tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63715378770120506932024-03-13T21:28:34.341-07:00Campaign for a Commercial-Free ChildhoodCampaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood is a national coalition of health care professionals, educators, advocacy groups, parents, and individuals who care about children. A project of Third Sector New England in Boston, CCFC is the only national organization devoted to limiting the impact of commercial culture on children. CCFC’s staff and Steering Committee are activists, authors, and leading experts on the impact of media and marketing on children.CCFChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12931718130435283048noreply@blogger.comBlogger104125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-10877685645128811222012-06-28T10:59:00.001-07:002012-06-28T11:30:51.222-07:00Just before the family meal<i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #444444;">This post was written by Mary Rothschild, Director of <a href="http://www.healthymediachoices.org/Healthy_Media_Choices/Healthy_Media_Choices.html">Healthy Media Choices</a>, a non-profit that works with parents and teachers of children birth to age eight toward unique strategies for intentional use of media. She also facilitates <a href="http://witnessforchildhood.wordpress.com/">Witness for Childhood</a>, an effort to bring the voices of progressive humanist and faith communities into the conversation about media and technology in the lives of young children.</span></i><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2tVCg-FCwZyBG7OOa9hOGczc0LmdRd_iOMlQtdKRsgFf50QOouZ6FbfNJQvuYXPiGvsuwTtGJqzkm3f77_GcUZB1p46-lhy2I3q1dylOoQiCeel-LAvfuDG75wEJprqReXiKVbFAuYDu7/s1600/2012-06-28_13-15-20_619%5B1%5D.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="112" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi2tVCg-FCwZyBG7OOa9hOGczc0LmdRd_iOMlQtdKRsgFf50QOouZ6FbfNJQvuYXPiGvsuwTtGJqzkm3f77_GcUZB1p46-lhy2I3q1dylOoQiCeel-LAvfuDG75wEJprqReXiKVbFAuYDu7/s200/2012-06-28_13-15-20_619%5B1%5D.jpg" width="200" /></a>Family meal times are getting a lot of press right now, and high time. Recent articles in <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/The-Culture/Family/2012/0624/The-family-dinner-is-back-not-haute-but-the-right-thing-to-do"><i>The Christian Science Monitor</i> by Mary Beth McCauley</a> and the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/fashion/at-family-meals-children-encouraged-to-take-part-in-the-conversation.html?_r=3&ref=susandominus"><i>New York Times</i> by Susan Dominus</a> as well as the Huffington Post's on-going series <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/family-dinner-download">"Family Dinner Table Talk"</a> extoll the virtues of this time-honored (but oft neglected) family ritual, give various resources, and explore the methods famous people from the Obamas to Gwyneth Paltrow employ.<br />
<br />
As an advocate for and facilitator of tailor-made strategies for each household toward intentional use of media and family time, I'm delighted to see there is not a "one size fits all" approach in discussions about how to make the most of the opportunity family meals afford. <br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">The cerebral brawls of the Emmanuel family cited, by McCauley, might have produced some powerful actors on the world stage, but quiet reflection on the day's ups and downs, the things accomplished and left unfinished, may be more your cup of tea. They are not mutually exclusive, either. Each group, together for that moment (even if some live part-time elsewhere) can find ways to connect and enjoy their evolving questions and relationships.<br />
<br />
A phrase in McCauley's piece caught my attention. One of the symptoms she cites of an "obligatory" family dinner, everyone present physically but not really, she says is: "the thing that looks like grace but really is heads bowed, hands fervently texting." She goes on to say that this is the kind of routine enlightened parents are trying to avoid in various ways. As Laurie David says in the Susan Dominus article: <br />
</span><br />
<span class="fullpost"></span><br />
<span class="fullpost"><blockquote class="tr_bq">"A big part of the challenge is teaching your kids how to have a real conversation, not a texting conversation," said Laurie David, a producer of "An Inconvenient Truth," who has since devoted her considerable advocacy skills to encouraging more stimulating mealtimes. "If they're not sitting down at the table, the art of conversation is going to go."</blockquote><br />
The underlying assumption that a head bowed will not be in "grace," is relevant here and, while I haven't done exhaustive research on the current articles on this subject, I don't see evidence that this part of the family dinner ritual is currently explored. There are probably good reasons for that. In my view, there is nothing to be gained from a rote recitation of a prayer. And, anything relating to religion is tough to talk about. But that pause before the meal deserves consideration as one of the little "sticks in the wheel" of the momentum of daily life in a "digital world."<br />
<br />
After giving my own presentation at the <a href="http://www.media-ecology.org/">Media Ecology Association</a>'s convention earlier this month, I stopped in on a panel about the influence of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul">Jacques Ellul</a> (1912-1994) French philosopher and Christian anarchist. <a href="http://faculty.ithaca.edu/gozzi/">Ithaca College Professor Raymond Gozzi, Jr.</a> spoke on "Ellul on Prayer vs. la Technique."* Gozzi outlined the ways in which Ellul explored prayer as an antidote to the overwhelming effects of a technological society, especially in his book <i><a href="http://books.google.com/books/about/Prayer_and_modern_man.html?id=_TMQAQAAIAAJ">Prayer and Modern Man</a></i>. I think Ellul was onto something. What can that bowed head be doing rather than texting that can enrich family time? As always, I don't have a template in mind, but rather invite a look at what this could mean. <br />
<br />
It was one of those serendipitous moments when, as I was preparing this post, the catalog from the <a href="http://www.mro.org/zmm/">Zen Mountain Monastery</a> came in the mail (we have gotten it since we bought that little chime) and I opened to the <a href="http://www.dharma.net/monstore/product_info.php?products_id=490&osCsid=kofa9onnpe6rd6uvv4pckpgn07">Meal Gatha</a>, a reminder that there are many forms of "grace before meals" that households with ties to faith communities find to be a meaningful touchstone.<br />
<br />
Others think of prayer literally as thanking God, but take turns, varying the actual form. Some traditions give thanks to the earth and the source of food. One image that comes to mind is the scene in the film <i><a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080801/">The Gods Must Be Crazy</a></i> where the hunter thanks the animal that has just been killed for giving its life to sustain humans. <br />
<br />
For some of us, it is the pause to change gears that matters. In my own ecumenical home, we have a small rod chime. The youngest person present strikes it and we listen silently, holding hands, until its sound can no longer be heard, an acknowledgement that we are together for this time, sharing that moment and that sustenance. A tiny ritual, but one that is, for us, a "keystone habit" as described in Charles Duhigg's important book: <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1400069289/ref=rdr_ext_tmb">The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business</a></i>, those sometimes miniscule habits around which other habits orient and a culture can evolve. It, too, could be formulaic and we try to be sensitive to that.<br />
<br />
What are your thoughts and experiences? Let's share; this is the place for it.<br />
<br />
Mary<br />
<br />
P. S.: If your work situation means you're tag-teaming with other adults in the household so sitting down together is a rare experience, please weigh in here too, and look for my next post re: what if we can't sit down for meals together?<br />
<br />
*I won't go into "la technique" here, except to say it is a term Ellul used to indicate all the means humans employ toward the goal of efficiency, not particular tools or methods. This concept is explored in his book <i><a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Technological-Society-Jacques-Ellul/dp/0394703901/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340896789&sr=1-1&keywords=the+technological+society">The Technological Society</a></i>.</span>CCFChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12931718130435283048noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-18734316577455694392012-06-15T08:14:00.003-07:002012-06-15T08:14:57.269-07:00Facebook-for-Kids Won't Keep Kids off FacebookLet's get one thing straight. The notion that instituting parental controls for Facebook's underage users or creating a kid-friendly version will keep pre-teens off of the regular—or unrestricted—site is ridiculous. The 7.5 million children under the age of 13 <a href="http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2011/june/electronics-computers/state-of-the-net/facebook-concerns/index.htm" target="_blank">who are lying</a> to get on the site will continue lie with or without their parents' permission. <a href="http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/education/parents-children-facebook-privacy-age/" target="_blank">According to Microsoft research</a>, only 35 percent of parents whose kids are on Facebook actually know about it.<br />
<br />
Child development experts and marketers know that aspiration is a core element of childhood. Little kids long to be like bigger kids. Preteens want to be teenagers. And teens want to be in their twenties. After all, the readers of <i>Seventeen Magazine</i> aren't seventeen. At seventeen, kids are reading <i>Vogue,</i> or <i>Cosmo</i>. Kids are sneaking on to Facebook because it's cool, iconic in our culture, and doesn't have parental controls. They won't be satisfied with Facebook-lite.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">Here's who will likely use a kid-friendly Facebook: The millions of children who aren't sneaking on to the real thing. Relieved at dodging the perils of an unrestricted Facebook experience, parents who have been setting limits and kids who have been obeying them will be lulled into believing that the new version is safe. And suppose Facebook lowers the age limit to eight. At one end, six- and seven-year-olds will nag their parents to get on. And on the other, eleven- and twelve-year-olds, scorning a social networking site for little kids, will either nag their parents to get on the regular site or—sneak on.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">The advantages to Facebook are obvious—millions of new users and lifetime brand loyalty, the gold standard in marketing. But the harms to kids are numerous. For one thing, they are particularly vulnerable to Facebook's brand of marketing, which leverages personal information to deliver targeted ads and encourages peer-to-peer marketing. Kids shouldn't be subjected to a barrage of advertising honed specifically to who they are—their friends, their interests, and their online behavior—or be notified every single time a friend "likes" a movie, a game, a video game, or any other product.</span><br />
<br />
Even if Facebook dumps the advertising, the site isn't safe. In 2011, <a href="http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine-archive/2011/june/electronics-computers/state-of-the-net/facebook-concerns/index.htm" target="_blank">one million minors were threatened or harassed on Facebook</a>. Girls ages eight to 12 who are heavy users of social media <a href="http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2012-02084-001" target="_blank">have fewer good feelings about their friendships</a>. It's hard enough for adolescents to cope successfully with online relationships and encounters. Younger children have not yet developed the maturity and judgment essential to managing the perils of cyber "friendships" or grasping the potential consequences of sharing personal information. But if Facebook starts targeting kids, the pressure to join the site will be intense.<br />
<br />
So what can we do? We stop this idea before it becomes a reality. Facebook is vulnerable to public opinion right now, and, at this point, Mark Zuckerberg's dream of targeting kids is only a dream. Sign the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood's <a href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/621/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=10793" target="_blank">petition to keep kids off Facebook</a>. And join CCFC's Facebook page, "<a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/No-FB-for-Kids-Under-13/290242654405480" target="_blank">No FB for Kids Under 13</a>."Susan Linn, Ed.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/07248685286966659759noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-85416291746473616252012-06-02T15:08:00.000-07:002012-06-02T15:08:37.986-07:00About That App Gap: Children, Technology, and the Digital Divide"Technology-handling skills" and "the app gap" are catch phrases among early childhood educators these days. Low-income kids, the argument goes, are disadvantaged by inadequate exposure to tablets and other new technologies. But as Matt Richtel <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/30/us/new-digital-divide-seen-in-wasting-time-online.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all" target="_blank">pointed out in the <i>New York Times</i> recently</a>, children from low-income families spend more time handling technology—across platforms—than their wealthier counterparts, and across class, kids mainly use their "handling skills" for entertainment. They play games, watch videos, and visit social networking sites. There are documented gaps in the education of low-income children—for instance, in vocabulary and reading—but research shows that the time young kids spend with technology takes them away from activities known to be educational—hands-on creative play and interaction with caring adults.<br />
<br />
"The digital divide" was coined in the 1990s to address inequalities in Internet access. Now it's used to push digital technologies on ever younger children. There are tens of thousands of allegedly educational apps on the market for preschoolers. The National Association for the Education of Young Children is <a href="http://www.eschoolnews.com/2011/10/20/hatch-participation-at-naeyc-focuses-on-effective-use-of-technology-as-passport-to-better-outcomes-for-early-learners/" target="_blank">working with Hatch</a>, an ed-tech company, and the <a href="http://issuu.com/naeyc/docs/ps_technology_issuu_may2012?mode=window&backgroundColor=%23222222" target="_blank">Fred Rogers Center</a> to encourage the use of digital devices in early childhood settings. Every week we hear about some benefactor donating iPads to needy kindergarten classrooms. While there's scant evidence that anyone but the companies who make, sell, and advertise on these new technologies benefit from the time young children spend with them, there's plenty of reason to be worried about it. I certainly am.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">I'm worried about studies showing that the more time children spend with TV and video games the less well they do in school and the more calories they consume. And the studies showing that the bells and whistles of electronic books actually detract from reading comprehension. And those demonstrating that time with screens changes the very structure of our brains. I'm worried that the skills we gain won't make up for our losses. I'm worried that screen-based reading, with omnipresent hyperlinks, interferes with comprehension and memory, and that heavy Internet use appears to encourage distractedness and discourage deep thinking, empathy, and emotion.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">I'm especially worried about the addictive qualities of electronic media. The more time children spend with television before the age of 3, the more time they spend when they're older, and the harder time they have turning it off. I'm worried that fast-paced video games trigger dopamine squirts in our brains</span>—<span class="fullpost">kind of like cocaine. A few years ago, one survey of 8- to 18-year-olds found that almost one-quarter said that they "felt addicted" to video games.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">And here's what worries me most: We're turning to the companies that profit from these technologies to help parents manage their kids' relationship with screens. While it's great that the Federal Communications Commission is launching a campaign to promote digital literacy, the fact that companies like <a href="http://pr.bby.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=244152&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1617007&highlight=" target="_blank">Best Buy and Microsoft are funding it</a> make it unlikely that weaning kids from their products will be a priority.</span><br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">There's no question that technology is here to stay. Kids born today will experience wondrous technologies most of us can't even imagine. But the skills they will always need to thrive</span>—<span class="fullpost">deep thinking, the ability to differentiate fact from hype, creativity, self-regulation, empathy, and self-reflection</span>—<span class="fullpost">aren't learned in front of screens. They are learned through face-to-face communication, hands-on exploration of the world, opportunities for thoughtful reflection, and dreams.</span>Susan Linn, Ed.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/07248685286966659759noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-18474867143074717542012-05-07T11:07:00.001-07:002012-05-07T11:07:26.184-07:00My Failed Screen-Free WeekI failed miserably at Screen-Free Week. Alright, maybe not miserably. Here is the context: my husband Neal and I are home caring for our very new baby, Wes. He is our first child and the love of our lives, and he consumes just about every moment and every ounce of energy we have (just as he is supposed to). Every other day or so, Wes falls into a deep sleep in the evening and Neal and I giddily steal some time to watch an episode of <i>X-Files</i>. I had no idea how crucial this 45 minutes of “zone-out” time was to my new mother sanity until I tried to give it up for Screen-Free Week last Monday. I was hunting aliens with Mulder and Scully on Tuesday.<br /><br />I was disappointed in myself. Last year my Screen-Free Week was a total success. So much so that my husband and I gave up TV altogether. Now we have a TV set and DVD player, and after Wes is asleep, we enjoy an episode of a television series or a movie on most nights. I realized when I tried to zero out my screen time how important this ritual is to me. It’s a tiny piece of our pre-child life that we carried over into parenthood, a little indulgence we can afford. <span class="fullpost"> </span><br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">Of course when Neal and I are unraveling unexplained phenomena on the <i>X-Files</i>, cruising the halls of the White House on <i>West Wing</i>, or hanging out with the corner boys on <i>The Wire</i>, Wesley is fast asleep, dreaming baby dreams. He’ll enjoy a screen-free babyhood so his ideas, desires, and imagination can bud on their own without the influence of corporations that would prefer that he develop his early consumer identity. When I gaze into Wes’s endlessly trusting and curious eyes, it infuriates me to think about the companies that want to exploit his vulnerability for profit. I’ve never been prouder to work with Josh and Susan, our Steering Committee, and the thousands of advocates all over the world who are fighting for a commercial-free childhood.<br /><br />I guess Screen-Free Week wasn’t a complete failure.In struggling with my own screen vices, I’ve done some reflecting and had some important revelations. And I did give up Facebook for the week; do I get partial credit?<br /></span>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-76644832829638658262012-04-27T12:36:00.000-07:002012-04-27T12:48:06.098-07:00Confessions of a Screen Addict About to Go Cold Turkey (almost) in Anticipation of Screen-Free Week: April 30-May 6The truth: There I was, Director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, champion of limiting children’s screen time, playing Angry Birds on the subway.<br />
<br />
The justification: There I was, Director of Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, champion of limiting children’s screen time, after a stressful day trying to change a world that wasn’t cooperating, unable to concentrate on reading, and playing Angry Birds on the subway.<br />
<br />
Suddenly a little blonde guy, about six, practically fell over a railing and into my lap trying to get a better look at the game. Awash with guilt at setting a terrible example—being the director of CCFC has its burdens—I shut off my phone. Then his older brother spoke up. “You could get arrested,” he said.
<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">While I felt terrible about contributing to the screen addiction of a minor—to say nothing about succumbing to my own—I was pretty sure I hadn’t broken any laws. “Really?” I said. He nodded solemnly and pointed to the “I am the 99%” button on my jacket. “Occupy,” he said, shaking his head. There followed a diverting conversation about the Occupy movement between me, the nine year old, and his babysitter. But his little brother had other things on his mind. “Why do you have that on your phone?” he said. “What?” I asked, innocently, stalling for time. “Angry Birds,” he answered. “Old people like you don’t play Angry Birds.”<br /><br />
I’m giving up Angry Birds for Screen-Free Week. I’m leaning toward giving it up forever, and not because I’m old. Here’s what I notice when I play: There’s just enough strategy to keep me interested. Once I start it’s hard to stop, and, the weird thing is, it’s not relaxing.<br /><br />
In addition to Angry Birds, I’m giving up Facebook, which I use mostly to keep track of my 30-something relatives and to play cutthroat games of Wordscraper with a friend I don’t see much. I’m also going to forgo my Sunday night back-to-back viewing of Game of Thrones and Mad Men. Not sure that counts, since I’ll DVR the episodes. Finally, since it’s sometimes hard to distinguish between work addiction and screen addiction, I’ll keep my computer completely off when I’m at home after work.
<br /><br />Here’s what I’m not going to give up: Screens for work during working hours.<br /><br />
Actually, I’m looking forward to a week without screens at home. These days I’m more aware of how they dominate my life—and what’s better without them. I sleep more soundly if I turn off my computer a few hours before bed. I pay more attention to conversation with friends and family if I’m not near a screen when we chat on the phone. And on the few purposefully screen-free vacations I’ve taken this year, I’ve returned feeling more centered and with more energy. <br /><br />
I’ve come to realize that one of the values of Screen-Free Week is that it helps make conscious what is usually unconscious. Screens are so interwoven into our lives that we stop noticing whether they’re fun, useful, or even necessary. We use them by default. To fill up time. To distract us from thinking. To save us from the void.
<br /><br />So, this Screen-Free Week I’m looking forward to meals with people I love, reading, walks, music, taking my granddaughters to the circus—and freedom from compulsion to catapult those stupid birds. </span>Susan Linn, Ed.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/07248685286966659759noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-19002481927622900252012-04-27T11:54:00.000-07:002012-04-27T11:57:27.109-07:00Screen-Free At Last!Here’s a sentence I never thought I’d write: I am so looking forward to Screen-Free Week. <br />
<br />
When CCFC began hosting Screen-Free Week, I didn’t think about it in personal terms. After all, my daughter (now 3.5) is screen-free. And me? I barely watch TV. Sure, I’m on the computer a lot. But for good reasons. To do my job. To follow important events. As part of my non-work activism. If I’m using screens to be a more engaged citizen, what’s the problem? <br />
<br />
Last year’s Screen-Free Week didn’t lead to lasting changes in my screen habits, but it punctured my denial. That little voice in my head saying “turn off the damn computer, already” has gotten progressively – and annoyingly -- louder. And as Screen-Free Week approaches, it’s hard to deny that voice is right most of the time.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">I need a break from screens -- computers specifically. My eyes need a break from backlighting. My brain needs a break from information overload. My body needs a break from days of too-little movement and nights of too-little-sleep. <br />
<br />
And my family needs a break from a distracted dad/husband. Because my daughter is still screen-free, I tell myself we’re doing great job. But really, managing her screen-time is only one part of my responsibility. I need to stop modeling screen-addiction. And I need to be present when I’m with her, instead of thinking about my next email or tweet.<br />
<br />
So in my quest to regain some balance, I’ve made two rules for Screen-Free Week:<br />
<br />
1. No screens at home at all. I’m not going to distinguish between entertainment, communication, and work because almost all of my screen time can be justified under the latter two. I’m just going dark.<br />
<br />
2. Screen-free lunches. I preach the importance of screen-free meals all the time, but eat my lunch in front of the computer every workday. <br />
<br />
Instead, I plan on reading books more, sleeping more, eating lunch outside more, and being less generally distracted. I also plan on using some of my extra screen-free hours to develop a realistic plan for managing my computer time when it’s over. I really don’t want to be writing this same post again next year!<br /></span>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-7658240564240571412012-02-09T11:55:00.000-08:002012-02-09T11:58:45.095-08:00D.I.Y. Valentines<i>This post was written by guest blogger <a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/14821436974321958349">Brandy King</a> of <a href="http://www.knowledge-linking.com/">Knowledge Linking</a>. After spending eight years working with research on children and media, Brandy now faces the challenge of raising two young boys in our media-saturated and commercialized world.</i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM15ihc_HgnJeTKyJQaSIBxspjJnYNz29-igjHq8t70b4jlZopxqZScFXLMuewJhwM7djOYAVXYs0t06_n8GhWehI4B3GhdtLcR1AFRBNdjGf-9n6ElAC5gbHqbi6p2wWb10mUVD076iKo/s1600/Picnik+collage.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="242" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgM15ihc_HgnJeTKyJQaSIBxspjJnYNz29-igjHq8t70b4jlZopxqZScFXLMuewJhwM7djOYAVXYs0t06_n8GhWehI4B3GhdtLcR1AFRBNdjGf-9n6ElAC5gbHqbi6p2wWb10mUVD076iKo/s400/Picnik+collage.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
Since it’s my first year with a child in school, I’m new to the “Valentine’s Day Party Procedure.” But I received a notice giving me precise instructions on what to do (and not do) to help my child participate in the celebration. If he wants to give out cards, he can bring one in for every child, signed with his name (but without their names written on them), and if we attach any food items they have to be from the approved snack list because of allergies.<br />
<br />
When I was at the grocery store today, I glanced at the Valentine spread and saw that the ONLY options for card kits were covered in licensed characters. I quickly decided we’d be making our own Valentines, which I always thought was more fun anyway. I headed home, cut out 17 red construction paper hearts, and set up our kitchen table with paints and stickers.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">My son could not have been more excited about this art project. He chattered on about how he would make some extras for his teachers, how he would manage to carry them all, and how he would hand them all out. He worked diligently all afternoon with several breaks and at the end he had created a grand total of 6 of them. It’s going to be a long few days working up to 17! But I could see the pride and excitement in his eyes when he saw them all laid out to dry on the dining room table.<br />
<br />
Inspired by the day of watching him create, I finally caved and joined Pinterest, the online community for saving and sharing images and ideas from around the web. My goal was to create a board of cute Valentine craft ideas for you all to rival the option of mass-market commercialized card kits.<br />
<br />
Check out these great <a href="http://pinterest.com/knowldgelinking/make-your-own-valentines/">Valentine crafts</a> you can make with your kids this weekend. Share your ideas or a link to your own Pinterest board in the comments below!</span>CCFChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12931718130435283048noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-18888306258455452352012-01-24T10:11:00.000-08:002012-02-07T19:34:09.208-08:00Where do you draw the line?<div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinjS7TrMssE2UeYUFcsUQxcPPSCS25R2IVcGB8TCNV1xS6IIdFxFutctlyfrhIMnv61PDmAqEO7NUjdVLMc9XcP6g32QJfpKChF7gvJWQhgIQ5bGSKOZjdD0OPkL_ieEiEshtlsQYI0gMA/s1600/momdadblocks.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="181" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinjS7TrMssE2UeYUFcsUQxcPPSCS25R2IVcGB8TCNV1xS6IIdFxFutctlyfrhIMnv61PDmAqEO7NUjdVLMc9XcP6g32QJfpKChF7gvJWQhgIQ5bGSKOZjdD0OPkL_ieEiEshtlsQYI0gMA/s200/momdadblocks.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><i>This post was written by guest blogger <a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/14821436974321958349">Brandy King</a> of <a href="http://www.knowledge-linking.com/">Knowledge Linking</a>. After spending the last eight years working with research on children and media, Brandy now faces the challenge of raising two young boys in our media-saturated and commercialized world.</i><br />
<br />
When I was interviewing other parents about <a href="http://commercialfreechildhood.blogspot.com/2011/11/handling-holidays.html">how they handle holiday gifts</a>, I had two mothers say the same thing to me: I let my kids have licensed characters on pajamas, but not on any other clothes. Their rationale was that they didn’t want their children to be walking advertisements.<br />
<br />
I had never thought of commercialization in terms of items used in the home vs. out of the home. So this got me thinking: <i>How is it that I draw the line? </i>What are the determining factors I use to make decisions around commercialized items? And what criteria do other parents use?<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">I realized that my determining factor essentially comes down to the intent behind the gift. For example, I’ve let a few Mickey Mouse shirts slip into my kids’ wardrobe because they were brought home as gifts from Disney World by close relatives. And I let a Cars racetrack toy through because my son’s Godfather excitedly picked it out as a Christmas gift and couldn’t wait to put it together with him. But when acquaintances pick up a quick gift to bring with them with they visit, they seem to automatically go for whatever they can find with the latest “boy-oriented” Disney character on it. Since my kids don’t really know Disney characters, and don’t usually become attached to the gift, off to charity it goes.<br />
<br />
Since this “intent criteria” is not hard and fast, I often wonder if I’m being hypocritical. But in the end, I always come back to my real goal being “commercialization in moderation”, so I feel OK about the very few commercialized items we do have in the house. And just like decisions around what to feed a baby or how to put them to sleep, I believe that what ultimately matters is that it’s the most comfortable decision for that individual family.<br />
<br />
Other parents, like the friends I interviewed, had certain delineations, certain rules, that they could more easily apply; characters were either allowed (pajamas), or not allowed (school clothes). (I’m assuming this is more useful criteria than mine when it comes to helping kids understand why decisions are made). And some parents feel like they ultimately want no part of supporting certain companies, so just make a blanket rule not to allow anything even questionably commercialized into the house.<br />
<br />
I’m really curious to hear from other parents about how they make decisions. In fact, I’m so interested to hear and learn from others that I am co-hosting a Twitter chat with CCFC on this very topic! I hope you’ll join us, here are the details:<b><br />
<br />
Parenting in a Commercialized World: Where Do You Draw the Line?</b><br />
February 2nd, 2012 at 9pm EST at hashtag #CCFCchat<br />
Hosted by:<a href="http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/"><br />
Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood</a> Twitter: <a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/14821436974321958349">@commercialfree<br />
Brandy King</a> of <a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.knowledge-linking.com">Knowledge Linking Information Services</a> Twitter: <a href="http://pigtailpals.com/info.html">@knowldgelinking<br />
Melissa Wardy</a> of <a href="https://www.facebook.com/PigtailPals">Pigtail Pals – Redefine Girly</a> Twitter: <a href="http://www.twitter.com/pigtailpals">@pigtailpals</a></span></div>Brandy Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14821436974321958349noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-32391335089338958922012-01-24T08:40:00.000-08:002012-01-24T09:22:16.553-08:00Where Do Parents Find Support in their Communities?<span style="font-style: italic;">This post was written by guest Mary Rothschild, facilitator of <a href="http://www.witnessforchildhood.org/">Witness for Childhood</a> in collaboration with CCFC. Mary, who is the mother of 2 daughters and has worked with pre-school age children and served parents and teachers of children birth to age 8 for fifteen years through <a href="http://www.healthymediachoices.org/">Healthy Media Choices</a>. </span><br />
<br />
A friend of mine, mother of two small children, calls this the “cuddling in” time of year. The holidays are over and life settles into a regular pattern and (in our part of the country, at least) the short days and cold weather keep family closer to home. It’s a good time for reflection.<br />
<br />
If the bill has yet to come due for the gifts given a mere month ago (where are they now?) this is a good time to make strategies for more intentional getting and giving for the coming birthdays and, eventually, for those holidays again.<br />
<br />
That’s not so easy; how do families get the local support they need for that intentionality?<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">What I hear is that parents talk to each other about concerns that the ways they’re spending their time and money don’t adequately reflect their values. Those friendships form bedrock for many. Then, there are the occasional workshops at school or house of worship around violence or representation of sexuality in screen media.<br />
<br />
I’d like to reflect here on another resource: faith and humanist communities, by which I don’t just mean the major religions and humanist organizations, but whatever group gathers specifically for a connection with values and beliefs. There are groups of parents that align around specific parenting issues: breastfeeding or natural parenting, for instance, that might be included. It is difficult to find a term to cover them all.<br />
<br />
Don’t such groups afford an ideal situation for focusing on these issues? Here are some questions, for each to ponder about their own circumstance, to start off our conversation:<br />
<br />
• Is there recognition of the fact, in religious education curricula or parent workshops, that exposure to screen media can impact the spiritual development of young children, not just because of violence and representations of sexuality, but because it cuts into quiet time and free play, which area essential for children’s development?<br />
<br />
• Do families have a venue for sharing strategies about situations that arise about play dates as well a birthday and holiday gifts?<br />
<br />
• Stories from family and culture are great alternatives to the popular culture story. Do your children hear those stories of strength, sacrifice, and fulfillment without material wealth?<br />
<br />
• Are any community resources for parents usually framed as being for mothers? Including all the adults who live with the child makes changes easier and more effective.<br />
<br />
• Does the community take advantage of opportunities such as Screen-Free Week and/or encourage families to establish less formal and more consistent “Media Sabbaths” where all electronics are turned off, even for a couple of hours a week? Is that discussion happening?<br />
<br />
• Do you feel supported by your community in your attempts to give your child a commercial-free childhood? If not, what could you do to elicit that support (and find others who are feeling the same way)?<br />
<br />
• Faith and humanist communities have long been effective agents for change on a national and global level. Is activism around the commercialization of childhood on the agenda in your community?<br />
<br />
• If your community does provide this kind of support, how is it going and what resources might your share?<br />
<br />
The essential question is this: Is the impact of screen media on young children’s spiritual development a burning issue for your community? If not, why not?<br />
<br />
Thanks, please share below.<br />
</span>MLR115http://www.blogger.com/profile/02417940252269775725noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-33416995572310752122011-12-20T12:39:00.000-08:002011-12-20T12:39:51.576-08:00Congress to Kids: Drop DeadLast month, when Congress <a href="http://www.appetiteforprofit.com/2011/11/17/whats-missing-from-the-pizza-as-vegetable-reporting/">declared pizza a vegetable</a>, it was hard to believe things could get much worse. But never underestimate politicians’ ability to put corporate interests ahead of children’s health. In the massive budget bill just passed, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/lawmakers-want-cost-benefit-analysis-on-child-food-marketing-restrictions/2011/12/15/gIQAdqxywO_story.html">Congress stuck in language</a> to require the Federal Trade Commission to conduct a cost/benefit analysis before finalizing a report that would provide the food industry with <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/os/2011/04/110428foodmarketproposedguide.pdf">science-based nutrition guidelines</a> for marketing to children. Experts from four federal agencies put heads together, and for the past two years have tried to complete its charge (which ironically, <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/04/foodmarket.shtm">came from Congress</a> in the first place) amidst powerful industry push-back.<br />
<br />
An objective approach is badly needed because <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-f-jacobson/healthy-kids-foods-not-healthy_b_987155.html">Big Food’s own lame voluntary rules allow such sugar atrocities as Reese’s Puffs cereal and Kool-Aid</a> to be marketed to kids. But this latest political delay tactic makes no sense because it’s entirely voluntary for industry to adopt any final guidelines. As Margo Wootan, nutrition policy director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest, <a href="http://cspinet.org/new/201112161.html">noted</a>:<br />
<blockquote>Doing a cost-benefit analysis makes sense for regulations that require companies to actually do something. But there is no cost associated with something that is totally voluntary.</blockquote>Where then, is this idea coming from? Specifically, before its report is made final, FTC must now attempt to comply with Executive Order 13563. What’s that? Bear with me, as some history is in order.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">The order derives from a nasty right-wing deregulation policy that dates back (surprise!) to the Reagan administration. The <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg_default">Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs</a> (OIRA) may sound innocuous, but over the past 30 years, it has become the best tool Corporate America has to kill proposed rules it doesn’t like. It acts as a gigantic hoop an agency must jump through to prove societal benefits outweigh economic costs, tacked on to an already stringent regulatory rule-making process. Here’s how Huffington Post Washington correspondent Dan Froomkin <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/13/cass-sunstein-obama-ambivalent-regulator-czar_n_874530.html">explains</a> it: <br />
<blockquote>OIRA analysts are supposed to rigorously examine proposed regulations and reject or revise them as necessary, based on interagency concerns and whether the costs of policy proposals outweigh their benefits.</blockquote>This “regulatory bottleneck by design” has been a huge success for business interests over the years:<br />
<blockquote>Since Ronald Reagan opened the OIRA office in 1981, Republicans have used it to particular advantage to pursue an anti-regulatory agenda, defanging environmental rules on things like water runoff and climate change — even blocking attempts to collect information that might lead to regulations.</blockquote>Despite promises by President Obama to develop a new approach and some positive efforts early on to reverse Bush-era oppressive policies, this past January the White House, as Froomkin explains: “finally issued a <a href="http://ombwatch.org/node/11465" target="“_hplink"">limp executive order</a> that basically reaffirmed the principles that had been guiding the office for years.” So much for change. The effect has been that all “significant executive-branch regulations” must get approval from OIRA before being proposed or finalized. That’s some bottleneck. (For more on deregulation and its impacts on health and safety under the Obama administration see <a href="http://www.ombwatch.org/node/11485">OMB Watch</a>.)<br />
<br />
Which brings us back to junk food marketing to children. Remember, any final federal recommendations on nutrition guidelines would be voluntary. The entire process was never to result in regulations<i>.</i> This summer, FTC’s David Vladeck, director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection, wrote a frankly worded and humorous <a href="http://business.ftc.gov/blog/2011/07/whats-table">blog post</a> in response to a massive industry freak-out <a href="http://www.ana.net/content/show/id/21504">led by the advertising lobby</a> warning of “suppression of unprecedented amounts of advertising” to children. (Wasn’t that the idea?)<br />
<br />
Vladeck tried to calm industry fears by explaining the FTC is just reporting to Congress, which “provides no basis for law enforcement action.” He repeated: <i>“This is a report to Congress, not a rulemaking proceeding, so there’s no proposed government regulation.”</i> And he added, just in case industry still didn’t get it: “<i>A report is not a law, a regulation, or an order, and it can’t be enforced</i>.” (my emphasis)<br />
<br />
If you’re still with me, even if you didn’t attend law school, you may be wondering by now, how could Congress require that an executive order <i>intended for proposed agency regulations</i> apply to a report that “provides no basis for law enforcement action?”<br />
<br />
Good question. I’ve been asking a few of my lawyer colleagues the same thing and they agree it makes no legal sense. Public health attorney Mark Gottlieb, executive director of the <a href="http://www.phaionline.org/">Public Health Advocacy Institute</a>, which also fights the tobacco industry, told me he thinks the executive order only applies to formal rule-making and “does not seem to apply to promulgation of voluntary guidelines that go to great pains to avoid regulating industry.”<br />
<br />
In other words, FTC is likely on solid legal ground to go ahead and release its final report to Congress without conducting any cost/benefit analysis. But I doubt we will ever see the final report. (We do have the <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/os/2011/04/110428foodmarketproposedguide.pdf">proposed version</a>, which can still be used to stick it to industry, as the Environmental Working Group recently did in its damning <a href="http://www.ewg.org/report/sugar_in_childrens_cereals">report on sugary cereals</a>.)<br />
<br />
This wouldn’t be the first time Congress overstepped its legal boundaries. As I argued with the pizza-as-vegetable debacle, <i><a href="http://www.appetiteforprofit.com/2011/11/17/whats-missing-from-the-pizza-as-vegetable-reporting/">Congress hijacked the USDA regulatory process to do the food industry’s bidding</a>.</i> Here, it’s not exactly the regulatory process that’s been superseded, because the report FTC is trying to release is voluntary, but Congress is just as wrong.<br />
<br />
Apparently, it wasn’t enough for the food, advertising, and media industries to spend $37 million <a href="http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2011/Food_and_media_companies_lobby/">lobbying</a> this year to get its way. Nor has the multi-year delay of this entire process thanks to ongoing <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/07/junk-food-industry-determined-to-target-kids/">corporate bullying</a> sufficed. How about making bogus “job loss” claims or (for the top Chutzpah Award) <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/eating-fruits-and-vegetables-is-no-job-killer/">warning</a> that we’d have to import more produce if kids actually ate their fruits and vegetables? Still not enough.<br />
<br />
Industry keeps right on lobbying, it’s what they do best. And for Congress, it’s just business as usual. But the very real consequence of maintaining the status quo is that children will continue to be exploited for their emotional vulnerability, while getting lured into bad eating habits that can last a lifetime.<br />
<br />
Cost/benefit analysis? Industry benefits, while children pay the cost.<br />
<br />
<i>Postscript: Thanks to CSPI’s Margo Wootan for sharing this take action <a href="https://secure2.convio.net/cspi/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=1259">link</a> – tell the Obama administration, don’t let Congress and the food industry win this fight.</i><br />
<br />
</span>Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-34077523133465976672011-12-20T12:31:00.000-08:002011-12-20T12:33:06.124-08:00Sorry Mrs. O, but jumping jacks aren’t enough<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.appetiteforprofit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Lets-Move-Logo.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="145" src="http://www.appetiteforprofit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Lets-Move-Logo.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>At a recent <a href="http://www.cvent.com/events/building-a-healthier-future-bringing-together-industry-and-civic-leaders-to-end-childhood-obesity/event-summary-8399766c9463480c937678316e7c1b44.aspx">summit</a> on childhood obesity, the first lady <a href="http://obamafoodorama.blogspot.com/2011/11/first-lady-announces-renewed-forcus-on.html">announced</a> a shift in her well-known <a href="http://www.letsmove.gov/">Let's Move</a> campaign -- away from food reform and toward an increased focus on exercise. Instead of "forcing [children] to eat their vegetables," she told her audience, "it's getting them to go out there and have fun."<br />
<br />
Yes, you heard that right. The first lady actually said that eating vegetables is a chore. And that playing is a preferable focus for her campaign because it's easier.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">In February 2010, when the first lady announced a campaign to "end childhood obesity within a generation," I was immediately skeptical. I worried that "Let's Move" signaled an over-emphasis on physical activity, a much safer political issue than eating habits, and one that Big Food gladly <a href="http://www.gmaonline.org/news-events/newsroom/grocery-manufacturers-association-applauds-fit-kids-act/">embraces</a>.<br />
<br />
But when I took a closer look, I was pleasantly surprised to see that three of the four issues areas initially identified by the campaign were food-related. (A fifth issue has since been added.) <a href="http://www.letsmove.gov/about">The goals or "pillars" of the campaign</a> are: 1) improving access to healthy, affordable food; 2) providing healthy food in schools; 3) empowering parents and caregivers; 4) increasing physical activity; and 5) creating a healthy start for children.<br />
<br />
It's hard to argue with any of those worthy causes, and it's important to have the first lady bring attention to issues such as food deserts, and to serve as a national spokesperson in a way we've not seen before. I have also <a href="http://www.appetiteforprofit.com/2011/06/12/first-lady-recommends-limiting/">given praise where praise was due</a>, such as when the first lady recommended -- as part of a checklist for daycare centers to follow -- significant limits on screen time for children.<br />
<br />
And while the White House insists that food is very much still on the agenda, it's hard to ignore the potential for politics going into an election year. (When New York University professor Marion Nestle recently dared to <a href="http://www.foodpolitics.com/2011/12/lets-move-campaign-gives-up-on-healthy-diets-for-kids/">question</a> the first lady's renewed emphasis on exercise, she got <a href="http://www.appetiteforprofit.com/2011/12/10/white-house-chef-defends-first-lady/">set straight</a> by White House chef and Let's Move advisor Sam Kass; that's how touchy this subject is.)<br />
<br />
<b>Exercise is fun, but it doesn't match the science</b><br />
<br />
Putting politics aside for a moment, let's talk research, which can often get lost in the shuffle or, worse, distorted by corporate interests.<br />
<br />
Obesity expert Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, assistant professor of family medicine at the University of Ottawa, says the first lady's focus on physical activity to help "end childhood obesity in a generation" is misguided. More importantly, he says, it's not evidence-based.<br />
<br />
He pointed me to many scientific studies showing that physical activity, while important for other reasons, has not been shown to be effective in preventing childhood obesity. (See <a href="http://www.weightymatters.ca/2008/07/it-aint-about-gym-class.html">here</a>, <a href="http://www.weightymatters.ca/2008/08/obesity-is-still-not-about-exercise.html">here</a>, <a href="http://www.weightymatters.ca/2011/02/exercise-wont-prevent-obesity-in-8-year.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://www.weightymatters.ca/2009/11/shocking-new-study-on-how-tv-causes.html">here</a>.) On the contrary, <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090508045321.htm">data shows</a> that an increase in food intake alone explains the rise in obesity in children.<br />
<br />
Children's diets have changed so drastically in the last few decades, with the increase in calories, for example, due to <a href="http://www.publichealthadvocacy.org/PDFs/Soda_Fact_Sheet.pdf">soda</a> and <a href="http://esciencenews.com/articles/2011/07/25/children.eating.more.and.more.frequently.outside.home">fast food</a> so large, that moderate increases in exercise are not likely to make a difference.<br />
<br />
As Freedhoff explains, it's a "testament to the simple fact that it's far more difficult to burn calories than it is to consume them."<br />
<br />
To be clear, exercise does have many health benefits; it just shouldn't be used to distract us from overconsumption and marketing of junk food. Also, lots of skinny kids suffer from diet-related health problems, including <a href="http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/43447764/ns/today-today_health/t/peanuts-milk-shellfish-kids-may-have-food-allergies/#.TugXlnqwV7c">allergies</a>.<br />
<br />
So if science isn't driving the exercise bandwagon, what is?<br />
<br />
<b>Playing it safe</b><br />
<br />
After nearly two years, it's clear that Let's Move is steering away from anything that challenges the food industry. In fact, the campaign organizers appear eager to form corporate partnerships. For example, the first lady <a href="http://www.appetiteforprofit.com/2011/01/24/how-walmart-swindled-the-white-house/">hailed</a> Walmart's so-called "<a href="http://walmartstores.com/pressroom/news/10514.aspx">healthy food initiative</a>" as a new "nutrition charter." Of course, Walmart hasn't exactly <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/series/2011-11-07-walmart-greenwash-retail-giant-still-unsustainable">kept its promises when it comes to the environment</a>, so we have little reason to trust the company when it comes to nutrition.<br />
<br />
Moreover, the first lady's deafening silence over the past few months during extremely heated public battles over children's diets gives us more proof than we ever needed that she is either unwilling or unable to take on the hard political issues.<br />
<br />
While Mrs. Obama certainly showed leadership last year to help pass the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act to improve school food, she hasn't followed through. The recent <a href="http://www.grist.org/food/2011-11-17-congress-and-big-pizza">hostile takeover</a> of the USDA's school food regulations by Congress on behalf of the frozen food lobby was one such example.<br />
<br />
From the beginning, Let's Move has also been mostly MIA on the extremely contentious and intractable problem of junk food marketing to children.<br />
<br />
In one exception, the first lady gave a strong <a href="http://obamafoodorama.blogspot.com/2010/03/first-lady-to-corporate-food-giants.html">speech</a> in March 2010 to the Grocery Manufacturers Association (Big Food lobbyists) imploring food companies to clean up their act. At the time, she asked: "What does it mean when so many parents are finding that their best efforts are undermined by an avalanche of advertisements aimed at their kids?"<br />
<br />
But her admonishments had little impact. Instead, the <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/12/11/MNRV1MAK70.DTL">food industry has launched a no-holds-barred attack</a> on an attempt by the federal government to place reasonable, science-based, voluntary restrictions on food marketing to children.<br />
<br />
To make its <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/foodmarketedchildren/07787-79967.pdf">case to the feds</a>, kids' cereal giant General Mills went so far as to argue that getting kids to eat more fruits and vegetables would hurt the nation's economy because food costs "would increase by a staggering<b> </b>amount."<br />
<br />
The argument was based on a bogus <a href="http://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/issues/environment/files/GES%20IWG%20Powerpoint%20July%2011.pdf">economic study</a>, which warned that demand for fruits and vegetables would skyrocket, resulting in almost $500 billion more spent on imported food and $30 billion less on domestically grown grain. As Donald Cohen, who recently uncovered this absurd claim, <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/11/eating-fruits-and-vegetables-is-no-job-killer/">noted</a>:<br />
<blockquote>Even if the voluntary guidelines were that effective and their study was accurate, it's audacious marketing spin to turn an overwhelmingly positive victory for public health into a big government, job killing attack on freedom.</blockquote>This one-two punch comes from the very industry players with whom Mrs. Obama claimed she could "find common ground." And it has left many advocates feeling defeated.<br />
<br />
So when, instead of speaking out on behalf of the millions of children who will continue to be served french fries and pizza in school and get bombarded daily with Happy Meal ads, the first lady announces (as she did this week) that <a href="http://www.letsmove.gov/blog/2011/12/12/youre-first-know-jumping-jacks-world-record">Let's Move has broken a record for jumping jacks</a>, it's disappointing to say the least.<br />
<br />
Here's what Freedhoff had to say to the first lady:<br />
<blockquote>I'd tell her that we should be striving to change the environment so as to make lower-calorie, less-processed food choices the default. Let's Move may be politically palatable, but "Let's Cook" would likely have a far greater impact on health.</blockquote>Let's Cook? Uh-oh, sounds like a job killer. </span>Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-56921120260236798012011-12-05T13:57:00.000-08:002011-12-05T13:59:50.444-08:00Toying with the Happy Meal: Is McDonald’s evading the law?While most media outlets dubbed it the "Happy Meal toy ban," the ordinance passed in San Francisco last year didn't ban anything. The law just placed a few reasonable nutrition guidelines (a maximum of 600 calories per meal and limits on fat and salt, for example) for restaurants using free toy incentives to lure kids into a lifetime of bad eating habits. In a rare victory for children's health, the bill passed despite heavy lobbying by McDonald's.<br />
<br />
The law is scheduled to go into effect today, but the fast food giant -- who didn't want to change the nutritional makeup of its Happy Meals -- has devised a clever gimmick to maintain the status quo. Instead of giving the toys away for free, parents will now pay 10 cents for the latest plastic action figure. And for bonus PR, the dime will be donated to the city's Ronald McDonald House.<br />
<br />
Some media outlets have claimed that McDonald's has successfully found a loophole, or has dodged or skirted the law. And it may look that way on the surface, but I'm not so sure.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">It's not clear to this lawyer that the clown trick is in full compliance with the law. What has really changed and how exactly will this new 10-cent rule play out at the cash register? Is McDonald's HQ requiring its San Francisco franchises to ask if a parent would like to pay 10 cents extra for the toy? Even if they are, the reality is that the Happy Meal business model depends on toys being automatically included.<br />
<br />
Fast food outlets manipulate so-called "default options" on the menu to ensure maximum sales. For example, when you order a "combo meal" it's likely to automatically come with a soda -- not, say, juice or milk -- because soda has higher profit margins.<br />
<br />
McDonald's is determined to keep Happy Meals tied to toys, because a new toy every week ensures repeat business (and repeated nagging). The easiest way to do this is to include the toy as the default option. If parents started refusing the toys, it would defeat the entire purpose of the Happy Meal: to fulfill the company's (likely very lucrative) contractual agreements with media companies that require them to cross-promote the latest movie, kids' TV show, etc.<br />
<br />
It's no wonder then, that McDonald's is so desperate to retain the toys. But is this true compliance with a law that was meant to disassociate toys from unhealthy food? I don't think so.<br />
<br />
McDonald's has a history of acting irresponsibly, despite its claims to the contrary. For example, the company proudly touts its membership in the <a href="http://www.bbb.org/us/children-food-beverage-advertising-initiative/">Children's Food and Beverage Initiative</a>. Through this voluntary, self-regulatory trade group, the company makes numerous <a href="http://www.bbb.org/us/storage/0/Shared%20Documents/FOOD_PLEDGE_CBBB.pdf">claims</a> about how responsible its child marketing policy is, including:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">McDonald's is proud of our long heritage of responsible communication with our customers, especially children, and continues to play a leadership role in the development of standards that govern advertising for children and adults.</blockquote>However, an in-depth <a href="http://fastfoodmarketing.org/media/FastFoodFACTS_Report_ExecutiveSummary.pdf">investigation</a> by the <a href="http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/">Rudd Center on Food Policy and Obesity</a> at Yale University found that McDonald's has failed to live up to its voluntary pledge -- in numerous ways. For example, the study found that McDonald's increased its TV advertising from 2007 to 2009, with preschoolers seeing 21 percent more ads for McDonald's and older children viewing 26 percent more. <br />
The Rudd Center study also found:<br />
<ul><li>McDonald's web-based marketing (on Ronald.com) is aimed at children as young as 2.<br />
</li>
<li>McDonald's 13 websites attracted 365,000 unique child visitors and 294,000 unique teen visitors on average each month in 2009.<br />
</li>
<li>African American teens viewed 75 percent more TV ads for McDonald's compared to white teens.</li>
</ul>All this is despite McDonald's "<a href="http://www.aboutmcdonalds.com/mcd/parents/happy_meal_choice/our_partners_in_nutrition.html">commitment to responsible marketing to children</a>."</span><br />
<span class="fullpost"><br />
The Rudd Center also found that this type of marketing works. Forty percent of parents reported their child asks to go to McDonald's at least once a week, with 15 percent of preschoolers asking to go every day. Wonder why? Toys play a huge part in that incessant asking. The fact that McDonald's is so determined to keep toys shows just how huge.<br />
<br />
Can't parents just say no? Of course they can, but both ideas can be true: Parents need to set limits and McDonald's needs to stop marketing to children. As <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2011-01-24-why-the-happy-meal-is-a-crime-and-not-just-a-culinary-one">ample science tells us</a>, marketing to young children is inherently deceptive because they do not have the cognitive capacity to understand that they are being targeted. Therefore, under both federal and state law, marketing to young children <i>is already illegal.</i> (Read my previous <a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2011-01-24-why-the-happy-meal-is-a-crime-and-not-just-a-culinary-one">article</a> for the full legal explanation.)<br />
<br />
As I see it, voluntary pledges are a dismal failure. Only better laws enforced over time will change the behavior of companies like McDonald's. And when advocates do get laws passed to protect kids, McDonald's will keep trying to avoid them. But we don't have to let them get away with it. Here's how you can get involved:<br />
<ol><li>If you live in San Francisco, contact <a href="http://www.sfbos.org/index.aspx?page=2083">San Francisco Supervisor Eric Mar's office</a> (the author of the bill) and tell him not to allow the City to accept this move by McDonald's. San Francisco may still be able to fix the law with new language or change how it is enforced.</li>
<li>Contact the San Francisco city attorney's <a href="http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=9">office</a> to tell them the same thing.</li>
<li>If you live elsewhere in California, contact the state attorney general's <a href="http://oag.ca.gov/contact">office</a>, which has authority to enforce consumer deception laws. If you live outside of California, you can find your state attorney general listed <a href="http://www.naag.org/current-attorneys-general.php">here</a>. </li>
<li>File a <a href="https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/">complaint</a> with the Federal Trade Commission, the agency responsible for regulating advertising at the federal level. Deceptive marketing is already illegal, and marketing to young children is inherently deceptive. </li>
<li>File a <a href="https://www.bbb.org/us/children-food-beverage-advertising-initiative/contact-us/">complaint</a> with the industry-sponsored Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative about McDonald's irresponsible marketing practices.</li>
<li>Just for fun, <a href="http://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en/contact_us.html">contact</a> McDonald's to tell them what you think. </li>
<li>Finally, support nonprofits that are working to hold companies like McDonald's accountable. The two I recommend are <a href="http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/">The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood</a> and <a href="http://www.stopcorporateabuse.org/">Corporate Accountability International</a>. </li>
</ol>It's clear this company won't improve on its own. Maybe it's time to Occupy McDonald's?<br />
<br />
</span>Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-34791037073299595702011-12-02T09:07:00.000-08:002011-12-02T10:14:56.578-08:00Why I’m (Pre)Occupied by Miley Cyrus: Does Hannah Montana Still Matter?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEiQ_HSGLhqcVLq8rjwilrAMF5zWVP-y26Qs-0xvY2GdWZrTXmwjU-hPN0DNjrjVS7kJaQpCLWE0yrh13wSvwp15M0PRw7LCC2zCj6yBi0LzJkd-fVoCrWrUvpzDsibHrmmlfmRijz9kR3/s1600/mileycyrus.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 143px; height: 172px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEiQ_HSGLhqcVLq8rjwilrAMF5zWVP-y26Qs-0xvY2GdWZrTXmwjU-hPN0DNjrjVS7kJaQpCLWE0yrh13wSvwp15M0PRw7LCC2zCj6yBi0LzJkd-fVoCrWrUvpzDsibHrmmlfmRijz9kR3/s320/mileycyrus.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5681580362700342898" border="0" /></a>I don’t know how you feel about the Occupy Movement or about Miley Cyrus. As for me, having spent the past decade speaking out against the corporate takeover of childhood, I tend to be sympathetic to the 99% message and beyond unsympathetic to the contribution Cyrus-as-Disney-star-Hannah-Montana has made to the commercialized sexualization of very young girls.<br /><br />So how am I supposed to feel now that she produced a rather <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyG2Y5N0Yuw">moving music video</a> in support of Occupy protests all over the world? It does a great job of using its genre to celebrate the democratic right to protest and bear witness to its (sometimes brutal) repression. If Cyrus is still popular among young people, it probably has a shot at awakening interest in organized dissent. For a certain (young) age group it might make civic activism cool. <br /><br /><span class="fullpost">I emailed my Occupy/Miley dilemma to some of my wiser colleagues. Actually, my email read, “Does this mean we have to start liking her or stop liking the Occupy Movement?” One immediate response was, “I never disliked her. Blame the handlers, not the kid.” Here’s another, “It's great she did this video. It will draw in a lot of young people, I hope. Miley is used and exploited too.”<br /><br />And of course they’re right. We can expect that the suits at Disney knew exactly what they were doing to little girls by marketing Miley Cyrus as Hannah Montana. We might expect that the other adults in her life knew, too. But we can’t expect a girl in her early teens to know.<br /><br />Cyrus was only 12 when she auditioned for Hannah Montana—and 13 when it became one of Disney’s biggest hits, with the attendant toys, clothing, accessories, video games, jewelry, and so on. She was just 15 when she posed apparently covered only by a sheet for Annie Leibowitz. My colleagues would say that she was objectified by adults who profited obscenely from her objectification. And because celebrity culture carries so much weight, even with the very young, the glorification and amplification of her image has vast consequences. We only have to search as far as YouTube to see girls as young as 2 playing at being Miley Cyrus playing at being a teenage rock star playing at being an adult playing at being a certain kind of sexy.<br /><br />But does making a video that promotes civic action transform Cyrus into a positive role model for girls? Well. . .maybe, depending on age. I can just about imagine having a nuanced conversation with my 9-year-old granddaughter about the pros and cons. But I doubt that her 5-year-old sister could old grasp the nuance of someone being a great role model in some ways but not in others.<br /><br />So where does this leave me, Miley, and Occupy Wall Street? For the first time, ever, I find myself wondering about her. I wonder what she thinks, or will think in the future, of how Hannah Montana was marketed to children. I wonder why she made this video. I wonder what her managers/agents/handlers think about it. I wonder if they weighed the cost/benefit to her career before it was posted. I wonder if she even tries to reconcile her ties to Disney, one of the biggest entertainment conglomerates in the world, in light of the Occupy Movement’s spotlight on greed and the abuse of corporate power.<br /><br />The Yiddish word “farkakte” means simultaneously “crazy, screwed up, and gone bad”; Sometimes it’s the only word that will do. It’s a <span style="font-style: italic;">farkakte</span> world where 1% of the population gets richer at the expense of everyone else; where corporations purposely sell four year olds on fake sexuality; where thousands of unknown viewers can watch repeatedly the parent-posted videos of tiny daughters as Hannah Montana imitators shaking whatever booty they have; where kids are indoctrinated to celebrity culture before they even enter preschool; and where a 19 year old’s celebrity means that her political opinions matter.<br /><br />But I have to say—I like the video. I’m glad she made it. Thanks for this one, Miley Cyrus.</span>Susan Linn, Ed.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/07248685286966659759noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-12706711646045041332011-11-21T19:25:00.001-08:002012-02-07T19:34:09.212-08:00Handling the Holidays<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3gc9MhZni-yMkeT1YRZyk0S_Kuirn9Z74QuJcR9VozPjhVicuhktyOd4XyNApC60x_HEDvz2m2YiaN1oABs2mfCoPVz7yz4er_pYVV5SFv_ov1I9eK1TMcInXtWW9JssFs9A2m8UEyLZO/s1600/iStock_000000505536XSmall.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 258px; height: 170px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3gc9MhZni-yMkeT1YRZyk0S_Kuirn9Z74QuJcR9VozPjhVicuhktyOd4XyNApC60x_HEDvz2m2YiaN1oABs2mfCoPVz7yz4er_pYVV5SFv_ov1I9eK1TMcInXtWW9JssFs9A2m8UEyLZO/s320/iStock_000000505536XSmall.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5677672684943645282" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;">This post was written by guest blogger </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/14821436974321958349">Brandy King</a><span style="font-style: italic;"> of </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.knowledge-linking.com/">Knowledge Linking</a><span style="font-style: italic;">. After spending the last eight years working with research on children and media, Brandy now faces the challenge of raising two young boys in our media-saturated and commercialized world. </span><div></div><div>Yet another holiday season has arrived with its doorbuster sales, cyber deals, and mile-long wish lists. What does a commercial-free family do when faced with the consumerism and commercialism that rule the season? <div><div><span class="fullpost"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="fullpost">The wide variety of answers I received from some like-minded parents demonstrates just how many different ways there are to handle all the holiday hoopla. How does your family respond to these situations? Tell us in the comments! </span></div><div></div><div><b>Do you say anything specific to gift-givers about your preference for commercial-free gifts?</b></div><div><div><ul><li>“Instead, we’ve expressed a preference for good quality toys that have an educational component, that encourage free, imaginative play and that aren't too noisy. Since both our moms were teachers, they appreciate this line of thinking!”</li>
<li>“No, I’m afraid to sound ungrateful by limiting people’s generosity.”</li>
<li>“The conversation about WHY we feel this way can get involved, especially in a large Italian family where everyone has an opinion. Sometimes it's easier to just let it slide and hide the toys at my mom’s house until I can figure out what to do with them.”</li>
</ul></div><div><b>If your kids receive commercialized gifts, do you keep them? </b></div><div><ul><li>“We have donated or consigned several items we thought were not for us.”</li>
<li>“It depends on the gift. I let the kids wear pajamas with characters on them, but do not allow characters on any other clothes since I don’t want my children to walk around like an advertisement.” </li>
<li>“We’ve given some items away, but there are some exceptions, of course. My sister made a pillow case for my daughter with Kermit fabric. We kept it and refer to it as "Auntie’s frog pillow." I think the difference with this gift versus others lies with intention and marketing (or, at least, that's what my gut tells me). The pillow case wasn't created to pad the coffers of a company, it was lovingly sewn by my daughter's aunt. “</li>
</ul></div><div><b>What do you do if your children ask for an item you don’t particularly want them to have (commercial or not)?</b></div><div><ul><li>“When my 5 year old daughter asked for a Hannah Montana backpack, I talked to her about what she liked about it. We figured out that she liked the “rock-star vibe” and found a neat black backpack with a microphone and guitar on it. Now she loves that she has something unique!”</li>
<li>“When my daughter saw dolls she liked in a catalog, I asked her why she liked them (rather than telling her that she shouldn't like them) and she told me it was because they all had pets. I was able to use this to move the conversation to pets in general, and specifically animal toys. It was both a conversation about marketing (at a two-year-old's level) as well as redirection to something more appropriate in my book.”</li>
<li>“With my fourth grader, I’m apt to ask questions and consider his answers. “Why do you want this product? How did you learn about it? What makes it appealing to you? Do you think it would still be fun in a month? A season? A year? How much money is reasonable to spend on something you’re not sure you’ll play with six months from now?” Also, I remind him that he is old enough to save up his own money to purchase items I may not be inclined to get him.”</li>
</ul></div><div>As you can see in these answers, there are a lot of different strategies parents use to combat commercialism, and they draw the line differently depending on the situation. What's your advice for making it through the holidays as a commercial-free family? Weigh in below!</div></div></div></div>Brandy Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14821436974321958349noreply@blogger.com13tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-62776865949495143012011-11-18T10:38:00.000-08:002011-11-18T10:38:06.908-08:00School food politics: What’s missing from the pizza-as-vegetable reporting<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjd5NEe8QD1oQMkLBk5-u9tlWaBzHVve4g_AbDvIOdkRfnCm_qVv6s7yWBY7Zo2AeQDWDYgIpjmzsZX8X76Gu_-ldhPAyJ6Z7SG7HBwrvW42AkK6zIkeXAcSyMeJnud396vYEwer7dGn6A/s1600/pizza.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="132" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjd5NEe8QD1oQMkLBk5-u9tlWaBzHVve4g_AbDvIOdkRfnCm_qVv6s7yWBY7Zo2AeQDWDYgIpjmzsZX8X76Gu_-ldhPAyJ6Z7SG7HBwrvW42AkK6zIkeXAcSyMeJnud396vYEwer7dGn6A/s200/pizza.jpg" width="200" /></a></div>Over the last couple of days, news outlets have been having a field day with a proposal from Congress that pizza sauce be considered a vegetable to qualify for the National School Lunch program. Headlines like this one were typical: “<a href="http://www.wsiltv.com/news/local/School-Lunch-Debate-133923048.html">Is Pizza Sauce a Vegetable? Congress says Yes</a>.” (The blogs were a tad more childish; for example LA Weekly: <a href="http://blogs.laweekly.com/squidink/2011/11/pizza_vegetable_usda_congress.php">Congress to USDA: Pizza is So a Vegetable, Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah</a>.)<br />
<br />
Most reporters, pressed for time and resources, tend to simplify complex stories and this was no exception. In one camp, so the stories went, are nutrition advocates who want healthier school meals, while Republicans are saying the feds shouldn’t be making such decisions. Here is one example of this framing of the <a href="http://www.wsiltv.com/news/local/School-Lunch-Debate-133923048.html">story</a>:<br />
<blockquote><i>Conservatives in Congress say the federal government shouldn’t be telling children what to eat. They say requirements proposed by the President went too far, costing budget strapped schools too much. Local schools are caught in the middle.</i></blockquote>Meanwhile, a few other reports did a better job of explaining the massive industry lobbying at play. (See, for example, <a href="http://motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/11/school-lunch-frozen-pizza-tomato-paste">Mother Jones’ Tom Philpott</a> and <a href="http://www.theslowcook.com/2011/11/16/processed-food-industry-shows-usda-whos-boss-in-the-cafeteria/">Ed Bruske aka The Slow Cook</a>, a hero in school food reporting.)<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">And while it was easy to compare this current craziness to the Reagan-era infamous “ketchup-is-a-vegetable” school lunch proposal (which did not pass), a bit more history, common sense, and political context is needed.<br />
<br />
<i>History</i>: As much as the GOP would like to hang this on Obama, the effort to improve the quality of school meals dates back decades. In the mid 1990′s a huge battle was finally won to bring school nutrition in line with federal government’s own dietary advice. Since that time, science evolved and the standards needed updating. We also had the increasing problem of school vending loaded with soft drinks and candy. Then in 2004, (yes, during Bush) Congress authorized USDA to improve nutrition standards for school food. Finally at the request of USDA, the Institute of Medicine released a report in 2009 with very specific <a href="http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2009/School-Meals-Building-Blocks-for-Healthy-Children.aspx">recommendations</a> for USDA to follow – <i>based on science.</i> So this process has been going on long before the current budget crisis and before Obama could get blamed for everything since the dawn of time.<i> </i><br />
<br />
<i>Common sense</i>: If you stop and think about it, shouldn’t all food assistance programs (i.e., paid for with taxpayer dollars), at the very least, comply with the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which is supposed to be based on the latest nutrition science? Recall the feds’ new <a href="http://www.choosemyplate.gov/">MyPlate</a>, released to much fanfare earlier this year, which recommends half the meal be comprised of fresh fruits and vegetables, not tater tots and pizza.<i> </i><br />
<br />
<i>Politics</i>: As I said, a few reports did mention the lobbying by, for example, the American Frozen Food Institute. (Yes, there’s a trade group for frozen pizza, fries, and other school food abominations; and surprise, they are <a href="http://www.affi.org/assets/news/affi-lauds-congress-balanced-approach-school-meals.pdf">thrilled</a> with this outcome.) But almost everyone missed the industry front group,”<a href="http://cssmp.org/">The Coalition for Sustainable Meal Programs</a>.” (I could not make that one up.) And once again, we need more context.<br />
<br />
This issue isn’t just that the processed food industry is upset with proposed improvements to school meals, it’s how they are flexing their political muscle to get their way. The critical (and most under-reported) part of this story is how <i>Congress has hijacked the USDA regulatory process to do the food industry’s bidding.</i><br />
<br />
Congress is putting language to undercut the USDA rules into its agriculture appropriations bill, a sneaky move used when you want something to pass outside of the usual legislative (and in this case regulatory) process.<br />
<br />
You know things are bad politically when even USDA (seeming a tad shell-shocked) <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/usda-continuing-to-serve-pizza-to-schoolchildren-wont-save-much-money/2011/11/16/gIQAeGPTSN_story.html">defended its proposed rules</a>, telling the Washington Post that keeping pizza in schools won’t save any money, as the GOP claimed.<br />
<br />
Let’s recap: Congress authorized USDA to improve the nutritional quality of school meals seven years ago. USDA commissioned a report from the IOM to help the agency do exactly that, based on the best available science. USDA subsequently proposed regulations, has taken public comment, and should then come out with final regulations. Civics 101 folks: Congress makes the laws and the executive branch carries them out. Agencies such as USDA are the experts, not Congress. That is why the legislature delegates authority to the agency in charge. But here, the food industry didn’t get what it wanted through the normal channels, so it went to Congress, which usurped the entire process. I’d love to see reporters asking: how the hell did that happen?<br />
<br />
And let’s not forget this is supposed to be about our nation’s kids. Which raises one more interesting question: Where exactly is Michelle Obama and her Let’s Move campaign now? The First Lady has been a champion for improving school meals but of course she has no real power. The food industry has plenty. And while politicians curry favor with lobbyists, schoolchildren will pay the ultimate price, with their health.</span>Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-83310040109461622882011-10-19T10:55:00.000-07:002011-10-19T10:56:47.098-07:00PepsiCo wants to “scare the crap” out of your kids<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhObtYrSyEU3KELw06WKBM6smMoiGE4KR1gMy9dUp_epR4vDkDWyCxxtFDq_7lgH0tqnU4pcRhl1lvoEcTmr2hf4W5GjnxqdVZ9StKFCXA5YY0i1zjIkvQzX3aa7ucUWIltP9cRNaxy8Gs/s1600/pepsiscares.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="230" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhObtYrSyEU3KELw06WKBM6smMoiGE4KR1gMy9dUp_epR4vDkDWyCxxtFDq_7lgH0tqnU4pcRhl1lvoEcTmr2hf4W5GjnxqdVZ9StKFCXA5YY0i1zjIkvQzX3aa7ucUWIltP9cRNaxy8Gs/s400/pepsiscares.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div style="text-align: center;"> <i>The "chainsaw-wielding maniac" from Frito-Lay's online game.</i></div><br />
PepsiCo has long been my poster child for food corporations whose actions speak louder than words when to comes to responsible marketing. CEO Indra Nooyi loves to tout the company's "<a href="http://www.pepsico.com/Purpose/Performance-with-Purpose.html">Performance with Purpose</a>" and <a href="http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/sns-rt-us-pepsico-ceotre79g4zo-20111017,0,1636144.story">show off</a> the company's "good-for-you" foods that it gets to define. Most don't realize that PepsiCo is the nation's largest food company, with five divisions spanning from soda to salty snacks to breakfast cereals. With annual revenues of $60 billion and 285,000 employees, PepsiCo is an multinational corporate behemoth.<br />
<br />
Now the company's true colors are revealed in all their twisted marketing glory. A legal <a href="http://case-studies.digitalads.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/complaint.pdf">complaint</a> filed today with the Federal Trade Commission by the <a href="http://www.democraticmedia.org/">Center for Digital Democracy</a> and several other groups called upon the agency to investigate PepsiCo and its subsidiary Frito-Lay for “engaging in deceptive and unfair digital marketing practices" in violation of federal law.<br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost">Even if you thought you already knew that teenagers were being targeted online by junk food brands, I can guarantee that the marketing strategies revealed in this complaint and accompanying <a href="http://case-studies.digitalads.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/DigitalMarketingReport_FINAL_web_20111017.pdf">report</a> will freak you out, either as a parent or just a human being.<br />
<br />
Among the clever techniques PepsiCo has deployed are horror video games called Hotel 626 and its even scarier successor, Asylum 626, which, the company's ad agency (Goodby, Silverstein & Partners) explained, were designed to “scare the crap out of teenagers,” in the hopes of selling more Doritos.<br />
<br />
The websites for these games were only available from 6pm to 6am (626 - get it?) because the agency explains: "We wanted people to visit the site at night, after hours, when guards are down and they are the most immersed in what could happen."<br />
<br />
The purpose, according to the complaint, is to engage youth in a multi-dimensional, interactive environment, using a variety of under-the-radar techniques, each with increasing levels of creepiness. Teens registering on the site are asked to provide name, email, and date of birth, and to enable their webcam and microphone.<br />
<br />
Then the game encourages teens to post and share photos of themselves as they participate; prompts them to “send a scare” to friends in their social networks and even required them to use their webcams, microphones, and mobile phones to “escape” the nightmarish experience.<br />
<br />
These techniques are not just gross, they also happen to violate the law. As the <a href="http://case-studies.digitalads.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/FTCcomplaintCDDRelease1019FINAL.pdf">press release</a> explains, by "disguising its marketing efforts as entertaining video games," it's more difficult for teens to recognize such content as advertising (which of course is the whole idea). Also, PepsiCo claims "to protect teen privacy while collecting a wide range of personal information, without meaningful notice and consent."<br />
<br />
As I was writing this (at 11pm) I decided to visit <a href="http://asylum626.com/">Asylum 626</a> myself. The music is the sound of a heartbeat, which I have to admit is already scary. The first screen warns the site is for "mature audiences only" and those "under age 18 must not view without an adult guardian" -- what a great marketing device for teens. The next screen helpfully explains that the experience is best viewed with my lights out and headphones on. Then, after showing off the brand with, "Doritos Presents," the site suggests that I log into Facebook or Twitter for the "full treatment experience." OK, now my heart is pounding along with the music and all I want to do is close the page. I can't even enter the damn thing I am so scared.<br />
<span class="fullpost"> <br />
Obviously, this site is not intended for me. But by all accounts this campaign is a raging success with its target market, with the site getting millions of visitors. As noted by the ad agency: "The campaign was immensely successful. The two resurrected flavors sold out within three weeks." Bringing Doritos brands "back from from the dead" was the goal of the game. Nice marketing strategy: Scare kids, revive profits.</span><br />
<br />
Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy and long-time expert in digital marketing explains the problem: “PepsiCo has used an arsenal of powerful online marketing tactics in these campaigns, including interactive games with storylines designed to heighten arousal and instill fear and anxiety in teens."<br />
<br />
As if teens don't have enough fears and anxiety as it is. “PepsiCo’s covert ad campaigns take advantage of teens’ vulnerabilities and encourage them to buy and consume a product that is harmful to their health,” added Angela Campbell, director of Georgetown Law’s Institute for Public Representation, which drafted the complaint. She urged the FTC to begin its own investigation and act to prevent similarly deceptive advertising campaigns in the future.<br />
<br />
Given the Obama Administration's <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/federal-regulators-rethinking-guidelines-on-marketing-food-to-children/2011/10/10/gIQAW9aFbL_story.html">reluctance</a> to take on the food industry and its reliance instead on voluntary self-regulation, severe action doesn't seem too likely. Ironically, the feds recently announced it was backing off the idea to include teens in its own food marketing guidelines. Bad timing. Because if this case doesn't convince government regulators to protect our kids from predatory marketing, nothing will.<br />
<br />
Kudos to the groups bringing PepsiCo's disgusting marketing tactics to light. I highly recommend reading the <a href="http://case-studies.digitalads.org/ftc-complaint/">documents</a> they worked so hard on and watching the <a href="http://case-studies.digitalads.org/FTC-complaint-mobile.html">videos</a>, if you can stomach it. (The most revealing details are in the complaint <a href="http://case-studies.digitalads.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/appendices_to_complaint.pdf">appendixes</a>.) They should should be required reading / viewing for anyone who says we don't need government oversight, that self-regulation is working just fine, and we can leave it all up to parents. </span>Michele Simonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03627044319305049636noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-32009649386016033742011-10-18T10:23:00.000-07:002011-10-19T11:00:45.185-07:00Why do you "bother" living commercial-free?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUka593QHCZ1emNjAV1E6nIsOfoKR3SzeWFa0GuF7kdjA9tj0ymERLTl45koa6IBZJs5_-ZMwXwzSvheuP2IprQMLuGJwtbOmFi4xO_KgvihAY2ERNFF5PjDDi284cZKTIQMrrK3-JeZ1d/s1600/blocks.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 222px; height: 178px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUka593QHCZ1emNjAV1E6nIsOfoKR3SzeWFa0GuF7kdjA9tj0ymERLTl45koa6IBZJs5_-ZMwXwzSvheuP2IprQMLuGJwtbOmFi4xO_KgvihAY2ERNFF5PjDDi284cZKTIQMrrK3-JeZ1d/s320/blocks.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5665256903782698002" border="0" /></a><span style="font-style: italic;">This post was written by guest blogger </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/14821436974321958349">Brandy King</a><span style="font-style: italic;"> of </span><a style="font-style: italic;" href="http://www.knowledge-linking.com/">Knowledge Linking</a><span style="font-style: italic;">. After spending the last eight years working with research on children and media, Brandy now faces the challenge of raising two young boys in our media-saturated and commercialized world. </span><br />
<br />
After writing about my <a href="http://commercialfreechildhood.blogspot.com/2011/09/but-mama-just-buy-one-at-store.html">small victory over a Thomas the Tank Engine backpack</a> last month, I got a lot of responses from other parents who are also trying to live commercial-free. But the other response I got was curiosity about "why I bother." My main reasons are below; what are yours?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Why do I bother trying to limit commercialized items in our family?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Creativity.</span> It is often said that "play is a child's work." Children learn about the world through the toys they play with, the stories they create, and the playmates they engage with. The more a toy does on its own, the less imagination is required to make it fun. Many movie and TV-themed toys do it all for kids, leaving them with nothing to do but watch. <span class="fullpost"> To illustrate my point, here are some phrases from the description of a Cars2 Racetrack toy:<br />
<br />
<ul><li>"Kids can now act out their favorite scenes from the movie" <span style="font-style: italic;">(instead of using their imagination to create entirely different adventures for the cars)</span><br />
</li>
<li>"Shake up your car, place it on the track, and watch it go" <span style="font-style: italic;">(instead of encouraging kinetic learning by zooming the cars around with their hands on road they made out of blocks) </span></li>
<li>"Vehicles will have their own specific engine sounds and phrases from the movie" <span style="font-style: italic;">(instead of actively using new vocabulary and learning how to engage in conversation by creating their own dialogue)</span><br />
</li>
</ul>Creativity now trumps integrity and global thinking in being considered <a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/1648943/creativity-the-most-important-leadership-quality-for-ceos-study">the most important leadership quality</a>. And the recent death of visionary Steve Jobs brought to light <a href="http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2011-10-14/news/30279424_1_insecurity-success-ipod">how integral creativity was</a> to his success in revolutionizing modern communication.<br />
<br />
I want my children to have constant practice creating amazing stories and environments from scratch. I want them to learn for themselves that necessity is the mother of invention. I want them to rely on their own ambition to navigate through life rather than waiting for someone else to tell them what to do. And I believe that limiting the pre-defined personalities and scripts inherent in licensed characters helps them toward these ends.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Why do I bother writing about this experience?</span><br />
<br />
Resisting commercial culture is a constant battle, and in fact, I think "commercial-free" is too generous a term for what I'm doing. My reality is more like "commercialism in moderation". Yes, I resisted that Thomas backpack, but I caved on the Thomas toothbrush to try to bring more motivation to dental hygiene. And while I have not purchased any toys with media tie-ins, I have let him keep some of the toys he has received as gifts. Is this hypocritical? Some may say yes. But in my mind, I can only do so much, and I feel that the effort I've put forth has already made a difference. For example, after getting his hands on a toy catalog, I was sure my 3 year old would start asking for things. Boy was I thrilled when he excitedly pointed to a toy and said "Mama, I bet we could make something like this!"<br />
<br />
Parenting is not easy and most people do not want to add the additional challenge of living commercial-free in a media-saturated world. But you and I think it's a challenge worth the effort. I write about these experiences because it helps me identify where I've succeeded and where I am still being challenged.<br />
<br />
I write about these experiences because I want to hear from other parents who've stayed the course: What strategies have worked? Where have you given in? Did it make a difference? Was it worth the effort? I invite you to comment below -- Let's keep the discussion going so that the sum of our ideas benefits all of our children. </span>Brandy Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14821436974321958349noreply@blogger.com23tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-72956731997108054562011-10-07T10:58:00.000-07:002011-10-07T11:18:54.066-07:00Channel One Promotes "Not Safe For School" Pics in SchoolsIf you're one of the 5.5 million students in a school with <a href="http://www.channelone.com/">Channel One News</a>, you have to watch ads every day as part of your taxpayer-funded class time. And one thing you'll see is ads for websites operated by Channel One's parent company, Alloy Media and Marketing. One of those websites is Teen.com. Despite the name, <a href="http://www.obligation.org/2011-07-28-channel-one-news-teen-com-advertised-to-middle-school-students">Channel One advertises Teen.com</a> to both its junior high and high school students. So I stopped by Teen.com today to see what was being promoted to a captive audience of children as young as 11. Here's what's on the <a href="http://www.teen.com/">homepage</a>:<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oOTkp6CJIAI/To897wd9Y-I/AAAAAAAAAFg/Muo6obMev4c/s1600/kmart%2Bteen%2Bwebsite%2BNaya.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 214px; height: 287px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oOTkp6CJIAI/To897wd9Y-I/AAAAAAAAAFg/Muo6obMev4c/s400/kmart%2Bteen%2Bwebsite%2BNaya.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5660811353460138978" border="0" /></a><br />Click on <a href="http://www.teen.com/naya-rivera-fhm-magazine-cover-photos/#6">the link</a> and it gets worse.There are the promised pics of <span style="font-style: italic;">Glee </span>star Naya Rivera in various stages of <a href="http://www.teen.com/naya-rivera-fhm-magazine-cover-photos/#8">undress</a>, accompanied by some pathetic text designed to titillate while feigning shock:<br /><br /><span class="fullpost"><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">Glee</span> bad girl Santana Lopez wasn't lying when she said "Everyone knows my role here is to look hot." But in a recent spread for men's mag, <span style="font-style: italic;">FHM</span>, Naya Rivera trumps her gleeky character's sexy outfits (remember the nurse costume?) by wearing, well... basically nothing! The girl's 24 years-old, so we'd say it's fine. But, is anyone else reminded of the controversial <span style="font-style: italic;">GQ</span> photoshoot with Lea Michele, Dianna Agron and Cory Monteith? If it wasn't okay for them, then these pics definitely are pushin' it, too. Are Naya's pics too sexy for a <span style="font-style: italic;">Glee</span> star? [Warning: They're all hot, but you probs shouldn't look at them at school and/or work!].</blockquote><br />Huh? I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I'm thinking if the pictures are not safe for school, then Channel One "probs" shouldn't be promoting Teen.com in schools, either.<br /><br />And if pictures of Ms. Rivera posing in her skimpy underwear isn't enough, Teen.com tells kids where to head for more:<br /><blockquote><br />"Wanna see more scandalous Naya pics? Pick up the November issue of <span style="font-style: italic;">FHM</span> today!"</blockquote><br />Now some might argue that today's culture is so pornified that teenagers see images like these all the time, but that misses the point. Shouldn't the standard be higher for what is shown and promoted to children in classrooms? Remember, we're not talking about sex education designed by educators, but sex being used to sell kids to Teen.com's advertisers (in this case K-Mart). Research links this type of sexualization to some of the most pressing and common mental health problems for girls including eating disorders, low self-esteem, depression and poor sexual health.<br /><br />There is simply no justification for school districts forcing their students to watch ads for Teen.com...or anything else on Channel One. Remember, schools with Channel One lose a full week of instructional time to the broadcasts and a day just to the ads! That's why so many schools are waking up to the fact that Channel One is a bad deal for students. Since 2005, the network's student audience <a href="http://www.obligation.org/2011-09-08-shock-channel-one-news-loses-500000-students-within-three-months">has shrunk by more than 25%</a>.<br /><br />That's good news, but we shouldn't celebrate until every child's classroom is free of compulsory commercial viewing. So if you're the parent (or grandparent or sibling) of a middle or high school student, ask if his or her school has Channel One. If they do, share this post with that school's administrators and urge them to spend a few minutes on Teen.com. That alone should be enough to get the plug pulled on Channel One.</span>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-12784632601406332912011-09-28T06:45:00.000-07:002011-09-28T06:46:43.620-07:00Commercialism Corner<div style="background-color: #eeeeee;">Commercialism Corner: Your one-stop shop for quick summaries and links to all the latest news about the commercialization of childhood.</div><br />
<b>The Next Great American Consumer--Infants to 3-year-olds: They're a new demographic marketers are hell-bent on reaching</b> - Marketers talk about "beginning a relationship with the child" from birth by getting their brands in front of babies earlier than ever. Adweek covers this new trend of marketers targeting infants. <a href="http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/next-great-american-consumer-135207?page=1">http://www.adweek.com/news/advertising-branding/next-great-american-consumer-135207?page=1</a><br />
<br />
<b>Little girls or little women? The Disney princess effect</b> – As described in this article, the commercialized sexualization of girls through media and marketing has startling effects. Learn what CCFC, SPARK Summit, Hardy Girls Healthy Women and other advocacy groups are doing to make childhood better for girls. <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0924/Little-girls-or-little-women-The-Disney-princess-effect">http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2011/0924/Little-girls-or-little-women-The-Disney-princess-effect</a><br />
<br />
<span class="fullpost"><b>Regulators propose tougher online privacy protections for kids</b> – The FTC has proposed important changes to the implementation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act. The proposed rules would prevent companies from tracking children online for behavioral advertising and empower parents to control how and whether their children's private information is used across digital platforms. Read the L.A. Times article here: <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/09/regulators-propose-tougher-online-privacy-protections-for-kids.html">http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/09/regulators-propose-tougher-online-privacy-protections-for-kids.html</a> and CCFC’s statement in support of the proposed changes here: <a href="http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/pressreleases/ftcnewcopparules.html">http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/pressreleases/ftcnewcopparules.html</a><br />
<br />
<b>Ads for PG-13 Movies in Kids' Media? Motion Picture Association Says for These Films, It's Fine</b> – The Children’s Advertising Review Unit, or CARU, the ad industry’s self-regulatory group, finds PG-13 movies marketed to younger kids. But when they bring it to the attention of the Motion Picture Association of America, MPAA says it’s fine because they approved the ads. This has been the pattern for CARU’s work on PG-13 movie marketing. <a href="http://www.blogger.com/%20http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/caru-finds-pg-13-movies-advertised-kids-13/229993/"> http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/caru-finds-pg-13-movies-advertised-kids-13/229993/</a><br />
<br />
<b>Battle of commercial interests confound fight against noncommunicable diseases</b> – The UN talks on global efforts to reduce noncommunicable diseases, including obesity, present serious tensions between commercial and public health interests. Public health advocates want rules to protect children from junk food advertising, but junk food marketers fiercely oppose the idea. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/battle-of-commercial-interests-loom-over-fight-against-noncommunicable-diseases/2011/09/20/gIQAy0rZjK_story.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/battle-of-commercial-interests-loom-over-fight-against-noncommunicable-diseases/2011/09/20/gIQAy0rZjK_story.html</a><br />
<br />
<b>Viacom spent $600,000 lobbying government in 2Q</b> – Viacom, Nickelodeon’s parent company, spent $600,000 in the second quarter to lobby the federal government on advertising to children. Add this to the $1.1 million it spent in the first quarter, and that’s a whole lot of money from a single corporation influencing congress to let marketers keep on targeting children. <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9PROMEG1.htm">http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9PROMEG1.htm</a><br />
<b><br />
Karen Heller: Offer of soda-industry funds fell flat, as it should have</b> – In a fantastic show of leadership, Philadelphia’s Nutter administration turns down an offer of a soda-industry sponsored anti-obesity campaign. He says, “"It seems to me that accepting money from the beverage industry to fight obesity would be like taking money from the NRA to fight gun violence or from the tobacco industry for smoking cessations…I mean, it's ludicrous." <a href="http://articles.philly.com/2011-09-14/news/30154569_1_beverage-tax-obesity-health-centers">http://articles.philly.com/2011-09-14/news/30154569_1_beverage-tax-obesity-health-centers</a><br />
</span>CCFChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12931718130435283048noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-466502605032682082011-09-12T13:28:00.000-07:002011-09-12T13:34:08.109-07:00Nickelodeon Admits SpongeBob Not Fit For PreschoolersA <a href="http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-spongebob-squarepants-children-brain-20110912,0,2849965.story">new study</a> from researchers at the University of Virginia finds that watching <i>SpongeBob SquarePants</i> has a negative influence on preschoolers' executive functioning. Children who watched 9 minutes of the show scored significantly worse on assessments designed to measure memory and problem solving skills than children who watched a slower-paced cartoon or kids who spent 9 minutes drawing.<br />
<br />
The findings are important, but perhaps not as important as Nickelodeon’s startling announcement when asked about the study. The children’s network <a href="http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/12/study-some-cartoons-are-bad-for-childrens-brains/">told CNN</a> that <i>SpongeBob</i> is intended for 6-11-year-olds, not preschoolers, which is a bit surprising considering that <i>SpongeBob</i> is consistently among the highest rated shows for young children. What could possibly have led parents to think that <i>SpongeBob</i> is meant for preschoolers?<br />
<br />
It couldn't be these, could it?<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CL3PPybecn0/Tm5enK9sh3I/AAAAAAAAAFA/GWnuCzoHGj8/s1600/sipply%2Bcups.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5651558609447585650" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CL3PPybecn0/Tm5enK9sh3I/AAAAAAAAAFA/GWnuCzoHGj8/s200/sipply%2Bcups.jpg" style="display: block; height: 200px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 200px;" /></a><br />
<span class="fullpost">Or this?<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y37Of-1cXKw/Tm5eB-TM96I/AAAAAAAAAEw/H7Pqe6fi1NI/s1600/potty%2Bseat.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5651557970392971170" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-y37Of-1cXKw/Tm5eB-TM96I/AAAAAAAAAEw/H7Pqe6fi1NI/s200/potty%2Bseat.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 200px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 200px;" /></a><br />
Or these?<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PcG5aXa5vGY/Tm5fRM-BWhI/AAAAAAAAAFI/KY2NHyfFMdQ/s1600/pj%2527s.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5651559331540326930" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PcG5aXa5vGY/Tm5fRM-BWhI/AAAAAAAAAFI/KY2NHyfFMdQ/s200/pj%2527s.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 200px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 200px;" /></a><br />
There are thousands for SpongeBob products for children under six on the market. But in light of this study and Nick's earth-shattering announcement, I'm sure it's just a matter of time* before SpongeBob gets out of the potty seat, sippy cup, and footie pajama business.<br />
<br />
*When Bikini Bottom freezes over.<br />
<br />
<table class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto;"></table></span></div>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-40688469869149202862011-09-08T06:41:00.000-07:002012-02-07T19:34:09.217-08:00"But Mama, just buy one at the store"<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisoFJxvVNfWbafaBHI7lK4Nz8nt3f2cU0VbT0Y8Iy8IY_Ewbk0wFd8y3WReUhVWhh4arsVMoLCJt6i9Pc3D8Uq61KQQdqoCg5I9M-yvkNcYk_47HKZzhTZ3iIWXMjW02xApvWvnAkd96Iq/s1600/iStock_000017101100XSmall.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5648299017415520258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEisoFJxvVNfWbafaBHI7lK4Nz8nt3f2cU0VbT0Y8Iy8IY_Ewbk0wFd8y3WReUhVWhh4arsVMoLCJt6i9Pc3D8Uq61KQQdqoCg5I9M-yvkNcYk_47HKZzhTZ3iIWXMjW02xApvWvnAkd96Iq/s200/iStock_000017101100XSmall.jpg" style="float: left; height: 200px; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; width: 134px;" /></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">The following post was written by guest blogger <a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/14821436974321958349">Brandy King</a>. After spending the last eight years working with research on children and media, Brandy now faces the challenge of raising two young boys in a media-saturated and commercialized world. This is the first in a series of posts about attempting to maintain a commercial-free childhood for her sons. If you've faced similar challenges, we invite you to comment below about your struggles and successes. </span><br />
<div><i><br />
</i><br />
<div>"Cameron, look! This is the backpack you're going to take to preschool!" I said with genuine excitement as I pointed to the catalog picture. The primary-colored backpack with the embroidered dumptruck was just perfect for my little guy.<br />
<br />
"No!" he yelled in that charming way two-year-olds have. "I want to take my Thomas backpack!"<br />
<br />
I was puzzled. "Cameron, you don't <i>have</i> a Thomas backpack..."<br />
<br />
"But Mama, just buy one at the store."<br />
<br />
This was Cameron's first "consumer moment;" the first time he had asked me to purchase anything. I wasn't quite sure what to say, so I responded<span class="fullpost"> with the classic "We'll see" and surprisingly, he let it go. <div><br />
</div><div>I never ordered that dumptruck backpack. And when his grandmother heard this story and immediately purchased a Thomas backpack for him, I kept it hidden in the basement. I needed time to think about this. I wanted to use this as an opportunity to set a precedent for how I would respond to this kind of request. How did he know it was an option to have Thomas on a backpack? When did he start to understand that I could purchase things? I needed to think back to why my immediate reaction was "No" and I needed to consider why I hadn't just responded that way in the first place.</div><div><br />
</div><div>When Cameron was born, I was in my fifth year of work as a research librarian at <a href="http://www.blogger.com/www.cmch.tv">The Center on Media and Child Health</a>. After everything I had read about marketing to children, I had decided to make a conscious effort to limit his exposure to media in general and to licensed characters in particular. (<a href="http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/GeneralPediatrics/28075">Brand new research</a> confirms my instinct: The more familiar kids are with commercial characters, the more they nag their parents for purchases).</div><div><br />
</div><div>Cameron first learned about Thomas from a puzzle at someone's house. He had not watched the TV show and did not own any items with Thomas on them. I really have no idea what prompted him to proclaim his need for Thomas to be on his backpack that particular day, but my first thought was "Half the kids in his class will probably have a Thomas backpack" and I didn't want him to be one of them.</div><div><br />
</div><div>So why hadn't I said no right there? I realize now that my line of thought was "I want him to be excited about preschool and if a Thomas backpack stirs up excitement, then maybe I should get him one." But after some serious thinking, I came to the conclusion that what I want him to be excited about is learning, playing, and meeting other kids. And those have nothing to do with Thomas. </div><div><br />
</div><div>So I have spent the last two months psyching him up for all the new friends he'll make and for all the painting, building, and dress-up he'll be able to do. All the descriptions have worked; he is eager for the first day of school. And when he arrives, he'll be wearing an adorable backpack patterned with regular old run-of-the-mill trains, trucks and cars. </div><div><br />
</div><div><i><b>Do you remember you child's first "consumer moment"? What did they ask for? How did you respond? Comment below!</b></i></div></span></div></div>Brandy Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14821436974321958349noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-90717741056223428512011-08-25T07:15:00.000-07:002011-08-25T07:35:59.370-07:00Commercialized Sexualization and the Choice to Opt Out<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvI2HwC7kdBnJ10P0sTnFA0JNAwSXnv3EYNWSiDRwVjI__qjw_fXn5254nrds5aqRcN3XnWnahsHBbRffhjgCRf41zJhyphenhyphenV-RK_Rb1oJ1UlZRkFnUv0n9BM67lW2cycxXiGCznUeot5m7ao/s1600/baby_questionmark.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 169px; height: 169px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhvI2HwC7kdBnJ10P0sTnFA0JNAwSXnv3EYNWSiDRwVjI__qjw_fXn5254nrds5aqRcN3XnWnahsHBbRffhjgCRf41zJhyphenhyphenV-RK_Rb1oJ1UlZRkFnUv0n9BM67lW2cycxXiGCznUeot5m7ao/s320/baby_questionmark.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5644802185867917010" border="0" /></a>My initial thoughts about the Canadian couple refusing to make public the sex of their baby were not kind. It seemed like just another media circus fomented by parents exploiting their children for celebrity—like Jon and Kate, or the balloon boy. But two things made me change my mind. I listened to an <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2011/06/06/why-has-storms-story-struck-such-a-nerve/">actual interview</a> with the couple on the CBC. And someone sent me pictures of <a href="http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/beauty/french-lingerie-line-aimed-at-kids-2527368#photoViewer=">a new French lingerie line</a> for four year olds.
<br />
<br />Despite important gains made by the LBGT community, 2011 is a lousy time to be trying to raise children of any gender with a healthy, nuanced sense of what it means to be male or female. The unprecedented convergence of unfettered commercialism and ubiquitous screen media means that we are inundated with what the advertising industry calls “shockvertising,” ads or products designed to get our attention by being ever so much more outrageous than their competitors. The pornification of little girlhood is just one example—but it’s particularly troubling.
<br />
<br /><span class="fullpost">Marketers claim that parents don’t have to buy these products—and that they don’t even have to look at the ads. What they don’t mention is the power of advertising to normalize both the aberrant and the abhorrent. As we gaze upon photos of <a href="http://jezebel.com/5827092/fashion-industry-salivates-over-creepy-photos-of-10%2Byear%2Bold-french-girl">Thylane Loubry Blondeau</a>, the prepubescent sex pot and new darling of the fashion world, it seems positively quaint that we were so worked up years ago when nothing came between a teenage Brooke Shields and her Calvins. And, compared to the provocatively posed preschoolers now selling sex and lingerie, a ten-year-old nymphette seems—well, not so bad.
<br />
<br />But actually, it’s all bad. The commercialized sexualization that normalizes turning toddlers into teenagers harms children’s health and well-being. It teaches them to play consciously at sexuality without having any cognitive understanding of the meaning and consequences of their behavior. And the sexuality they posture about has nothing to do with relationships—it has to do with sex as object, sex as power, and sex to sell. Sexualizing little girls deprives them of middle girlhood—traditionally a time of great intellectual and creative exploration for girls who have all their basic skills down, but aren’t worrying about how they look.
<br />
<br />Which brings me back to the Canadian couple so excoriated in the media for their counter cultural decision to shield their new baby from societal mores about sex and gender. It’s not a choice I would make for an infant in my life. But when I look at what a mess we are making of how children learn about the similarities and differences between boys and girls, opting out seems suddenly more appealing.
<br /></span>Susan Linn, Ed.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/07248685286966659759noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-7968742542202201112011-08-17T09:56:00.000-07:002011-08-17T11:58:15.191-07:00Let’s tell Big Food to stop acting like spoiled kids—and stop inciting real kids to nag for junk food.<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb76_-Jww6ptkgEotRMhVy7-6UOjKxGDqWhSnPZKkdG96fnxlINeTBkEDTJe2gKc2vWRXUOkW-mcsZSuIXTBhDURaqJAuqx8B9TDp9NdTD5GZeJLubuOVEcH1TLYbNhBIJuxpWCPR0fvFE/s1600/fruitloops.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 175px; height: 161px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgb76_-Jww6ptkgEotRMhVy7-6UOjKxGDqWhSnPZKkdG96fnxlINeTBkEDTJe2gKc2vWRXUOkW-mcsZSuIXTBhDURaqJAuqx8B9TDp9NdTD5GZeJLubuOVEcH1TLYbNhBIJuxpWCPR0fvFE/s400/fruitloops.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5641872454646682722" border="0" /></a>The food industry is throwing a zillion-dollar <a href="http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/07/junk-food-industry-determined-to-target-kids/">tantrum</a> to quash <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/business/29label.html?_r=2">proposed national nutritional guidelines</a> for food advertised to kids. Meanwhile, yet another <a href="http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2011/borzekowski_nag_factor.html">research study</a> came out demonstrating the harm done by advertising directly to children.
<br />
<br />As concern about childhood obesity escalates, the barrage of kid-targeted marketing for unhealthy food is increasingly identified as a factor—not the sole cause, but an important part of the problem—which could easily be remedied. The evidence keeps building for the need to stop inundating kids with food marketing. Remember the <a href="http://news.stanford.edu/news/2007/august8/med-fastfood-080807.html">study from Stanford</a> showing that branding even trumps our senses, at least for preschoolers. Kids were given food wrapped in McDonald’s wrappers and the same food wrapped in plain wrappers, and most of them swore that the food in branded wrapping tasted better. Similarly, <a href="http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/advertising/LicensedCharacters_Pediatrics_7.10.pdf">a study from Yale</a> found that processed food tastes better to young children when its packaging is emblazoned with popular characters like Scooby Doo.
<br />
<br /><span class="fullpost">The Johns Hopkins researchers took a different tack. They looked at triggers for nagging in preschoolers, and found the more kids were exposed to commercial television—in particular beloved media characters like Dora the Explorer or SpongeBob—the more they nagged. And at the top of the list of what they nag for? Junk food.
<br />
<br />Of course, marketers already know all about commercials and nagging. They even have a name for it: The Nag Factor. The Brits call it “pester power,” which sounds more refined, but comes down to the same thing—making parents lives miserable. Like the folks at Johns Hopkins, marketers also do research on nagging. But the industry studies are not designed to help parents cope. They’re to help companies help children nag more effectively. After all, one out of three trips to a fast food restaurant comes about through nagging.
<br />
<br />The industry spin is that parents should be immune to nagging, and the study lists strategies for preventing and containing nagging. Curb children’s exposure to commercialism and prepare kids for what you are and aren’t going to buy when you go to the supermarket are two of the suggestions. They’re good suggestions (I particularly like the first one) but really, truly shouldn’t we give parents and kids a break and stop the endless barrage of junk food marketing? In fact, as I’ve said <a href="http://commercialfreechildhood.blogspot.com/2010/06/branded-bananas-arent-answer-by-susan.html">before</a>, shouldn’t we stop marketing food to children altogether?
<br />
<br />The best way to curb any kind of marketing to kids, including junk food marketing, is regulation. But the proposed Interagency Working Group guidelines are a step. That’s why the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood is joining public health and advocacy organizations in urging everyone to <a href="http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/621/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=7563">tell the food industry</a> to stop behaving like spoiled kids and do what’s best for real children—stop sabotaging the government’s food marketing guidelines.
<br /></span>Susan Linn, Ed.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/07248685286966659759noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-50187263670034327072011-08-12T09:22:00.000-07:002011-08-12T09:26:13.725-07:00Outsourcing Summer: College Essays and the Commercialization of Childhood<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimWcP-566SECcDeJ_x3UpoiR9YJYChLhkLs0YNNjXmoIcU373lGtVMkC-54RWvRwrENQwbvEFwYyYidRP-5SWTA1Rm_SE5wn8Q4mRIL4d3dOmF6Xq1PhePMgZxRoNH46r4BV_BjmnuH4Gn/s1600/college-application.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 214px; height: 158px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEimWcP-566SECcDeJ_x3UpoiR9YJYChLhkLs0YNNjXmoIcU373lGtVMkC-54RWvRwrENQwbvEFwYyYidRP-5SWTA1Rm_SE5wn8Q4mRIL4d3dOmF6Xq1PhePMgZxRoNH46r4BV_BjmnuH4Gn/s320/college-application.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5640006032382935426" border="0" /></a>A recent <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/nyregion/planning-summer-breaks-with-eye-on-college-essays.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3&sq=summer%20and%20high%20school&st=cse&scp=1">article</a> in the <span style="font-style: italic;">New York Times</span> about how high school kids are spending their summers reminded me once again that the commercialization of childhood extends way beyond Happy Meals and sexualized clothing to compromise every stage of children’s development. A commercially saturated culture has a profoundly negative influence on children’s basic assumptions, values, life choices, and experience of living.
<br />
<br />The <span style="font-style: italic;">Times</span> profiled companies like Everything Summer that craft summer experiences for teenagers designed to translate into stand-out personal essays for college admissions. There’s so much wrong with this that it’s hard to know where to begin. Never mind that it’s yet another example of how unequal opportunity is in this country. While there is a company that takes low income students on a trip to Italy, about which they are tasked to write an essay, most kids can’t afford to buy designer summers to boost their chances of getting into college. But there’s something else insidious at work.
<br />
<br /><span class="fullpost">One of the marketplace tenets so harmful to kids is that extrinsic value trumps intrinsic value. Children trained to consume learn to value things not for what they are, but as a means toward acquiring—popularity, friends, sex appeal, notoriety, success and so on. They learn to judge people by what they own and to diminish experience unless it comes with value added. They learn to read for pizza, not pleasure; choose shoes for status, not comfort; and to eat for who’s on the package, not for nutrition or even taste. They learn that the dreams, ideas, and projects they generate are not nearly as valuable as those manufactured for them.
<br />
<br />So it shouldn’t surprise me that the value of what teens do in the summer these days is judged not by the quality of their experience, but for the color it lends to their college applications. But families who outsource summer to companies manufacturing essay-worthy adventure deprive kids of the authentic challenge of figuring it out themselves—of exploring an interest for the sheer joy of it, or of discovering what it’s like to work at a boring, low-paying job, or finding out a little bit more about who they are and what they might like to become.
<br /></span>Susan Linn, Ed.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/07248685286966659759noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6371537877012050693.post-3274520245144349452011-08-05T14:05:00.000-07:002011-08-08T07:09:57.744-07:00Blue About "The Smurfs"<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8nmcwh7xueQ/TjxcVxKOGOI/AAAAAAAAAA8/khTX_kgoCIM/s1600/smurfs.jpg"><img alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5637482362604230882" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-8nmcwh7xueQ/TjxcVxKOGOI/AAAAAAAAAA8/khTX_kgoCIM/s200/smurfs.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; float: left; height: 163px; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; width: 241px;" border="0" /></a>My contemporaries and I should be called Generation Deregulation. Born in the early 1980's, we were the first to grow up immersed in TV programs designed to sell us stuff. <span style="font-style: italic;">G.I. Joe</span>,<span style="font-style: italic;"> My Little Pony</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Strawberry Shortcake</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Ninja Turtles</span>—these were the shows that dominated our after school time and playground play. Cartoon-linked products (lunch boxes, toys, clothing, you name it) were staples. Ours was a media- and merchandise-saturated environment from the get-go. We didn’t know any other world.
<br />
<br />It’s no accident that these same shows are being introduced today to a new generation of children and reintroduced to their nostalgic parents, including the film version of the 1980s cartoon <span style="font-style: italic;">The Smurfs</span> that debuted last week. Most of my generation doesn’t find anything out of the ordinary about the plethora of products being marketed with the movie; I, for one, ate Smurf-berry Crunch for breakfast and told time on a Smurfs watch. But the marketing madness surrounding <span style="font-style: italic;">The Smurfs </span>is extraordinary, and emblematic of the escalation of commercialism in children’s lives even from my own commercialized childhood.
<br />
<br /><span class="fullpost">The internet wasn’t at my fingertips as youngster, unlike today’s 6-year-old who can navigate to <span style="font-style: italic;">The Smurfs</span> website and easily find available Smurfs paraphernalia by clicking to view the film’s “<a href="http://www.smurfhappens.com/partnership/">partners</a>.” Once there, she’ll be enticed to build-a-Smurf at Build-A-Bear and “get Smurfy” with Suave Kids Body Wash. She’ll be drawn to FAO Swartz for the largest assortment of Smurfs toys, video games and backpacks, and to Kids Foot Locker where she could win a trip to “Smurf It Up in NYC.”
<br />
<br />The Smurfs are beckoning in supermarket aisles, from Stauffer’s cookies to a revamped version of Post’s Smurf-berry Crunch. And the golden arches call to her repeatedly from <a href="http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/Brandcameo-Weekend-072911-The-Smurfs.aspx">toy-laden commercials</a>, as a bizarre <a href="http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=154956">fast food version of green washing</a> reminds her that when she chooses apple dippers with her Smurfs Happy Meal, she’ll be doing good for the environment.
<br />
<br />If she actually sees <span style="font-style: italic;">The Smurfs</span> movie, she’ll be exposed to <a href="http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/Brandcameo-Weekend-072911-The-Smurfs.aspx">product placement</a> for Sony and other brands, not realizing—because she’s too young to understand—that it’s there to sell her on Sony products. Nor will she understand the intent of the commercials for <a href="http://www.brandchannel.com/home/post/Brandcameo-Weekend-072911-The-Smurfs.aspx">Smurf vacations</a> at Starwood Hotels & Resorts (but wow, will she want to go there!).
<br />
<br />The twenty-somethings who grew up in the 80’s are the new generation of parents. For the sake of nostalgia, many of us will go see the new <span style="font-style: italic;">Smurfs</span> and pick up some blue trinkets for kids. But we should think twice. Marketers are targeting children more aggressively than ever before, and we’re helping them do it. For the children in our lives, and children everywhere, we can’t continue to participate uncritically in a system that uses media to exploit kids. We need to fight for their right to a commercial-free childhood, even if that right was lost to us.
<br /></span>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com3