GOP decries "nanny state" push on junk food ads

AP/CBS/Kellogs/GeneralMills/Keebler/Kraft

To supporters, it's simply a way to help corporations be good citizens and combat America's childhood obesity epidemic. To critics, it's the latest example of "nanny state" overreach by the federal government that could cost money and jobs.

The issue? A proposed set of voluntary guidelines backed by the Obama administration designed to limit the marketing of junk food to children through mascots like "Tony the Tiger," the smiling animated figure used for decades to sell Kellogg's "Frosted Flakes" breakfast cereal. Under the guidelines, companies would only be able to advertize and promote healthy foods low in fat, sugar and sodium to kids from ages 2-17, though the final set of guidelines will likely only range up to age 12.

Food companies, which spend roughly $2 billion per year marketing to kids, have been lobbying hard against the proposed guidelines, which were proposed by an array of government agencies. They've found an ally in House Republicans, who are seeking to force the Federal Trade Commission to study the potential impact of the guidelines before adopting them.

Many companies - including Kellogg Company, Burger King Corp., Kraft Foods and The Coca-Cola Company - already participate in a self-regulation program for ads targeting kids under 12, which is called the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. But Margo Wootan, a nutrition scientist at the Center for Science in the Public Interest and backer of federal government guidelines, suggests the initiative has little impact because individual companies set their own guidelines.

In other words: If a company sells products low in sugars but high in sodium, she says, they simply tailor their guidelines to their products, setting a strict standard for marketing sugary products but a loose standard for marketing salty ones. The proposed set of government guidelines, Wootan argues, would mean a standardization that would force them to actually stop marketing unhealthy foods - and "expose what they have been doing on food marketing is not nearly as meaningful as they make it out to be."

"They couldn't keep saying they're not marketing to kids so easily," she says.

Wootan stresses the voluntary nature of the guidelines, noting that the government is not imposing them on the companies.

But Republican Rep. Jack Kingston of Georgia worries about voluntary becoming mandatory in the future.

"What's voluntary today becomes a regulation tomorrow," Kingston says. He complains of a "nanny state" push to "regulate Honey Nut Cheerios."

Kingston says the government is being hypocritical by seeking to limit the advertizing of certain foods to kids while simultaneously allowing those foods to be consumed through the Food Stamp program and the WIC (Woman, Infants, Children) program that provides grants to states for supplemental foods.

If the foods in question are "so bad and evil," he argues, "then by all means eliminate them from the federal government nutrition programs."

"If they have serious evidence about the dangers of Fruit Loops, they need to present that to us," he adds.

Kingston, who describes Michelle Obama's anti-obesity effort as "one of those little projects that the first lady has chosen" that has had little real impact, complains of a potential situation in which "you could watch [MTV explicit teen drama] Skins, but you can't watch a Fruit Loops commercial." He says efforts to reduce childhood obesity should be focused on creating a "culture of health," in part through encouraging more exercise.

Republican Rep. Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri - who stresses that she isn't "a right wing, radical conservative by any stretch" - also opposes the guidelines and looks skeptically at claims that they will remain voluntary, arguing that "we all know that things that started as voluntary somehow become the rule of the land." (Wootan points out that the Congress barred the FTC in 1980 from issuing industry-wide regulations on advertizing.) Emerson also says it is reasonable to seek a cost/benefit analysis before proceeding.

"Every single regulation where we don't know how much it's going to cost the industry creates more uncertainty," she says, arguing that the guidelines could ultimately cost jobs. Her chief of staff, Jeffrey Connor, complained that the standards are "aggressive" and are "excluding products that have healthy benefits especially compared to what else is out there."

Opponents of the guidelines are seeking to include a provision in the FTC budget requiring the cost/benefit analysis to adopting the guidelines; that budget needs to clear both the House and the Senate.

If the guidelines are put in place, Emerson says, "suddenly you can't advertise water or Gatorade on some sports show because somebody who's under 18 might look at it? I mean, come on, this is outrageous."

"There are some folks in government today who just because we're unable as the American people to make our own decisions itself," she adds.

Wootan looks at such claims incredulously - asking, "how do voluntary standards constitute government overreach?" - and says she expects the final guidelines will only cover kids age 2-11, with standards for teens only applying in schools. She also says critics are "cherry-picking" examples of relatively healthy foods that could be affected by the guidelines, such as wheat bread with high levels of sodium, in order to distract from the larger issue as well as the negative health effects of many foods marketed to children.

"I know that there is a sizeable group in Washington these days that are very concerned about government overreach," she says. "...but you know, they should be happy with this approach. Because advocates like me, we're not asking for the government to step in to fix this problem. What we're doing is relying on companies to manage the problem themselves."

The FTC says it expects the guidelines, if implemented, would encourage companies to make their foods healthier by, for example, reducing sugar and increasing whole grains in cereals. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 17 percent of children and adolescents in the United States are now obese - triple the rate that existed 30 years ago.

[outsource_congress]

I fail to see how advertising is going to have any significant impact on overall health of the population as long as the government sanctions genetically modified foods, toxic imports from China, salmonella eggs and peanuts, e-coli spinach and meat products to be marketed. Maybe we should first try getting the FDA to actually do the job the organization was created to do. Then maybe getting the FTC to do the job they are supposed to do with truth in advertising.

The government is letting corporations contaminate our food supply chain daily with toxins, to the point you can't even obtain food stuffs that won't kill you, so how is cutting out cartoon characters going to help anything?

[Dgunner]

Kentucky fried chicken and mcdonalds and burger king are the three worst threats to our childrens future since polio.People are feeding thier kids to death. Thier should be one dollar taken from a couples tax return for every pound thier kid is over weight. I know this sounds like socialism but A law of this impact would indeed put a crimp in the slow murdering fast food industry.Then again the parents who feed thier kids this junk are too smart any way or just don't care about the future chances of thier children living long enough to have grand children which they can kill by feeding them the same diet.

[nottblu]

How many people do those businesses employ? Alcohol is also life threatening, do you want those stores shut down also or is your outrage simply selective?

[Mortarman429]

What about the government setting mandatory workouts...telling people that they must work out so many hours per week, or they will be fined? That okay with you, gunner?

[alanrobisch]

Goplies you are a liberal who thinks that government should replace the parents and these suggestions will not change the eating habits of americans. Recently cell phone use while driving was banned in many states yet I still many people doing it. I seem to ntoe that many liberals want o legalize drugs because we cannot stop them gfrom being used. Drug use in excess is a real danger and using any narcotic and then driving can be a serious danger yet there is a push to legalize them so why does the govt think it will help to create voluntary guidelines. Mandatory seems to me to be an abridgement of free speech and when I was a boy and advertisement for sweet treats was the same as today obesity was not an epidemic

[nottblu]

slow it's one thing to inform and another to control.

[tsigili]

It isn't a "nanny state" issue.......it is a health issue, where people are being hoodwinked into thinking that junk food is ok, when it is literally, unhealthy.

In today's world of hucksters, and carnival barkers, on every corner, it is ok to tell people the truth. Junk food can harm their health for life, when consumed in childhood.

[rmacgilv]

Michelle better lay off the fries or she'll need a red flag on her hind quarters warning for a wide load.

[starving1968-3]

by troutfishman2 July 7, 2011 5:55 PM EDT
"To critics, it's the latest example of "nanny state" overreach by the federal government that could cost money and jobs."


Is it not interesting how the GOP is only worried about "money and jobs"? We see this mantra over and over, whether it is health issues, environmental issues, climate change, etc. The only thing that matters to them is "money and jobs".






It's from the George Bush playbook: EVERYTHING bad that happened to this country was because of "terrorism" and / or the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

In July of 2007 he was giving a speech and while elaborating on how and why the housing market was collapsing, "naturally - as it always does" he said. He said that the collapse was being felt a little harder than in the past because of "the attacks of September 11th".

That's why his presidency was such a failure: everything the conservatives did that harmed this nation - and that was a BIG LIST - was written off because of 9/11 rather than them ever manning up and admitting how grotesquely they harmed this once great nation.

[starving1968-3]

Now, they have NOTHING to stand on politically except to demonize the democrats for the "jobs" that the republicans watch go overseas to foster their "globalization" desires from the 2000's.

[starving1968-3]

by nottblu July 7, 2011 5:56 PM EDT
trout, you wouldn't say that if you met them, I did my job as parent and they turned out more successful and better than I.







How could they turn out worse than a numb minded, easily brainwashed, political tool that falls for EVERY lie that the conservatives drill into the last of his four brains cells?

[nottblu]

you people are dispicablr trollswho withyour own words prove it. Both hypocrites of the ultimate degree, while you may feel superior to evryone else your idiotic partisan insulting words prove otherwise. All you people ever have are conjecture, false assertions, and false genralizations you are both made for each other.

[DF68]

Again, the GOP takes offense to good sense reminiscent of someone "peeing in their cornflakes".

For decades, the nutrition and calorie labels have been a joke and in favor of food manufacturers. The label info is based on a 2000 calorie diet. The problem with that criteria is that a lot of people consume far more than 2000 calories a day. It's probably safe to say that most people have no idea how many calories they consume a day.

So, when you see that percent of daily calories coming from protein, carbs, and fat on the food label , that's "not" the percent of protein, carbs, and fat in a "serving" of the food item. That percentage on the food label is the percent of how much protein, carbs, and fat that a serving factors into a 2000 calorie a day diet. The food labels are grossly and purposely misleading.

Case in point, who'd ever think a granola bar could be bad for you? Well, when you do the math, you find out just how much of a granola bar is fat. Yes, some dietary fat is good, but when 50% to 80% of a serving of a food product is fat, you're not doing yourself any favors. If people had any clue as to how much fat they're truly consuming while thinking they're eating something healthy, they would stop eating that perceived healthy food product. Of course, the food manufactures would not be happy if you got wise to the food label deception.

Do some math. Find out how many calories are in a serving of a food product that's considered bad for you. Don't be surprised when your calculation "per serving" shows that food item to 2 to 3 times more fat laden than what's specified on the label. Again, the reason the calculations show there to be more fat per serving is because the label info is based on a 2000 calorie diet, not per serving, i.e. reality.


1 gram of protein is 4 calories. Based on the info from the food label, multiply the number of protein grams by 4 to find how many protein calories are in one serving of the food product. Next, divide that protein calorie value into the calories per serving value to find out what percentage of a serving is protein.

1 gram of carbs is 4 calories. Based on the info from the food label, multiply the number of carb grams by 4 to find how many carb calories are in one serving of the food product. Next, divide that carb calorie value into the calories per serving value to find out what percentage of a serving is carbohydrate.

1 gram of fat is 9 calories. Based on the info from the food label, multiply the number of fat grams by 4 to find how many fat calories are in one serving of the food product. Next, divide that fat calorie value into the calories per serving value to find out what percentage of a serving is fat.


One of many articles on the subject of just how much fat should be in your diet. There are comparable articles on how much sugar/carbs should be in your diet, but I'll leave the searching to you. As a recommendation, try WebMD for daily calorie consumption and nutrient composition info.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/269375-what-percentage-of-my-daily-calories-should-come-from-fat/

[starving1968-3]

by nottblu July 7, 2011 5:21 PM EDT
so of course the kool-aid man is to blame not the parents who control the childs eating habits and diet, thanks for clearing that up.







Obviously you're not a parent.

If you were, you'd realize that there's NO WAY that parents can follow their kids around 24/7 and monitor what they eat.

[nottblu]

I am the parent of three succuessful members of society. Believe it or not I was able to achieve this feat without the government telling me what to feed them or how to parent them, and by the way they are not obese. With your perpsective I am grateful nobody decided to procreate with you.

[nottblu]

trout, you wouldn't say that if you met them, I did my job as parent and they turned out more successful and better than I, that's what all parents hope for. What would all this back and forth be like if the dems had railed against the vilification of the kool-aid man? Never mind that wouldn't happen.

[starving1968-3]

by nottblu July 7, 2011 5:20 PM EDT
this article is about the democratic administrations move to ban the kool-aid man, tony the tiger, the keebler elf, captain crunch, the lucky charms lepricon, et al it's not about gay marriage or abortion or legalizing drugs, thought youshould know.






No - it's about the republicans hypocrisy.

They find it perfectly acceptable to tell two consenting adults what they can do in their bedrooms, and have NO PROBLEM passing laws trying to regulate gay marriage, because the freedom of the individual is ZERO on their "importance factor".

But trying to institute VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES, (not a ban as your lie above states), which will help prevent childhood obesity is "over reach" in their, (and your), hypocritical minds.