Sean Moloughney07.01.10
Call me crazy, but I’ve always believed that parents should take responsibility for their kids, including what they eat—at least until they’re able to make rational, educated decisions for themselves. According to Datamonitor research, two out of every five children in the U.S. (nearly 41%) between the ages of 5 and 13 are currently obese or overweight. And this number is expected to climb to 43% by 2014. Additionally, 30% of parents with overweight or obese children do not set limits on TV, video games or computer games for their kids. I know. Crazy.
Thank you First Lady Michelle Obama for stepping up to the plate with a plan. I think it’s awesome she’s started the Let’s Move campaign, but at the same time it’s pretty pathetic that public health has reached such a low point that we need a national movement to try to get kids to eat healthy and exercise.
Again, I’ll be the first to blame parents for the childhood obesity epidemic. But hey, there’s plenty of blame to go around. Following close behind, in my mind, are makers and marketers of so-called “foods and beverages” that have zero nutritional value, but target children specifically. Cue the “Happy Meal,” perhaps more appropriately termed the “Crappy Meal.”
Seriously, of the 24 possible Happy Meal combinations that McDonald’s describes on its website, all exceed 430 calories, which is one-third of the 1300-calorie recommended daily intake for children 4 to 8 years old. According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), a Happy Meal consisting of a cheeseburger, French fries and Sprite contains half a day’s calories and saturated fat (640 and 7 grams, respectively), about 940 mg of sodium and about two days’ worth of sugar (35 grams). How on Earth could a “family restaurant” get a kid to crave this garbage so badly that the parents can’t say no? How about we throw in a Shrek toy? Ronald McDonald, you’re a genius! (I know, this “food” is cheap too and there’s a complex sociopolitical dynamic at play here that has made healthy food virtually unaffordable for the masses. But that’s the subject of another rant.)
Back to the clown … By the way, I thought clowns were supposed to give children the gift of laughter, not a future heart condition … Anyway, McDonald’s is facing a possible lawsuit from CSPI if it continues to use toys as advertising tools, which is “unfair and deceptive marketing,” CSPI claims, as well as “illegal under various state consumer protection laws.”
“McDonald’s is the stranger on the playground handing out candy to children,” said CSPI litigation director Stephen Gardner. “McDonald’s use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children’s developmental immaturity—all this to induce children to prefer foods that may harm their health. It’s a creepy and predatory practice that warrants an injunction.”
The power of marketing to children was recently demonstrated in an interesting new study published in the journal Pediatrics, which showed that taste and snack preferences of kids are greatly influenced by cartoon characters. Children significantly preferred the taste of foods that had popular characters like Shrek or Dora the Explorer on the packaging, compared with the same foods without these characters. The majority of children selected the food sample with a licensed character for their snack.
“Branding food packages with licensed characters substantially influences young children's taste preferences and snack selection and does so most strongly for energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods,” the study authors concluded. “These findings suggest that the use of licensed characters to advertise junk food to children should be restricted.”
In other advertising news, Kellogg Company recently agreed to new restrictions to resolve an FTC investigation into questionable immunity-related claims for Rice Krispies cereal. This is the second time in the last year that FTC has taken action against the company. At about the same time that Kellogg agreed to stop making claims that its Frosted Mini-Wheats cereal was “clinically shown to improve kids’ attentiveness by nearly 20%,” the company began a new advertising campaign promoting the purported health benefits of Rice Krispies, according to the FTC. On product packaging, Kellogg claimed that Rice Krispies cereal “now helps support your child’s immunity,” with “25 percent Daily Value of Antioxidants and Nutrients – Vitamins A, B, C, and E.” The back of the cereal box stated that “Kellogg’s Rice Krispies has been improved to include antioxidants and nutrients that your family needs to help them stay healthy.”
The expanded order against Kellogg prohibits the company from making claims about any health benefit of any food unless the claims are backed by scientific evidence and not misleading. Why do companies apparently need to be told explicitly (twice) that they can’t lie to consumers?
The expanded order against Kellogg prohibits the company from making claims about any health benefit of any food unless the claims are backed by scientific evidence and not misleading. Why do companies apparently need to be told explicitly (twice) that they can’t lie to consumers?
Call me a crazy, paranoid pessimist, but we live in an age of deception that includes everything from Ponzi schemes to intentionally misleading, blatantly false and predatory advertising practices. It’s time for large corporations and small companies alike to take more responsibility for their actions. And can food companies start selling actual food to kids? Please? Aren’t children supposed to be the future? Can we start investing in their health instead of just seeing green dollar signs in their eyes?
