Sorry Mrs. O, but jumping jacks aren’t enough

At a recent summit on childhood obesity, the first lady announced a shift in her well-known Let's Move 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."

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.

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 embraces.

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.) The goals or "pillars" of the campaign 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.

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 given praise where praise was due, such as when the first lady recommended -- as part of a checklist for daycare centers to follow -- significant limits on screen time for children.

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 question the first lady's renewed emphasis on exercise, she got set straight by White House chef and Let's Move advisor Sam Kass; that's how touchy this subject is.)

Exercise is fun, but it doesn't match the science

Putting politics aside for a moment, let's talk research, which can often get lost in the shuffle or, worse, distorted by corporate interests.

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.

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 here, here, here, and here.) On the contrary, data shows that an increase in food intake alone explains the rise in obesity in children.

Children's diets have changed so drastically in the last few decades, with the increase in calories, for example, due to soda and fast food so large, that moderate increases in exercise are not likely to make a difference.

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."

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 allergies.

So if science isn't driving the exercise bandwagon, what is?

Playing it safe

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 hailed Walmart's so-called "healthy food initiative" as a new "nutrition charter." Of course, Walmart hasn't exactly kept its promises when it comes to the environment, so we have little reason to trust the company when it comes to nutrition.

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.

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 hostile takeover of the USDA's school food regulations by Congress on behalf of the frozen food lobby was one such example.

From the beginning, Let's Move has also been mostly MIA on the extremely contentious and intractable problem of junk food marketing to children.

In one exception, the first lady gave a strong speech 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?"

But her admonishments had little impact. Instead, the food industry has launched a no-holds-barred attack on an attempt by the federal government to place reasonable, science-based, voluntary restrictions on food marketing to children.

To make its case to the feds, 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 amount."

The argument was based on a bogus economic study, 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, noted:

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.

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.

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 Let's Move has broken a record for jumping jacks, it's disappointing to say the least.

Here's what Freedhoff had to say to the first lady:

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.

Let's Cook? Uh-oh, sounds like a job killer. Read more!

School food politics: What’s missing from the pizza-as-vegetable reporting

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: “Is Pizza Sauce a Vegetable? Congress says Yes.” (The blogs were a tad more childish; for example LA Weekly: Congress to USDA: Pizza is So a Vegetable, Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah Nah.)

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 story:

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.

Meanwhile, a few other reports did a better job of explaining the massive industry lobbying at play. (See, for example, Mother Jones’ Tom Philpott and Ed Bruske aka The Slow Cook, a hero in school food reporting.)

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.

History: 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 recommendations for USDA to follow – based on science.  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. 

Common sense: 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 MyPlate, released to much fanfare earlier this year, which recommends half the meal be comprised of fresh fruits and vegetables, not tater tots and pizza. 

Politics: 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 thrilled with this outcome.) But almost everyone missed the industry front group,”The Coalition for Sustainable Meal Programs.” (I could not make that one up.) And once again, we need more context.

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 Congress has hijacked the USDA regulatory process to do the food industry’s bidding.

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.

You know things are bad politically when even USDA (seeming a tad shell-shocked) defended its proposed rules, telling the Washington Post that keeping pizza in schools won’t save any money, as the GOP claimed.

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?

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. Read more!

PepsiCo wants to “scare the crap” out of your kids

 The "chainsaw-wielding maniac" from Frito-Lay's online game.

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 "Performance with Purpose" and show off 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.

Now the company's true colors are revealed in all their twisted marketing glory. A legal complaint filed today with the Federal Trade Commission by the Center for Digital Democracy  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.

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 report will freak you out, either as a parent or just a human being.

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.

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."

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.

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.

These techniques are not just gross, they also happen to violate the law. As the press release 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."

As I was writing this (at 11pm) I decided to visit Asylum 626 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.

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.

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."

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.

Given the Obama Administration's reluctance 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.

Kudos to the groups bringing PepsiCo's disgusting marketing tactics to light. I highly recommend reading the documents they worked so hard on and watching the videos, if you can stomach it. (The most revealing details are in the complaint appendixes.) 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. Read more!

Let’s tell Big Food to stop acting like spoiled kids—and stop inciting real kids to nag for junk food.

The food industry is throwing a zillion-dollar tantrum to quash proposed national nutritional guidelines for food advertised to kids. Meanwhile, yet another research study came out demonstrating the harm done by advertising directly to children.

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 study from Stanford 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 study from Yale found that processed food tastes better to young children when its packaging is emblazoned with popular characters like Scooby Doo.

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.

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.

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 before, shouldn’t we stop marketing food to children altogether?

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 tell the food industry to stop behaving like spoiled kids and do what’s best for real children—stop sabotaging the government’s food marketing guidelines.
Read more!

Save Cheerios Not Children? Why food industry self-regulation just isn’t going to work

When it comes to marketing to children, self-regulation is never going to work, and an article in the Wall Street Journal gets to the crux of why it won’t. Elaine Kolish, vice president and director of the food industry’s Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, told Congress that the voluntary nutritional standards proposed by a group of federal agencies for what could and could not be marketed to children were too strict. "There are very few products, period, that meet these standards, whether they're primarily consumed by adults or children.”

According to the article, Kolish said that, “General Mills Inc. would be unable to gear advertising for Cheerios cereal, with 190 milligrams of sodium per serving, to children because it has more sodium than the standards would allow.”

If Cheerios doesn’t meet public health standards for sodium, shouldn’t the burden be on General Mills to come up with a formula that does, rather than expecting the standards to be lowered to meet its product line? The food industry’s answer is a resounding “No.” The industry’s position is clear—profits trump children’s health. Which is why they shouldn’t be in charge of setting nutrition standards for anyone, let alone children.

The voluntary restrictions proposed by the federal agencies last December were supposed to be made public and available for comment before reaching Congress on July 15th, but that hasn’t happened yet. The reasons for the delay have also not been made public. When and if these voluntary restrictions are put it place, it will be interesting to see if Cheerios makes the list of foods acceptable to market to children.

I’m betting it will. Read more!

Scooby-Doo Salad? No Thanks. by Susan Linn, Ed.D.

I happen to know a five-year-old fan of SpongeBob SquarePants who told her father, in no uncertain terms, that SpongeBob mac and cheese tastes better than any other macaroni and cheese.  It turns out she was right—sort of. A recent study from the Rudd Center at Yale found that characters like Scooby-Doo and Dora the Explorer actually influence how children experience the taste of junk food, as well as their choice for a snack. The study provides more evidence that marketing can trump children’s senses.  Last year, researchers at Stanford found that children believed that food wrapped in McDonalds packaging tastes better than food wrapped in plain wrappers.

What interests me most about the Rudd Center study, however, is that it found no statistically significant evidence that media characters have an impact on how children experience the taste of carrots.  That’s important news for policy makers.  It’s the fashion in some nutrition circles to advocate for using media characters to market healthy or “healthier” food to children, but that has never made sense to me.  It’s not good for children to get in the habit of choosing food—any kind of food—based on which character is on the package.

Meanwhile, market research suggests that parents are not swarming to buy branded produce.  A 2008 survey found that half of parents said that cartoon characters  on packaging would not affect whether or not they buy produce—and almost 30 percent said that they “probably” or “definitely” would not buy character branded fruits and vegetables. The same survey showed that while sales of branded produce increased when the products were first introduced, sales declined as much as 67 percent over the course of a year.

Taken together, these studies suggest that branding bananas and other produce will not have a serious impact on children’s diets.  Based on the results of their study, the Rudd Center researchers suggest that rather than ramping up the use of licensed characters to market healthy foods, we need to restrict the use of these characters to market low-nutrient, high-energy foods.  Christina Roberta, the study’s lead author, writes, “Given that 13% of marketing expenditures targeting youths are spent on character licensing and other forms of cross-promotion, our findings suggest that the use of licensed characters on junk food packaging should be restricted.”

One thing is clear: we can’t rely on corporations to stop using characters on junk food packaging.  Such marketing is increasing, not decreasing—in spite of food industry pledges to responsibly address the childhood obesity epidemic. Instead of turning carrots into shills for Scooby-Doo, we should be helping children develop relationships with food that have to do with taste and nutrition, not celebrity.  Government restrictions on food companies’ use of characters in marketing to kids will afford parents more freedom to shape children’s healthy eating habits. Read more!