Reply
Sat 16 Jul, 2005 08:20 am
Interesting information regarding children and advertising from AdAge.com. It's free to sign up, which I recommend in order to get the previous articles on this topic, as well as the results of the conference.
Quote:FOOD INDUSTRY BRACES FOR TWO-DAY FTC HEARING
Trade Group and Critics Announce Preemptive Marketing Strategies
July 13, 2005
By Ira Teinowitz
WASHINGTON (AdAge.com) -- On the eve of the start of a two-day federal workshop examining childhood obesity and the impact of marketing food to children, marketers, consumer group and media outlets proposed initiatives and guidelines as each looks to be "part of the solution," in the words of one industry lobbying group.
All the talk comes in anticipation of a two-day forum beginning tomorrow that is sponsored by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Health and Human Services. The forum will look into the impact of marketing children's foods on increasing rates of childhood obesity.
Some early proposals
The Grocery Manufacturers Association announced it wants to end any product placement in children's shows and called for new industry ad guidelines for food pertaining to video games, the Web and "advergaming," or the placement of advertising in video games. Meanwhile, a consumer group called for new soda labeling, and children's cable TV network Nickelodeon announced a licensing deal for one of its animated characters, SpongeBob SquarePants, to promote fruits and vegetables.
A number of package goods executives are slated to discuss initiatives to make food healthier, but today the GMA announced an initiative it said was backed by eight industry giants: Kraft Foods, General Mills, Hershey, PepsiCo, Campbell Soup, Nestle, Sarah Lee and Unilever.
Besides ending any product placement in children's shows, the GMA said the companies want the Children's Advertising Review Unit of the Council of Better Business Bureaus to step up its visibility and to establish new limits on product placement in video games and do more pre-reviews of ads aimed at children.
"We want to be part of the solution," GMA executives said.
Little product placement
While broad in scope, the GMA proposal's impact was less clear. There appears to be little product placement in children's programming, shows; CARU already pre-reviews ads when asked; and CARU began developing advergaming guidelines in May.
"I don't know of any [product placement in kids shows]," said CARU's director, Elizabeth Lascoutx. "We've had no complaints. I don't know it exists."
The soft-drink changes urged by the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer group, call for health warnings on soda containers that suggest the drinks lead to an increase in childhood obesity.
SpongeBob and veggies
Nickelodeon, which has been under the gun because of food ads in its programming, announced it signed a deal with Grimmway Farms to use SpongeBob SquarePants and other Nickelodeon characters on vegetable packaging aimed at children.
The Viacom-owned cable network is again expected to be a target in remarks tomorrow from Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who has been an outspoken critic of the food industry's marketing practices.
The initiatives today came as several groups critical of food marketers, including the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, called the workshop this week a "public relations exercise for the food and advertising industries" and suggested marketers had "hijacked" the workshop from its original purpose of looking at limits on advertising and marketing.
www.adage.com
Where does the responsibility of the government / parents begin and end on this issue?
Hm, I guess it would take an entire village to conquer this
squinney.
A few years back, I would have answered, that it is
solely the parents responsibility. Today, having a child
in school, I think it is not only the parents responsibility,
we as a society have to address the issue of proper
nutrition for our children.
Do I take little Jane with me to the supermarket, will
she want a candy at the check-out, as it is prominently
displayed there for the children to see. Not always, but
sometimes she succeeds in getting a candybar.
Do I prepare a healthy lunch for her to take to school,
will she try to exchange it for a hamburger that's offered
at school. If given the choice, she always will grab pizza
over spinach.
Yet at home, she loves eating salads and vegetables, and
she has ample excercise to burn off all the other unhealthy
food groups.
Nonetheless, introducing nutritious food has become a
challenge to all parents, and I feel that schools and other
food suppliers should also contribute to the healthy eating
habits of our children.
Why are the candy isles at supermarkets in reach for
children? Why are they so visibly displayed at the check out?
Why don't restaurants offer healthy kids meal choices?
Why don't they offer nutritious school lunches?
My daughter is slim, yet other kids aren't. I wouldn't put the blame entirely on the parents though (as I once would have).
I think a big problem, in our area anyway, is that once they hit middle school and high school, they have a choice of pizza and soda every day for lunch.
Soda and candy machines are in the cafeteria. You have to send cash in with your teen each day, cause they no longer have accounts. That gives the kids the ability to go to the machines and avoid the lunch line altogether.
Schools say they get a kickback from Pepsi, Domino's or whoever is "catering" to the kids and that avoids parents having to pay higher taxes or approve bonds, but hey, it's coming from our pockets direct to those companies the way it is set up now. So, I'm not much on their argument on that one.
I think sozobe had started a thread a while back about an ensure commercial targeting kids. I agreed that the message was pretty clear that the kid was choosing a milkshake over broccoli and that wasn't good, but I'm not sure how much the federal government should be involved in regulating advertising.
I know what you mean, squinney. Yeah, I thought of my Pediasure thread when I saw this. Also Paul Krugman's column that Thomas posted there (there?) recently.
But like you, while I'm personally outraged, I'm not sure what I think about having the federal government involved.
I'm all for Spongebob flogging vegetables -- I remember the guy who's behind the cartoon saying in interviews that when the big Spongebob movie came out, he refused to have a fast-food tie-in that had the characters eating or endorsing the food. The whole Krabby Patty concept is majorly anti-fast-food, there's all kinds of grossness about what's in it, etc., etc.
Alice Waters is doing some really really cool stuff with kid's lunches -- I think that should be supported and endorsed.
But I'm more towards the endorsement/ encourage side of the spectrum than federal regulation... I think.
Still thinking about it.
When I first read the subject of the thread - my initial response was - the parents of course. But as I read through the article and thought it through a little more, I changed my mind. Of course the parents have the most responsibility and should, but if this becomes a big health issue, we all will reap the consequences. Also, these are children and what happens to the poor children who don't know better that have parents that are not responsible? Do we let them suffer?
I also think about my own children. Although I encourage healthy food habits to them, they certainly see the advertisements and still cry for McDonalds and Lunchables. My two year old asks for McDonalds whenever she sees it. Even though she doesn't even really like McDonalds food. I am happy that they know how healthier choices with the happy meals. My 6 year old loves chocolate milk and asks for that over the soda. My two year old loves juice boxes so apple juice boxes are now a choice.
Even if you do not allow your children to watch any TV - they eventually go to school. That is where the peer pressure happens and cries for Lunchables result. Any help the government will give me to encourage healthy food rather junk food for my children is definitely welcome.
I think the government has a right to regulate nutritional porn.
Remember, the free school lunch program was introduced because of the high percentage of malnourished military recruits.
I like that ...."nutritional porn.." perfect description.
Nutritional porn. What an excellent term.
For schools, it's about money. Raise your taxes and offer better food, or keep 'em low and offer junk, and subsidized junk at that? A lot of school lunch material, even before commercial ventures stepped in, was due to farmers' surplus. Lots of cheese this year? Then pizza's on the menu. Lots of beans? Then it's chili. Etc. etc. etc.
And there's trading, we all know about that, I suspect nearly everyone here did that. And that's fine if everyone is eating healthy or more or less healthy stuff. Chicken for pasta? Hey, no problem. But we all know that's not the case -- it's Mom's healthy leftover chicken for fatty lunchables, or pretzel sticks (no fat) for potato chips. You get the picture.
And what happens when schools offer better foods? Do the kids select them? Not always. I don't think elementary school students are going to make good choices most of the time. And I think that older kids are going to perhaps know better -- but make bad choices anyway. Don't underestimate the power of peer pressure here. If the cool kids are eating McDs, then so are nearly all of the other kids, even if those kids don't like McDs.
Where's the solution? I don't know. Some suggestions (and I'm not a parent so yeah, it's easy for me to say) ~ Pack good foods and hope for the best. Talk to other kids' parents and try to get everyone on the same page, so at least they trade one healthy thing for another. Talk to the school, protest if you have to, heck, offer to pay more taxes (yes, I said to pay more taxes) if it'll improve conditions. Like I said, I'm not a parent, but I'll fork over more paycheck if I know that the children in my neighborhood are being better educated and cared for. I suspect other nonparents would, too -- if you can't get 'em on the humanitarian/it's the right thing to do angle, get 'em on the property values angle. Better schools and better kids tends to mean lower crime and higher property values. I bet a lot of people would be on board with that if it was presented the right way.
That's what I do jespah - I pack healthy lunches and hope for the best. I do slip in a goody and occasionally give a lunchable. I figure if I allow it once in a while, she will more likely eat the good stuff too.
An overheard conversation I will treasure:
Six members of a Midget Football Team arguing whose mother packed the most disgustingly healthy lunches.
Those boys were proud of being persecuted.
I think a LOT of the responsibility lies with the parents
I guess I see the worst side of it... cos working with our kids (autism, angelmen's, downs, CP etc) a lot of them get spoilt by parents who just figure well i can't explain to them why they should eat healthily so why should they?
So many of the kids have to take constipation medicine in their juice it's outrageous... and one of the lads who is about 10 has bigger breasts than i do...
I guess I agree with Jane. Society as a whole needs to take responsibility for this - and stuff like having chocolate at the checkout in Tesco is just outrageous because it's entirely designed to target kids who are shopping with mum. But i think that there is a huge problem with parents who don't think it's there responsibility.
I think half of it is conditioning. If a child learns that they have to eat what mummy gives them, then they will. If they get taught that crying will eventually get them pizza and ice cream every night of the week then... they will
[/rant]
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace