Food Politics

Social comments and analytics for this post…

This post was mentioned on Twitter by nyusteinhardt: Marketing to kids is essential for business http://ff.im/-g97xI...

Janet Poppendieck, author of the recently published “Free for All: Fixing School Food in America,” had a great quote about this in an interview in Salon:

“You blame children’s poor lunch eating habits partly on what you call the commercialization of childhood. Why?

Well, when I was a child, kids didn’t have money. We got modest allowances for maybe a trip to the corner store once a week, but children today are major consumers in the economy, and the food industry realized that if they can establish brand loyalty among children they are likely acquiring a lifetime consumer. There’s really a concerted effort to enlist children in the fan clubs of particular brands while they’re young and I think it’s extremely destructive because the items that are heavily marketed to children are not subject to nutrition standards.”

http://www.salon.com/life/education/index.html?story=/food/feature/2010/01/13/poppendieck_fixing_school_food

They also do not stand a chance against the “kids’ menu”….

They also do not stand a chance against the so-called “kids’ menu”
http://www.mannersformothers.com/2010/02/children-of-pedestrian-tastes.html

Another good reason why I don’t have a television, and certainly won’t be subscribing to Sports Illustrated Kids! That comment sounds almost predatory! Children are incredibly easy to influence in this regard. So I would much rather my kids get a sales pitch from the person selling oranges at the farmer’s market! Fine with me if they become “lifetime customers” of fresh produce.

My comment today is somewhat tangential, but hopefully still related.

I work on a large university campus and yesterday a colleague from another department suggested that our campus budget woes could be easily solved by placing advertisements (like billboards) on our various departmental buildings. Each department could be “sponsored” by a company, so that like in sports, the building would carry the name of the company (e.g. The Coca Cola Economics Building). At first I thought he was joking, but then I realized that he finds this a very viable and unobjectionable option.

I, on the other hand, was horrified. While companies already seek brand loyalty for life through children, I was horrified to think of the possibility of also roping young adults in at a time when they have just inherited the most freedom of choice they have ever had. I could just imagine after a childhood of being bombarded with marketing that advertising all over a college campus would “seal the deal” in terms of creating life-time consumers. Young adults who grew up with ability to consume foods and drinks that do not meet nutritional standards would continue to do so, and perhaps others that had been “forbidden” by parents as children, would start to do so in the freedom of college.

Today’s young people really don’t stand a chance when people like my colleague, whose primary job responsibility is to look out for the welfare of young adults (academically, emotionally, physically, etc.) would come up with an idea that is directly in conflict with that mission. Unfortunately the world revolves around money, and obtaining it seems to make even the best of intentions turn destructive. Though, this is not necessarily as egregious as the statements from Dr. Nestle’s post today, I am still deeply disturbed that our society intentionally and unintentionally holds these attitudes about marketing…

The amount of “food” commercials on TV, if you watch them, are mind-numbing. As part of my research and book project, I took photos of “food” TV commercials. You can see many of the snapshots here: http://bit.ly/4QikjZ.

Sadly, it’s not just kids who are being bombarded. It’s adults too.

During your talk at the NY Academy of Sciences someone asked the question, “Do parents need a PhD to counter the ‘pester factor’ of young children?”

Your response was dead-on, echoing Nancy Reagan’s timeless response, “Just say ‘No!’” that so many parents seem unable to grasp. Discipline is key to making good choices in life; and it demonstrates and teaches character. Isn’t that what we want to pass along to our children, along with a long, healthy life? And isn’t that what the food discussion is all about?

Thank you for reminding me of why I avoid subscribing to children’s magazines!

A consumerism society based on money rather than compassionate concern.

My kids were major consumers of McD’s and other junk when they were young, but they won’t touch the stuff with a barge pole these days. I’m convinced that eating habits can change with age and education.

Some kids in affluent areas with access to a wider variety of information have chance against this relentless psy-op-advertising aimed at the inside of their heads, but most don’t.

One thing that can be very interesting to do with any kind of televised advertising aimed at children is to watch it with the sound turned off. The experience can often be disturbing and not that much different from watching World War II-era propaganda films. The first quote from the SI editor could have been spoken by any wartime propaganda department.

As an aside, this installment has finally gotten me to become a member of CSPI. They seem to be one of the few organizations able to sift and sort through all this and do so with great integrity.

I wanted to comment on Erin B’s note above. I share her horror at the thought of having sponsored buildings in colleges. My point, though, is more about her idea that college is the first time that many young people have access to enormous amounts of freedom.
I was raised in a pretty healthy household. We had the peanut butter you have to stir, and we only got junk cereal once a year on our birthdays. I was also raised as a strict vegetarian since birth, and count barbecued tofu as my favorite food.
With that said, I subsisted almost my entire first year at college on Froot Loops and PB&J sandwiches made with white bread and creamy peanut butter. My second year was not much better! My third year, I started eating healthier things, but in enormous quantities. I don’t know why, but I was hungry almost non-stop and thought about food almost to the point of obsession. However, by my fourth year, I had started to teach myself about proper nutrition and eating healthy. So my diet improved a gazillion-fold, but I was still susceptible to, say, health messages made on foods’ packaging, and the concept of food vs. food products had not yet dawned on me.
After graduating, I went a couple more years eating relatively well but buying into Activia and that sort of garbage.
And I don’t know what changed, but now I’ve got the “religion” — no corn syrup, no trans fats, as much produce and REAL food as possible, take it easy on the junk, etc.
So I just wanted to point out, that there is hope for today’s young people! I’m 27 and enjoy excellent health, a great diet, and a regimen of exercise that keeps me active 7 days a week. But, one can also note from my story that I had to do quite a lot of homework and legwork to educate myself about how I REALLY should be eating, and even now, I put a great deal more effort into the procurement and preparation of my food than does the average American. I’m with Marion in her general mantra of desiring the healthy options to be the default, rather than the option for those of us with enough determination.

A note to Kerry Keating — there are GREAT kids’ magazines out there that will not bombard young folks with gross advertising. I enjoyed Cricket for many, many years, and then its “older sibling” Cicada for many more. No advertising whatsoever allowed in those, and they’re all literature.

Sorry for the long post. I don’t often comment here, just lurk quietly — but I felt the need to weigh in today!