Posted on July 29, 2011 by John P. Feldman

A Child's World without Advertising? E.U. Contemplates Ban on Advertising Directed to Kids

The global attack on advertising to children draws broad battle lines. As proposed by the European Parliament Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection on July 19, 2011, the draft agenda for 2012 demonstrates a distrust of advertising generally, not just in relation to marketing of food products. The Committee has proposed a ban on all advertising on television and on “direct advertising towards children under the age of 12.” The European lawmakers are basing their proposal on the reasoning that “children are children” and not “consumers.” The report does not explain this rationale. 

What about teenagers? Are they “consumers”? Can they make informed choices? At what age exactly does one make “informed choices” about things like which toy to desire, which sneakers to admire, which brand of yogurt to crave, or which activity to yearn for? And, when does a person learn how to discern the difference between a commercial and non-commercial speech? Furthermore, is it possible to restrict advertising to just children under the age at which they cannot appreciate the persuasive nature of advertising? How many media are segmented so clearly that one can be assured that a ban targeting children under 12 will not restrict advertising to those 12 years old or older? 

These questions are the same as those that are being researched and discussed in the United States, most recently in the context of the Interagency Working Group Proposal on Food Marketing to Children, which includes a proposal to extend restrictions (not a ban) to marketing activities directed to those 17 years of age or younger.  The primary difference, mentioned by many commenters in response to the IWG’s request for comments, is that in the United States, commercial speech is protected by the U.S. Constitution. Without that civil right, Europeans are vulnerable to governmental intervention that can chill truthful, informative speech and deny members of a consuming public – including children and adolescents – exposure to a world with choices and persuasive forces. Proposals for advertising bans such as the one in Europe may promote an extension of childhood ignorance and deny children the tools and experience by which they, along with their parents, can begin to discover what it means to be a discerning member of society.

Tags: , , ,
Posted on October 30, 2009 by Adam Snukal

Congressman Kucinich to Introduce Ad Tax Bill

To:              ANA Washington Reps and Legal Affairs Reps

From:         Dan Jaffe

Subject:    Congressman Kucinich to Introduce Ad Tax Bill

Date:          October 29, 2009

 

We have learned that Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich plans soon to introduce legislation to eliminate the tax deduction for certain food advertising directed to children.

This comes on top of the legislation introduced on October 8th by Senators Al Franken (D-MN), Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) to disallow the deduction for DTC prescription drug advertising and promotion expenses.  They intend to try to move that bill as part of the Senate’s consideration of health care reform.

The tax deduction for advertising costs is the number one bottom line issue for the entire marketing community.  In addition to product-specific attacks on food and pharmaceutical advertising, we face a serious threat of an across-the-board attack on the tax deductibility of all advertising expenditures as the Congress looks for revenue to fund various programs.

We need your help to protect the deductibility of all marketing costs.  It would be very helpful if you would contact the members of Congress where you have employees or operations to express your opposition to any restriction on the deduction for advertising costs for any product or service.  If we don’t oppose attacks on product-specific categories, we will face increasing pressures across the board.  As Benjamin Franklin said, “we must all hang together or most assuredly we will all hang separately.”

ANA is working with all other marketing and media associations to let Congress know that we stand united in opposition to any attack on ad deductibility, on an across the board or product specific basis.  It is critical that members also hear directly from the companies that provide jobs in their states and districts.

We will provide more information on the Kucinich legislation on food advertising deductibility as well as Senator Franken’s bill as it becomes available.

If you have any questions about this matter, please contact Dan Jaffe (djaffe@ana.net) or Keith Scarborough (kscarborough@ana.net) in ANA’s Washington, D.C. office at (202) 296-1883.  Please let us know of any feedback you get from these contacts.

 

Dan Jaffe
EVP, Government Relations
Association of National Advertisers
202-296-2359 office
646-369-4886 cell

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted on December 2, 2008 by Douglas J. Wood

Food Companies Try To Adopt Common Labeling Solution

In response to consumers’ desires to easily identify healthier food and beverage options, a number of major food and beverage producers have announced they are provisionally onboard with developing an industry-wide labeling program.

The Smart Choices Program is being launched under the auspices of The Keystone Center, a nonprofit Colorado-based organization that brings together public and private stakeholders to address social issues. Since the devil is in the details, the details surrounding the program’s implementation have not been settled, The Keystone Center warned in announcing the program’s rollout.

Nonetheless, companies that so far have stepped forward as “likely implementers” of the new labeling program include many of the industry’s heavy hitters: Coca-Cola (US), ConAgra Foods, General Mills, Kellogg Company (US), Kraft Foods, PepsiCo (US), Unilever (US) and Wal-Mart. In addition, Nestlé is in the process of reviewing the program to determine whether it will participate.

“Because shoppers are often strapped for time and need to make choices quickly, the Smart Choices Program will provide at-a-glance information on the front of the package, in addition to the Nutrition Facts panel on the back of packages,” The Keystone Center stated.

Symbols to appear on the front of packaging are a green “Smart Choices” box, which includes a large check mark, and a smaller box that lists calories per serving and servings per package. The goal is to help people easily identify food items that will help them stay within their caloric needs, the Center stated.

The program, which is being put together by a coalition of academicians, nutrition educators, public health organizations, food manufacturers, retailers, and government observers, is designed to be voluntary. The Center said food companies will be encouraged to adopt the system to reduce the clutter that currently exists amid health claims that appear on packaging,

Nutritional guidelines used to develop the program were taken from U.S. Dietary Guidelines, as well as other sources. To qualify for the “Smart Choices” label, products will be evaluated in 18 product categories. For each category, a product must meet the requirements for “nutrients to limit and nutrients to encourage.” Foods that exceed an allowed limit of “nutrients to limit” cannot compensate by have a having a higher quantity of “nutrients to encourage.”

Why This Matters: The food and beverage industry is under enormous pressure from regulators, legislators and advocates to develop self-regulatory solutions that help consumers combat obesity and other diet-related health risks. A voluntary labeling program is one such tool.
Tags: , ,
Posted on November 4, 2008 by Carolyn E. Pepper

Children TV food ad restrictions not working, UK consumer body claims

This post was written by Carolyn E. Pepper and Tina Sany-Davies. 

OFCOM, the UK media regulator, published rules regarding advertising food and drink products to children.

A consumer watchdog in the UK, Which?, has said that the rules, which aim to curb advertising foods assessed as high in fat, salt and sugar ("HFSS") to children, are not working.

Which? conducted a two-week analysis and found adverts for products such as Coca-Cola, which reportedly contains 13 teaspoons of sugar per 500 ml, and Kellogg's Coco Pops, which is more than one-third sugar, were broadcast during programmes popular with children and were not caught by recent restrictions.

The OFCOM rules state that adverts for HFSS foods are not allowed to be shown in or around programmes of particular appeal to under-16s. If the proportion of those under 16 watching a programme is 20 percent higher than the general viewing population, then the programme is considered to be of particular appeal to under-16s.

Which? revealed through its report that none of the programmes with the five highest child audiences is covered by the restrictions imposed by OFCOM in January.

Therefore, while shows such as "The Simpsons" and "SpongeBob Square Pants" are caught by the rules, other shows such as "Beat The Star" and "Animals Do The Funniest Things" are not, despite being watched by thousands more children.

According to the two-week analysis conducted by Which?, "Animals Do The Funniest Things," a home video show where viewers send in amusing clips of their animals, was viewed by 370,600 children under 16, and included adverts for Cadbury's Creme Egg Twisted, Maryland Chocolate Chip Cookies, Nachos and Kraft's Dairylea Dunkers.

By contrast, "Shaggy and Scooby Doo get a clue" and "SpongeBob Square Pants", which are both caught by OFCOM's restrictions, did not have adverts for HFSS foods.

Which? food campaigner Clare Corbett said, "The ad restrictions may look good on paper but the reality is that the programmes most popular with children are slipping through the net. If these rules are going to be effective, then they have to apply to the programmes that children watch in the greatest numbers."

Chief executive of the Advertising Association, Baroness Peta Buscombe, called the Which? report "sensationalist, unconstructive and missing the point." She added, "Their list includes programmes clearly not aimed at children and films screened after 10 p.m. There clearly has to be an element of parental responsibility on which programmes they allow their children to view."

A Department for Culture, Media and Sport spokesman said, "Although children still see some of these advertisements, the current OFCOM regulations mean that the viewing of these adverts by children is reduced by an estimated 50%, an impressive amount. We appreciate that there are calls for further restrictions on UK TV advertising but these should be considered once we have had a chance to assess the impact of current measures."

OFCOM is set to report on the success of its restrictions in December this year.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted on October 2, 2008 by John P. Feldman

Senate Committee Hears Disparate Messages on Food Marketing

Just before the market melt-down captured the attention of Congress, a subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee held the latest in what has become a series of hearings on the state of food marketing to children and its links to the obesity epidemic.

In testimony that reads much like students reporting on the progress of long-term research assignments, the various constituencies-regulators, industry representatives and advocates-weighed in. Presiding was Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who convened the public-private Joint Task Force on Media and Childhood Obesity, and who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies.

In testimony that mirrored a report submitted to the subcommittee in July, Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Jon Leibowitz cited with approval the food industry's self-regulatory efforts through an initiative established by the Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB). Under the CBBB initiative, participating companies develop individual pledges to limit their advertising to young children to healthier foods.

"Under the right circumstances, industry-generated solutions have the potential to address a public health problem of this magnitude quickly, creatively, and flexibly," Commissioner Leibowitz stated.

However, Patti Miller, Vice President of Children Now, disagreed as to the effectiveness of the CBBB initiative. "The initiative is insufficient for three main reasons," she stated. She cited the lack of uniform nutritional standards defining healthier foods and beverages, a "loop hole" that allows companies to advertise "better for you" foods that contain reduced amounts of sugar and fat, but are nonetheless not healthy, and the lack of participation by media companies.

Some media companies have taken steps to limit advertising to healthier foods, restrict licensing of their popular kids' characters to healthier foods, and provide healthy lifestyle messaging, testified Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin J. Martin.

Nonetheless, Chairman Martin also pronounced himself "disappointed in those media companies [that have] made no solid commitments in these areas." He cited the UK's communications authority, Ofcom, which has banned advertising of high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) foods and beverages to children on children's television channels.

"While it was-and always is-my hope that we will not have to resort to actual requirements, and I strongly encouraged the media companies to propose some voluntary limitations on advertising targeting our children, in the end no widespread voluntary commitment on behalf of the media industry was forthcoming," he said.

Access the hearing testimony at appropriations.senate.gov.  

Read more about the issue at startribune.com.  

Read previous KidAdLaw coverage about the FTC's food marketing report. 

Tags: , , , , , , ,