Comments on: Standards for marketing foods to kids: tentative, proposed, weak http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/12/standards-for-marketing-foods-to-kids-tentative-proposed-weak/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 22:07:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Selling Food to Kids | Chiropractors Sacramento http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/12/standards-for-marketing-foods-to-kids-tentative-proposed-weak/comment-page-1/#comment-192114 Selling Food to Kids | Chiropractors Sacramento Thu, 29 Dec 2011 02:46:07 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1858#comment-192114 [...] For more information visit Marion Nestle’s website about Food Politics. [...] [...] For more information visit Marion Nestle’s website about Food Politics. [...]

]]> By: Has the White House Given Up on Standards for Food Marketing? | Email Marketing to Schools http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/12/standards-for-marketing-foods-to-kids-tentative-proposed-weak/comment-page-1/#comment-142639 Has the White House Given Up on Standards for Food Marketing? | Email Marketing to Schools Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:29:44 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1858#comment-142639 [...] The proposed standards, please recall, are voluntary. And I didn’t think they were all that restrictive (see previous post). [...] [...] The proposed standards, please recall, are voluntary. And I didn’t think they were all that restrictive (see previous post). [...]

]]> By: Don’t eat your broccoli: Junk food industry determined to target kids | Grist http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/12/standards-for-marketing-foods-to-kids-tentative-proposed-weak/comment-page-1/#comment-98777 Don’t eat your broccoli: Junk food industry determined to target kids | Grist Tue, 19 Jul 2011 14:05:02 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1858#comment-98777 [...] from the start. In late 2009, the IWG released its first proposal, which Marion Nestle politely called "weak." But even this step proved too much for industry. Then we waited for the next round. And [...] [...] from the start. In late 2009, the IWG released its first proposal, which Marion Nestle politely called "weak." But even this step proved too much for industry. Then we waited for the next round. And [...]

]]> By: Selling Food to Kids | 999 Chiropractor http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/12/standards-for-marketing-foods-to-kids-tentative-proposed-weak/comment-page-1/#comment-34515 Selling Food to Kids | 999 Chiropractor Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:59:25 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1858#comment-34515 [...] For more information visit Marion Nestle’s website about Food Politics. [...] [...] For more information visit Marion Nestle’s website about Food Politics. [...]

]]> By: Selling Food to Kids | Chiropractic for Health http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/12/standards-for-marketing-foods-to-kids-tentative-proposed-weak/comment-page-1/#comment-34513 Selling Food to Kids | Chiropractic for Health Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:22:34 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1858#comment-34513 [...] For more information visit Marion Nestle’s website about Food Politics. [...] [...] For more information visit Marion Nestle’s website about Food Politics. [...]

]]> By: Selling Food to Kids | Phillips Chiropractic http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/12/standards-for-marketing-foods-to-kids-tentative-proposed-weak/comment-page-1/#comment-34511 Selling Food to Kids | Phillips Chiropractic Tue, 05 Jan 2010 17:25:05 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1858#comment-34511 [...] For more information visit Marion Nestle’s website about Food Politics. [...] [...] For more information visit Marion Nestle’s website about Food Politics. [...]

]]> By: Anthro http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/12/standards-for-marketing-foods-to-kids-tentative-proposed-weak/comment-page-1/#comment-34332 Anthro Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:45:45 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1858#comment-34332 @Ronald The whole idea of advertising to children is to get them to NAG their parents. Millions have been spent of the psychology of this approach. What's worse is that the wingnuts turn around and try to reduce the issue to one of parental responsibility. Take a look at "Appetite For Profit" by attorney, Michelle Simon for a good look at advertising and the food industry. To Someone Else Above: Sadly, PBS now has many corporate sponsors (cereal, McDonald's) on children's shows. Kill your television. @Ronald

The whole idea of advertising to children is to get them to NAG their parents. Millions have been spent of the psychology of this approach. What’s worse is that the wingnuts turn around and try to reduce the issue to one of parental responsibility.

Take a look at “Appetite For Profit” by attorney, Michelle Simon for a good look at advertising and the food industry.

To Someone Else Above: Sadly, PBS now has many corporate sponsors (cereal, McDonald’s) on children’s shows. Kill your television.

]]> By: Helen http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/12/standards-for-marketing-foods-to-kids-tentative-proposed-weak/comment-page-1/#comment-34329 Helen Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:29:58 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1858#comment-34329 I'm wondering if we need an all or nothing kind of law regarding advertising to children. Back in the day before cable, that was one reason my kids watched a lot of PBS: no advertising at all. Children believe everything, including that those special shoes really make you run faster and jump higher. I can still sing the Nestle's Quik jingle from the 1950's, and see the dog puppet snapping his mouth shut at the end of his "song". Advertising to children is big business, and what will the fast food companies, for starters, do of they can't advertise to children? Most three year olds in urban settings recognize fast food logos, and if you don't believe that, just drive by McDonalds (or Tim Hortons if you're Canadian) and see what they say. If they've ever gotten food from there, they are just as persistant as my friend's collie who recognizes the Dairy Freeze drive-in, where she's eaten soft serve cones. I’m wondering if we need an all or nothing kind of law regarding advertising to children. Back in the day before cable, that was one reason my kids watched a lot of PBS: no advertising at all. Children believe everything, including that those special shoes really make you run faster and jump higher. I can still sing the Nestle’s Quik jingle from the 1950′s, and see the dog puppet snapping his mouth shut at the end of his “song”. Advertising to children is big business, and what will the fast food companies, for starters, do of they can’t advertise to children? Most three year olds in urban settings recognize fast food logos, and if you don’t believe that, just drive by McDonalds (or Tim Hortons if you’re Canadian) and see what they say. If they’ve ever gotten food from there, they are just as persistant as my friend’s collie who recognizes the Dairy Freeze drive-in, where she’s eaten soft serve cones.

]]> By: uberVU - social comments http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/12/standards-for-marketing-foods-to-kids-tentative-proposed-weak/comment-page-1/#comment-34328 uberVU - social comments Sat, 19 Dec 2009 18:18:38 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1858#comment-34328 <strong>Social comments and analytics for this post...</strong> This post was mentioned on Twitter by ChristieKeith: RT @marionnestle Standards for marketing foods to kids: tentative, proposed, weak http://cli.gs/tashd... Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by ChristieKeith: RT @marionnestle Standards for marketing foods to kids: tentative, proposed, weak http://cli.gs/tashd...

]]> By: Parke http://www.foodpolitics.com/2009/12/standards-for-marketing-foods-to-kids-tentative-proposed-weak/comment-page-1/#comment-34326 Parke Sat, 19 Dec 2009 17:00:06 +0000 http://www.foodpolitics.com/?p=1858#comment-34326 This is probably more detail than you want about First Amendment arguments, but ... Under a principle called the "Central Hudson Test," the government may restrict commercial speech for illegal products, like tobacco sales to minors. But, in contrast with Ed's comment, that is not the only type of speech that can be restricted. The government may also restrict commercial speech that is misleading, and also if the restriction meets the following two criteria: (a) the restriction serves a compelling public purpose, and (b) the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary. Many public health advocates don't like the Central Hudson test, but it doesn't bother me. Currently, the U.S. is trying a period of self-regulation, and reasonable people may conclude it failed. Perhaps, if we let the attempt run just a little longer, it will soon be possible to say quite plainly that stronger restrictions on advertising to children meet the Central Hudson test and satisfy the legal community's principles for judging First Amendment arguments. This is probably more detail than you want about First Amendment arguments, but …

Under a principle called the “Central Hudson Test,” the government may restrict commercial speech for illegal products, like tobacco sales to minors. But, in contrast with Ed’s comment, that is not the only type of speech that can be restricted. The government may also restrict commercial speech that is misleading, and also if the restriction meets the following two criteria: (a) the restriction serves a compelling public purpose, and (b) the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary.

Many public health advocates don’t like the Central Hudson test, but it doesn’t bother me. Currently, the U.S. is trying a period of self-regulation, and reasonable people may conclude it failed. Perhaps, if we let the attempt run just a little longer, it will soon be possible to say quite plainly that stronger restrictions on advertising to children meet the Central Hudson test and satisfy the legal community’s principles for judging First Amendment arguments.

]]>