Prevention Institute: "We're not buying it."

A video and petition from the Prevention Institute, about food marketing directed at children.

What foods fail to meet new voluntary standards for marketing to children?

In response to a request from Congress, a federal interagency group has proposed new voluntary standards for what foods can be marketed to children (.pdf).

A food industry campaign believes the voluntary standards will become essentially mandatory in practice, raising the industry's fears of regulatory overreach and loss of first amendment rights.  Other legal experts on public health law and policy emphasize that the proposed standards really are voluntary.  My own instinct is to see voluntary standards as a reasonable compromise between empty wishes for self-regulation and heavier mandatory regulation.  So I am tempted to see the industry's legal concern as overwrought.

But that still leaves open the question of whether the proposed nutrition standards are too weak, just right, or too strict.  Marion Nestle says her initial reaction was the the proposals were "much too generous."  The food industry's "sensible food policy" coalition says the proposed standards would prohibit marketing for nearly all commonly consumed foods.  In other words, the industry thinks the nutrition standards are too strict.

Now, here comes the arcane and detailed part of the post.  The industry group listed 100 commonly consumed foods (.pdf), and claimed only 12 of them met the standards.  The acceptable foods included fresh fruits and vegetables.  The industry group's table lists 100 comparatively broad food categories (column A), and then picks a particular food within each category (column B), and then in most cases claims that the particular food failed to meet the federal proposal's voluntary standards.  Some of the failures seem totally reasonable.  For example, nobody thinks donuts or cake should count as healthy foods.  But, the industry group claimed the standards also excluded popular and reasonably healthy foods.  For example, in the category of "all family cereal," the industry picked one particular cereal, and said it would be "banned" because it had too much sodium. 

At first, I suspected the group was cheating, by picking "column B" foods that did not really represent the broader "column A" food category, but I was mistaken.  I suspected the group of picking unusually unhealthy foods that failed the standards, just to make the standards look unreasonable.  However, after questioning a representative of the sensible food policy coalition by telephone today, and working through the details for the cereal example, I had to retreat a bit.  For example, unsweetened cheerios and corn flakes really do fail the proposed voluntary standards for sodium in the long run, even though one could argue that it is possible to have a bowl of cheerios every day and still meet the Dietary Guidelines recommendation for sodium (the cheerios provide 190 mg of sodium per serving, relative to the daily recommendation of 1,500 mg).  In the short run, the proposed rules would be more permissive, allowing cheerios for a few years.  The long-run voluntary standards use a fairly strict criteria that the marketed foods should qualify as "low sodium," which excludes cheerios.

For myself, I would have been happy if the proposed voluntary standards had allowed cheerios and ruled out highly sweetened cereal.  Perhaps the federal interagency working group was pushing the envelope on the details of the nutrition standards?

Is Child Nutrition Reauthorization moving or stalling?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) this week said they wanted lawmakers to approve a bill reauthorizing child nutrition programs before the August recess. 

U.S. Food Policy's coverage this Spring noted that the Lincoln bill is less ambitious than legislation the White House had proposed earlier.  For example, the Senate bill includes just six cents per meal increase in the federal reimbursement to local programs for providing a school lunch.  Yet, even this weaker and politically more palatable child nutrition reauthorization failed to make the list of three bills highlighted as priorities by leading Democratic legislators, which probably made advocates wonder if any child nutrition legislation would pass at all.

Legislation to reauthorize child nutrition programs for five more years has passed out of committee in both the House (.pdf) and Senate (.pdf).  The Food Research and Action Center is encouraging support for the House bill.  Margo Wootan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest wrote that the House bill "hopefully give a nudge to the Senate to pass its child nutrition bill."  The next few days will show if this hoped-for nudge actually comes to pass.

Massachusetts passes bill to improve school nutrition

The Massachusetts House and Senate yesterday passed legislation to improve school nutrition.  The bill now goes to Governor Deval Patrick, who is likely to approve it.  Though some details of the rules are delegated to state agencies, the law will strengthen wellness planning and reduce or in some cases end the sale of sugary drinks and junk food in school.

The legislative history and the text of the bill (.pdf) are online.

The Boston Globe reports:

“There is no specific list of foods that would be banned, but most up-to-date recommendations would prohibit sugary drinks, such as soda, and typical ‘junk food’ such as regular chips and processed packaged snacks,’’ David Falcone, Senate President Therese Murray’s spokesman, said in an e-mail.

The measure, which the House passed in January and the Senate passed in March, now heads to the desk of Governor Deval Patrick for signing.

“The governor supports efforts that promote healthy eating for our children, and we look forward to reviewing the final language,’’ Patrick’s spokesman, Kyle Sullivan, said in an e-mail.

How long has the U.S. Food Policy been blogging this particular issue?  In October 2005 (!), we described the efforts of State Rep. Peter Koutoujian.

At the press event before today's hearing about junk food in Massachusetts schools at the State Capitol in Boston, State Rep. Peter Koutoujian challenged the notion that policy-makers should allow children to choose junk food. "Who's in charge here?," Koutoujian asked. "The adults or the children?"

The law will in no way restrict foods or beverages that parents can offer their children.  Instead, it will reduce the unseemly and widespread practice of other adults making money selling high-sugar beverages and high-salt snacks to children in school in the midst of an epidemic of childhood obesity and nutrition-related chronic disease.

Advocates for the new policy, such as the Massachusetts Public Health Association, have long cultivated patience as an essential virtue for their line of work.  It seems likely that the association's website will soon have a very happy news item.

Child Nutrition Reauthorization

You have probably already been enjoying the Fed Up With Lunch blog, a photographic journal of a year of school meals. If you think school lunch should be better, a lot depends on Child Nutrition Reauthorization in Congress this Spring. Here is a sampling of blog and new media coverage.

Tom Philpott at Grist:

Obama's proposed increase would boost the current daily per-lunch outlay by less than 20 cents -- not enough to buy an extra apple a day for every kid.

Now Blanche Lincoln (D.-Ark), the agribiz-friendly chair of the Senate Ag committee, has come out with her draft of the School Lunch Reauthorization Act. She may be calling it the "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act," but what she proposes doing is slashing Obama's proposed increase by more than half, to $4.5 billion over ten years.

If Obama can't spare an extra two dimes per day per kid to spend on ingredients, Lincoln won't even fork over a single extra dime. If Obama's proposal wouldn't even net an extra apple a day, Lincoln's would have trouble procuring a single stick of gum -- not that school kids need any more sugar.

And it gets worse. Because of Congress' "pay-as-you-go" rules, Lincoln has to balance her modest increase with cuts in other agricultural spending. Naturally, she has chosen to target conservation, hunger, and even other school-lunch programs -- leaving commodity payments, beloved of her state's large-scale cotton farmers, intact.

Nutritionist Julie Negrin, M.S., writes at the daily table:

It’s bewildering to me why the government is hemming and hawing over how much money they should invest in CNR. It could be as low as a half a billion (which sounds like a lot but divide that by five years and millions of schools) and as much as $4 billion (which would be a miracle). When they give so little for each child’s school lunch, how can the school staff be expected to produce healthy, balanced meals for growing children? Even the most talented chefs I know would have a hard time coming up with a well-rounded meal appropriate for children if they only had a couple of bucks to spend per person. And had little to no kitchen equipment. And were given low-quality ingredients.

In the new online magazine Agriculture from the Environmental Working Group (EWG), Craig Cox takes the Lincoln bill to task for pitting child nutrition against conservation programs.

In a critical miscalculation, she would cap the amount of money spent on the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) to pay for the nutrition increase. EQIP, a program chronically underfunded and repeatedly targeted for cuts, helps ensure cleaner water, soil and air for the children in rural communities.

The senator would be much smarter to look to the bloated farm subsidy program.

CNN calls obese kids "coronary time bombs"

The top story on CNN online this morning has the headline: "Obese kids are coronary time bombs."

What is your opinion of that headline?

It is good to be frank about the health consequences of childhood obesity, to motivate a vigorous response from parents and policy-makers alike. At the same time, we should respect and support the quality of life for the many children who will be overweight for much of their lives.

It seems helpful to say, as an expert quoted in the body of the CNN article does, "Our study suggests that more of these young adults will have heart disease when they are 35-50 years old, resulting in more hospitalizations, medical procedures, need for chronic medications, missed work days and shortened life expectancy."

But it seems unhelpful to call obese kids time bombs. It's stigmatizing. As a metaphor or image, "time bomb" doesn't bring to mind a correct impression of the health consequences as a scientist would see them. The article seems at times to be concerned about the teasing that heavy kids get in school, but that nuance is not carried through consistently. The "coronary time bomb" language was not from any of the experts quoted or evidence cited, but was in the CNN author's own voice.

The article is supported by direct advertising for an anti-cholesterol drug, Vytorin. Clearly, the advertising is linked with the content of the article. The fear-enhancing message in the article text serves well to generate interest in the ad. The ad has the same color scheme as the CNN website, increasing the visual sense of linkage. The teaser for the ad is: "What are you doing about cholesterol and the Two Sources -- food and family?"

Here is information, which does not appear in the ad on CNN, but rather on the Zytorin website linked from the ad:

VYTORIN contains two cholesterol medicines, Zetia (ezetimibe) and Zocor (simvastatin), in a single tablet. VYTORIN has not been shown to reduce heart attacks or strokes more than Zocor alone.

Selected Important Risk Information About VYTORIN
VYTORIN is a prescription tablet and isn‘t right for everyone, including women who are nursing or pregnant or who may become pregnant, and anyone with liver problems.

Unexplained muscle pain or weakness could be a sign of a rare but serious side effect and should be reported to your doctor right away. VYTORIN may interact with other medicines or certain foods, increasing your risk of getting this serious side effect. So, tell your doctor about any other medications you are taking.

Healthy choices for school meals

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) at the National Academies on October 20 published new guidelines, which may lead to more healthy meals in federal school nutrition programs.

The recommendations, if implemented by USDA, will bring school meals standards in line with the most recent Dietary Guidelines for Americans. In light of current concerns about overweight and obesity, the IOM report suggests food energy maximum levels as well as the current minimum levels. It also suggests upper bounds on salt and saturated fat.

The report, titled School Meals: Building Blocks for Healthy Children, seems astutely focused and un-fussy. It recommends a drastic simplification in the way nutrition standards are used in meal planning and determining a meal's eligibility for federal reimbursement. It suggests nutrient benchmarks for developing federal standards, but it recommends that actual meal planning and reimbursements be based primarily on foods instead of nutrients. Rather than pursue a long list of distracting micronutrient benchmarks, the report promotes fruits, vegetables, and whole grains.

In a special child nutrition issue of Choices Magazine from the Agricultural and Applied Economics Association (AAEA), published today, Iowa State University economist Helen Jensen comments: "the recommendations are consistent with a growing body of research, as well as encouragement from stakeholder groups to change the school meals to be consistent with the dietary needs of school children today." Jensen is editor of the special issue and also a member of the IOM committee that produced the new report.

Today's special issue of Choices also contains gently contrasting views about measures that school food services might take to improve school meals, while remaining financially viable. Cornell economists David Just and Brian Wansink use principles of behavior science to suggest nudges in the direction of healthier meals:

Thus, the object of using behavioral economics in school lunch rooms is to guide choices in a way that is subtle enough that children are unaware of the mechanism. These subtle changes often have the advantage of being relatively cheap and easy to implement. This is a clear advantage given the financial climate. However, behavioral economic instruments cannot achieve 100% compliance. For example, the only way to eliminate soda consumption in a school is to eliminate the soda. If we instead approach the problem by allowing choice but place the soda at some disadvantage in the marketplace, we can reduce soda consumption substantially but not eliminate it. To preserve choice, we will necessarily have to allow some individuals to purchase items that are less nutritious. But we can make these choices less convenient or less visible, by moving the soda machines into more distant, less visited parts of the school.

(Wansink was interviewed at U.S. Food Policy in 2007).

On the other hand, I have an article in Choices, with Friedman School graduate student Mary Kennedy, discussing the economic environment in which school food services must operate. Because of interactions between student demand for more and less healthy options, we suggest that reining in less healthy competitive foods may give school food authorities more room to maneuver in providing better choices.

The Just and Wansink article in this theme warns against unintentionally increasing the appeal of unhealthy products by banning them outright. Nevertheless, placing some reasonable limits on competitive food is not really economic heresy.

For centuries, economists have admired markets as a coordinating tool for economic decisions in communities composed of households, but economists have always acknowledged beneficent non-market decision-making within households. Schools are not marketplaces but educational institutions responsible for the welfare of their charges.

If schools are expected to respond to the current epidemic of childhood obesity by improving the school food environment, and taxpayers are reluctant simply to provide more resources, then there is some merit in considering measures to enhance the relative competitive position of healthy meals served through the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program.

"Oh, no!" says the broccoli ...

... "Secretary Vilsack loves cookies and not me!"


When I saw this in an email from agrarian writer Stephanie Ogburn, I thought it was Photoshop humor, but really it is from a USDA press release today.

The press release describes a new anti-obesity public service announcement featuring USDA Secretary Vilsack and Sesame Street characters.

Sesame Street came under fire from Commercial Alert in 2003 for its sponsorship from McDonald's, including a mini-advertisement adjacent to the public television show. Here is the current Sesame Street page thanking its sponsors, including McDonald's.

Question for the comments: do you think the cold shoulder for broccoli in the USDA photograph is an oversight or intentional non-verbal communication?

Update: a Facebook comment says, "hmm-- Kathleen showed this PSA at Mayoral Child Nutrition Summit today...the broccoli is portrayed very well in the spot...I think this is an oversight."

Rudd Center webinar on childhood obesity

Briefly liveblogging today's webinar on soda taxes and childhood obesity, from the Rudd Center on Food Policy and Obesity at Yale.

David Ludwig's presentation, reviewing the scientific literature, is convincing that consumption of soda and other sugar-sweetened beverages increases body weight and risk of obesity for children. For my own purposes, I take this conclusion as fact and spend most of my mental energy engaging the interesting policy questions.

Kelly Brownell reviewed objections that have been raised to soda taxes. First, the "Nanny State" objection -- the idea that the government shouldn't be telling people what to eat. Brownell's response is that the government already does tell us what to eat, through Dietary Guidelines and subsidies. I think that response won't carry the day, with politicians or the public. Dietary guidance, which summarizes the complex scientific literature but respectfully leaves concrete decisions to families, is different from a soda tax. Similarly, agricultural subsidies will be seen as very different in motivation and impact from a tax designed to encourage healthy beverage consumption.

Second, the argument that soda tax will be regressive, hurting poor families disproportionately. Brownell's response includes the observation that low-income people have higher rates of disease, so the benefits of a soda tax are progressive. Also, if poor people shift to water, Brownell says, they will actually save money. Again, I think soda tax proponents have a tin ear for how poorly such arguments will play with potential allies, including advocates for low-income people and otherwise sympathetic legislators.

Overall, proponents of a soda tax need to reach beyond the public health framework -- where childhood obesity is an illness that needs a medically prescribed remedy -- and reach out to economists, politicians, and others who are better prepared to engage likely public reactions to a proposed excise tax as a public health tool. Above all, any tone of eagerness to tax is politically deadly. It would be much wiser to adopt the tone that "nobody likes taxes, but, just as in our own families, hard choices must sometimes be made, and this one may help our children stay healthy." Several webinar speakers generally sounded more eager to tax.

Michael Jacobson provided a helpfully skeptical summary of the political situation. Several current bills at federal level do not include a soda tax. Grassley and Baucus oppose a soda tax. Some tax-writing committee staffs have given a little attention to soda taxes as a possible revenue source, but that is not much to go on. The most likely scenario for imposition is during a federal or state fiscal crunch, as a convenient revenue source, along with alcohol taxes. That setting wouldn't bode well for building public support for the corresponding public health agenda.

Additional information sources include an anti-tax group, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation effort on childhood obesity, a recent Michael Jacobson editorial, and a Center for Science in the Public Interest website.

Pediatricians talking about the built environment

The American Academy of Pediatrics this week came out with a policy statement on the built environment -- for example, encouraging changes in neighborhood design that are more favorable to walking and cycling.

The tone of such statements is typically bland, with lots of passive voice. For a bit more rhetorical punch and visual impact, here is an unpolished but interesting video lecture by Richard Jackson, MD, MPH, a former CDC official and current chair of the Environmental Health Sciences department at UCLA.



The CDC website has a bunch of related resources and links.

Access and input on child nutrition policy

From the American News Project in February:



Hat tip to the Daily Bread blog. This week, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is hosting Capitol Hill briefings with a low-meat perspective on child nutrition programs (328 Russell Senate Office Building, 2:30 pm, April 30; 122 Cannon House Office Building, 1:30 pm, May 1). The Food Research and Action Center has a page on child nutrition reauthorization news and analysis.

Disney's food

Last week I posted Disney Eggs on Epicurean Ideal in response to Disney's new egg commercial.



Following correspondence from my favorite Food Sleuth & Dietitian, Melinda Hemmelgarn, the Disney food story began unfolding. Melinda works on media literacy issues, so I knew she was the perfect person to go to to get the 'dig.'

From a PR Associate at Disney:

Disney Eggs were introduced in March 2009 in 2 test markets initially (Florida and New York), and will launch in Colorado in April. Disney Food, a division of Disney Consumer Products, wanted to offer a "better for you" egg that was fun for families with children. Having the quality endorsement of Eggland's Best, with their all natural, all-vegetarian patented hen feed seemed like a great fit. The eggs are high quality-stamped with Disney characters and the collections of characters will rotate every month, to refresh the product.

The Disney Eggs product line consists of Large, Extra Large, 18-pack Large, Disney Cage Free and Disney Organic eggs. All the different versions are currently being offered and were presented to retailers in the 2 markets where the product was launched (Florida and New York). The retailers decide which and how many options they want to offer to their customer base, and currently retailers are only selling the #1 variety, which is Large, and no additional varieties at this time.

Eggland's Best patented hen feed contains healthy grains, canola oil, and an all-natural supplement of rice bran, alfalfa, sea kelp and Vitamin E. The Eggland’s Best hen feed contains no animal fat, no animal by-products, and no recycled or processed food. Eggland’s Best never uses hormones, steroids, or antibiotics of any kind. Eggland’s Best eggs contain ten times more Vitamin E than ordinary eggs, 100 mg of Omega 3, shown to be beneficial to cardiac health, 25% less Saturated Fat, and 200 mcg of Lutein, shown to contribute to eye health.

Kids will love the eggs because of the Disney characters, but parents will appreciate their nutritional value as well so it appeals to the entire family. In 2006, The Walt Disney Company introduced nutritious food guidelines limiting the use of the Disney name and its characters to only those kid-focused products that meet specific limits on calories, fat, saturated fat and sugar. Today, Disney’s extensive food portfolio offers nutritious options in key meal categories including fresh produce, bread, pasta, dairy and baked goods.

In response to the Eggs: I am unsure as to the point of feeding chickens vegetarian feed. Chickens are omnivores and eat insects, worms and vegetation. I guess if we are feeding cows corn we can feed chickens vegetarian feed. I'm just not sure of the marketing tactic. Who cares whether a chicken was a vegetarian or not, beside the ability of the industry to yield to specific product, as is the case with Eggland's Best. My next point is the marketing of "farm fresh." I hope consumers realize by now that this means nothing, much like "natural." However, "Naturally Raised," is a value adding marketing claim regulated by the Agriculture Marketing Service that

"applies to livestock used for meat and meat products that were raised entirely without growth promotants, antibiotics, and animal (mammalian, avian, and aquatic) by-products derived from the slaughter/harvest processes including meat and fat, animal waste materials (e.g., manure and litter), or aquatic byproducts (e.g., fishmeal and fish oil)."

One of the producers of Egglands Best eggs is Morning Fresh Farms which, by looks of their operations, is by no means a small family farm (although family owned). These types of tactics further the agrarian myth that people's food is coming from an idealistic farm with a red barn and roaming cattle. The egg industry is one that is very much industrialized no matter what certifications, claims and programs they put on the carton. Egglands Best does offer Organic and Cage Free Eggs, but I can't even find a picture of a chicken on their website. It reminds me of when I asked a student where hamburgers come from and he replied: "the grocery store." Do we want kids thinking eggs come from Mickey Mouse?

In response to Disney Food: Disney Consumer Products uses their classic Disney characters to market a full line of processed foods, including frozen and dried pastas, baked goods, snacks, novelties, dairy, confectionery, beverages and breakfast foods.

Disney Food, Health & Beauty takes an active role in the development and marketing of a diverse array of quality, innovative products that touch consumers' lives each day. Through new food licensing programs, product reformulations and relationships with leading manufacturers and retailers around the world, the Disney food group offers nutritious alternatives parents approve of and kids love.

Some of my favorites are Mickey Pizza's, Disney Campbell's Spaghetti O's, Disney's General Mills Cereals, and Disney Tummy Ticklers & Bellywashers (100% juice drinks).

While at first glance, it may seem that Disney is promoting healthier foods then the typical commercially processed and advertised foods, I side with Marion Nestle on the point that kids don't need special 'kid-friendly' foods to eat. Should we be inundating kids with more advertising? Campaign for a Commercial-free Childhood would say no. I would argue that this contributes to more disconnect between people and food culture.

Children's food and beverage initiative

The Children's Food and Beverage Advertising (CFBA) Initiative is a cornerstone of the industry's self-regulatory efforts.

About 15 companies have submitted voluntary pledges to the Initiative. Some major nonparticipants include Yum Brands (including Taco Bell and Pizza Hut) and Cadbury Schweppes (including soft drinks such as Dr. Pepper and Snapple). Because perhaps 1/3 of all food advertising is by nonparticipating companies, competitive pressure could harm companies that voluntarily try to make real substantial improvements.

The Initiative has fairly lenient minimum standards for the pledges, though some companies exceed the minimum standards voluntarily. The Initiative's standards say 50% of the company's "advertising aimed at children under 12 years of age" must "further the goal of promoting healthy dietary choices and healthy lifestyles." This standard can be achieved either by accompanying the marketing message with physical activity messages, or by advertising foods that qualify as "better for you."

It is not clear that physical activity advertising really counterbalances advertising for unhealthy foods. New research published last month in the journal Obesity found that activity messaging can have the paradoxical effect of increasing food consumption. People who see these messages seem to behave as if they were hungry after exercise ... but without the actual exercise.

The standards for foods that qualify as "better-for-you" frequently have an "either/or" character that makes them easy to meet. For example, a product can be low in sugar, or low in fat, or low in salt, but it need not meet all of these criteria together. Foods on the list of "better-for-you" items that pass muster with the Initiative include: Lunchables Max’d Out Pepperoni Pizza, Cap'n Crunch, and Gatorade Thirst Quenchers (which are said to be "better-for-you" despite getting all their calories from sugar because they provide a rehydration benefit).

The companies choose their own standards for defining "advertising toward children under age 12." Here are some examples from my recent review:

Only two pledges use the same standard as the 2008 FTC report, which stipulated settings where more than 30% of the audience is children under the age of 12 years. Some pledges use a lenient standard of 50% of the audience. The definitions in other pledges are so imprecise and complex that it is difficult to determine what advertising is covered. The Campbell Soup Company proposed the following standard: “audience composition that is approximately two times the proportion of that age group in the general population (composition index of 200 or more)”. Pepsico listed five different non-quantitative factors, specifying “none of which shall be controlling."

Self-regulation of food marketing to children

Food and beverage industry self-regulation is commonly seen as mere window dressing for doing nothing about intense food and beverage marketing to children in the midst of an epidemic of childhood obesity.

Yet, many economists support government interventions to address the problem only if they are narrowly tailored to solve "market failures" -- situations where the market system fails to serve the public interest. If the market's own response suffices, it may be preferable to the government response.

And, many legal experts like restrictions on advertising only if the restrictions are narrowly tailored to be "no more extensive than necessary."

Of course, companies themselves prefer self-regulation.

With these multiple sources of support, the federal government has determined to attempt a period of self-regulation.

The questions that interest me most are: (1) how will this period of self-regulation be evaluated?; and (2) if the self-regulation fails, will the economists and legal experts follow the logic of their own arguments and support a stronger government response?

My longer version of this discussion has just been published in Nutrition Reviews (contact me by email if your library lacks access).

Capitol Hill event on school meals, Feb. 26

From the press release:

Interested in how your member of Congress can help make over the school lunch line, infamous for mystery meat, with fresh fruits and vegetables? In a free lecture on Capitol Hill on Thursday, Feb. 26, Neal Barnard, M.D., president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), Robert Lawrence, M.D., director of the Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, and Eboni Morris, M.P.P., health policy fellow for the National Urban League, will discuss ways to improve the food served in the nation’s lunch rooms to help reverse America’s obesity epidemic.

Participants will learn how federal nutrition policies, especially the Child Nutrition Act, which will soon come up for congressional review, play a critical role in our nation’s health.

EVENT DETAILS:
WHAT: Take a Bite Out of Childhood Obesity, a FREE Capitol Hill event
WHEN: Thursday, Feb. 26, 2009, 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. WHERE: 345 Cannon House Office Building
SPONSOR: The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
COST: FREE REGISTRATION: No RSVP Necessary
INFO: Contact Ruby Lathon at 202-686-2210, ext. 379, or rlathon@pcrm.org . For more information or an interview with Dr. Barnard or another PCRM nutrition expert, please contact Tara Failey at 202-686-2210, ext. 319, or tfailey@pcrm.org.

Truth in advertising

If this blog ever sounds a note of outrage over lies and near lies in commercial food marketing -- like when a cereal company puts "fruity" in the product name for sugary junk that has no fruit -- then you can remind me of this story. I got home the other night to find my children gobbling up some delicious soup my wife Sarah had made. "What's in it," I asked, pulling up a chair? "Potatoes," say the kids. "Chickpeas," says Sarah. "Really?," says my son. "Well," Sarah says, "chickpeas and a little potato. I mean, I didn't really say it was all potatoes. I just called it potato soup."

School lunch and school breakfast standards

The Institute of Medicine, part of the National Academies, today released a report on meal patterns and nutrient standards for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and School Breakfast Program (SBP).

There is a request for public comments.

The National School Breakfast Program feeds 10 million children each day, and the National School Lunch Program feeds more than 30 million students. Yet the national nutrition standards and meal requirements for these meals were created more than a decade ago, making them out of step with recent guidance about children's diets. With so many children receiving as much as 50 percent of their daily caloric intake from school meals, it is vital for schools to provide nutritious food alongside the best possible education for the success of their students.

At the request of U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Institute of Medicine assembled a committee to recommend updates and revisions to the school lunch and breakfast programs. The first part of the committee's work is reflected in the December 2008 IOM report Nutrition Standards and Meal Requirements for National School Lunch and Breakfast Programs: Phase I. Proposed Approach for Recommending Revisions. Phase II of the report is expected in Fall 2009. This first report provides information about the committee's approach as it reviews the school lunch and breakfast programs. In the report's second part, the committee will share its findings and recommendations to bring these meals more in line with today's dietary guidelines.

The committee welcomes public comments about its intended approach. An open forum will be held January 28, 2009 in Washington, DC to receive input from the public.

Award for McDonald's ad

The Association of National Advertisers, Inc., gave an award this week to Mcdonald's for multicultural advertising, for the following commercial. According to Laurel Wentz on the ANA site: "Tony Suarez, McDonald's VP-multicultural marketing, said the spot was done by DDB, Chicago, with input from Hispanic shop Alma DDB, Coral Gables, Fla."



Because the commercial is clearly marketing McDonald's to children, it offers insight into the boundaries of the company's voluntary pledge on the website of the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative.

Will such pledges materially affect the food marketing environment facing our children? That is the key question during the current trial period of industry self-regulation.

Unanswered questions about children's food and beverage advertising

In July, based on information collected through federal subpoena, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) produced a detailed report on the massive extent of children's food and beverage advertising (see earlier post).

A concurring statement (.pdf) by Commissioner Jon Leibowitz most strongly criticized two industries whose practices "leave a tinge of heartburn": the beverage and fast food restaurant industries.

First, the disproportionate amount ($474 million) to market sugary carbonated beverages to adolescents is striking – that’s nearly $20 per American teenager in 2006. The marketing efforts must be working; on average, adolescents get eleven percent of their calories from soft drinks. Studies show that those who drink more soda are more likely to become overweight. To their credit, the major carbonated beverage marketers entered an agreement with the Alliance for a Healthier Generation and have committed to phase out the sale of full-calorie sodas in schools, shifting to lower calorie and more nutritious beverages. Wouldn’t a responsible next step be to extend this effort beyond the schoolhouse door, and curtail at least some marketing of full-calorie soft drinks to school-age youth – including teens – whether on television, via the Internet, in stores, or elsewhere?

Second, the big dollars to promote fast food restaurants to children are also somewhat hard to stomach: the $520 million for advertising and the toys included with fast food children’s meals was more than twice the amount spent by any other food category to target children under twelve in 2006. Some inner city low-income neighborhoods have numerous quick service restaurants but few grocery stores or markets that sell nutritious foods, so many of the children most at risk for obesity rely on fast food as a mainstay of their diets. Studies show that over-consumption of fast food likely contributes to overweight and obesity. I recognize that McDonald’s and Burger King are working to develop new, lower calorie menu items for children. But surely more can be done to add options to fast food menus and improve families’ incentives to order healthier choices.

Some leading soda and fast food restaurant companies have refused to participate in the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, a Better Business Bureau project that hopes to forestall legislative action by demonstrating that the food and beverage industries can regulate themselves voluntarily.

Why isn't Yum Brands, including Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, on the list of participating companies? Stare at these brand logos and ask, "Why do they insist on unrestrained marketing to children during an epidemic of obesity?"


Why isn't Schweppes, including the Dr. Pepper and Snapple brands, part of the Initiative? An early press release from the Initiative listed Cadbury Schweppes as a founding member, but after a corporate reorganization, only the Cadbury Adams candy part is currently listed in the Initiative's website. The Initiative's six-month progress report (.pdf) covers some trivial issues at great length, but steers so far clear of criticizing companies that it never once mentions the absence of the major beverage company that was listed as a founding member of the Initiative. Stare at this brand logo, and ask yourself, "Did Schweppes commit to restrained advertising to kids, but then change its mind? If so, why?"

And what about Nestle? Just as the FTC report was coming out in July, the Better Business Bureau heralded the last-minute participation of the multinational food corporation, which has a long history of controversial marketing practices. The Initiative has lenient standards for company pledges, as a condition of participation, but Nestle has not yet made public any standards on the Initiative's list of pledges. It is unseemly for the Initiative to give Nestle such an eager press release last July while simultaneously accommodating months of continued foot-dragging on the details of the company pledge. In response to an email query, the Initiative expresses "hope" that the company's pledge should be posted later this month. Stare at this logo, and ask, "How strong will Nestle's pledge be when it is finally shared with the public?"

Half-hearted and long-delayed participation, as well as outright non-participation, undermine the incentives facing competitors that do participate and weaken the prospects for meaningful self-regulation as an effective response to concerns about unhealthy food and beverage advertising to children.

FTC estimates the extent of food marketing to children

Using unprecedented data collected through subpoenas to 44 major food and beverage companies, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) today estimated that $1.6 billion was spent in 2006 on food marketing to children.

The FTC study, which was requested by Congress, will provide a benchmark or baseline for evaluating marketing changes under the current system of industry self-regulation, especially the effectiveness of the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative established in 2006.

That Initiative has been criticized as weak and voluntary, and several major companies including Yum! Brands and Nestle have declined to participate. FTC officials said today that they believed that the Nestle company will announce its participation in the Initiative later today.

The FTC officials said all food companies should join this self-regulatory Initiative and, moreover, that the voluntary company pledges under the Initiative should be seen just as a starting point. Lydia Parnes, who leads the FTC Division of Consumer Protection, quoted SpiderMan: "With great power comes great responsibility."

The data used by the FTC are different and in some ways better than anything else used previously in research on this topic. The FTC subpoenas asked companies to account for not just traditional "measured media," such as television and print advertising, but also the whole gamut of commonly unmeasured marketing techniques. Furthermore, FTC required breakdowns by food category.

FTC reported today that television advertising was 46% of total expenses for marketing to children. Internet advertising is very important in marketing to children, but comparatively inexpensive to produce, accounting for only 5% of expenses. Premiums or prizes were also a modest percentage, unless one counted the toys in fast food meals to children, in which case premiums ranked second only to television advertising.

Mary Engle, who leads the FTC's Division of Advertising Practices, described how companies integrate across media types in supporting a coherent branded message. Children might see an ad on television, for example, and have the message reinforced by packaging on a supermarket shelf. Or, the television ad might send the child toward more marketing at an internet site. The description makes clear that mild restrictions in one setting, such as a pledge to advertise only comparatively healthy products in a particular branded line on television shows for children, can be overcome by using similar branding and images that promote sales of the whole line, including lucrative less healthy products, in a wide variety of other settings.

Updates (late afternoon 7/29):

-- Are the FoxNews.com headline writers are a bit weak on the math, or am I missing a subtle distinction of some sort? "Federal Trade Commission: Kids Target of $1 Billion in Food Ads." But what's $600 million between friends?

-- A press release and copy of the report are now on the FTC site.