it’s painfully silent on junk food marketing. No amount of exercise can overcome the food habits being pushed on America’s kids by Corporate America’s billions of advertising dollars. Let’s move on that.
