New Study Slams Food Marketing to Children

[CharityCase]

I also had a few "years in Purgatory" when I worked for the one of the world's largest food conglomerates. I cycled through three different roles there: international business, Ice Cream Marketing and Confectionery marketing. The latter two each had youth marketing components which I took part in planning and developing. I'm now in the not-for-profit sector but I will say that my experience at "rhymes with Presley" was valuable for me at the time, despite later sentiment that I'd done something creepy.

Marketing to young children is all about the "nag factor" as marketing folks like to call it. Since those under 11 have no money of their own they have to beg mom or pop for what they want. TV and Print ads and especially in-store promotions are driven entirely on this principle. And believe me when I say that the line about "parents should teach their kids about responsible eating habits" has been heard loud and clear by MNCs who target children. They've rolled out all sorts of "feel-good" programs and literature with the understanding that this builds loyalty with parents, the "keepers" of the under-11s, who will start to see their company as:

Responsible

Thoughtful

Interested in children's health and nutrition.

In these cases certainly this is better than status quo, but I doubt any reasonable person would believe that a McDonald's sports campaign is truly interested in encouraging health and activity if they thought it would divert customers from eating there.

What's been interesting in the last couple of years has been the changes to actual products (and not just marketing campaigns) that consumers have brought about. I believe all of..General Mills?..kid's cereals are now made with whole wheat. Chip companies have moved away from Trans-Fat oils. So whether negative press is founded in fact or not, it has the power to force change in product offerings. Ultimately I think that can be more powerful and more influential than changing campaigns or the quantity of ad messages since...as many have already mentioned...there's no denying a kid's desire for fat and sugar and there's no way to supplant yourself as a parent between your child and the hundreds of marketing messages they are subjected to on an average day: walking to the bus stop past a billboard, walking in the hallway at school past a coke machine, eating lunch in a cafeteria, etc.

[JohnL]

How about the benefit of pleasure.

Twinkies taste good (to a lot of people kids included).

We don't "need" fois gras" either --there are plenty of people who believe that fois gras is "junk" food. Also wine and ice cream and......

This is my main point.

I agree junk food gives us pleasure, but I was asking about the benefit of advertising to small children. Since they have no money of their own (typically allowances are given to kids older than toddlers), it seems as though advertising junk food to them is mainly to get them to whine and cry to their parents for the products. And since we seem to expect parents to say no and make sure they have a healthy diet overall, it seems like it's just creating an additional battleground between parents and children that doesn't need to be there.

Those advertisers pay for the programming that our kids watch. So no advertising--no cartoons or any other programming.

Please don't bring up PBS either --it is basically the same deal--ever notice how many Sesame Street related products are clogging toy store shelves--just more subtle.

No argument about PSB from me! But as far as paying for programming, I can certainly understand advertising junk food to older kids or using advertising to influence what kids want for toys, school supplies, etc. But targeting kids under 8 years old who are too young to differentiate between ads and facts with messages that junk food is good is a different issue for me.

Again, I'm not suggesting banning such ads, just that we balance them out by helping to better educate kids and parents on the (potentially lifelong) effects of watching junk food advertising as well as actually eating massive amounts of the stuff.

←

I think we agree.

It is not advertising or so called junk food per se but rather abuse.

I would argue that a child who does whine and beg for something and does not get it because a parent says no will eventually learn that the parent is in control, that they can not have everything they want and that everything they see on TV is not something they should have--is better off.

Later on they will learn why--parents can explain and schools can provide facts about nutrition etc.

this child will be better equiped to handle life and to make far more difficult and important choices.

I also believe that the biggest failing is not lack of government regulation but rather bad or lazy parenting. too many kids are allowed to watch far too much TV (and play mindless video games).

also--too many kids are not getting enough exercise and are suffering because of over indulgent parents.

Finally, I am somewhat skeptical of the claims that child obesity is as "rampant" and is as big a problem as some would have us believe.

I am as suspicious of many of the groups proffering dire warnings as I am of corporations trying to sell us stuff. They both have a profit motive. In fact, the corporations are more above board--they advertise and make no bones about selling --they are what they are. Some of these 'public interest" groups and government agencies are far more subversive.

What we need as citizens and parents is accurate information and perspective and honest debate so we can make the decisions we are perfectly capable of on our own and for our children.

We all need to learn and practice moderation!

[Carrot Top]

Anyone with questions as to the levels of child obesity should visit an elementary school and just look.

If that is not enough, then speak to any phys ed teacher at any elementary school.

..................................

And I would hope that anyone who speaks of how to raise children has done it, and very successfully.

....................................

Diversity is wonderful.

So is walking a mile in someone else's shoes.

[JohnL]

Anyone with questions as to the levels of child obesity should visit an elementary school and just look.

If that is not enough, then speak to any phys ed teacher at any elementary school.

..................................

And I would hope that anyone who speaks of how to raise children has done it, and very successfully.

....................................

Diversity is wonderful.

So is walking a mile in someone else's shoes.

←

anecdotal information needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

------------

your second point is a tactic often

used to exclude someone from a debate/discussion

or to devalue someone's opinions--I am sure that is not what you are doing here.

Experience does not neccessarily make one an "expert."

It has its place in lending some weight. I would posit that actually having experience being a child may be more important in the discussion than being a parent.

Most of these "problems" with children today.

is a result of our generation not our parent's generation. I have always held that our parents were pretty good at raising kids--it is a result of our rebelling against our parents and their values that has created most of the problems our kids have today.

(that's really a debate for somewhere else thougfh)

-------------

I am certainly not saying there is no problem with child obesity.

I have spent plenty of time around some elementary schools and to be honest--I haven't seen an "epidemic." you have--I believe you (whether or not you have any kids yourself).

In fact, we are told (and I have seen) there is an explosion of youth sports underway. More kids are participating than ever before--- in fact parents are complaining there is too much sports.........

Also this seems to be the most appearance conscious generation ever-so there is plenty of anecdotal (and otherwise) information that is somewhat in conflict here.

----

I do find it perplexing that so many people accept any argument at face value from any organization that has an altruistic name or mission statement while they trash or question any corporation or entity that has a profit motive. for eg--why would we just accept anything the SG's office says and question the defense department--same governemnt!

-----

I do have issues with the pervasiveness of advertising and some of its methods.

and we do need rules, laws and regulations.

schools do need to teach nutrition and have phys ed requirements.

---

so in the end--it doesn't matter so much what the rest of the world is experiencing--if we do our part to make sure our children are not having health problems --then we will have been good parents (and the world will be that much better).

Edited December 13, 2005 by JohnL (log)

[Carrot Top]

It is not only anecdotal information which should be taken with a grain of salt, in my opinion. Any piece of information really should be looked at to decide whether it is accurate, fair, clear, and of course to decide what it was created to "do" in the first place - what was the intent of the reported information - what was its mission?

And no, I am not trying to exclude anyone. Though I do get cranky often about this world where everyone seems to have become a critic or an expert in any given field.

I do tend to look for either credentialism (oh no - I do not mean a formal "degree" in something, I mean experience, hands on experience) or proven competency in a field of knowledge before I really want to take the word of anybody discussing that topic.

Would I ask someone who had never approached a stove nor cracked an egg how to make an omelette? Would you? Would their information be as valid as someone that *had* done it, or someone who had even done it for years, or even done it as a professional?

Therefore my comments. It would seem more valid to me to listen to someone who had been successful at whatever it is they are talking about.

I do have children. They are not obese nor unhealthy. But I do see a lot of heavy kids, kids in elementary school who weigh more than I do. They do sports, some of them. Most of the obese children don't, though.

There is nothing wrong with corporate profits nor anything else as long as the concepts of fairness are intact and in place. Having spent some portion of my life on Wall Street as a corporate VP, I am fairly certain that rules are made to be broken though, and not just by the man on the street.

I feel that schools need to do more than merely teach nutrition. Nutrition can be very boring. That "food pyramid" sent home as homework will be done and then the child will reach for the nearest bag of potato chips. Which is fine as long as the child is healthy and not obese.

The schools need to actually feed the children healthy food. We, the parents, need to feed the children healthy food. Is it okay if my own kids are not obese? Is it okay that I am managing okay with my kids - is that enough?

I am not sure. I look at the other kids and worry. I look at the people in the street, and yes I have to agree that the most recent report that states 23% of the American population is obese is pretty near the mark.

Is it okay to just say "Let them figure it out themselves if they want to"?

Maybe that is the right thing to do.

If I thought that all the fat people walking around were happy and healthy being that way, I would do just that. But I do not think they are - and even though part of that unhappiness might be formed by our society that demands a certain "look" from us, there is more to it than that, it seems to me.

The heart does not work as well when carrying fat. The feet hurt. Breaths do not come easily. Is this all okay? If so then I will stop worrying about the one-quarter of the people I see walking around every day that are in this shape.

I believe in personal responsibility and in taking care of your own. But something seems to have gone rather wrong in a big way here in this area - and I think that at this point advertising and marketing needs to be a little more aware of their part of this problem, and they need to react - for the betterment of society.

They will not do so without being pushed to. It is not what they do. They are there to make money. They will not respond without enough people saying "get out of my face, I've had enough of your nonsense."

I've had enough of their nonsense.

And I continue to worry about those children who for some reason eat nothing but junk and who continue to become larger and unhealthier - whether they are my child or not.

[Busboy]

.

Most of these "problems" with children today.

is a result of our generation not our parent's generation. I have always held that our parents were pretty good at raising kids--it is a result of our rebelling against our parents and their values that has created most of the problems our kids have today.

Lord help me Jesus. How the rest of your argument be taken seriously when you put stuff like this on line? Cranks and armchair critics used that line of reasoning against my grandparents' generation ("those darn flappers!") and they'll be using it against my grandkids'. Whatever is going on, cheap, easy and politically motivated pop psychology surely does not hold the answer.

It's not TV commercials, it's Dr. Phil that needs to be regulated.

[FabulousFoodBabe]

It's not TV commercials, it's Dr. Phil that needs to be regulated.

←

Too funny! (and true ...)

To the person who said upthread that corporations are just out to make a buck ... what else should they be doing? Rhetorically, I mean. Stated purpose of a business, blah blah blah.

Couldn't agree more with the comment, too, about what will be defined as junk food. Nutritionists have been barking about it for as long as I can remember. At one point, it was declared that "Pizza is the most nutritious junk food."

You don't have to be a parent to care about kids. You don't have to have fat kids to care about what is happening to them. (I personally would prefer to see mandates against slapping, spanking, shoving, berating, ignoring, or allowing kids to have a sedentary lifestyle. But none of that is gonna happen.)

[JohnL]

.

Most of these "problems" with children today.

is a result of our generation not our parent's generation. I have always held that our parents were pretty good at raising kids--it is a result of our rebelling against our parents and their values that has created most of the problems our kids have today.

Lord help me Jesus. How the rest of your argument be taken seriously when you put stuff like this on line? Cranks and armchair critics used that line of reasoning against my grandparents' generation ("those darn flappers!") and they'll be using it against my grandkids'. Whatever is going on, cheap, easy and politically motivated pop psychology surely does not hold the answer.

It's not TV commercials, it's Dr. Phil that needs to be regulated.

←

It is pretty well documented that our generation is self centered and prone to whining.

(how do I know?--I am part of it--you know that "experience" thing)

The use of the term "parenting" has become prevalent recently and it is clear that the views on child rearing are quite different than those of our parents.

This isn't the place to enter into a sociological theory debate-- but I am not dealing in "cheap easy or politically motivated" pop psychology here.--by the way what politics are you alluding to?

I am also not "making an argument."

It is pretty clear we all agree that child obesity is a problem.

That nutrition should be taught in schools.

That parents are responsible for their kids.

All I am noting is:

--advertising to children is already heavily regulated

--product manufacturing is also regulated

--all corporations are not inherrently evil

--it is difficult at best to specify and categorize just what junk foods are

--we should apply common sense and some healthy skepticism when we see "dire warnings" from any source

In recent years we have seen dire predictions about "epidemics" --

(note these are never presented as a mere problem)

from SARS to Bird Flu--to obesity (not just plain old obesity but "morbid" obesity) to ADD to Asthma to diabetes to.........

As for the generational "thing"--I would only note that we are the generation that has come up with a seemingly endless list of maladies like TMJ and various "syndromes" to explain away every little headache we get. We have perfected the art of taking real problems--blowing them out of proportion increasing the scope and creating a "crisis" and then spending and regulating.

All these are serious problems to be sure. But if one simply accepts all the hyperbole then things are pretty grim indeed.

So all I am saying is we need better perspective, better more reliable information, more acceptance of responsibility for ourselves and our children and less "knee jerk": let's ban-- lets regulate let's sue everyone--let's pour tax dollars into quick solutions, let's.......

I just got done watching a huge soccer tournement--literally thousands of kids of all ages--not one "morbidly obese" (I am not stupid--I know that there are kids who do have serious problems and I am all for solutions and help that actually works) hardly indicative of an "epidemic."

So, if there really is an epidemic out there--who is responsible?

TV commercials?

General Mills and MacDonalds?

junk food?

parents?

IMOP the answer is probably all of the above (and more). So let's look at the problem further:

kids are fat

how did they get this way?

kids watch TV (do parents control how much etc?) TV advertising is subversively making kids want to eat junk food.

kids can't buy junk food themselves so how do they get it?

who determines what kids eat anyway?

TV?

parents?

Who should determine what kids eat?

MacDonalds, the governemnt. parents?

enough already--I am more concerned that some Belgian Monks are preventing us from drinking their beer!--the nerve!!!!!

[Carrot Top]

As parents, we are responsible for our children and their health as much as is humanly possible.

As members of society, we build our own culture.

The "solution" to any complex problem is never apparent and often unobtainable in a perfect form.

Corporations should make money. I have absolutely no problem with that.

That is what they are supposed to do.

As a parent, it is up to me to take care of my children.

As a member of society (no matter how ambivalent I am about even having to be this thing), it is up to me to say when it seems to me that things are off-balance in the ways they are operating.

I think to live in a culture where selling "whatever" is in my face as often as it is, as loudly as it is, is off-balance. Yes, I do turn off the TV etc etc. Still, I would like to see the "noise" level of this stuff reduced in our culture.

To me, the noise level is part of the problem. Who can stop to think when constantly bombarded? It is like running from one loud room to another with no respite.

Some people have no problem compartmentalizing to avoid the larger effect.

Some people are take-charge types who whoosh through the world making their own way.

But some are not. A lot are not. A lot of people are reactive.

It takes a huge amount of energy to get beyond being reactive and not all people have that to summon.

My own feeling is that a lot of obesity stems from many people in our culture feeling unfulfilled, unsatisfied, and incapable of changing things enough in their lives to hit the level that the media throws out into the air as being the way one should be.

The constant demands for perfection in our culture simply can not be met by the majority. There is a split between reality and created demand, a created demand that is in our faces everywhere, pervasive because media is everywhere.

This leads to anomie.

Where does anomie lead?

One place it can lead to is stuffing one's face with food.

Let corporations make money. Please. I like money.

Let parents care for their children in good and full ways. Please, please.

But get this sh*t out of our faces. We should not need to keep watch to beware of it. It should sell itself in less demanding and sometimes, to some people, finally excruciating ways.

It is not marketing's "fault". No.

But it is not good, either, the sort of dance upon society that "marketing" is doing in some cases.

[Carrot Top]

Soccer games are great.

Yes, the children there are not obese, are they.

Take a look at who they are and how they got to the soccer game, though.

They are the children who have a parent who can transport them there, for all those practices two or three or four times a week.

They are the children who can afford the uniforms.

They are not the children with a parent who, while not wishing to neglect them, simply can *not* drive them to practices because they work long hours or odd hours and don't make enough money to pay someone to transport them.

I have not seen a school system yet that provided busses to take kids to soccer practice.

There are kids that are falling through the cracks. There are have been, there always will be.

(Yes, it would be great if other parents would offer help to these kids, but the other parents generally are running around like chickens with their heads cut off dealing with their own kids and their own stuff. It just does not happen.)

These kids do not need to be sold on crap as they sit alone at home in front of the television.

Parent's fault?

I don't know.

My mother was one of these parents.

I don't "blame" her.

She did not have the wherewithal to do it in the way that some do.

This "marketing" will not affect the strong, the monied, the settled, the "everything-is-okay's" people. It *will* affect those who are not. It provides easy access to ideas of "okay-ness" while not actually providing anything. It is bullsh*t.

[Patrick S]

Soccer games are great.

Yes, the children there are not obese, are they.

Take a look at who they are and how they got to the soccer game, though.

They are the children who have a parent who can transport them there, for all those practices two or three or four times a week.

They are the children who can afford the uniforms.

They are not the children with a parent who, while not wishing to neglect them, simply can *not* drive them to practices because they work long hours or odd hours and don't make enough money to pay someone to transport them.

I have not seen a school system yet that provided busses to take kids to soccer practice.

←

Excuses, excuses. . .

Soccer is hardly your only option. You don't have to leave your house or spend any money to get good exercise. For instance, my daughter and I are trying to teach ourselves jiujitsu. What this means in practice is that I let her practice arm bars and hip throws and more or less beat the crap out of me, a few nights a week. She has a great time, I have a great time, she gets exercise I get exercise, she learns some self-defense. Maybe one day she'll get bored with this, and thats fine. But I'll make sure we find something new. I bet that for most kids there is some physical activity that is engaging enough.

Edited December 14, 2005 by Patrick S (log)

[JohnL]

Soccer games are great.

Yes, the children there are not obese, are they.

Take a look at who they are and how they got to the soccer game, though.

They are the children who have a parent who can transport them there, for all those practices two or three or four times a week.

They are the children who can afford the uniforms.

They are not the children with a parent who, while not wishing to neglect them, simply can *not* drive them to practices because they work long hours or odd hours and don't make enough money to pay someone to transport them.

I have not seen a school system yet that provided busses to take kids to soccer practice.

There are kids that are falling through the cracks. There are have been, there always will be.

(Yes, it would be great if other parents would offer help to these kids, but the other parents generally are running around like chickens with their heads cut off dealing with their own kids and their own stuff. It just does not happen.)

These kids do not need to be sold on crap as they sit alone at home in front of the television.

Parent's fault?

I don't know.

My mother was one of these parents.

I don't "blame" her.

She did not have the wherewithal to do it in the way that some do.

This "marketing" will not affect the strong, the monied, the settled, the "everything-is-okay's" people. It *will* affect those who are not. It provides easy access to ideas of "okay-ness" while not actually providing anything. It is bullsh*t.

←

You know, I actually agree with you more than one might think reading all these posts.

Obesity is a serious problem to be sure.

It is also a complex issue with a lot of causes.

Does advertising contribute?--yes absolutely.

It is a small role-IMOP.

The real culprit is kids spend too much time sitting in front of TV sets--much more than the actual advertising messages.

Even worse-kids are often, actually eating while they watch.

This is affecting more than their size--their minds are being impacted as well.

Corporations are responsive to the market place--we like to think that things are the other way round--that corporations "make" us do things. It is not that simple.

The first problem with the folks that want to regulate things is they will have a hard time determining just what "junk" food actually is. There is a thread about how Illinois is attempting to ban whole milk from schools.

All this is really just a band aid anyway.

In the end--it all comes down to parents as the first, last and best line of defense and where parents are falling down here then the schools are most important.

Education is the best and most efficient means of motivating behaviour. Schools need to do two things--each of which they are equipped to do and are therefore best at--educate kids (they will let parents know what they want just like they whine for those twinkies they saw on TV). and provide healthy food for lunch and mandatory gym classes and activities during and after school hours.

banning and regulating are expensive and mostly ineffective--remember prohibition. They also risk throwing the fat baby out with the bathwater--they can infringe on our ability to have choices. Take smoking--i would argue that banning or taxing cigarettes would not work --at least not nearly as efficiently as educating kids about the risk--as smoking loses its "aura" fewer kids will try it and the problem diminishes.--it already is. This takes time but in the end--it is worth it because it works.

[hjshorter]

Excuses, excuses. . .

Soccer is hardly your only option. You don't have to leave your house or spend any money to get good exercise.

You may have all the answers but your "tone of voice" could use a little something, Patrick S. It's great that you have the time and knowledge to teach your daughter jujitsu.

Carrot Top isn't talking about the middle class parents who need to throw their kids in the backyard to play for a while every day once they eat their wholesome fresh fruit snack. Many of the obese kids I'm thinking of have no supervision after school. Many might live in neighborhoods where it isn't safe to play outside, where watching TV indoors in the safest place for them to be while their parents aren't home. Where it's possible to get shot or at least beat up for your possessions like a ball or a bicycle. They have parents that might work more than one job, and that don't know jujitsu to teach their offspring. What about them? They probably watch a lot of TV, and are a prime target for advertising. And there aren't many simplistic answers that will get them moving.

[JohnL]

Excuses, excuses. . .

Soccer is hardly your only option. You don't have to leave your house or spend any money to get good exercise.

You may have all the answers but your "tone of voice" could use a little something, Patrick S. It's great that you have the time and knowledge to teach your daughter jujitsu.

Carrot Top isn't talking about the middle class parents who need to throw their kids in the backyard to play for a while every day once they eat their wholesome fresh fruit snack. Many of the obese kids I'm thinking of have no supervision after school. Many might live in neighborhoods where it isn't safe to play outside, where watching TV indoors in the safest place for them to be while their parents aren't home. Where it's possible to get shot or at least beat up for your possessions like a ball or a bicycle. They have parents that might work more than one job, and that don't know jujitsu to teach their offspring. What about them? They probably watch a lot of TV, and are a prime target for advertising. And there aren't many simplistic answers that will get them moving.

←

Ya know--making this into a money or class issue doesn't really work

An excuse is an excuse.

Also there are plenty of opportunities for exercise in "bad neighborhoods" there are parks and community centers and various sports leagues--by the way martial arts are very big as well.

There is no excuse for letting your kids eat too much crap and sit in front of a TV set for too many hours a day. (ok there are situations that are more challenging for some people/parents--getting into those here will not get us anywhere).

First-be responsible for your self and your own kids.

Then worry about others. But always think out solutions carefully because there are ramifications that go well beyond the initial problem you are trying to alleviate.

It is always better when people help themselves--and the best solutions to problems are to better enable people to help themselves--not to step in and force outcomes.

I would ask why schools aren't teaching nutrition?--they used to.

why aren't there nutritious meals at schools--there used to be.

Why are there not mandatory gym classes?--there used to be.

why have average TV viewing hours for kids grown to where they are today?

why is it now that we are asking for these things? what happened?

[Patrick S]

Excuses, excuses. . .

Soccer is hardly your only option. You don't have to leave your house or spend any money to get good exercise.

You may have all the answers but your "tone of voice" could use a little something, Patrick S. It's great that you have the time and knowledge to teach your daughter jujitsu.

←

I'm sorry if you don't like my tone of voice, but "excuses, excuses" is precisely what they were. Extremely lame excuses at that, in my opinion.

EDIT to add:

Carrot top,

I'm sorry if I seem dismissive, but let me try to explain why. I would do ANYTHING it takes to keep my family healthy, no matter what it took. If I fail at that job, I am a failure as a person, in my book. If you really love your kids, and I bet you do, and if you understand that they need exercise, you'll find a way to make sure they get it. If you really have so many constraints on your time that you can't do that for 90 minutes a week or so, something else has to give.

Edited December 14, 2005 by Patrick S (log)

[Busboy]

An excuse is an excuse.

Whether you're excusing the actions of parents or you're excusing the actions of cynical marketing machines that contribute to the problem.

It's an odd double-standard to expect perfection of parents, but to excuse the actions of corporations.

Yes, they're supposed to make a profit. No, the profit motive isn't an automatic excuse for every action they may take.

Let's let everybody be held accountable -- the schools who no longer teach nutrition (not I ever was taught that) and eliminated gym, and the voters who refuse to fund those programs. The sugar beet farmers whose huge subsidies help keep the cost of CoCo Puffs within reach of poor families. The television networks who think they're entitled to free use of public airwaves -- surely we capitalists can agree that a spectrum auction would have been fair, right? -- but resist oversite by the public sector. An economy that has made the two-wage-earner-family mandatory for most income groups. Rampant materialism (not a recent phenomenon, I fear). Growing affluence. Parental paranoia and overscheduling (why Jonny's not allowed to wander over to the playground to shoot hoops by himself any more).

And corporations who shamelessly flog high fat, high sugar, artificially-everythinged foods to kids.

And parents who let their kids live wrong.

And people who want to fight complex problems with simplistic solutions.

[JohnL]

An excuse is an excuse.

Whether you're excusing the actions of parents or you're excusing the actions of cynical marketing machines that contribute to the problem.

It's an odd double-standard to expect perfection of parents, but to excuse the actions of corporations.

Yes, they're supposed to make a profit. No, the profit motive isn't an automatic excuse for every action they may take.

Let's let everybody be held accountable -- the schools who no longer teach nutrition (not I ever was taught that) and eliminated gym, and the voters who refuse to fund those programs. The sugar beet farmers whose huge subsidies help keep the cost of CoCo Puffs within reach of poor families. The television networks who think they're entitled to free use of public airwaves -- surely we capitalists can agree that a spectrum auction would have been fair, right? -- but resist oversite by the public sector. An economy that has made the two-wage-earner-family mandatory for most income groups. Rampant materialism (not a recent phenomenon, I fear). Growing affluence. Parental paranoia and overscheduling (why Jonny's not allowed to wander over to the playground to shoot hoops by himself any more).

And corporations who shamelessly flog high fat, high sugar, artificially-everythinged foods to kids.

And parents who let their kids live wrong.

And people who want to fight complex problems with simplistic solutions.

←

I don't think anyone is going to argue with your points.

The issue is complex.

we already regulate our airwaves and our commerce and industry and advertising.

If you want to argue for more regulations I will debate that.

If you are looking for better enforcement and a review and inprovement of the laws--I agree with you.

In the end--there is no escaping the fact that we (parents and society) created the problems we are faced with and we can solve them.

We seem to think we can make the world perfect by using laws and institutions to achieve an outcome we want.

for eg--if kids watching too much TV is a problem then set rules as to how much they can watch and enforce them.

can't do that? --for whatever reason--then get rid of the damn TV set.

seems to me this is easier and more economically sound than trying to determine and agree upon what constitutes "junk food" then banning or regulating the manufacturing of it and/or then banning or controlling the advertising of said products.

the demonization of corporations is too pat.

there are good corporations and not so good.--I can't think of any that are out to "kill" kids for a profit.

we have loads of laws--if some corporation breaks the law then they should be punished. It is just too complicated to try to mandate that corporations make only products that are good and beneficial and at a profit that is fair and equitable for all etc etc etc.

who makes the value judgements????

In the end--we already have that power--we can not buy things we personally don't like (or collectively) and corporations will stop making them. (the advertising goes hand in hand).

It is just getting tiresome hearing "the devil made me do it" over and over.

[MarketStEl]

Corporations are responsive to the market place--we like to think that things are the other way round--that corporations "make" us do things. It is not that simple.

No, it is not. But it's not that simple in the other direction either.

Advertising exists in part to stimulate demand for something. In other words, to alter behavior--to get someone to do something they otherwise might not have even thought of. In so doing, ads shape the marketplace as much as they respond to it.

However: Whenever I say to someone, "Why don't we go to Lula for dinner tonight?" or "You should check out the sale on strip steaks at Esposito's," I'm doing the exact same thing.

Bottom line? Corporations are people too. (Legally speaking, that's true.)

In the end--it all comes down to parents as the first, last and best line of defense and where parents are falling down here then the schools are most important.

Education is the best and most efficient means of motivating behaviour. Schools need to do two things--each of which they are equipped to do and are therefore best at--educate kids (they will let parents know what they want just like they whine for those twinkies they saw on TV). and provide healthy food for lunch and mandatory gym classes and activities during and after school hours.

banning and regulating are expensive and mostly ineffective--remember prohibition. They also risk throwing the fat baby out with the bathwater--they can infringe on our ability to have choices. Take smoking--i would argue that banning or taxing cigarettes would not work --at least not nearly as efficiently as educating kids about the risk--as smoking loses its "aura" fewer kids will try it and the problem diminishes.--it already is. This takes time but in the end--it is worth it because it works.

←

Actually, taxing something is a good way to alter behavior, just as its opposite, subsidizing something, is.

The European Union stockpiles mountains of butter and cheese (among other things) because its member states have generous subsidy programs for farmers. Cigarette consumption would probably be higher than it is now if the federal tax on cigarettes weren't so high. I even advocate that we turn drug use from a criminal-justice problem into a public-health one by making most currently illegal drugs legal, but then taxing them to high heaven and heavily regulating where and in what manner they may be used, as we now do with cigarettes.

Yes, education is the most effective tool in the long run if lasting change is what you want. But some of those other measures also produce results.

On the larger issue of childhood obesity: Whatever happened to "go out and play"? I hear talk about weird customs such as "play dates" and stories about kids being ferried hither and yon to all sorts of organized activties. Perhaps we need to bring unstructured, happenstance, random activity back from the dead. It might make our kids a little less fearful once they're big enough to flee the nest too.

The rest of what I might have to say on the topic right now is probably better suited for PLANetizen.

[Darcie B]

When a child is obese, who is responsible? The parents. But how do we hold the parents accountable? Do we rush in with Child Protective Services and remove said child to foster care where they have no TV and only carrot sticks for snacks? Looking at the overworked CPS workers that can't keep up with the current caseload of abuse, I don't think that is the answer.

It is much easier to regulate the (relatively) few corporations' activities, including advertising, than to try to hold millions of households responsible.

Is it right? Maybe not, but if we feel that obesity is a problem that must be solved for society's sake, as well as the sake of the individuals, we must use whatever avenues are available to us.

If we do nothing and say "it's the parents fault!" then the losers are the children in those households and, IMO, society as a whole. I look at this not only from the standpoint of concern for overweight kids, but also because if obesity is/becomes the epidemic it is made out to be, my health insurance will go up with the rising tide of health care costs.

Also, why is it so hard to expect larger corporations to act responsibly? Lest anyone think I am anti-corporation, I say this as a business owner. Our (DH and me) business is motorcycles. We have parents who want to buy their 8-year-old an adult-sized scooter or motorcycle. We refuse to sell to them. Does it hurt our pocketbooks? Sure, but it is the right thing to do.

Corporations are not inherently evil, but neither are they inherently beneficial. Let's just say I am not going to cry for General Mills.

While we do what we can in the short term to help kids stay healthy, we should work on a long-term solution that doesn't involve regulations.

[hjshorter]

First-be responsible for your self and your own kids.

Then worry about others.

Thanks. That's what I'm doing. My children are well taken care of, but others, many many others are in a bad way. And it's all very well and good to say "the schools should teach nutrition". But with many schools having to buckle down and improve reading scores (or lose funding) is it realistic to add nutrition class to their schedules? Can they afford to add a nutritionist? What is the best way to go about it? I have no one-size-fits-all remedies, merely a suggestion that the problem of child obesity, hunger, and malnutrition are complex and require more than a demand that schools teach nutrition.

If you really have so many constraints on your time that you can't do that for 90 minutes a week or so, something else has to give.

Yeah, maybe you need to cut down on your own gym time or something.

Edited December 14, 2005 by hjshorter (log)

[Carrot Top]

Carrot top,

I'm sorry if I seem dismissive, but let me try to explain why. I would do ANYTHING it takes to keep my family healthy, no matter what it took. If I fail at that job, I am a failure as a person, in my book. If you really love your kids, and I bet you do, and if you understand that they need exercise, you'll find a way to make sure they get it. If you really have so many constraints on your time that you can't do that for 90 minutes a week or so, something else has to give.

←

Patrick:

Personally I have set up my life so that my children get as much of my time as they need.

But I have already had a successful career and have had a full life and have enough money to do this.

I do *not* wish to make this a "class" issue.

What I wish for is to see the children who do *not* for whatever reason, have someone supervising them in a good and positive manner, to be free from things that will bring them down rather than up.

Fast food marketing is one of these things, in my opinion.

I make no excuses for parents who are not there for their children.

But it is not really them that I care about.

It is the children. The children can not make their parents give more time or care than the parents have or can give - and the children do not have other resources, often.

[Patrick S]

When a child is obese, who is responsible? The parents. But how do we hold the parents accountable? Do we rush in with Child Protective Services and remove said child to foster care where they have no TV and only carrot sticks for snacks? Looking at the overworked CPS workers that can't keep up with the current caseload of abuse, I don't think that is the answer.

It is much easier to regulate the (relatively) few corporations' activities, including advertising, than to try to hold millions of households responsible.

Is it right? Maybe not, but if we feel that obesity is a problem that must be solved for society's sake, as well as the sake of the individuals, we must use whatever avenues are available to us.

←

Hi Darcie,

I realize the above isn't intended to be some kind of doctoral thesis on obesity intervention, but surely you understand that the two options you list --having CPS take custody of kids and place them in foster care vs regulating corporate activities--are hardly the only options. For a parent that force feeds their kids gravy and fried chicken, CPS intervention may be in order.

I don't know what the best soutions are, but I suspect they are somewhere in that vast gray area between doing nothing and removing kids from parental custody.

And I hate to keep pointing this out, but there is already very strong evidence that exposure to advertising is playing only a small part at most in the increase in childhood obesity rates we're seeing in north America and Europe. Interventions focused solely on advertising are doomed to be ineffective.

Sweden has banned all food advertising to children for 15 years, and they still rank 11th out of 21 European countries in terms of percentage of overweight 7-11 year olds, according to the International Obesity Task Force. Over 20% of these kids are considered overweight (i.e. have BMI's >25), despite the fact that they grew up under the food advertising ban. Now I have no doubt that kids in Sweden are still exposed to some food advertising (through billboards and satellite dishes, for example), and its not a perfect "ban," but international comparisons show that they have by far the lowest exposure rates in all of European countries that were there studied by Consumers International (Dibb and Harris, 1996). And yet they are very much in the midst of a childhood obesity epidemic.

Quebec has had a similar ban since 1980. In 1981, prevalence of childhood overweight in Quebec was 11.5%. In 1996 the prevalence was 27.6% (Willms et al, 2003), which is very close to the average for all of Canada. This prevalence is lower than that for New Foundland, Nova Scotia, and Ontario, but it is higher than that for Alberta, British Columbia, and Manitoba. Again, I have no doubt that kids in Quebec are still exposed to some food advertising (through billboards and satellite dishes, for example), and its not a perfect "ban," but comparing Quebec to the rest of Canada shows that even enormous differences in advertising exposure do not have very large effects on childhood obesity rates.

So, even if we assume that banning advertising will have a beneficial effect on childhood obesity rates, something that even the IOM report says in uncertain, I think its pretty clear that the effect would be relatively small, and that some other types of interventions would be needed to have a large effect. So I still say that, to paraphrase JohnL, parents are the first, last, and best targets for intervention. They wield a level of control that Captain Crunch can only dream about, and there's no way we're going to make real progress without getting them involved.

Dibb and Harris, 1996. A spoonful of sugar. Television food advertising aimed at children: an international comparative study. London, UK, Consumers International.

Willms et al, 2003. Geographic and demographic variation in the prevalence of overweight Canadian children. Obesity Research 11, 668-673.

[JohnL]

When a child is obese, who is responsible? The parents. But how do we hold the parents accountable? Do we rush in with Child Protective Services and remove said child to foster care where they have no TV and only carrot sticks for snacks? Looking at the overworked CPS workers that can't keep up with the current caseload of abuse, I don't think that is the answer.

It is much easier to regulate the (relatively) few corporations' activities, including advertising, than to try to hold millions of households responsible.

Is it right? Maybe not, but if we feel that obesity is a problem that must be solved for society's sake, as well as the sake of the individuals, we must use whatever avenues are available to us.

If we do nothing and say "it's the parents fault!" then the losers are the children in those households and, IMO, society as a whole. I look at this not only from the standpoint of concern for overweight kids, but also because if obesity is/becomes the epidemic it is made out to be, my health insurance will go up with the rising tide of health care costs.

Also, why is it so hard to expect larger corporations to act responsibly? Lest anyone think I am anti-corporation, I say this as a business owner. Our (DH and me) business is motorcycles. We have parents who want to buy their 8-year-old an adult-sized scooter or motorcycle. We refuse to sell to them. Does it hurt our pocketbooks? Sure, but it is the right thing to do.

Corporations are not inherently evil, but neither are they inherently beneficial. Let's just say I am not going to cry for General Mills.

While we do what we can in the short term to help kids stay healthy, we should work on a long-term solution that doesn't involve regulations.

←

well you have reached some sane conclusions!

The long term (maybe not as long term as many think) is education. Not bans or laws or punishment or scare tactics--education!

people need to be armed to make choices in life.

Schools need to get back to doing the things they do best. Educate and provide a good learning environment. Phys ed needs to be mandatory and fun, participation in sports emphasized.

Funny, but schools used to do these things.

Yes corporations can be more responsible--but let's think for a minute.

Most corporations are already involved in being responsible--go to the General Mills website.

We already regulate the heck out of business. advertising (especially to children is already monitored and regulated).

When we regulate and ban etc it involves decisions that have a negative impact as well as a beneficial one. More regulations and focus on "responsibility" for corporations can result in higher prices. fewer jobs etc Banning things means the baby is often thrown out with the bathwater so to speak--why should people or kids with no health problems not be able to enjoy say twinkies or any other product deemed "bad." and that leads to the biggest problem.

who determines what is good what is bad? what are the parameters? what determines who is "obese?"

this talk of holding people responsible and taking kids away is chilling.

we can not create a utopia.

parents today (and experts) can't even agree as to what constitutes good child rearing practices how do we "punish bad practices."

does any of this really work?

did prohibition work?

the problem as I see it, is actually compounded the more we turn to short term solutions.

The more we ban and regulate the less impetus we have to take responsibility. To make better choices.

In the end--we need laws and regulations--but we need to be careful. The real answer is in educating people so they make choices. If they make bad choices then we need to accept that.

It is better to live freely in an imperfect world then to suffer the restrictions of a "utopia."

[Darcie B]

It is better to live freely in an imperfect world then to suffer the restrictions of a "utopia."

←

I will agree with to the extent that adults should be free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm others.

I am only in favor of using methods such as restricting advertising when it comes to children, who may not have the resources and education to make good decisions. It is up to all of us to protect and educate children, because ultimately some parents will fail to do so. However, I do not believe in protecting adults from themselves. Let them eat twinkies!

[TPO]

I am only in favor of using methods such as restricting advertising when it comes to children, who may not have the resources and education to make good decisions. It is up to all of us to protect and educate children, because ultimately some parents will fail to do so. However, I do not believe in protecting adults from themselves. Let them eat twinkies!

I agree. I'd even go a step further and say I'm only in favor of regulating ads to children under 8 who are unable to tell the difference between facts and ads. If they happen to see ads designed for kids over 8 that would fine with me, but for companies to make ads specifically targeting toddlers (and doing so with the help of the best child psychologists and other such experts) pushes the limits of ethics, IMO.