New Study Slams Food Marketing to Children

[TPO]

Well, it should be utterly self-evident to everyone that media advertising "may not be the only explanation" for increasing obesity rates. While we don't have the conclusive evidence, according to the IOM, that advertising exposure plays any causal role in childhood obesity, we do have conclusive evidence with regard to other factors. Specifically, we know that there has been an emormous decrease in physical activity over the past several decades, and that levels of physical activity have a direct, causal relationship with adiposity.

No doubt about it. Although the report stated it couldn't conclusively say television advertising was responsible for adiposity, some of the "other explanations" were Internet advertising, video game advertisements, and product placement in television and movies. One thing I didn't see (although I didn't read the whole report) was how the time spent doing these activities affects adiposity. In other words, the time spent watching television is time not spent doing something physical.

We ask the schools to do so much that we once expected the parents to do, it's a wonder the kids can learn anything at all.

However, since kids spend so much of their formative years in that environment, we probably have few alternatives.

The more I think about the issue of advertising for children, the more overwhelmed I feel. Schools often need money, and get it from soda companies in exchange for having their vending machines in schools. They often teach current events using Channel One, which requires kids to watch advertisements.

I think advertisements aimed at children are unfair (many are too young to weigh both sides of an issue) and unethical (why aim advertising at people whose only means of buying a product are to beg, borrow, or steal). But maybe they are just one aspect of a bigger problem. There may be many reasons people try to fit 30 hours of work and activities into each 24-hour day, and why healthy food, home cooking, and physical activity seem to be some of the first things to go in an attempt to fit other things in.

Edited December 9, 2005 by TPO (log)

[FabulousFoodBabe]

Hey -- my point was this: Until a certain age, the parents and the kids are one unit. No 7 year old can do much of anything without the parents' support or lack of interest. How can such a young child fulfill desires instilled by marketing and advertising, on her/his very own?

There is no possible way, as long as the child is never given money for a school lunch, is never given an allowance, and is never allowed to visit friends.

←

Your 7 year old will probably not buzz over to the A&P and pick up a few cases of Oreos and Mountain Dew, and then come home and sit in front of the TV, every day ... unless you drive, and you make sure the cable bill is paid. Yeah, they'll do what they do when they're out of your sight. I'd personally rather see some of these kids sneaking Snickers bars or a soda at lunch, than some of the other stuff they do when they're out of their parents' reach. In any event, it's not the food companies' fault.

School lunch is, to me, a separate topic. And an annoying one.

If food companies are forced to stop advertising on kids' tv shows -- who determines what is allowed and what isn't? Who determines what a pre-teen or teen show is and what isn't, and what products are bad for what target groups? I'm not sure where this all will end.

I'm becoming more sure, though, that this current obsession with marketing to kids is going to pass, as soon as the publicists' and news organizations find something else to carp about.

BTW, I don't think low-income or poor means "stupid." And I don't think that marketing contributes to obesity in children.

[Pontormo]

The thought is not original to me. Perhaps someone else will recall who said the following, when, and be able to establish the context in which the observations were made:

Think of the glamorous ads for Pepsi that feature sexy young celebrities such as Brittany Spears in her day...or the infamous one in which Michael Jackson's hair caught on fire during the shoot. A lot of money goes into selling a highly sweetened, fattening carbonated drink with no nutritional value to young fans who want--g-d forbid--to be like Brittany or Michael.

Now, imagine if Public Service Announcements were not those little serious scenarios set in a cavernous empty space populated only by the celebrity who looks earnestly into the camera, then smiles like a real person and tells you to read to your kids, cut, rainbow and stars.

Instead, picture Cameron Diaz or one of those other Hollywood types who swear they do not eat anything white and live on fruits and vegetables. Give them the budget and the experienced staff who works on the sexiest ad campaigns to promote chard and eating fresh tomatoes only when they're in season.

Let them strut to the beet. See if kids start clammering to visit the produce aisle.

Right now, the only thing close to that scenario is something featuring the Jolly Green Giant (remember him--there to sell kids on the virtues of frozen vegetables before the Keebler elves hand over the cookies?) chuckling over the boy who clings to a freezer display of broccoli slathered with cheese sauce. The commercial is hardly believable and not all that seductive.

The problem is that fresh fruits and vegetables don't have the money that processed food companies do. Farmers & specialists in related fields are better able to address this issue than I, but there does not seem to be the kind of unified front that the Dairy Association had when it did its cute "Got Milk" campaign.

Ads are starting to lose their hold. Commercials are in trouble. They remain pervasive and effective.

If they are to be replaced by product placement, I would like to see actors on TV eat a salad every once in a while, preferably a teen-age boy, right before a pretty young neighbor knocks on the door, and says, "Oh, you like fennel, too?"

"Yeah, dressed with EVOO and lemon juice," Jordon replies.

"What a man," she purrs, removing her blouse as offscreen, the sound of an acoustic guitar picks up and a husky, whispery voice goes OOOOO-oouu-ooou....

[Jennifer Iannolo]

But, perhaps because of my own poor parenting skills, I also don't believe that parents are able to embody the Platonic Form of the wise, sensible, judicious etc. mother or father for the 24/7/365/18 duration of parenthood.  I think that large corporate entities that consciously and effectively exploit my imperfections and my children's immaturity in order to sell things that are bad for them, are bad, and that -- along with parents -- they should be held accountable for their actions, as well. I have a significant philosophical problem with corporate amorality.  If it's wrong for a parent to allow something to happen, it is also wrong for a corporation, friend, relative, or whomever to encourage that behavior.

←

Busboy, with all due respect, this post is as offensive to me as my original one on personal responsibility was to you.

To be clear, I never said corporations should be absolved from all responsibility in marketing. My argument, however, is that it is not a corporation's responsibility to ensure people are good parents and feed their children properly. What a young child eats is fully in the control of the parent, at least until they are of school age; and if children are taught healthy eating habits -- by their parents -- from the beginning, they will know that the occasional treat is meant to be just that.

If we are to be the "victim" of every marketing scheme in existence, we may as well call it a day and start eating Twinkies. The very labeling of marketing as "exploitative" implies that a human being -- in this case, the parent -- is unable to think, and then act in accordance with those thoughts. Philosophically speaking, that is called "passing the buck."

[Pan]

[...]Instead, picture Cameron Diaz or one of those other Hollywood types who swear they do not eat anything white and live on fruits and vegetables.  Give them the budget and the experienced staff who works on the sexiest ad campaigns to promote chard and eating fresh tomatoes only when they're in season.

Let them strut to the beet.[...]

←

Strut to the beet. Great line!

Ads are starting to lose their hold.  Commercials are in trouble. They remain pervasive and effective.[...]

←

Please explain; are commercials in trouble or effective?

[Pontormo]

Both.

I'll be brief for a change, but I have just logged in again to answer this while my reheated butternut squash gratin is getting cold.

We're told that network TV is dying, that TIVO, etc. are helping potential consumers skip over commercials. Therefore, alternative ways to market are being sought.

Nonetheless, the power of the commercial, ad, etc. is not over yet.

[TPO]

To be clear, I never said corporations should be absolved from all responsibility in marketing. My argument, however, is that it is not a corporation's responsibility to ensure people are good parents and feed their children properly. What a young child eats is fully in the control of the parent, at least until they are of school age; and if children are taught healthy eating habits -- by their parents -- from the beginning, they will know that the occasional treat is meant to be just that.

I think parents would be able to combat advertising if marketing campaigns were designed only to get a child to want a product. But while that is one goal of corporate marketing, it is not the only goal. Studies have shown corporations that brand loyalties and consumer habits can be formed at a very young age -- long before children are old enough to actually purchase their products -- and they use that to their advantage.

Think of how easy it is to teach a foreign language to a small child. In that respect, most people agree that their brains are like sponges. But when it comes to advertising, we believe that the $15 billion a year spent marketing junk food to kids will not have a lasting effect.

Still, I don't think advertising to children should be banned. I just think that personal and corporate responsibility should go hand in hand -- and both parents and corporations should be prepared to deal with the consequences of their actions.

[Busboy]

But, perhaps because of my own poor parenting skills, I also don't believe that parents are able to embody the Platonic Form of the wise, sensible, judicious etc. mother or father for the 24/7/365/18 duration of parenthood.  I think that large corporate entities that consciously and effectively exploit my imperfections and my children's immaturity in order to sell things that are bad for them, are bad, and that -- along with parents -- they should be held accountable for their actions, as well. I have a significant philosophical problem with corporate amorality.  If it's wrong for a parent to allow something to happen, it is also wrong for a corporation, friend, relative, or whomever to encourage that behavior.

←

Busboy, with all due respect, this post is as offensive to me as my original one on personal responsibility was to you.

To be clear, I never said corporations should be absolved from all responsibility in marketing. My argument, however, is that it is not a corporation's responsibility to ensure people are good parents and feed their children properly. What a young child eats is fully in the control of the parent, at least until they are of school age; and if children are taught healthy eating habits -- by their parents -- from the beginning, they will know that the occasional treat is meant to be just that.

If we are to be the "victim" of every marketing scheme in existence, we may as well call it a day and start eating Twinkies. The very labeling of marketing as "exploitative" implies that a human being -- in this case, the parent -- is unable to think, and then act in accordance with those thoughts. Philosophically speaking, that is called "passing the buck."

←

Not sure what was offensive -- I wasn't offended by your post, I just disagreed. I have never argued that parents should be absolved of responsibility, nor that it's Nabisco's responsibility to raise my children. I'm not passing the buck; I got kids, the buck stops in my living room. On the other hand, you are giving rich amoral corporations a by for their actions -- letting them pass the buck. What I'm saying, simply is:

That children are not raised in a vacuum, influences beyond parents affect behavior;

That corporations should be held to the same standards as individuals;

That marketing shit to children is reprehensible;

That the idea that parents have total control of their children is nonsensical;

That, if corporations are contributing to a significant public health problem (and I'm willing to debate whether this is the case) (1) they should be held accountable and (2) government has the right, if not the obligation, to take regulatory action.

[Mottmott]

But, perhaps because of my own poor parenting skills, I also don't believe that parents are able to embody the Platonic Form of the wise, sensible, judicious etc. mother or father for the 24/7/365/18 duration of parenthood.  I think that large corporate entities that consciously and effectively exploit my imperfections and my children's immaturity in order to sell things that are bad for them, are bad, and that -- along with parents -- they should be held accountable for their actions, as well. I have a significant philosophical problem with corporate amorality.  If it's wrong for a parent to allow something to happen, it is also wrong for a corporation, friend, relative, or whomever to encourage that behavior.

←

Busboy, with all due respect, this post is as offensive to me as my original one on personal responsibility was to you.

To be clear, I never said corporations should be absolved from all responsibility in marketing. My argument, however, is that it is not a corporation's responsibility to ensure people are good parents and feed their children properly. What a young child eats is fully in the control of the parent, at least until they are of school age; and if children are taught healthy eating habits -- by their parents -- from the beginning, they will know that the occasional treat is meant to be just that.

If we are to be the "victim" of every marketing scheme in existence, we may as well call it a day and start eating Twinkies. The very labeling of marketing as "exploitative" implies that a human being -- in this case, the parent -- is unable to think, and then act in accordance with those thoughts. Philosophically speaking, that is called "passing the buck."

←

[A brief observation before I get into it: that "victim" stuff is a cheap tactic and an annoying one, whether one is claiming to be a victim or, as you are, accusing someone of claiming to be a victim.]

Not sure what was offensive -- I wasn't offended by your post, I just disagreed. I have never argued that parents should be absolved of responsibility, nor that it's Nabisco's responsibility to raise my children. I'm not passing the buck; I got kids, the buck stops in my fucking living room. On the other hand, you are giving rich amoral corporations a by for their actions -- letting them pass the buck. What I'm saying, simply is:

That children are not raised in a vacuum, influences beyond parents affect behavior;

That corporations should be held to the same standards as individuals;

That marketing shit to children is reprehensible;

That the idea that parents have total control of their children is nonsensical;

That, if corporations are contributing to a significant public health problem (and I'm willing to debate whether this is the case) (1) they should be held accountable and (2) government has the right, if not the obligation, to take regulatory action.

←

Makes sense to me. Children are so easily manipulated. Hey, adults are so easily manipulated. Look around.

Besides, sugar, salt, fat? that's where taste's at.

I agree personal responsibility is great. Why isn't corporate responsibility just as great? Because a corporation's only responsibility is to its stockholders.

[Busboy]

I agree personal responsibility is great. Why isn't corporate responsibility just as great? Because a corporation's only responsibility is to its stockholders.

So corporations can lie, cheat, steal, bribe, despoil the environment, defraud the consumer, burn the competition to the ground, and, of course, sell Lucky Charms to three-year-olds, as long as it benefits the stockholder?

[FabulousFoodBabe]

The thought is not original to me.  Perhaps someone else will recall who said the following, when, and be able to establish the context in which the observations were made:

Think of the glamorous ads for Pepsi that feature sexy young celebrities such as Brittany Spears in her day...

←

With all respect to whomever deserves it here -- Britney Spears "in her day" was a barely-legal teenager, and her most famous commercial included some creepy 80 year old guy in an armchair, salivating as she writhed onscreen. If that didn't make parents want to burka their daughters, I'd think nothing would. But most of the parents I knew found it to be just hilarious. (shudder)

From what I've seen, with mine and with others, teenagers buck what they've been taught as soon as they can, and it eventually evens out. Arizona Teas became popular when the teenagers of that time deemd sodas "poison." And the soft drink companies spent a lot of time and energy trying to bring 'em back.

Funny, corporate responsibility used to be directed toward the impact of their facilities on the environment and the people in the area. It's not the companies' responsibility to raise healthy kids. It's their responsibility to return a profit to the shareholders.

Food marketing doesn't make kids fat. It makes them see food. It doesn't make them eat too much of it every day and lay around getting bigger. Kids are not raised in vacuums, and that goes both ways: They have parents setting limits. They have influences. Choose which will be more important. You're a better parent than the government or the companies out there. Don't try to make them take it from you!

[FabulousFoodBabe]

I agree personal responsibility is great. Why isn't corporate responsibility just as great? Because a corporation's only responsibility is to its stockholders.

So corporations can lie, cheat, steal, bribe, despoil the environment, defraud the consumer, burn the competition to the ground, and, of course, sell Lucky Charms to three-year-olds, as long as it benefits the stockholder?

←

I'd think that if a 3-year old was able to, without parental or guardian assistance, earn the money, make the purchase, prepare and eat Lucky Charms, you'd have that one on tour by now.

[Busboy]

I agree personal responsibility is great. Why isn't corporate responsibility just as great? Because a corporation's only responsibility is to its stockholders.

So corporations can lie, cheat, steal, bribe, despoil the environment, defraud the consumer, burn the competition to the ground, and, of course, sell Lucky Charms to three-year-olds, as long as it benefits the stockholder?

←

I'd think that if a 3-year old was able to, without parental or guardian assistance, earn the money, make the purchase, prepare and eat Lucky Charms, you'd have that one on tour by now.

←

That doesn't answer the question, though.

[TPO]

Food marketing doesn't make kids fat. It makes them see food. It doesn't make them eat too much of it every day and lay around getting bigger. Kids are not raised in vacuums, and that goes both ways: They have parents setting limits. They have influences.

I don't really believe the playing field is that level -- one or two parents up against $15 billion in annual junk food marketing. But even if it was, what about the lasting effect of advertising that's around long after the kids reach adulthood? Just about everything from soda and fast food to SUVs are marketed to preschoolers because corporations know these ads create brand loyalty long before these kids ever have any money of their own.

To me, it's like having your kid's sponge-like brain exposed to French everyday and believing that as long as you don't let your kid speak French at home he'll never learn the language.

You're a better parent than the government or the companies out there. Don't try to make them take it from you!

I think food corporations should take this advice -- they are better off to start regulating themselves like alcohol companies self-regulate their ads than to wait until some government restrictions are handed down.

[Carrot Top]

Two issues strike me as core points within this discussion.

First, the responsibilities of the parent(s).

It would seem that nobody at all is arguing that the responsibility of the parent is not the ultimate one when raising a child. It is nobody elses' job, really - in an imperfect world. We can hope that our government (which we build as a society) will be there to do the things we (as a majority) hope are right and good. We can hope that the multi-national corporations which some argue are as strong as or stronger than the government in shaping our lives will do the right and good thing to create a fine world for our children. We can hope that our neighbors and our towns and cities would do the right thing and look out for our children through providing safe environments, happy environments, healthy environments. But bottom line, we can not *count* on other people doing what is *right*. It is finally up to the parent(s) to negotiate this path their child will tread - a path which will set their belief systems and their way of being as they form themselves into the adult version of themselves.

Following along on this thought of knowing that it is the parent(s) responsibility - and knowing that the world is not a gentle nor an easy nor a simple place to live in "nowadays" - then it would seem appropriate to look closely at the influences that enter into a child's life.

A major influence *is* advertising and marketing and public relations. (Yes, there are three categories of this stuff that people are employed in every day trying to find ways to make money for their company's products.) Kids today spend more time in media-land than any kid in times before. The neighborhoods do not exist in most places where they go out and play in the afternoons, knowing that there is someone in the houses to watch out for them if they fall and hurt themselves playing ball or whatever. They are inside the houses, often alone or with siblings, watching TV or surfing the internet. Being bombarded not by fresh air and bantering of friends but by sales pitches by whomever has the bucks to post them on TV or the internet.

It would seem almost negligent to *not* take a close look at this stuff and to speak up as to how and when and in what shape they can enter our homes.

Of course this is only my opinion, and I am someone who hangs up the phone on telemarketers, for I believe my home is my place of enjoyment, not a sales floor.

Parents today have massive time constraints placed on them -whether they are "educated" or not. The forty-hour work week is a thing of the past for the most part. Most homes are homes where two parents work, or of course another segment which is growing is the single parent home where the parent does the job that used to be done by two parents, solo. Often, it is not willfull neglect by a parent when a kid eats fast food or junk food - it is more a question for most parents of figuring out how to cope with hungry children, no time, and lots of stress in our environment.

Add strong marketing ploys that have been developed by highly trained professionals with teams of psychologists sitting alongside them figuring out which internal buttons should be pushed in the "mark" ("mark": an old word used by cardsharks and conmen - oh well I don't know if there were conwomen maybe there were - to define who they were going to strip of their funds and pride) or as we say now uh. . .the "consumer" - and you've got the boat loaded way over to one side, so much so that it constantly tips over.

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

The second issue is just a note on advertising/marketing/public relations.

Mostly here the discussion has been about TV commercials.

In "Marketing 101" they are now teaching that the new way to sell things is *not* through advertising for we've all sort of caught on to that one and know how to talk it down with the kids. The new way is through public relations campaigns that are posted as sources of information on the internet.

Most products sold in the grocery stores come in packages. Each of these packages has a website address, some even with games and contests and prizes to be won if you log on (or if the child does). When the website is accessed, there is no direct selling done, but instead there are marvellous public relations "informational" displays. Guess what. They were not written to provide the world with knowledge. They were written (directed to be written) with the agenda of selling the product.

*That* is one way the children are now being sold on food products. Not directly, but with a pose of "hey we're all here to help you".

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

Again, corporations exist to make money. They are this way to not only give their shareholders profits but also to keep people, lots of people, employed - including of course their CEO's whose compensation on an average is 143 times the rate of

what an average employee at the same corporation gets paid.

Do they really care if you want healthier food for your kids?

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

It is not commonplace that every parent in America has a team of highly paid, well-educated, psychologists in the house with them ten hours each day to help raise their children, to help them negotiate the path of life in a happy, pleasant, ethical, positive way.

So the balance - simply is not equal here.

The parent *is* at a disadvantage, and if they are not clear that it is so, then so much the worse for them (perhaps).

Personally, I don't like the idea of being anybody's "mark".

So personally, I will continue to be diligent about what corporate America is trying to sell us (for their own profits) and will also sigh often and become angry occassionally at how very often it happens that I simply can not do it as well as I would like to.

Raising children has never been an easy task throughout history. And now, even they are "marks".

[Pontormo]

Karen:

M.F.K. Fisher lamented that no one she invited to dinner ever reciprocated. Remember?

She wanted to tell everyone how much she loved simple, delicious things. Her guests shouldn't be intimidated by the meals she prepared.

Your thoughtful comments are much appreciated even if they're a tough act to follow.

Once more time has passed, I hope others will continue the conversation about this very important topic.

Edited December 11, 2005 by Pontormo (log)

[Mottmott]

I agree personal responsibility is great. Why isn't corporate responsibility just as great? Because a corporation's only responsibility is to its stockholders.

So corporations can lie, cheat, steal, bribe, despoil the environment, defraud the consumer, burn the competition to the ground, and, of course, sell Lucky Charms to three-year-olds, as long as it benefits the stockholder?

←

I'd think that if a 3-year old was able to, without parental or guardian assistance, earn the money, make the purchase, prepare and eat Lucky Charms, you'd have that one on tour by now.

←

That doesn't answer the question, though.

←

Alas, I'll answer your question as I posed the issue of corporate responsibility to their stockholders rather than the rest of us. I agree completely with your sense of outrage that corporations can and do often pursue their own bottom line without respect to the needs of the larger community. But the real world truth seems to be that they are accountable only to their stockholders, the law and governmental regulation under that law when the administration in power chooses to apply that law, and the courts should they violate the rights of others with enough money to pursue their rights in court.

With respect to food, it seems to me the public at large has only the power of nagging their political representatives into action, a surge of collective moral outrage when our welfare is being violated (toxic runoff from hogfarms, inaccurate or inadequate labeling of potentially health impairing ingredients such as transfat or chemical, hormone additatives, trans and sat fat, etc. to name just a few that sometimes crop up on eG). We can only hope that when our collective outrage becomes great enought (at, say, something like marketing to children who are to nag us to death to buy things for us that we as parents believe is bad for them), that these megolithic companies decide to placate us by changing their behavior to some degree. I believe recent tort reform laws have made it more difficult, perhaps impossible, to use class action suits, so get on your knees for begging folks, no matter what they do.

I have small hope that corporate response to public outrage over anything will change their behavior much beyond making them more covert and mounting public opinion campaigns to muddy the water (cf Walmart). No one has yet mentioned that even on PBS - a supposed advertising free zone (ha!) - shows such as Sesame Street are corporated sponsered by some sugar coated cereals! As we are an ideolgical free-market zone here in the US we are unlikely to take the drastic step taken by the UK and ban such advertising to children.

My fear is that my personal responsibility and yours is trumped by corporate power when it choses not to be responsible to the public at large and not just to their bottom line.

[FabulousFoodBabe]

That doesn't answer the question, though.

←

Could somebody please explain to me how marketing messages can be delivered to a 3-year old, without the parents' participation and consent? [see my signature line, please.]

Numbers talk. Turn off the television and say NO to your kid, and stick to it. No one has ever died from a nagging. And no one has ever been a mark without allowing it.

[TPO]

Could somebody please explain to me how marketing messages can be delivered to a 3-year old, without the parents' participation and consent?  [see my signature line, please.]

←

Even parents do monitor television behavior at home can't always monitor it at daycare and preschool -- many allow kids to watch television and use educational programs sponsered by Pizza Hut and other junk food companies that contain their logos and ads -- or when children are playing with friends. There is product placement in children's movies and books; ads in magazines, the internet, and video games; packaging designed to influence children while in grocery stores; and more. To avoid advertising literally could mean staying home with your child everyday and avoiding almost all forms of entertainment.

Numbers talk.  Turn off the television and say NO to your kid, and stick to it. No one has ever died from a nagging.  And no one has ever been a mark without allowing it.

←

I definitely agree it is the parents' job to say no to their children when needed. But unfortunately, not every parent does this. I bet most of us know parents in our own circle of friends who allow their children to have most of what they want, including unhealthy foods.

But because some parents do this doesn't mean I think kids deserve to pay the price for it. Preschoolers have absolutely no ability to distinguish between an advertisement and fact, and I don't think they deserve to be overweight or have high cholesterol because they are convinced they need junk food and their parents don't know how to compete with $15 billion annual advertising campaigns.

Again, I don't thinks ads need to be banned. But I do think there are solutions, possibly through making junk food corporations help pay to educate the parents, much like alcohol and tobacco companies do.

Raising children is one of the most difficult and most important jobs anyone can have. Perhaps we would be better off to try and make this job a little easier instead of a lot harder.

[Mottmott]

That doesn't answer the question, though.

←

Could somebody please explain to me how marketing messages can be delivered to a 3-year old, without the parents' participation and consent? [see my signature line, please.]

Numbers talk. Turn off the television and say NO to your kid, and stick to it. No one has ever died from a nagging. And no one has ever been a mark without allowing it.

←

Just curious here.

This is directed not to you personally so much as anyone who feels immune to being subject to societal attitudes and pressures on themselves and their children. We're all marks to the sharks.

Do you have children? Are they always only 3 years old? Do you have children and a job? Do you have children and a job and less than 8 hours sleep per night? The advertisers nag us and our children, and then our little inner voices and our children nag, "buy, buy, buy." How many of us do not have a bad case of the I wants? Advertising teaches us what to want.

On a personal note, I've noticed a curious thing. When I watch TV and a food commercial comes on, I am often moved to take a trip to the kitchen. So I'm after a slice of my homemade pie and not Mrs Smith's, does that mean I'm not influenced by advertising? Are those calories any less real?

[Busboy]

That doesn't answer the question, though.

←

Could somebody please explain to me how marketing messages can be delivered to a 3-year old, without the parents' participation and consent? [see my signature line, please.]

Numbers talk. Turn off the television and say NO to your kid, and stick to it. No one has ever died from a nagging. And no one has ever been a mark without allowing it.

←

I defy anyone to insulate their child utterly from media and advertising, short of moving to a cave in Montana. And while I have read about parents who were able to be utterly perfect over many years, I have never actually met one of these creatures. Admittedly, I live in a challenging zip code, so perhaps my own bad choices have doomed my children to be raised in an atmosphere of licentious media and snack food consumption.

The question I am curious to hear you answer is the one about whether corporations, by dint of their corporate-ness (corporeality?), are free from any responsibility for their actions?

Mottmott: I'm not sure I'm down with the Friedmanesque idea that corporations should be responsible only to shareholders -- I think it leads both to damaging externalities (fat kids, poisoned rivers, collusive behavior, etc.) and can damage the economy as a whole when a compony focusses incessantly on next quarter's numbers.

I don't think that they are obligated to become agents for social change, either. Not in their job description. And the profit motive -- when not turned into an object of fetish worship -- is generally a positive force. But, somebody needs to be hanging around to whack them on the bridge of the nose with a rolled up newspaper (coincidentally, the same technique I use to keep my kids out of the Doritos) when they get out of line. Given their immense power, resources and talent, the market only imperfectly performs this function, and individuals are more or less helpless, so the government assumes the regulatory role.

Assuming, then, that there is a childhood obesity problem and that companies' actions are contributing to it, it's unrealistic to think that they will voluntarily change their behavior or that a handful of eGulletors are going to get them to change. Thus it is legitmate to call for government regulation.

It is fashionable -- if intellectually lazy -- in some quarters to tar all government regulation with the same brush, and many regulations and prohibitions are indeed bad, inefficient, whatever. It should be pointed out, though, that may regulations are indeed effective and beneficail Our air is cleaner, our food safer, and our furniture less likely to burst into flames because of regulations.

So, in the junk food case before us, I haven't necessarily thought enough about the balance between regulation and potential benefits to come down for or against new regs. I am, however, fully committed to the idea that it is a legitimate approach and could well be appropriate here.

I get by with a little help from the feds;

I get high with a little hep from the fed;

Gonna try with a little help from the feds

[Pontormo]

Major themes being addressed here include:

*Effect of food commercials on children

--ARE children marks?

--do ads contribute to their obesity?

*Parental responsibility

--Just Say NO school vs.

--Can you ask all parents to be effective monitors,

including those who don't eat balanced diets themselves?

*Corporations, i.e. their goals, strategies & responsibility

*Governmental intervention.

Regarding the first item here, I would like to stress that obesity is not the only issue that should raise concerns.

The principal aim of commercials for soft drinks, snack foods and candy that are aired on children's programs is the same as the purpose of ads for Hamburger Helper, Betty Crocker and Hormel's chili on shows catering to adult audiences.

This kind of marketing produces a desire for food as a product.

It wants you to buy your pie from the freezer case in your supermarket and not bake the one that draws Mottmott to the kitchen.

I believe one of the insidious goals of such marketing for children is not JUST to develop an early craving for sweet and salty things with excessive amounts of calories; it's to get to those kids early and produce bad habits for life.

For now, reach for the juice box and cookies instead of the banana. Later, microwave the pizza rolls when you come home from school starved. First apartment? Job in software development? Graduate school? Develop a taste for Stouffer's broccoli souffle. First child: Lean Cuisine.

Concerns about health should also take into account the virtues of fresh produce among other raw ingredients that adults buy to cook and make into meals. (I don't want to be inflexible about this since I am fully aware that deadlines and the sleep-deprived lives of the parents of infants call for convenience.) Nutritional value, fiber,* etc. also deserve attention.

I think we should also be wary of commercials that continue to promote the joys of not cooking. It's not just a matter of health.

*Anecdote from a friend who is a great cook, busy professional and mother of two young boys: while the 7-year old is now becoming more and more willing to try new foods, the youngest was going through an especially stubborn period of white food plus cookies. After experiencing sheer agony, alternating between squatting and screeching and whining standing with legs crossed, he was taken to his doctor who decided the five-year old was in desperate need of fiber, lots and lots of it, especially from fruits and vegetables.

[Mottmott]

That doesn't answer the question, though.

←

Could somebody please explain to me how marketing messages can be delivered to a 3-year old, without the parents' participation and consent? [see my signature line, please.]

Numbers talk. Turn off the television and say NO to your kid, and stick to it. No one has ever died from a nagging. And no one has ever been a mark without allowing it.

←

I defy anyone to insulate their child utterly from media and advertising, short of moving to a cave in Montana. And while I have read about parents who were able to be utterly perfect over many years, I have never actually met one of these creatures. Admittedly, I live in a challenging zip code, so perhaps my own bad choices have doomed my children to be raised in an atmosphere of licentious media and snack food consumption.

The question I am curious to hear you answer is the one about whether corporations, by dint of their corporate-ness (corporeality?), are free from any responsibility for their actions?

Mottmott: I'm not sure I'm down with the Friedmanesque idea that corporations should be responsible only to shareholders -- I think it leads both to damaging externalities (fat kids, poisoned rivers, collusive behavior, etc.) and can damage the economy as a whole when a compony focusses incessantly on next quarter's numbers.

I don't think that they are obligated to become agents for social change, either. Not in their job description. And the profit motive -- when not turned into an object of fetish worship -- is generally a positive force. But, somebody needs to be hanging around to whack them on the bridge of the nose with a rolled up newspaper (coincidentally, the same technique I use to keep my kids out of the Doritos) when they get out of line. Given their immense power, resources and talent, the market only imperfectly performs this function, and individuals are more or less helpless, so the government assumes the regulatory role.

Assuming, then, that there is a childhood obesity problem and that companies' actions are contributing to it, it's unrealistic to think that they will voluntarily change their behavior or that a handful of eGulletors are going to get them to change. Thus it is legitmate to call for government regulation.

It is fashionable -- if intellectually lazy -- in some quarters to tar all government regulation with the same brush, and many regulations and prohibitions are indeed bad, inefficient, whatever. It should be pointed out, though, that may regulations are indeed effective and beneficail Our air is cleaner, our food safer, and our furniture less likely to burst into flames because of regulations.

So, in the junk food case before us, I haven't necessarily thought enough about the balance between regulation and potential benefits to come down for or against new regs. I am, however, fully committed to the idea that it is a legitimate approach and could well be appropriate here.

I get by with a little help from the feds;

I get high with a little hep from the fed;

Gonna try with a little help from the feds

←

Busboy, I hope I'm not Friedmanesque, I can't even bear to read his smugness anymore.

I don't think that the way things are necessarily the way they should be. But I need we all should understand the nature of the beast if we are to deal with it. I agree that unregulated corporate power is not good for society. It's not even good for a "free market."

[FabulousFoodBabe]

Just curious here.

This is directed not to you personally so much as anyone who feels immune to being subject to societal attitudes and pressures on themselves and their children. We're all marks to the sharks.

Do you have children? Are they always only 3 years old? Do you have children and a job? Do you have children and a job and less than 8 hours sleep per night? The advertisers nag us and our children, and then our little inner voices and our children nag, "buy, buy, buy." How many of us do not have a bad case of the I wants? Advertising teaches us what to want.

←

Yes, I have children. No, they're not always only three years old -- so sad to think of the ones that are eternally toddlers. I have a job -- right now, it's school (along with commute, 10 hours a day -- plus nightly studying, homework, projects, practice). When I'm working at a "real" job, it's more like 14-16 hours a day, and its' been like this since the kids were born. I get very little sleep. I have no family myself, my husband's is far away and not really interested, and until my kids were young teenagers, we moved every 2-3 years. I have had no real support system that I don't go out and get myself.

to me, advertising and marketing doesn't create a need -- it shows me what's there.

I'm not totally immune -- my avatar can tell you that -- but I don't think that it's "their" problem and "they" should be stopped. Just a few parents vs. the corporations? Yeesh. Why not put that energy into your own home?

When I went looking for day care for my little ones, any that had a television running was automatically OUT, just like the one where the kids napped with Paw-Paw (the daycare owner's father). And the one where there was no running water anywhere near the diapering area. Etc.

I've never sheltered my kids from "the media" and "outside influences." I just can't believe anyone would allow it permeate their lives to the extent that needs are created -- and then allow them to be filled -- in such young kids. It's up to us, as parents, to decide which will be let in when the kids are young. It builds from there.

[FabulousFoodBabe]

It is fashionable -- if intellectually lazy -- in some quarters to tar all government regulation with the same brush, and many regulations and prohibitions are indeed bad, inefficient, whatever. 

←

I could not agree more with this.