by Elizabeth Dethy
The screen goes dark. The image of the yellow sponge that “lives in a pineapple under the sea” is replaced by Lucky, clad in all-green with a top hat to match, clutching a box of Lucky Charms and riding on a shooting star. Three cartoon characters shout after him, “Lucky is flying away with the charms” as he shoots off a cliff, laughing with glee. He crashes into a brightly colored rainbow where suddenly he is surrounded by rainbow-colored shooting stars, and in his shock he drops his prized possession. The kids race to the bottom of the ravine, where one of the characters juts his arm out to catch the falling cereal. All three smile with glee as they catch the falling stars and shout about the fun new colors of the charms. The narrator mentions in a voiceover, “Five new marshmallow shooting stars, only in Lucky Charms Cereal. Part of a healthy breakfast.” The commercial ends with all the characters shouting, “Magically Delicious” (TOKENFATK1D, youtube.com). Magically delicious, perhaps. Magically nutritious, perhaps not.
Lucky Charms cereal contains 142 calories per cup. While its fat content, 1.3 grams of total fat, is not off the charts, it also contains 14 grams of sugar. Marshmallows are listed as the second ingredient in Lucky Charms, and are made up of sugar, modified corn starch, and corn syrup (General Mills). To compare, Cheerios breakfast cereal has only 100 calories per cup and one measly gram of sugar. Sugar is the third ingredient after whole grain oats and modified corn starch. Cheerios also offers twice the amount of fiber of Lucky Charms (Cheerios, cheerios.com). Cheerios, however, cannot lure kids into a world of marshmallows and rainbows. Instead, they feature a young girl, a real actor, who complains about the things that “are for babies.” When her mom opens up the pantry to reveal a box of Cheerios, she remarks, “Ooh. I like those” (FutureRetro2010, youtube.com). To the overweight child watching Saturday morning cartoons who represents one third of American children today, the Lucky Charms commercial definitely packs more of a punch.
The current childhood obesity epidemic in this country has called numerous groups to action. Many of these groups believe regulating the fast food and junk food ads directed towards our children will help curb the meteoric rise in childhood obesity rates. Advertising executives and food corporations disagree, believing government regulation is an infringement of first amendment rights. This raises the question: What role, if any, should our government play in the regulation of advertising to children, in order to combat this childhood obesity crisis?
Childhood Obesity: A Problem of Epic Proportion
What exactly is the obesity epidemic? While many Americans are aware of the health problems associated with obesity, most are not aware of just how prevalent obesity is in America today. According to a 2003 report in the Journal of the American Medical Association, in 1991, only four states had obesity rates greater than 15 percent. By 2001, only Colorado remained under the 15 percent mark. Additionally, 29 states crept over 20 percent obesity (Mokdad 77). Today, over 25 percent of U.S. adults are obese. Every state except Colorado has an obesity rate over 20 percent. Some states in the South have even topped 30 percent (Mantel 800). While these statistics are disturbing in their own right, what’s worse is the trickle-down effect they have had on our nation’s children.
Overweight and obese children sometimes become so due to a hormonal imbalance or due to genetics. These causes, however, are not the reason for the epidemic. According to the Oxford Reference Encyclopedia, children usually become overweight or obese due to overeating and usually, from eating too much fast food and junk food. This trend in children is especially disturbing because during development your body develops adipocytes, or cells specifically designed to store fat. With few exceptions, the number of fat cells you develop during childhood stays the same, regardless of whether you lose or gain weight. These fat cells may grow or shrink, but their overall number stays the same. Thus, childhood obesity predisposes individuals to remain obese or become more obese in adulthood (Kent).
Between 1976 and 1980, roughly 5.5 percent of children and teens were overweight or obese; 6.5 percent of six- to eleven-year olds and 5 percent of twelve- to nineteen-year olds were obese. By 2008, 16.9 percent of children between 2 and 19 were either overweight or obese: 15.1 percent of six- to eleven-year olds and 14.8 percent of twelve to nineteen year olds were diagnosed with obesity (Ogden 3). As of 2010, 31.5 percent of children six to nineteen were overweight, and 16.5 percent of those children were obese (Institute of Medicine 653). This is not just an American problem. In Canada, the rate of childhood obesity has tripled over the past 25 years. Twenty-six percent of children are overweight or obese (Shaw 1).
Recent studies have shown links between childhood obesity and an early onset of diseases previously only seen in middle-aged adults. Some of these include diabetes and an increased risk of heart disease. The American Heart Association reports some 1 million children, roughly 4.2 percent of the childhood population, were affected by metabolic syndrome. In 2004 Federal authorities defined a pre-hypertension category for children as young as ten to highlight the need to change their eating and exercise habits to avoid chronic disease (Shaw 1).
While the health effects are disturbing by themselves, perhaps even more frightening is the economic cost. An estimated $98-128 billion are spent each year fighting diseases associated with obesity. This is a crisis that transcends ethnicity and the socioeconomic spectrum (IOM 652-3). The obesity epidemic has permeated our society, rearing its ugly head in every direction.
The Link Between Food Marketing to Children and Childhood Obesity
Concurrent with this unprecedented rise in childhood obesity comes an equally unprecedented rise in food advertising targeting children, according to an Institute of Medicine report from 2004. The obesity rate among children has risen in direct proportion to the number of ads children are exposed to every day (656). According to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonprofit organization focused on health policy in America, in the 1970s, the average child watched approximately 20,000 television ads a year. That number grew by 50 percent in the ‘80s, steadily increased in the ‘90s: as of 2004, the average child watched over 40,000 television ads a year (4). This represents a 200 percent increase in the past three to four decades. As statisticians will be quick to point out, however, correlation does not always prove causation. Still, it is hard to believe there is not some link between ads targeted towards children, and what they choose to put into their mouths.
During the average hour of children’s programming on a Saturday morning, a watcher will be exposed to roughly eleven food commercials. Thirty-two percent of these ads are for candy, an almost equal 31 percent for cereal, and 9 percent for fast food, notes the Kaiser study (4). The American Journal of Public Health concluded that 67 percent of child-directed ads are for foods high in fat, sugar, or sodium (5). Children are not only being targeted at home. Channel one, the television program most public schools use for announcements, is also being bombarded with child-directed advertisements. Seven of ten breaks in programming advertise fast foods, candy, soft drinks, or snack chips (Shaw 1). In the lunchroom, as well, children are flooded with “competitive foods.” Competitive foods are defined as food and drink options, usually brand-named, that compete with the standard school lunch. Roughly 20 percent of schools offer these types of foods, almost always fast food or junk food, in addition to regular lunches (Shaw 1).
Many lawmakers believe that having these types of foods around undermines the government’s ability to offer a nutritious meal to children. Food and Nutrition Services conducted a study from 1998-1999 that revealed school lunch participation decreased with an increase in competitive foods (Field 287). After all, what six year old would choose the green things that look like trees instead of the warm, cheesy pizza the Pizza Hut stand is offering? The issue is further complicated, however, by the economic benefit of offering these foods. Schools receive monetary compensation for allowing competitive foods to be offered in the lunchroom. The money the schools receive, especially in the current economic state, is vital to providing students with the best educational resources possible (Field 287).
While the effects of television ads and marketing campaigns to children have not been thoroughly studied and conclusions reached by large food corporations have not been made available to the public, there are studies that prove kids who eat more fast foods and drink more soda also watch more television (Kaiser 5). Food companies have conducted research studies on the link between advertisements and a family’s purchasing decisions (Kaiser 5). While these corporations remain tight-lipped about the results, given the prevalence of advertising in our country, it is not difficult to infer the results.
In 1999, companies spent $12 billion on advertising to children (Field 287). In the early 2000s, fast foods outlets alone spent $3 billion a year on television ads (Kaiser 5). According to marketing executives, children under 12 will spend around $35 billion of their own money on the foods they peddle. While this is a shocking number, it is nothing compared to the amount they expect children to influence in family spending. In 2004, executives predicted children would influence $200 billion in family spending (Kaiser 5).
Despite the secrecy of food corporations, some studies have been released that point to a link between advertising and children’s food preferences. A Stanford study of 63 subjects aged three to five showed that 77 percent preferred chips and burgers in McDonald’s packaging. This was the result of over 300 separate taste tests (Donohue). A similar study published December 2006 concluded 70 percent of three year olds in England recognized the golden arches (McLellan). Additional studies have shown that the more television kids watch, the more likely they are to ask for things. Up to 75 percent of requests are for products kids have seen in an ad (McLellan). Other studies where five- to eight-year olds saw either ads for fruit and juice or candy and Kool-Aid showed that the ads affected what food choices they made (Kaiser 5).
The susceptibility of children to the marketing might of food companies is especially concerning. A study by the Canadian Paediatric Society revealed that children under eight “are developmentally unable to understand the difference between advertising and regular programming” (Shaw 1). A similar study performed by the American Psychological Association reached a similar conclusion. Their report suggested limiting advertisements directed at kids under eight (Shaw 1).
This susceptibility to advertising is especially disturbing because children often are misled by these advertisements. Most television ads mis-portray the health benefits of the advertised foods. Perhaps this is best exemplified by saying Lucky Charms are part of a “nutritious breakfast.” A 2004 study by the Kaiser Foundation found that 70 percent of children aged 6-8 think junk food is nutritionally better than a home cooked meal (Kaiser 8). Other groups of children (4th and 5th graders) were asked to choose the more nutritious option between two foods. More often than not they picked the wrong food (Kaiser 8).
Given the impact advertisers hope kids will have on their parents’ purchases, the fact they can be misled and influenced so easily is a cause for great concern. America is in a vicious cycle—food marketers influence kids, who in turn influence their parents at the supermarket and restaurant. Proponents of government intervention and regulation hope to curb the increase in childhood obesity by attacking the apparent source of the problem: advertisements directed towards children.
The Debate
In the summer of 2010, Santa Clara County in California considered legislative action to ban restaurants from giving out toys with their meals unless certain nutritional requirements were met. Meals with more than 485 calories for the entire meal, or over 200 calories for an individual item, would violate the requirements. So would any meals that came with a drink over 120 calories or contained 600 milligrams of sodium or more in the meal. Requirements on sugar and fat content stipulate that no more than 35 percent of the calories can come from fat and no more than 10 percent from added sweeteners (Weintraub). This legislation marks the first time the government interfered with the way restaurants market to customers. Not surprisingly, the bill, which eventually passed 5-4, was met with strong opposition from the California Restaurant Association (Weintraub). While it is the first of its kind in the United States, other countries have already passed legislation to restrict advertising to kids. These countries include Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and Sweden (IOM 654).
Ken Yeager, supervisor of Santa Clara County, defended the bill: “We’re trying to help parents. We’re not trying to take away their role.” He added, “This is one area where the county can take a position…if we could change the meals at fast-food restaurants, we felt that was something important to do” (Weintraub). A man who shares a similar philosophy is Alex Bogusky, a former advertising executive who left his profession at his peak because he no longer believed the message he was peddling to consumers. Bogusky started and worked as chief executive of Crispin Porter + Bogusky Advertising Agency. Advertising Age awarded Crispin Agency of the Year and Agency of the Decade in 2010. Bogusky was the man responsible for taking Burger King from a private to a public company. He innovated their Chicken Fries, Meat’normous (dubbed “heart attack on a bun”) and Flame (Sacks). How did a man who made his fortune and reputation endorsing sugary soft drinks and fat-saturated burgers wind up one of the loudest voices against the food industry? Attempting to answer that same question, Daniells Sacks interviewed him in 2010 for an article in Fast Company. Bogusky remarks, “`You compromise your voice slowly over time, and then you have a moment where you’re like, Wow, that really isn’t what I think.’” Today, he does not let his children eat or drink artificial sweeteners. He also wrote a book in 2008, The 9-Inch Diet: Exposing the Big Conspiracy in America, aimed at curbing the sweeping “supersize” trend (Sacks).
Some food companies have responded to the concerns of parental groups and individuals like Bogusky and Robert Kenner, producer/director of the documentary Food Inc. Coca-Cola, Mars, Hershey, and Cadbury Adams USA publicly announced they would cease all marketing to children. Similar companies announced they would only advertise products to children that met minimal nutritional standards (Clifford). In Canada, Hershey, PepsiCo, McCain, Burger King, and Kellogg said they wouldn’t advertise directly to kids any foods high in sugar, fat, or sodium. Instead, they announced they would advertise their healthier options. This increase in self-regulation came in response to pressure from anti-obesity groups and pro-children’s health groups (Shaw). While self-regulation is much preferred to government interference, it is not without its caveats.
The biggest problem with self-regulation is the lack of industry-wide standards. No industry-wide nutrition guidelines existed for what foods could be advertised and what foods could not be under the promise of “self-regulation.” Naturally, this made self-regulation difficult. Cocoa Puffs, Kid Cuisine Construction Cheeseburger, and Apple Jacks all passed nutrition guidelines that allowed their products to still be advertised (Clifford). In Canada, during Saturday morning Teletoons, cereal commercials played for Corn Pops and Cinnamon Toast Crunch. Tony the Tiger still sang the praises of Frosted Flakes and how they are part of “a nutritious breakfast” (Shaw 2). In light of these apparent violations numerous consumer advocates spoke out against self-regulation.
In her paper on marketing to children, Hollie Shaw quotes Dr. Tom Warshawski, chairman of the Childhood Obesity Foundation as saying, “This just reinforces the common-sense principle that the fox does a really poor job of guarding the henhouse” (Shaw 2). Shaw also quotes Ron Telpner, chief executive of Brainstorm Group, an ad agency: “Self-policing is not going to work” (Shaw 1). This criticism is especially poignant given that it comes from a figure in the advertising industry. Others in the industry explain why self-policing is so difficult. Alyson Dias, director for marketing communications at Duncan Enterprise, was quoted as saying in the New York Times, “It’s difficult, advertising to children.” She explains that given the current consumer environment people are especially wary of ads targeted to children (Clifford). Janet Feasby, vice-president of standards at Advertising Standards Canada, told the New York Times, “Just because it features a child isn’t sufficient. If the language is all directed to adults, it can’t be [meant for] children” (Clifford). Therein lies the difficulty of even knowing what constitutes a child-directed marketing campaign.
The failure of food companies to regulate themselves has led government groups and obesity experts to call for more federal regulation. Warshawski supports government enforcement: “it’s common sense in that these various profitable businesses are pumping millions and millions into advertising to children. Children, by nature, are designed to absorb messaging. This highlights the importance of firm, objective regulations and some government enforcement” (Shaw). Obesity expert Boyd Swinburn encourages a ban on advertising to kids and introducing new food labeling requirements. He argues some tactics employed by food corporations are as bad as those of tobacco companies (Newton). Alvin Poussaint, a psychiatric professor at Harvard Medical School urges increased government regulation and increasing taxes on unhealthy foods. He remarks, “the trend is accelerating and it’s time we responded honestly to marketing’s impact on our most vulnerable citizens—children” (McLellan). The Kaiser Family Foundation published a report in 2004 that endorsed government regulation as a way to stem the childhood obesity crisis. Because kids can’t tell the difference between advertising and regular programming, it supported the complete removal of all advertisements from public kids television shows and no advertising to preschoolers (Kaiser 8). Kaiser is not the only group to support regulation.
Several agencies have sought to influence public policy. The Institute of Medicine in a 2004 report wrote that it is the role of federal and state governments and schools officials to, “Develop and implement nutritional standards for all competitive foods and beverages sold or served in schools” (IOM 662). Congressional Quarterly Weekly agreed that limiting ads and competitive foods in schools was essential to combating childhood obesity (Field). However, the first step in such regulation is quantifying what nutritional standards must be reached to qualify as a “healthy food” or as a “junk food.” One difficulty in establishing such standards, however, is the ability of companies to find ways to get around them. For example, General Mills’ just changed the serving size of their cereal to get the sugar and fat content numbers below the guideline numbers.
Despite the support for government interference, there is also widespread anxiety over such involvement.
Sarah Johnson, a high-ranking employee of Athena Brand Wisdom, remarked, “It’s insulting to consumers to suggest they are passive victims who are at the mercy of these evil corporations. Parents are the gatekeepers here, and at a certain point, a parent has to be a parent and say yes or not” (Shaw). Studies have shown kids are uniquely susceptible to the marketing might of companies. Johnson, however, argues that parents are responsible for monitoring their children. Jot Condie, president of the California Restaurant Association, agrees:“To assume that a childhood temper tantrum is so powerful that you can’t do anything but buy a kid a meal that has a toy is ridiculous” (Weintraub). Telpner also agrees: “At some point, the mom is the CEO of the household, and will decide whether to buy Go-Lean Crunch or Fruit Loops” (Shaw).
The mother or father who buys the food for the household makes the final decision on where to put the family’s money. Ideally, most parents would buy Cheerios instead of Lucky Charms for their children, despite cries and temper tantrums. There are ways, however, to make their decision a little easier without regulating food marketing.
The Food Dudes, Tom, Raz, Charlie, and Rocco, hailing from the UK have a proven track record of success at convincing school-age children to eat their fruits and vegetables (Coghlan, 8). Their success rests on the principle, “If you eat a food repeatedly for 10 to 15 times, you learn to like it,” according to Fergus Lower, a co-developer of the Food Dudes program (8). Ireland, after starting a pilot trial in 2005, ended the program in early 2007 to expand it nationwide. Other countries, including the United Kingdom and Italy have also started trials. Some cities in California also started trials in 2007. The second key component to their success comes from the environment of peer pressure they hope to foster (9). The results from Ireland showed great promise. For the children who started the program eating no servings of fruits or vegetables a day, by the end of the 16-day series, 90 percent of them ate at least one serving a day (9). Their television program shows how engaging, fun entertainment can help inspire healthy eating habits.
President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama also hope to inspire healthier choices without immediately resorting to targeting advertising. President Obama signed the Healthy, Hungry-Free Kids Act of 2010 on December 13, 2010 (CQ Press, 613). One of the first pieces of legislation associated with the First Lady’s “Let’s Move” campaign, targets food served to children in school. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack lauded the bill as a “history victory for our nation’s youngsters. This legislation will allow USDA, for the first time in over 30 years, the chance to make real reforms to the school lunch and breakfast programs by improving the critical nutrition and hunger safety net for millions of children” (619). In his comments before signing the bill into law, President Obama remarked, “We’re empowering parents by making information more available about the quality of school meals—helping families understand what their kids are eating during the day” (621). One aspect of the legislation targets school lunches, while a second equally important aspect focuses on educating parents.
As I mentioned earlier, parents ultimately decide what to buy for their children. Advertising companies and food corporations know this. Children influence three times as much family spending as they actually spend on food for themselves. Food marketers advertising to kids hope to influence the first link in a chain that ends with parents in a supermarket, reaching for the Fruit Loops instead of the Cheerios.
The Government’s Role
What should the government do about it? The government’s responsibility is to protect and monitor the health and wellness of its citizens. Given the extreme susceptibility of young children to the advertising power of food corporations, government intervention seems to be necessary. Of course, such government intervention spreads to unprecedented territory.
A brief examination of government regulation in other countries’ might help us anticipate what would happen if we passed similar legislation in this country. Norway and Sweden both banned unhealthy food advertising during kids’ TV in the late 1990s. Quebec has banned advertising to children since 1980 (Shaw). Unfortunately, in none of these countries or cities has it seemed to have an effect on the obesity rate. Although the obesity rate in Quebec remains lower than in other parts of Canada, since the 1980s the levels in obesity have risen just as in other parts of the country (Shaw).
Clearly, regulating food marketing to children is a complicated issue. In an ideal world, when food companies say they will take the initiative to combat childhood obesity and marketing to kids, they will follow through. In an ideal world, if that were to fail, the government would be able to step in and help its citizens make the right decisions. Unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.
Much of the answer to this debate rests on an individual’s principles and the role of individual responsibility. Personally, I think government regulation should be used as a last resort. The government can get involved in ways that do not infringe upon the first amendment rights of food corporations, especially if there is no hard evidence to suggest it will have an effect on the obesity rates in this country. Instead, the government should try to educate children on making the right choices, and educate parents on how they can impact their child’s eating habits.
Works Cited
“Cheerios.” 2011. November 19, 2011 <http://www.cheerios.com/Products/Cheerios>.
“Child Nutrition Bill Signed into Law.” Historical Documents of 2010 (2011): 613, 614-623.
Clifford, Stephani. “A Fine Line when Ads and Children Mix.” New York Times February 15, 2010, sec. B: 4.
Coghlan, Andy. “Superheroes Fight Childhood Obesity; Current Initiatives Aimed at Getting Kids to Eat More Fruit and Vegetables are Failing. Could a Peer-Pressure-Based Approach Involving Fictional Superheroes Work Better?” New Scientist July 21, 2007: 8-9.
Donohue, Alex. “Children Prefer Fast Food in McPackaging.” Brand Republic News Releases August 8, 2007: 1. . November 15, 2011.
Field, Kelly. “Rise in Childhood Obesity Pulls Lawmakers into the Lunchroom.” CQ Weekly January 31, 2004: 286, 286-290.
FutureRetro2010. “Cheerios Cereal “That’s for Babies” 2011 Commercial.” June 14, 2011. Youtube. 19/11/11 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIaVph0JFM4>.
Golin, Josh. “Ban Food Marketing to Kids.” USA Today October 17, 2011, sec. News: 10A. November 15, 2011.
Greenblatt, Alan. “Obesity Epidemic: Can Americans Change their Self-Destructive Habits?” CQ Researcher January 31, 2003. November 13, 2011.
Institute of Medicine on Preventing Childhood Obesity. Ed. CQ Press. Washington, DC: SAGE Publications, 2004. November 14, 2011.
Kaiser Family Foundation. “The Role of Media in Childhood Obesity.” 2004. November 15, 2010.
Kent, Michael. “childhood onset obesity.” Oxford Reference. Oxford University Press. . n.d. Web. 14 Nov. 2011. <http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/ 9780198568506.001.0001/acref-9780198568506-e-1297>.
“Lucky Charms Nutritional Info.” General Mills. November 19, 2011 <http://www.generalmills.com/Home/Brands/Cereals/LuckyCharms/Brand%20Product%20List%20Page.aspx>.
Mantel, Barbara. “Preventing Obesity: Do Americans Face Too Many Obstacles to Healthy Eating?” CQ Researcher October 1, 2010. November 13, 2011.
McLellan, Faith. “Marketing and Advertising: Harmful to Children’s Health.” The Lancet (2002). November 15, 2011.
Mokdad, A.H. et al., “Prevalence of Obesity, Diabetes, and Obesity-Related Health Risk
Factors, 2001,” Journal of the American Medical Association January 1, 2003.
Newton, Kate. “Food Companies’ Tactics ‘as Bad as Tobacco Firms’.” Dominion Post December 9, 2009, sec. News: 12. November 15, 2011.
Ogden, Cynthia, and Margaret Carroll. Prevalence of Obesity among Children and Adolescents: United States, Trends 1963–1965 through 2007–2008. National Center for Health Statistics. June 4, 2010. July 27, 2012.
Sacks, Danielle. “Alex Bogusky Tells all: He Left the World’s Hottest Agency to Find His Soul.” Fast Company August 9, 2010. November 19, 2011.
Shaw, Hollie. “Kids in their Sights; Non-Stop Sugar Rush Keeps the Ad Market for Kids Growing, and Fuels More Calls for Mandatory Regulation.” National Post’s Financial Post August 28, 2010: FP1. November 15, 2011.
TOKENFATK1D. “New Lucky Charms Shooting Star Commercial.” June 8, 2011 November 19, 2011 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHrc8w8YOHE>.
Weintraub, Daniel. “Taking Away Toys to Help Fight Obesity.” New York Times May 16, 2010: 25A.
Elizabeth Dethy is a sophomore studying computer science and electrical engineering. She lives in Morristown, NJ and attended high school at Phillips Exeter Academy in New Hampshire. She is the third of four daughters of Marianne Kozlowski and Douglas Dethy. She also is a member of the MIT women’s field hockey and lacrosse teams.