Government Abandons Children to Big Food

Thursday, July 21, 2005 by CommonDreams.org

Government Abandons Children to Big Food

by Michele Simon



With rising rates of childhood obesity and diabetes, you might think
that when the federal government convenes a meeting on how food
companies market food to kids, talk of how to regulate industry
practices might actually be on the agenda.

But you'd be wrong. Last week, the Federal Trade Commission and the
Department of Health and Human Services co-hosted a workshop in
Washington entitled, Perspectives on Marketing, Self-Regulation, and
Childhood Obesity. But what should have been a forum on how to set
limits around the marketing of junk food to children turned into a PR
opportunity for industry. Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) got it right
when he said in his opening remarks that "corporate America spends $12
billion a year on food ads to kids because it works."

The only reason that FTC and HHS bothered to hold the meeting at all
was that the Institute of Medicine recommended they do so in its
report on childhood obesity last year. Specifically, the IOM called on
the government to "convene a national conference to develop guidelines
for the advertising and marketing of food and beverages directed at
children." They also recommended that "the Federal Trade Commission
have the authority and resources to monitor compliance with food and
beverage advertising practices."

But none of this was even remotely discussed in Washington. And no
wonder. By conservative estimates, a full two-thirds of the panelists
- hand-picked by FTC and HHS - had financial ties to either the food
or advertising industries. To add insult to injury, from the chairman
of the FTC on down, nearly every government official who had the
chance made clear that regulation of junk food ads aimed at children
was not on the table and wouldn't be anytime soon. FTC Commissioner
Thomas Leary went so far as to warn against the government becoming a
"nanny state." If this sounds familiar, it's because that's usually
industry's line.

And industry should thank Uncle Sam for providing them with a very
expensive press conference. Among the 350 attendees were reporters
from all the major outlets. And sure enough, much of the media spin
included the industry promises of doing right by America's kids, with
only a modicum of criticism from public interest groups.

For example, Nickelodeon took the opportunity to announce that its
popular children's character, SpongeBob, will soon be hawking spinach
and carrots. Notably lacking was any promise of removing his image
from such unhealthy products as Pop Tarts, Kraft Cheese-Its and
Breyers cookie-dough ice cream.

Also, the Grocery Manufacturers of America - the major trade group for
the food industry - announced with much fanfare a set of
recommendations to boost self-regulation, an obvious attempt at
staving off any government intervention, as if they had anything to
worry about. But what GMA conveniently neglected to mention was how
they are on record as opposing just about every school nutrition bill
across the country. So much for caring about children's health.

The food industry works hard to keep the focus on self-regulatory
mechanisms such as the Children's Advertising Review Unit, the
industry-supported 5-person shop that cannot possibly monitor all the
ways that children are bombarded with food marketing these days. Yet,
Elizabeth Lascoutx, director of CARU, presented her organization as
doing a stellar job of monitoring food ads, making several misleading
statements in the process (which seems ironic for the head of an
organization charged with monitoring deceptive advertising). For
example, she said that McDonald's had agreed to alter an ad campaign
to show healthier choices in their children's ads, when in fact, the
company disagreed with CARU's determination that the commercials were
misleading.

Coca-Cola also took the opportunity to misrepresent itself. Abigail
Rodgers, vice president of "Wellness Strategies and Communication"
claimed that the company does not sell soda in elementary schools.
Trouble is, a survey of Kentucky schools revealed that soda is sold in
44 percent of elementary schools. And Coca-Cola was a powerful
lobbying force against four legislative attempts to pass a state bill
to get soda out of schools. But Ms. Rodgers forgot to mention that,
along with the other state bills Coca-Cola has helped kill or weaken,
including those in California, New Mexico, Arizona, Connecticut,
Indiana, and Oregon.

There was precious little opportunity for advocacy representation or
public participation. Only a handful of panel slots were allotted to
public health or children's advocates. Even then, their voices were
drowned out by the likes of PepsiCo and Kraft, who were each given two
separate opportunities to speak, an honor not bestowed on anyone else.
Moreover, questions from the audience were tightly controlled by
government officials, pre-screened by moderators. Only in response to
pressure from advocates did the FTC alter the agenda at the last
minute to include a brief "open forum" at the very end of the day,
after all the reporters and most attendees had already left. Clearly
Uncle Sam was not interested in hearing from the public on this
matter.

Senator Harkin said he hoped that the meeting would not be just window
dressing, but it turned out to be far worse. The motto of the Federal
Trade Commission is "For the Consumer" but with this meeting, it might
as well have been, "For the Industry." It is certainly not, "For the
Children."

Michele Simon is a public health attorney who teaches health policy at
University of California, Hastings College of the Law and directs the
Center for Informed Food Choices, a nonprofit in Oakland, Calif. Sign
up for 'Informed Eating' -- a free newsletter on the politics of food
at www.informedeating.org.

Actually, it is the parents who are abandoning their children to big food.

Jeff