New Study Slams Food Marketing to Children

[TPO]

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

A good advertising campaign creates a need. A great advertising campaign creates a need without consumers realizing that's what they're doing.

One good example is Disney classics in limited VHS/DVD release. There is no real reason for Disney to do limit how long they will sell a movie, other than to create a need within the eight-year generational cycle of advertising to kids. Another is microwavable snacks for kids. There is no real reason kids need a hot snack instead of a cold piece of fruit, but marketing campaigns were able to tap into a child's desire to feel grown up by being allowed to use the microwave and create a need.

I don't doubt FabulousFoodBabe's ability to keep her kids from being wrapped up in consumerism. I know a few parents who have been very successful in that respect as well. But I also know parents who aren't as successful, and I don't think that small children should have to suffer the consequences when their parents aren't 100% effective in battling multi-billion advertising budgets -- especially when there is no real necessity to heavily market junk food to preschoolers.

The American Psychological Assocation's Task Force on Advertising and Children, which include the American Academy of Pediatrics, came up with a list of recommendations to help counter the effects on advertising and I thought it was a good list. Two items I thought were particularly relevent were: Develop curriculum for different grade levels to help children understand advertising; and educate parents and professionals who work with children and youth on the effects of advertising.

Edited December 12, 2005 by TPO (log)

[FabulousFoodBabe]

I don't doubt FabulousFoodBabe's ability to keep her kids from being wrapped up in consumerism. [snip snip snip]

Two items I thought were particularly relevent were: Develop curriculum for different grade levels to help children understand advertising; and educate parents and professionals who work with children and youth on the effects of advertising.

←

Tammy, to the first: Their father/my sweet husband, is the healthiest and fittest man alive, and he cannot start his day without Pop Tarts. He also spent their formative years working for food marketing companies (well, a few of them). One wine company was advertising on the old Tracey Ullman show, and when they realized that kids were watching it because of those early "Simpsons" spots, they pulled the ads immediately. that type of self-regulation is admirable.

to the second: Yes! I'd add a way to make the curriculum include good food choices and healthy life habits, taught in a way that makes it less of a punishment to eat well and live well.

[Patrick S]

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?

←

Truly, you have to admire the precocious ability of the three-year who manages to find their own money, tip-toe out of the house, travel to the store, and buy their own cereal without any gaurdian supervision. I myself have never seen a three-year buying Lucky Charms. I bet Stewie Griffin could do it, though.

TPO:

Two items I thought were particularly relevent were: Develop curriculum for different grade levels to help children understand advertising; and educate parents and professionals who work with children and youth on the effects of advertising.

To me that type of education makes SO much more sense than an outright ban on advertising. Its not just food advertising that kids need to learn to analyse, its all arguments and attempts at persuasion. Its scandalous how ill-prepared kids (and many adults) are to evaluate not only advertising but also things like political speech, product health claims and so on. Without a critical mind, life will be one continuous banana-peel experience no matter how hard the gov tried to shield you from self-interested persuaders.

[Busboy]

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.

←

You forgot the second half of the thought.

"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."

Surely you didn't mean to take my words out of context and reverse the original intent of the paragraph.

[hjshorter]

TPO:

Two items I thought were particularly relevent were: Develop curriculum for different grade levels to help children understand advertising; and educate parents and professionals who work with children and youth on the effects of advertising.

To me that type of education makes SO much more sense than an outright ban on advertising. Its not just food advertising that kids need to learn to analyse, its all arguments and attempts at persuasion.

You might have some success with preteens or teens, but I doubt younger kids will realy give a rats you-know-what. And their tastes might already be formed by then, yes?

I know kids that have been raised to read the labels on anything and everything, and analyze the fat content of all foods. They are never allowed any sodas, snack foods, or sweets at home. They act like absolute ANIMALS at birthday parties and beg for McDonalds, soda and pizza all the time. My kids get tortilla chips, cookies, ice cream, etc., and even a happy meal occasionally and we do not make it seem like a special treat, just another food. They also get plenty of fresh fruit, veggies, and drink skim milk or water. They do not beg for crap nearly as often as the other kids. Technically, we are not the better parents, but whose kids will have healthier eating habits down the road? Not sure. And our kids are definitely have no weight problems except for keeping it on.

Edited December 12, 2005 by hjshorter (log)

[Patrick S]

TPO:

Two items I thought were particularly relevent were: Develop curriculum for different grade levels to help children understand advertising; and educate parents and professionals who work with children and youth on the effects of advertising.

To me that type of education makes SO much more sense than an outright ban on advertising. Its not just food advertising that kids need to learn to analyse, its all arguments and attempts at persuasion.

You might have some success with preteens or teens, but I doubt younger kids will realy give a rats you-know-what. And their tastes might already be formed by then, yes?

←

Granted, your probably not going to transform an 8-year old into a perfectly rational, health-conscious consumer with a few critical thinking courses. But I think nonetheless that we need to begin building these skills as early as possible, even if they don't really pay off until later. 8 year olds are not able to do do algebra or program computers or solve complex moral problems either, but they still need that early training, which is the foundation for the later training and abilities. Mom and/or Dad obviously still need to exercise parental control while the training wheels are on.

Edited December 12, 2005 by Patrick S (log)

[Busboy]

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?

←

Truly, you have to admire the precocious ability of the three-year who manages to find their own money, tip-toe out of the house, travel to the store, and buy their own cereal without any gaurdian supervision. I myself have never seen a three-year buying Lucky Charms. I bet Stewie Griffin could do it, though.

←

Actually I admire the tenacity of three-year-olds who are willing to beg, cry, wheedle, connive, charm, stomp, shriek, threaten, shoplift and whimper to get what they want. Kids have ways. And, before anybody responds with another smug lecture about parental responsibility (nobody's disagreeing, ok?) I just want to point out that in the real world -- where the phrase "terrible twos" has meaning -- these tactics exist, sometimes work and are often inspired by advertising.

More to the point I also admire the tenacity of advertisers who spend billions of dollars and many years building a demand for thier products, image by image, beginning with children younger than three, in hopes of warping their tastes for life.

Which brings me back to the question, which I haven't yet gotten an answer to from the Gernaral Mill's Amen Corner here, is:

Are corporateions allowed free reign for their actions, regardless of the consequences of those actions, if those actions are taken in the name of shareholder value?

[Carrot Top]

I know kids that have been raised to read the labels on anything and everything, and analyze the fat content of all foods.  They are never allowed any sodas, snack foods, or sweets at home.  They act like absolute ANIMALS at birthday parties and beg for McDonalds, soda and pizza all the time. 

←

Mm hm.

I have not met a child yet with parent(s) of the ardent and definitive Tofu-Type who does not try to raid the cupboards or fridge of any junk food to be found like starving little lemmings anywhere else they happen to visit when Autocracy is not around.

The parent can not always be there with the ruler in hand like the nuns who used to teach in parochial school - always ready to strike (however gently and caringly with their words shaped into the smacking rulers).

And I wonder how very effective that ruler in hand that smacked down so hard on children's "incorrect" little fingers really is. Gosh. Lots of people I know that grew up being loudly taught "NO" ran as fast as they could in the opposite direction as soon as they could.

Balance. Moderation.

And knowing when you are being "marketed" to or. . . ."pandered" to.

These sorts of "marketing" are pandering to our lowest urges.

Well, okay. Maybe not our lowest. But pretty close to it, when it comes to food.

Reminds me of a Groucho Marx line:

"A five-year old could understand this! Someone go fetch me a five-year old!"

[FabulousFoodBabe]

"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."

Surely you didn't mean to take my words out of context and reverse the original intent of the paragraph.

←

Please -- you give me too much credit

[FabulousFoodBabe]

Are corporateions allowed free reign for their actions, regardless of the consequences of those actions, if those actions are taken in the name of shareholder value?

←

I hope someone from the General Mills Amen Corner answers this -I want to know who they are. In the meantime, can the rest of us have a crack at it?

(I personally admire the parents who stand up to a shrieking toddler. It ain't easy, but it happens all the time.)

[Busboy]

Are corporateions allowed free reign for their actions, regardless of the consequences of those actions, if those actions are taken in the name of shareholder value?

←

I hope someone from the General Mills Amen Corner answers this -I want to know who they are. In the meantime, can the rest of us have a crack at it?

(I personally admire the parents who stand up to a shrieking toddler. It ain't easy, but it happens all the time.)

←

Go for it. I'm moving on into something less controversial. Something along the lines of "in praise of sauce."

[Patrick S]

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?

←

Truly, you have to admire the precocious ability of the three-year who manages to find their own money, tip-toe out of the house, travel to the store, and buy their own cereal without any gaurdian supervision. I myself have never seen a three-year buying Lucky Charms. I bet Stewie Griffin could do it, though.

←

Actually I admire the tenacity of three-year-olds who are willing to beg, cry, wheedle, connive, charm, stomp, shriek, threaten, shoplift and whimper to get what they want. Kids have ways.

←

They sure do. But luckily, you are bigger, stronger, more intelligent, can punish or reward you child, control all the money, do all the shopping, and have nearly absolute control over what types of foods are present in your home. If you are routinely unable to resist the purchase requests of your children, obesity is only one of many problems you are likely to encounter.

And, before anybody responds with another smug lecture about parental responsibility. . .

←

If you don't want to lectured about parental responsibility, you should probably quit making statements, like the one above, in which it is implicitly assumed that corporations sell their products directly to three-year olds, without requiring a series of actions and/or inaction on the part of the parent. Deal?

(nobody's disagreeing, ok?)

←

Right, we're disagreeing on how much responsibility is rightly the parent's. I happen to think that if my child begs for junkfood, and I mean really, really begs for it, and I buy it for her and give it to her, then any resulting health consequences are my responsibility.

Which brings me back to the question, which I haven't yet gotten an answer to from the Gernaral Mill's Amen Corner:

Are corporateions allowed free reign for their actions, regardless of the consequences of those actions, if those actions are taken in the name of shareholder value?

←

You should read the thread a bit more closely, as this was in fact answered. For instance, when you asked a variation of this same question on the first page, I replied:

Of course corporations have responsibilities. But making sure my kids eat right aint one of them.

[TPO]

(I personally admire the parents who stand up to a shrieking toddler. It ain't easy, but it happens all the time.)

I don't have kids, but I'm around them enough to know just how difficult it is. Which begs the question -- why do we want advertising that creates bad guys out of good parents?

As pointed out several times on this thread, toddlers don't have the money and transportation necessary to buy items themselves, so one reason to market to them is to get them to nag their parents to buy them stuff. Parents are doing a very difficult job, and advertising helps to undermine that job by just giving them more and more occasions when they have to say no to their kids.

And since kids cannot tell the difference between an advertisement and a fact until they are about 8, I doubt toddlers can fully understand that parents are doing what it best for them.

I just want to point out that in the real world -- where the phrase "terrible twos" has meaning -- these tactics exist, sometimes work and are often inspired by advertising.

Additionally, advertising does a good job in manipulating the "compromises" that are common between parents and children today. The kid wants to eat Lucky Charms, the parents want them to eat Cheerios, they compromise on Honey Nut Cheerios -- courtesy of the General Mills advertising campaign designed to create exactly that situation.

ETA disclaimer that I have never suggested such advertising be banned, just that we not be so nonchalant about its effects on small children and work toward better educating kids and parents.

Edited December 12, 2005 by TPO (log)

[hjshorter]

So, it's OK for schools to teach proper nutrition instead of relying on parents to take the responsibility, but it not OK for the feds to regulate junk food marketing to children, thereby leaving it up to parents to counteract the millions of dollars of insidious advertising.

Edit to add, do I have that right?

Edited December 12, 2005 by hjshorter (log)

[Busboy]

You should read the thread a bit more closely, as this was in fact answered. For instance, when you asked a variation of this same question on the first page, I replied:

Of course corporations have responsibilities. But making sure my kids eat right aint one of them.

I don't recall asking them to babysit, but in case I was unclear, let me restate the question in a way that's more specific to the discussion at hand: are corporations free to knowingly contribute to a significant public health crisis, without censure or regulation, in the name of shareholder value?

A parallel question, just for fun: If marketing harmful products such as junk food to children, whose critical faculties are undeveloped is OK; why are we so happy to regulate the sale of harmful products to adults, who theoretically have the ability to make adult judgement? Why not pitch booze, cigarettes and, for that matter, fine Lebanese blonde hash on the tube?

[JohnL]

This seems to be spinning out of control a bit.

The assumption that corporations are inherrently evil is absurd.

In fact, most corporations are not stupid--they are for the most part, responsive to the market place--otherwise they go out of business.

Arguments about profit motives and shareholder responsibilities are more appropriate for an economics board---not here.

What is a fact is Corporations and individuals that make up corporations are already held to a mind boggling array of laws and regulations.

Advertisers and their agencies are subject to broadcast standards and practices--especially when it comes to marketing to children.

There are government agencies--literally thousands of people at work policing corporations. There are civil and criminal codes there are industry codes etc etc etc.

There are numerous citizens groups--I would argue that many of these are no less self promoting than the corporations they seek to watch over.

For example, we are often quick to take any mesage a group with an altruistic name says at face value while any message by "MacDonalds" is looked at as "propagenda."

I have seen a lot of references to "junk" food, yet there are precious few specifics.

What foods exactly are, evil? Is fois gras as bad for you as sugar pops? Milk--evil?

Is it possible that eating too much of anything is maybe not a good idea?

Perhaps the real message here is moderation?

and Common sense.

In the end it is we who are responsible for ourselves and our kids. we either step up to the plate and do our part--or we cower in retreat and let "government" do it all for us.

Does anyone really believe that more rules and regulations are needed?

Do we really believe that 'evil" profit motivated corporations are colluding with advertising agencies and the media and government to slowly kill our kids?

as for General Mills--I suggest that a visit to their website is in order--and a look at their document titled "Corporate Social Responsibility" .

Is this just a clever ruse--to fool us? Is it more brain washing?

I don't know--I believe in healthy skepticism. But I also know that corporations and their products are designed to offer some benefit to society.

I also believe things are not always black and white. And I believe that well informed people can make good decisions about their own lives and their children's lives.

As that marketing genius--Sy Simms once said--"An educated consumer is our best customer!"

Edited December 12, 2005 by JohnL (log)

[Carrot Top]

-- why do we want advertising that creates bad guys out of good parents?

←

Thank you.

[hjshorter]

I don't know--I believe in healthy skepticism. But I also know that corporations and their products are designed to offer some benefit to society.

←

Do you really believe that? Because I don't. I believe that most corporations are out to make a buck, and continue to make a buck by creating a need, real or imagined, for their product.

Edited December 12, 2005 by hjshorter (log)

[Patrick S]

So, it's OK for schools to teach proper nutrition instead of relying on parents to take the responsibility, but it not OK for the feds to regulate junk food marketing to children, thereby leaving it up to parents to counteract the millions of dollars of insidious advertising.

Edit to add, do I have that right?

←

No, you misstate my position in a way that is all but inexplicable given what I've already said, as indicated by the highlighted text. There are all sorts of government interventions, that do not require banning any form of exression, that are uncontroversial and may even do some good.

[hjshorter]

I was not replying directly to anything you've said, just stating where the thread seems to have drifted.

[Patrick S]

You should read the thread a bit more closely, as this was in fact answered. For instance, when you asked a variation of this same question on the first page, I replied:

Of course corporations have responsibilities. But making sure my kids eat right aint one of them.

I don't recall asking them to babysit, but in case I was unclear, let me restate the question in a way that's more specific to the discussion at hand: are corporations free to knowingly contribute to a significant public health crisis, without censure or regulation, in the name of shareholder value?

←

Babysitting the kids wasn't the issue. The issue was whether anyone had answered your question regarding whether or not corporations had any duties or responsibilities aside from profit making. I'll interpret your restating of the question as an admission that you were wrong about that.

Now, which public health crisis is the food advertising industry contributing too? Parents-being-bugged-for-Count-Chocula-Osis? Or childhood obesity? If the latter, I again refer you to the IOM report, which states that the evidence at this time does not allow for any firm conclusions with respect to the causal role food advertising has on childhood obesity.

And maybe you could also explain how you objectively partition the contribution made by parents --who actually, you know, buy the product and deliver it to the kids-- and the contribution made by the food manufacturers and advertisers themselves.

[TPO]

I don't know--I believe in healthy skepticism. But I also know that corporations and their products are designed to offer some benefit to society.

←

Do you really believe that? Because I don't. I believe that most corporations are out to make a buck, and continue to make a buck by creating a need, real or imagined, for their product.

←

I believe that corporations often do some good through community involvement and charitable contributions. I do not, however, believe this comes from the goodness of their hearts. Decisions are based on market research, which determines when the benefits of public relations and free advertisement outweights the cost of charity.

But on the subject of doing good, I can't see how advertising junk food to young children benefits our society. If children have no money of their own and parents are supposed say no to the majority of unhealthy foods, then what purpose does the advertising serve?

Edited December 12, 2005 by TPO (log)

[JohnL]

I don't know--I believe in healthy skepticism. But I also know that corporations and their products are designed to offer some benefit to society.

←

Do you really believe that? Because I don't. I believe that most corporations are out to make a buck, and continue to make a buck by creating a need, real or imagined, for their product.

←

I believe that corporations often do some good through community involvement and charitable contributions. I do not, however, believe this comes from the goodness of their hearts. Decisions are based on market research, which determines when the benefits of public relations and free advertisement outweights the cost of charity.

But on the subject of doing good, I can't see how advertising junk food to young children benefits our society. If children have no money of their own and parents are supposed say no to the majority of unhealthy foods, then what purpose does the advertising serve?

←

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.

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.

Corporations are not inherrently corrupt. neither is Capitalism or making a profit. On the contrary, I would argue there is no better economic system. but again, that is really not the issue here). I have worked with many different companies they were all profit motivated and all were ethical and staffed by good people.

We regulate our industry and commerce heavily. Messages targeting kids go through a massive amount of review before they get on the air.

Kids will recieve messages good and bad from all sorts of places. It is up to the parents to monitor these messages and provide some guidance and education to help kids deal with all the information. It is not just TV advertising. How many parents read the books kids get at school?

It is up to parents to sort through all the messages and to say no--- not the government.

What you consider to be "junk food" and how you as a parent deal with your children's diets may not be what another parent agrees with.

Yes we do need regulations and rules and laws (we have reams of them).

But where does it end?

This may be a moot debate someday--it has already been "determined" that too much TV watching is bad for kids--so is the answer to have the government ban TV? or to "sanitize " it for us?

or is it better to place some responsibility on parents and have them determine what their kids should watch and how much?

I opt for the latter.

we have ratings for programming--so it is up to parents to regulate what is watched in the home--it would be easier if all R rated programming was banned--we wouldn't have to make any rules.

I believe that not all messages directed at kids are bad or are selling bad products (I also want to reserve the right to determine which is which). I also believew that twinkies or sugar pops are not inherrently bad--I do believe that eating too much of these items is bad. Some may disagree with me--that is what is so great about this--I have my standards and you have yours!

Diversity.

[JohnL]

So, it's OK for schools to teach proper nutrition instead of relying on parents to take the responsibility, but it not OK for the feds to regulate junk food marketing to children, thereby leaving it up to parents to counteract the millions of dollars of insidious advertising.

Edit to add, do I have that right?

←

I disagree with your premise: the "feds" do regulate "marketing."

and

Advertising is not "insidious."

It is up front and clear what it is.--not all products are bad.

True very young kids have difficulty discerning things but parents need to exercise some control.

The "feds" (really us) can (and should) go only so far--we as parents need to do our share.

I also have a real problem with defining "junk" food. What is it? Who decides?

Schools should teach the science behind nutrition. Parents should have their own standards and apply them in the home.

[TPO]

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.