September 29, 2006
FCC Creates Task Force on Media and Childhood Obesity
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) wants to know if TV commercials make kids fat.
“Today, children watch two to four hours of television per day and view 40,000 ads per year. And the majority of these commercials are for candy, cereal, soda and fast food,” said Kevin Martin, chairman of the FCC, at a news conference on Wednesday. The purpose of the event was to announce the creation of a task force to determine if there is a link between TV advertising and obesity.
“The amount of television watched by American kids has been increasing in the past twenty-five years, so have their waistlines. Just this month, the Institute of Medicine found that one-third of American children are either obese or at risk for obesity. This is consistent with the Center for Disease Control’s findings a few years ago that, since 1980, the proportion of overweight children ages 6 to eleven has doubled and the number of overweight adolescents has tripled.”
The task force, said Mr. Martin, will bring together representatives from the food, television, advertising, and health industries, as well as consumer advocate groups to study the issue.
“When the task force has completed its work,” said Mr. Martin, “the FCC will issue the task force report to summarize what we have learned, encourage best practices for industry and continue to educate American parents. We all have a responsibility to promote and protect our children’s welfare.”
Discussion Questions: Do you believe there is a connection between television commercials, particularly on kids’ programming, and obesity? What should
the goal of the FCC task force be?
We have to admit to a head-scratching moment here.
As Chairman Martin pointed out at Wednesday’s news conference, with the Children’s Television Act of 1990, Congress placed limits on the amount of advertising
that could be shown during children’s television programming, largely because it was believed by lawmakers at that time that kids, especially young ones, were susceptible to television
advertising messages.
The rest of Mr. Martin’s remarks at the conference leads us to believe that there is no doubt, in his mind at least, of a connection between advertising
targeted to kids and obesity. If so, why the taskforce? By his own admission, if the findings support the notion of the connection between advertising and obesity, the task force
will “encourage best practices for industry and continue to educate American parents.” Is that anything different than what is already being done today?
BrainTrust
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Poll
What we believe and what is factually true are often different. I blame Al Gore. Children have also become more obese during Al’s global warming screed. And how about the growth of cellphone use? Childhood obesity has also increased during that period of time. Other culprits are rising oil prices, the decrease in teenage promiscuity, and increased incidents of bird flu. All are trends, and all happened while our kids were getting fatter. There must be a connection.
If TV ads were responsible for kid obesity, all we’d have to do is run ads with the opposite message in order to claim, “Honey, I Shrunk The Kids.” But we all know that’s not true — the difference between belief and fact.
Be candid. Have any of us ever been involved in a productive task force? Hands, anyone?
If you’re looking for a way to bury an issue — just start up a government task force.
Aside from charging taxpayers for travel expenses and lunch, this would appear to be another wasted effort by the federal government and one of its more toothless agencies — the FCC.
I’m all for best practices in any industry. I’m happy that they banned tobacco advertising and they should probably put some controls on hawking products to kids. This would be a first in the history of television. However, the job of advertising is to sell product, no matter what it is. Until there is a real consumer outcry for reform and companies are forced to adopt reasonably ethical standards, nothing is going to happen.
I’m not sure the product being pitched to kids on TV is all that different from what I recall 40+ years ago. Kids liked cereal and candy then, and they like it now…and this is one of the few food categories where they get to drive a lot of the decision-making process if the parents let them. What are marketers supposed to promote to kids…arthritis medicine?
The underlying issue might be the two-to-four hours of TV consumption (not the food consumption) combined with untold hours at the computer and video game console. The net effect is presumably a more sedentary lifestyle for today’s kids. This is driving health issues at least as much as the food they eat.
A minor role at best. Watching television in and of itself certainly contributes to childhood obesity, along with video games and the internet. The number one cause is parents. They’re the ones making the purchases and allowing their kids to rot in front of a television or computer.
If there’s no link between television and obesity, then food companies should immediately cancel all their TV advertising. This proof might enable Kevin Martin and the FCC to double the bottom line of hundreds of CPG companies around the world. Shareholders and executives would carry him around on their shoulders as their profit savior.
Tobacco firms can’t advertise on TV and their profits have been outstanding ever since. TV advertising is a major expense. If no food manufacturer was allowed to advertise on TV, none would be disadvantaged against any other one. Why not call a meeting of food manufacturers and have them all agree to benefit society (and themselves) by cutting off all TV advertising by December 31, 2006?
Another waste of tax payer dollars with this FCC task force. Yes, there are a lot of TV commercials, many directed to kids. In fact, kids are exposed to all kinds of advertising beyond TV – e.g. internet, billboards, radio ads, signage at retail. I guess the FCC believes that viewing a Tony the Tiger animated spot will have a young couch potato jumping up and running for cereal with all of those “empty” calories. A direct link between the amount of TV commercials kids are exposed to and childhood obesity is a real stretch. Moreover, this is old ground which congress addressed a long time ago with limits on how many spots can run per hr during kids programming. The real culprit here is American lifestyle: indulgent parents who don’t police their kids (or their own eating habits); kids educated in laziness by parents who are in front of the TV too many hrs per day; tons of junk/snack food in the home; minimal physical education & activity in or outside school; ‘grab & go’ meals, especially in households with two working parents; an unhealthy obsession with electronics – video games, internet, cell phone text messaging. TV advertising directed to kids is only the tip of the obesity iceberg but a high profile target at which FCC can direct blame. Ultimately parents need to take responsibility for their health and that of their children. If that means placing limits on TV watching or video games and kicking them outside for a little street hockey, well a little “tough love” might be good.
Association is not cause. Kid’s increased television watching is associated with increased obesity, but that doesn’t mean it causes it. Same with advertising. I’m not saying these factors AREN’T causes, only that we have no data in this discussion that indicates cause. The question then, as you have all pointed out, is: why are we, and our kids, becoming fatter? This has been researched dozens of times, including by our firm, and the answer seems to boil down to this:
When we eat food we like, we feel a psychological rush, among dozens of other effects. Just like any other pleasant activity, this can become an addiction, so that we eat when we are not hungry, and we eat more when we are. This is vastly simplified, because there are many other elements such as “provocative foods” and “deprivation fears,” but let me leave it at this.
Many of our metrics of organizations and people over the last 40 years seem to indicate that we, Americans, are becoming more and more troubled — more fear, more anxiety, more anger, more hatred. This appears to be a classic case of a deeply troubled person — “American Society” — becoming deeply addicted, to food in this example, but also to all kinds of other things, such as illegal drugs, sex, angry confrontation, reading and watching the news, money, television and movies, music-at-all-times, Internet surfing, becoming enraged over politics, etc. I know I have broadened the scope of this topic quite a bit.
Many of you have pointed out the role of parents, and it is my opinion that parents are as overwhelmed by this addiction, as a group, as are kids. We are a sick society, and food addiction is just a tiny symptom. Of course, it can feel good and righteous to take action such as regulating advertising. At least SOMETHING is being done. After all, we would have to come to agreement on the underlying cause of our addiction, and even if we did, how do you heal fear, for example, in an entire society? But of course, there is a way. There would be a number of potent efforts we could undertake as a society to help us heal, but we don’t take these, and instead we turn to these symbolic government actions. The reason we do this, our data shows, is that we are faced with very threatening and embarrassing information about ourselves in this arena, and we make all kinds of distractions to keep from effectively processing this information and creating effective solutions. This is a massive Defense Structure.
I love Mark’s observation and suggestion. Quite right, too.
Based on the increasing internet spend on kids’ websites and competitions and freebies, I would guess that many food manufacturers are gearing up to make a “voluntary” decision to cease advertising on television. They could then sit back and wait for those wonderful all-American kudos so frequently awarded for perceptions of wonderfulness. They would then seem to be responsible and ethical until enough people woke up and realised that sitting in front of a computer is just as sedentary as sitting in front of a television and that there has been no diminishing of the effects of pester power.
Being a born and bred American capitalist, I cannot deny the benefits (to corporations and investors) of the profit motive. What else was advertising invented for? But in an ideal world, what I would love to see the FCC addressing is an overall ethical policy towards marketing to children. Blaming parents or saying that kids don’t get enough exercise and waving the corporate social responsibility flag through voluntary but neutered change doesn’t really cut it. Nor does evading the issue by saying that internet content is editorial, not advertising, and therefore cannot be legislated for in the same way. This new task force may address some of the issues for some of the people but I really cannot believe it will solve all of them for all time. It strikes me as yet another empty attempt to be seen to be doing the right thing.
Jee Whiz, why not do an investigation to determine if beer commercials contribute to automobile accidents, alcoholism, broken homes, etc.? The FCC can study anything it wants but it can’t change anything. The primary change agents in our society are parents but they seem incapable of doing their job. If a parent or guardian doesn’t have enough sense to monitor their own weight and the weight of their children then we can’t blame our national obesity problem on TV or advertisers. I would suggest that if you really want to control obesity that you place a national tax of $10 per visit per person to every restaurant and a tax of 30 cents per package for every grocery item with a calorie per serving count of over 200 calories. Do the above and look for a national revolution. Weight control is in most cases , not all, a matter of personal choice. It’s the difference between “I want” and “I need.” We all need money but we all don’t rob banks. It’s a personal choice. Most overweight people choose to be overweight. The TV does not make choices for anyone.
If I have quite understood, the role of advertising is not at all to sell products? It’s only a way to give colors to life! I would like to thank all the CPG manufacturers for their philanthropy. How many billions of dollars do they expend to make the universe more colorful?
Advertised speech is still protected free speech in the United States. I do not want the lawyers to get their hands on this one.
More Discussions
Is Five Below Poised For Even Greater Growth?
Five Below is hitting serious growth numbers. Can this trend continue?Should IKEA Be Flattening Management?
Should IKEA be trimming down its management headcount?Is Legislation the Answer on Visa, Mastercard Swipe Fees as ~$200 Billion Record Is Set?
Is lawmaking the way forward on swipe fees?
What we believe and what is factually true are often different. I blame Al Gore. Children have also become more obese during Al’s global warming screed. And how about the growth of cellphone use? Childhood obesity has also increased during that period of time. Other culprits are rising oil prices, the decrease in teenage promiscuity, and increased incidents of bird flu. All are trends, and all happened while our kids were getting fatter. There must be a connection.
If TV ads were responsible for kid obesity, all we’d have to do is run ads with the opposite message in order to claim, “Honey, I Shrunk The Kids.” But we all know that’s not true — the difference between belief and fact.
Be candid. Have any of us ever been involved in a productive task force? Hands, anyone?
If you’re looking for a way to bury an issue — just start up a government task force.
Aside from charging taxpayers for travel expenses and lunch, this would appear to be another wasted effort by the federal government and one of its more toothless agencies — the FCC.
I’m all for best practices in any industry. I’m happy that they banned tobacco advertising and they should probably put some controls on hawking products to kids. This would be a first in the history of television. However, the job of advertising is to sell product, no matter what it is. Until there is a real consumer outcry for reform and companies are forced to adopt reasonably ethical standards, nothing is going to happen.
I’m not sure the product being pitched to kids on TV is all that different from what I recall 40+ years ago. Kids liked cereal and candy then, and they like it now…and this is one of the few food categories where they get to drive a lot of the decision-making process if the parents let them. What are marketers supposed to promote to kids…arthritis medicine?
The underlying issue might be the two-to-four hours of TV consumption (not the food consumption) combined with untold hours at the computer and video game console. The net effect is presumably a more sedentary lifestyle for today’s kids. This is driving health issues at least as much as the food they eat.
A minor role at best. Watching television in and of itself certainly contributes to childhood obesity, along with video games and the internet. The number one cause is parents. They’re the ones making the purchases and allowing their kids to rot in front of a television or computer.
If there’s no link between television and obesity, then food companies should immediately cancel all their TV advertising. This proof might enable Kevin Martin and the FCC to double the bottom line of hundreds of CPG companies around the world. Shareholders and executives would carry him around on their shoulders as their profit savior.
Tobacco firms can’t advertise on TV and their profits have been outstanding ever since. TV advertising is a major expense. If no food manufacturer was allowed to advertise on TV, none would be disadvantaged against any other one. Why not call a meeting of food manufacturers and have them all agree to benefit society (and themselves) by cutting off all TV advertising by December 31, 2006?
Another waste of tax payer dollars with this FCC task force. Yes, there are a lot of TV commercials, many directed to kids. In fact, kids are exposed to all kinds of advertising beyond TV – e.g. internet, billboards, radio ads, signage at retail. I guess the FCC believes that viewing a Tony the Tiger animated spot will have a young couch potato jumping up and running for cereal with all of those “empty” calories. A direct link between the amount of TV commercials kids are exposed to and childhood obesity is a real stretch. Moreover, this is old ground which congress addressed a long time ago with limits on how many spots can run per hr during kids programming. The real culprit here is American lifestyle: indulgent parents who don’t police their kids (or their own eating habits); kids educated in laziness by parents who are in front of the TV too many hrs per day; tons of junk/snack food in the home; minimal physical education & activity in or outside school; ‘grab & go’ meals, especially in households with two working parents; an unhealthy obsession with electronics – video games, internet, cell phone text messaging. TV advertising directed to kids is only the tip of the obesity iceberg but a high profile target at which FCC can direct blame. Ultimately parents need to take responsibility for their health and that of their children. If that means placing limits on TV watching or video games and kicking them outside for a little street hockey, well a little “tough love” might be good.
Association is not cause. Kid’s increased television watching is associated with increased obesity, but that doesn’t mean it causes it. Same with advertising. I’m not saying these factors AREN’T causes, only that we have no data in this discussion that indicates cause. The question then, as you have all pointed out, is: why are we, and our kids, becoming fatter? This has been researched dozens of times, including by our firm, and the answer seems to boil down to this:
When we eat food we like, we feel a psychological rush, among dozens of other effects. Just like any other pleasant activity, this can become an addiction, so that we eat when we are not hungry, and we eat more when we are. This is vastly simplified, because there are many other elements such as “provocative foods” and “deprivation fears,” but let me leave it at this.
Many of our metrics of organizations and people over the last 40 years seem to indicate that we, Americans, are becoming more and more troubled — more fear, more anxiety, more anger, more hatred. This appears to be a classic case of a deeply troubled person — “American Society” — becoming deeply addicted, to food in this example, but also to all kinds of other things, such as illegal drugs, sex, angry confrontation, reading and watching the news, money, television and movies, music-at-all-times, Internet surfing, becoming enraged over politics, etc. I know I have broadened the scope of this topic quite a bit.
Many of you have pointed out the role of parents, and it is my opinion that parents are as overwhelmed by this addiction, as a group, as are kids. We are a sick society, and food addiction is just a tiny symptom. Of course, it can feel good and righteous to take action such as regulating advertising. At least SOMETHING is being done. After all, we would have to come to agreement on the underlying cause of our addiction, and even if we did, how do you heal fear, for example, in an entire society? But of course, there is a way. There would be a number of potent efforts we could undertake as a society to help us heal, but we don’t take these, and instead we turn to these symbolic government actions. The reason we do this, our data shows, is that we are faced with very threatening and embarrassing information about ourselves in this arena, and we make all kinds of distractions to keep from effectively processing this information and creating effective solutions. This is a massive Defense Structure.
I love Mark’s observation and suggestion. Quite right, too.
Based on the increasing internet spend on kids’ websites and competitions and freebies, I would guess that many food manufacturers are gearing up to make a “voluntary” decision to cease advertising on television. They could then sit back and wait for those wonderful all-American kudos so frequently awarded for perceptions of wonderfulness. They would then seem to be responsible and ethical until enough people woke up and realised that sitting in front of a computer is just as sedentary as sitting in front of a television and that there has been no diminishing of the effects of pester power.
Being a born and bred American capitalist, I cannot deny the benefits (to corporations and investors) of the profit motive. What else was advertising invented for? But in an ideal world, what I would love to see the FCC addressing is an overall ethical policy towards marketing to children. Blaming parents or saying that kids don’t get enough exercise and waving the corporate social responsibility flag through voluntary but neutered change doesn’t really cut it. Nor does evading the issue by saying that internet content is editorial, not advertising, and therefore cannot be legislated for in the same way. This new task force may address some of the issues for some of the people but I really cannot believe it will solve all of them for all time. It strikes me as yet another empty attempt to be seen to be doing the right thing.
Jee Whiz, why not do an investigation to determine if beer commercials contribute to automobile accidents, alcoholism, broken homes, etc.? The FCC can study anything it wants but it can’t change anything. The primary change agents in our society are parents but they seem incapable of doing their job. If a parent or guardian doesn’t have enough sense to monitor their own weight and the weight of their children then we can’t blame our national obesity problem on TV or advertisers. I would suggest that if you really want to control obesity that you place a national tax of $10 per visit per person to every restaurant and a tax of 30 cents per package for every grocery item with a calorie per serving count of over 200 calories. Do the above and look for a national revolution. Weight control is in most cases , not all, a matter of personal choice. It’s the difference between “I want” and “I need.” We all need money but we all don’t rob banks. It’s a personal choice. Most overweight people choose to be overweight. The TV does not make choices for anyone.
If I have quite understood, the role of advertising is not at all to sell products? It’s only a way to give colors to life! I would like to thank all the CPG manufacturers for their philanthropy. How many billions of dollars do they expend to make the universe more colorful?
Advertised speech is still protected free speech in the United States. I do not want the lawyers to get their hands on this one.