junk food is good fer you...

[Guest guest]

March/April 2005 - VOLUME 26 - NUMBERS 3 & 4

 

 

 

---

-----------

J U N K F O O D ' S H E A L T H C R U S A D E

---

-----------

 

 

Junk Food's Health Crusade

How Ronald McDonald Became a

Health Ambassador, and other Stories

by Michele Simon

Any parent who goes grocery shopping with young children in tow will

tell you it can be quite a challenge, enduring endless battles over

fat- and sugar-laden food products adorned with the latest Disney

movie character. But what used to be mainly a private matter has now

become a full-blown public debate over the role the food industry

plays in children's health.

 

Major food companies and fast food chains are coming under

increasing public scrutiny in the wake of a growing childhood

obesity epidemic. Not taking the finger-pointing lying down, Big

Food has set its PR machine into overdrive; companies are tripping

over each other trying to position themselves as caring about

children's' health.

 

But national experts and grassroots activists alike are skeptical.

Behind the mainstream media hype, they say, is a trail of deception,

lobbying and utter hypocrisy.

 

The New Greenwashing

 

To demonstrate its commitment to children, McDonald's has

introduced " Happy Meal Choices " so that parents can replace high-fat

French fries with " Apple Dippers " (sliced apples and caramel dipping

sauce); and instead of a Coke, kids can now have apple juice or

milk. There is, however, no substitute for the hamburger,

cheeseburger or Chicken McNuggets.

 

In addition to promoting its food as nutritious, the fast food giant

is also attempting to deflect attention from its unhealthy products

by promoting physical activity as the " real " answer to the obesity

problem. In January, McDonald's announced that it was sending its

mascot, Ronald McDonald, into elementary schools to promote fitness

among children. Dubbed the company's new " chief happiness officer, "

Ronald has become an " ambassador for an active, balanced lifestyle, "

McDonald's Chief Creative Officer Marlena Peleo-Lazar told a

government panel studying food advertising.

 

Nutritionist Melinda Hemmelgarn, a food and society policy fellow

with the Thomas Jefferson Agricultural Institute in Missouri, is

unimpressed. " Their goal in going into schools is, in a word,

branding. If Ronald was truly an ambassador of health, he would

promote organic, sustainably-produced foods, preferably from local

producers to support local economies and protect the environment, "

she says.

 

Susan Linn, a psychologist at Harvard's Judge Baker Children's

Center and author of Consuming Kids: The Hostile Takeover of

Childhood, agrees that McDonald's has no place in school. " This is

just another marketing ploy. The notion that children need Ronald

McDonald to get them to enjoy exercise is bogus. Given the

opportunity, kids naturally like to be active, " she says.

 

Another company seeking to teach children about exercise is PepsiCo,

the world's fifth-largest food and beverage company. Last fall,

PepsiCo reached 3 million students by sending educational materials

on fitness to elementary schools. In March, the company targeted all

15,000 middle schools in the United States with its get-fit message.

Ironically, PepsiCo already has a strong marketing presence in

public schools. Exclusive contracting with school districts allows

the company to sell highly sweetened beverages and Frito-Lay-branded

junk food, much to the dismay of nutrition advocates.

 

To deflect critics, PepsiCo has created a Web site

(www.healthispower.net) devoted to making the case that it cares

about children's health. The site claims that " kid-friendly " school

snacks such as Doritos and Pepsi are " part of a balanced diet. "

 

" If companies like McDonald's and Pepsi really cared about

children's health, they would stop hawking their wares in schools, "

says Linn.

 

The food and beverage giant also recently introduced the " Smart

Spot " symbol, a small green circle with the message, " Smart Choices

Made Easy " that appears on such " healthy products " as Diet Pepsi,

Gatorade and Baked Lays. But labeling a food healthy does not make

it so. Hemmelgarn thinks the labels can be misleading. " Gatorade is

simply sugar and water; it's not a healthy product, " she says.

Gatorade is often marketed in schools as a healthy alternative to

soda.

 

Nutrition consultant Fern Gale Estrow is concerned about the more

insidious nature of the Smart Spot. She says it's a way of marketing

to kids because children respond to symbols. She also notes that the

Smart Spot symbol contains a check mark that looks very similar to

the VeriSign — the symbol that means certain Internet sites are

secure. " That's a positive message. A check-mark means something is

ok; so I have real concerns about the marketing and media

messaging, " she says.

 

Another company jumping on the " good for you " bandwagon is General

Mills. A leader in children's cereals with annual sales of more than

$1 billion, the corporation markets products in more than 100

countries. In January, General Mills reformulated its cereals sold

in the United States to contain whole grains, the company says, in

response to the federal government's recommendations to eat more

whole grains.

 

But what about all those high-sugar cereals aimed at kids? Marybeth

Thorsgaard, a Genera l Mills spokesperson, says, " Even with pre-

sweetened cereals, there really is no better breakfast your child

could eat in the morning. Pre-sweetened cereals account for less

than 5 percent of your sugar for the entire day, but because it's

fortified and nutritionally dense for the amount of calories, there

really is no better breakfast that your child could eat. "

 

Marion Nestle, Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition, Food Studies

and Public Health at New York University and author of Food

Politics, has heard this argument before. " It's hard not to react

sarcastically to such statements from cereal makers. I have heard

them say the reason sugary cereals are good for kids is because of

the milk that's added. That, I suppose, would also be the rationale

for giving kids cookies for breakfast. This is a marketing ploy to

make people think that whole grain Cocoa Puffs are healthy. Sugar is

still the first ingredient, " she says.

 

Estrow is also skeptical about the General Mills move and is

concerned that parents might be duped by the new labels. " The level

of confusion in nutrition is already massive. Now we have whole

grain Lucky Charms. I think it's totally bogus. The dietary

guidelines were changed to make a stronger statement about fiber,

and this product has less than one gram of fiber per serving. That's

just not sufficient, " she says.

 

Nutrition experts say that these health claims boil down to nothing

more than marketing gimmicks. Melinda Hemmelgarn says the goal is

not to actually promote health, but rather simply " to increase sales

by health-conscious parents. "

 

Marion Nestle is more blunt: " Food companies are desperate for sales

and growth and if they can use `health' to sell junk food, they

will, " she says.

 

Fighting for the Right to Advertise

 

The issue of excessive food marketing to kids is fast becoming a

hotly debated topic. Many experts, including nutritionist

Hemmelgarn, think that marketing to children under age eight is

unethical because young children don't have the critical thinking

skills to evaluate media messages.

 

In January, the Institutes of Medicine (IOM, a Congressionally

chartered independent advisory body to the federal government)

hosted a " Workshop on Marketing Strategies that Foster Healthy Food

and Beverage Choices in Children and Youth. " Featured speakers

included executives from Kraft, PepsiCo and McDonald's, as well as

television and advertising representatives. Health advocates had

almost no representation.

 

In its remarks, the mega food conglomerate Kraft Foods (owned by

Altria, the company formerly known as Philip Morris) was especially

eager to portray itself as doing right by children. Lance Freidmann,

senior vice president of global health and wellness, promised that

Kraft's R & D team was " hard at work creating new products for kids "

that meet the company's self-defined healthy criteria. He also

stressed the importance of self-regulation, concluding that industry

and government should develop " responsible self-regulatory practices

for marketing to kids while permitting companies to compete

vigorously in the growing market for healthier foods. "

 

Also in January, Kraft promised to scale back junk food ads to

children, a move that earned the company much free positive media.

But the potential impact of Kraft's promises isn't entirely clear.

For example, only certain products, including regular Kool-Aid, Oreo

cookies, several Post children's cereals and some varieties of

Lunchables will no longer be advertised to children under age 11.

However, according to a press release, " products that the company

will continue to advertise in media aimed specifically at the 6-11

age group include: Sugar-Free Kool-Aid, Half the Sugar Fruity

Pebbles cereal, and Chicken Dunks Lunchables Fun Pack. " Why are

these products fair game? Kraft claims that they offer `beneficial

nutrients or a functional benefit.' "

 

Less than two weeks later, Kraft turned right around to join with

other major food companies and ad agencies to create a new lobbying

group, the Alliance for American Advertising. Together, Kraft and

fellow members General Mills (which refused to comment on its

involvement for this story) and Kellogg comprise the top three

advertisers of packaged food to kids. Their combined annual spending

on kids' ads is close to $380 million in the United States alone.

Other alliance founders include the American Association of

Advertising Agencies and the Grocery Manufacturers of America, two

powerful trade associations in their own right. The alliance's

stated purpose is to defend the industry's purported First Amendment

rights to advertise to children and to promote self-regulation as an

alternative to government restrictions.

 

Susan Linn is appalled at this marketing campaign to defend the

right to advertise. " Food companies and the advertising industry

should be thinking about their responsibilities to children, not

about their `right' to exploit them. Whether we rely on research or

common sense, we know that children are more vulnerable to marketing

than adults and that they should be protected because of their

vulnerabilities, " she says.

 

Commercial-Free Childhood

 

Public health advocates are increasingly insisting that parents have

the right to raise their children without being undermined by

corporate marketers; and that the government should restrict

commercial access to children.

 

Those sentiments were expressed in a public statement signed by

dozens of leading educators and health advocates, and organized by a

public health coalition with which Linn works called the Campaign

for Commercial-Free Childhood, stating that children have the right

to grow up in a safe and healthy environment.

 

This health perspective is beginning to make inroads in the

corridors of power. In March, Senator Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, announced

plans to introduce a bill to give the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

the authority to regulate advertising to children. Congress stripped

the agency of the authority to regulate unfair advertising to kids

in 1980, when the commission was on the verge of restraining ads

targeting children. As a result, the commission now has greater

authority over advertising aimed at adults than at children.

 

At a press conference surrounded by toys used to promote junk food

to kids, Harkin criticized the food industry for contributing to

childhood obesity by spending as much as $15 billion last year on

marketing to children. Harkin singled out General Mills' Shrek

cereal as being particularly egregious. The product consists of

sweetened corn puffs with marshmallow pieces and contains 14 grams

of sugar per serving. " Kids just see that it's Shrek, " Harkin said.

 

Also in March, the chair of the FTC, Deborah Majoras, announced a

workshop to be held this summer on food marketing to children. In

the same breath, she also asserted that the agency did not intend to

regulate industry. " Let me make this clear, this is not the first

step toward new government regulations to ban or restrict children's

food advertising and marketing. The FTC tried that approach in the

1970s and it failed, " Majoras said at a Consumer Federation of

America conference.

 

The food industry relies on a self-regulatory body called the

Children's Advertising Review Unit (CARU) to police its advertising

policies.

 

" We support CARU, a self-regulatory mechanism that reviews all ads

directed to children and ensures that they are appropriate for them

and takes into account where children are developmentally, " says

Stephanie Childs, a spokesperson for the Grocery Manufacturers of

America, a trade association whose 140 members enjoy annual sales of

more than $500 billion in the United States alone, and consists of

major food corporations such as Kraft, Nestle and PepsiCo.

 

She also asserts that " CARU has not hesitated once to let companies

know when they think an ad is inappropriate and if the company does

not make changes, CARU takes the complaint directly to the FTC. " She

is unable to point to any examples of CARU doing so, however.

 

Many experts question CARU's effectiveness. Attorney Ellen Fried

teaches food law at New York University and has filed complaints

with CARU to challenge food industry ads. " As with all self-

regulatory bodies, CARU is hampered by its being a creature of, and

supported by, industry. " She adds that few people even know CARU

exists. " Most of their activity is self-initiated because consumers —

as opposed to industry competitors — don't even know where, or to

whom, to complain. "

 

Senator Harkin says that self-regulation has been a complete

failure. " The current industry efforts are woefully inadequate, " he

says.

 

" I sincerely hope that the industry will develop tough and effective

marketing guidelines, but when private interests work against the

public good like this, government is obliged to act. "

 

 

Coke: No Connection Between Soda and Obesity

When it comes to undermining children's health, many advocates would

place Coca-Cola among the worst offenders. The top soda company has

spent years becoming firmly entrenched in public schools by forming

lucrative, long-term contracts that contain various marketing

devices.

 

Amidst growing health concerns, state legislatures and school

districts all over the United States are now attempting to rid

schools of unhealthy beverages. Determined not to go down without a

fight, Coca-Cola has responded with heavy-hitting lobbying and PR

tactics reminiscent of Big Tobacco's response to public health

demands.

 

Veteran dietician Carolyn Dennis, chair of the Kentucky Action for

Healthy Kids Taskforce, has been battling Coca-Cola lobbyists for

four years. In March, the Kentucky state legislature finally passed

a compromise bill that gets rid of soda in elementary schools.

Allowing soft drink companies to continue to sell soda in middle and

high schools was the only way the bill could possibly pass. Even

that wasn't enough for Coke. The bill's original language called

for " healthy beverages " to replace soda, but Coca-Cola balked,

worried about the implications for its flagship product's

reputation. Dennis explains: " The Coke lobbyist wanted the

language, `school-day appropriate beverages.' We debated it for

hours, and finally my colleagues said `Look, if this will get them

off our backs, let's do it.' So we compromised on `school-day

approved.' "

 

Fellow Kentucky schools health advocate Martin Solomon, a retired

economics professor, says " numerous studies show conclusively that

the significant calorie content of sweetened beverages is a serious

threat to children's health. And yet the soda industry continues to

say that it's a lack of exercise — not excess calories — that's

responsible. "

 

In March, at a conference on childhood obesity at Harvard

University, Dr. Maxime Buyckx, Coca-Cola's director of nutrition and

health sciences, denied any scientific connection between soda and

obesity, despite a Harvard study concluding that each additional

soda a child drinks a day increases their risk of obesity by 60

percent.

 

Professor Richard Daynard, of Northeastern University School of Law

and the Public Health Advocacy Institute, challenged Buyckx at the

meeting: " Does your company feel any responsibility for creating

this situation? " he asked.

 

In response, Buyckx claimed that the study in question was

methodologically flawed and should merely be treated as " hypothesis-

generating. "

 

Later, Daynard, a long-time tobacco control advocate,

said: " Buyckx's response eerily echoed claims that the tobacco

companies made about the numerous studies showing that smoking

causes lung cancer — they were all just `hypothesis-generating.' The

tobacco industry is currently defending a racketeering suit brought

by the U.S. Department of Justice based on its decades-long campaign

of scientific denial and disinformation. Will Coke be next? "

 

— M.S.

 

 

 

" God was my co-pilot, but we crashed in the Andes and I had to eat him. "