|
Sat Aug 02, 2008 at 15:52:33 PM PDT
|
|
I'm sure this is not news, but for what it's worth, check out this article: Marketing To Kids: FTC, CBBB Weigh In With Reports. Headlines in every major newspaper screamed about the $1.6 billion advertisers spend marketing junk to kids. But - to be fair and balanced - they quoted from the other report published this week. You know, the one from junk food companies congratulating themselves for self-regulation.
The bottom line on the two reports: CBBB concluded that the voluntarily participating F&B companies are indeed complying with their pledges. The FTC, while making several recommendations and stressing that it will continue to monitor the situation closely, referred to progress on the self-regulatory front and did not advocate federal government intervention at this time.
During the press conference releasing their results, FTC officials stated that for the time being, they would "like to see how the self-regulatory process is working" in terms of F&B companies adhering to their CFBAI pledges and adopting the FTC's recommendations. They added that the self-regulatory process "is not yet fully implemented" by companies, and must be implemented "over a period of time."
Big Food's PR spin is making me dizzy. I think I just threw up in my mouth a little. |
| OrangeClouds115 :: Junk Food Industry Timed Their Release to Coincide with FTC Report |
Knowing that the FTC would be providing its estimate of how much F&B companies spend on marketing to children as part of its report, CFBAI planned the timing of its compliance report release to convey to the public that a large portion of the marketing money being spent is "being spent by companies that have committed to marketing better-for-you foods to children," Kolish added. "We wanted to provide context by conveying that there is a robust self-regulatory initiative at work."
From an article on the same topic by the Wall Street Journal:
While the commissioner credited the beverage industry for agreeing to phase out sales of full-calorie sodas in school, he said the companies should think seriously about curtailing "at least some marketing of full-calorie soft drinks to school-age youth, whether on television, via the Internet, in stores or elsewhere." On the fast-food front, the commissioner said the $520 million fast-food restaurants spend reaching children is "somewhat hard to stomach."
In response, Coke said in a statement: "Coca-Cola applauds the efforts of our leaders in the government to address the issue of childhood obesity in America head on. We believe that only through collaboration and partnership can we create the kinds of workable solutions will lead to real results."
In its report, the FTC made several recommendations, including: that marketers adopt nutrition-based standards to promote their products; that media companies limit ads on children's programs to "healthy" foods and beverages; and that media and entertainment companies restrict the licensing of characters to "healthy" foods marketed to children.
Let's not get confused about the soda companies' self-regulation in schools. A trade organization made the agreement to limit sodas in schools but it is NON-BINDING, not to mention not retroactive (i.e. all existing sales and agreements to sell soda in schools will not be amended based on the agreement). And there's no enforcement mechanism. Net result: zero.
Furthermore, do you really trust Kraft to pick out which of its foods are "healthy" in order to advertise them to kids? And should we be teaching our children to eat foods based on endorsements by their favorite cartoon characters? |
|
|
