17312: How Junk Food Advertising Bans Could Affect The Health Of Adland.

 

MediaPost Marketing Daily published an interview probing possibly implementing junk food advertising restrictions in the US, mimicking UK junk food advertising bans.

 

Such a move—which could happen given Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s MAHA platform—would lead to more layoffs in US Adland.

 

Plus, it could mean a significant reduction in crumbs to non-White advertising agencies whose work disproportionately targets non-White audiences with unhealthy products.

 

In short, advocating for healthiness dramatically and adversely impacts the health of everyone in US Adland.

 

Could U.K.-Style Junk Food Ad Ban Happen Here?

 

By Sarah Mahoney

 

The U.K.’s new junk-food advertising ban is sweeping. Its impact is vast: No TV ads for foods high in fat, salt or sugar before 9 p.m., and no paid online ads at all. The goal is curbing the obesity epidemic among British kids by reducing exposure to commercial messaging—an approach backed by growing research on how advertising affects children’s preferences and consumption.

 

A national ban here is unlikely, thanks to First Amendment protections for commercial speech. But marketers aren’t off the hook. Pressure is coming from a patchwork of state bills, city rules, school policies, digital-privacy efforts and front-of-pack labeling proposals—plus increasingly loud MAHA parents and politicians pushing cleaner food sentiment into the mainstream.

 

To understand what’s next, Marketing Daily spoke with DeAnna Nara, Ph.D., a licensed nutritionist and campaign manager at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit advocacy group.

 

Interview has been edited for length and clarity.

 

Marketing Daily: What is the U.K. trying to solve with this ad ban?

 

Nara: Childhood obesity, but also reducing unhealthy food exposure, particularly to children. This applies to soft drinks, candy, pizzas, ice creams. Evidence shows repeated exposure to this type of advertising influences children’s food preferences, consumption patterns and long-term health risks—and we see evidence of this even after one exposure.

 

Marketing Daily: Marketers here tend to say, “That could never happen in the U.S.” Are they right?

 

Nara: An exact U.K.-style ban is going to be tough. Advertising for general products is protected by the First Amendment. There are legal tests that get applied to commercial-speech restrictions, which usually make it hard to do a broad ban and hard to defend if it’s narrowly tailored.

 

We couldn’t just ban all junk-food ads on TV and online like the U.K. But it does show governments globally are looking at the relationship between marketing environments and public health. In the U.S., what we can do, and what we’re seeking to do, is reduce harmful exposure through targeted, legally defensible strategies. We’re focusing on deception, targeting practices and government-facilitated advertising in children’s environments like schools.

 

Marketing Daily: New York recently adopted the “Sweet Truth Act,” which requires sugar warnings. What else are you working on?

 

Nara: One of the biggest is the Predatory Marketing Prevention Act. Instead of banning speech, PMPA expands consumer-protection law to consider whether advertising is targeting specific groups. It gives attorneys general factors to consider—are ads targeting children, older adults or other vulnerable groups unfairly or deceptively?

 

It recognizes that targeted marketing of unhealthy products is a public-health and equity harm. We’re shifting the frame from what is being advertised to how and to whom. PMPA is a strong legal anchor because it operates within consumer-protection doctrine, meaning it can hold up in U.S. courts more easily than a broad ban on commercial content.

 

Marketing Daily: Others?

 

Nara: Limiting unhealthy food and beverage advertising in government-controlled spaces. Governments have more authority over property—transit screens, buses, kiosks—and they’re not required to display harmful commercial content. We’re working in New York to urge the MTA to revise policies that allow unhealthy food and beverage advertising and to avoid government-facilitated surveillance and targeting in digital out-of-home.

 

This mirrors what Transport for London did in 2019, restricting junk-food ads across the transit system. We saw reduced exposure and changes in purchasing patterns.

 

In Massachusetts, we’re working on the Healthy Kids Healthy Futures Act. It prohibits sugary-drink marketing in schools and requires added-sugar warnings on chain-restaurant menus.

 

Digital protection is another area. New York’s Stop Addictive Feeds Exploitation for Kids Act restricts personalized feeds and nighttime notifications for users under 18. Other states, including Virginia, are moving toward laws limiting kids’ use of addictive social media and increasing age verification. We’re trying to make it harder for companies to collect data and target children with personalized ads.

 

Marketing Daily: Many companies hit by the U.K. ban are multinationals. Could this change what they sell or how they market in the U.S.?

 

Nara: We’re hoping. We’re seeing a tide change in how ultra-processed foods are viewed. There’s a world where consumer demand pushes companies to offer healthier products. We’ve done national polling, and people are interested in healthier products.

 

Industry will also be pushed by front-of-package warnings. The FDA is looking at warnings that reflect nutrition info on the back, which is confusing. That’s going to push more reformulation. Regardless of political views, we know these products create harm. Pushing companies to reduce sodium, sugar and saturated fat is something they can do. Reformulation is happening globally, and that trend is expanding.

 

Marketing Daily: We’re in a strange political moment, with ultra-processed foods under fire from both left and right. The risk to marketers are clear. What are the opportunities?

 

Nara: Some are taking advantage of changes. When politicians started talking about seed oils and ultraprocessed fats, some companies, like Shake Shack, started frying in beef tallow. Marketers can use these changes to make more money.

 

It’s not necessarily about eliminating marketing, but changing what gets rewarded in the marketplace and by consumers. Brands that lead on health and responsible marketing are building long-term trust with parents and families. There’s an opportunity to make products healthier, help consumers and make the healthy choice easy.

16894: Big Food, Big Tobacco, Big Trouble.

 

Advertising Age reported on a lawsuit charging big food companies emulate Big Tobacco; that is, packaged food corporations deliberately make addictive products promoted by marketing campaigns targeting children and minorities.

 

Not sure why the lawsuit is only attacking packaged food manufacturers versus also going after brands like Mickey D’s. After all, it could be argued McNuggets and McRibs are the equivalent of menthol cigarettes.

 

Lawsuit alleges major food makers knowingly used Big Tobacco tactics

 

The makers of Oreo, Pop-Tarts, Slim Jim and other products face a lawsuit over childhood disease

 

By Ally Marotti

 

Packaged food giants face a lawsuit alleging that they knowingly make addictive products that cause illnesses such as type 2 diabetes and target children with those products.

 

Food and beverage marketers named in the lawsuit include Coca-Cola Co., Conagra Brands, General Mills, Kellanova, Kraft Heinz, Mars, Mondelēz International, Nestlé USA, PepsiCo, Post Holdings and WK Kellogg Co.

 

Pennsylvania resident Bryce Martinez filed the lawsuit on Dec. 10 in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court. The lawsuit alleges that Martinez developed type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease when he was 16 because he frequently ate the companies’ products.

 

Martinez “is one of many casualties of defendants’ predatory profiteering,” the complaint says. “(He) is now suffering from these devastating diseases, and will continue to suffer for the rest of his life.”

 

The lawsuit comes as the spotlight is turning upon the ingredients in some of the country’s most popular packaged food brands. President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for secretary of health and human services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has broadly critiqued processed foods. He has vowed to remove them from school lunch programs and disallow them from being bought with food stamps.

 

Kennedy has specifically discussed the harms of high-fructose corn syrup and processed grains. If his nomination is approved, he will oversee a department that has partial oversight of Americans’ diet through the Food and Drug Administration.

 

The lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania earlier this month targets ultra-processed foods, which it says are “industrially produced edible substances that are imitations of food.” They contain little to no whole food, and have come to dominate the American diet since the 1980s, the lawsuit says. On average, children now derive two-thirds of their energy from ultra-processed foods.

 

The lawsuit points to the rise of type 2 diabetes and fatty liver disease, which “had been largely confined to elderly alcoholics,” in children. It ties the increasing prevalence of such diseases to the 1980s, when tobacco companies bought major U.S. food companies. For example, tobacco company Philip Morris bought Kraft Foods in 1988.

 

The tobacco companies then “used their cigarette playbook to fill our food environment with addictive substances that are aggressively marketed to children and minorities,” according to the lawsuit.

 

The lawsuit alleges that the companies that make ultra-processed foods are “well aware of the harms they are causing and (have) known it for decades. But they continue to inflict massive harm on society in a reckless pursuit of profits.”

 

Representatives from each company did not respond to a request for comment. The exception was Conagra: Its spokesperson declined to comment on pending litigation.

 

The Consumer Brands Association, a trade association that represents many of the country’s packaged food companies, said in a statement that such companies adhere to FDA standards and “deliver safe, affordable and convenient products that consumers depend on every day.”

 

“Americans deserve facts based on sound science in order to make the best choices for their health. There is currently no agreed upon scientific definition of ultra-processed foods,” Sarah Gallo, senior VP of Product Policy, said in a statement. “Attempting to classify foods as unhealthy simply because they are processed, or demonizing food by ignoring its full nutrient content, misleads consumers and exacerbates health disparities.”

 

At its heart, this lawsuit is a product liability case, said R. Mark McCareins, a clinical professor of business law at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management.

“The cost of doing business in the U.S., with our civil justice system, are suits like this,” he said. “The fact that somebody filed a lawsuit does not mean that … the companies did anything wrong, and they are more than free to defend themselves.”

 

In such cases, attorneys typically must prove causation—in this case, did the ultra-processed foods cause the diseases—and that the companies knew about the harm. Typically, expert testimony is vital.

16037: Junk Food Companies Use Garbage Tactics To Target Kids Of Color.

 

The Guardian reported that US companies—including Mickey D’s—disproportionately target junk food to children of color versus White kids. The tactics are like the skewed targeting of menthol cigarettes to Black adults. And it’s more evidence to fuel Byron Allen’s Mickey D’s lawsuit.

 

A constant barrage: US companies target junk food ads to people of color

 

Advertising for fatty, salty and sugary food and drink is disproportionately aimed at Black and Hispanic children, teens and adults, a new study finds

 

By Dakota Kim

 

Johane Filemon is tired of beating back the ads for burgers, french fries, high-sodium chips, candy and soda – aimed not at her, but at her five young children.

 

“You’ll see these ads pop up for sugary expensive cereals, to entice the kids to pressure their parents to purchase these foods, and then you as the parent look like the bad guy because you’re not buying them,” Filemon says.

 

The nutritionist, whose children range from nine months to 11 years old, steadfastly blocks mobile game and internet ads so they aren’t exposed to junk food messaging at home. Still, the barrage is constant, says Filemon, who posts about parenting and nutrition on Instagram. They are on TV, YouTube, social media platforms, game-streaming apps and even mobile educational games.

 

“Some parents may not even know that blocking the ads is a possibility, and their kids are watching those ads all the time,” she says. Filemon, who is Black, specifically worries about families of color, who she says are being systematically targeted with ads for unhealthy foods.

 

Her concerns are supported by a slew of research.

 

A new study published in November by the Rudd Center for Food and Policy Health at the University of Connecticut found that US food companies disproportionately market unhealthy food and drink – including candy, sodas, snacks and fast food – to Black and Hispanic children, teens and adults.

 

In 2021, Black youth and adults viewed up to 21% more food and beverage commercials than their white peers, according to the report, which also found food companies increased their advertising spend on Spanish language TV as a total proportion of their TV ad budget.

 

The study’s findings build on research that goes back more than a decade. In 2010, Rudd Center researchers found an increase in fast-food adverts geared towards children and they found Black children were exposed to 50% more fast-food ads than their white peers. A 2014 Arizona State University report revealed fast-food restaurants in predominantly Black neighborhoods were more likely to target advertising to children – including displaying kids meal toys and using cartoon characters.

 

As the advertising landscape changes, companies are finding creative ways to market their products. Many fast-food brands employ celebrities from Black and Hispanic communities, which can encourage young people of color to purchase their products, according to the Rudd Center report. McDonald’s, for example, has partnered with rappers Saweetie and Travis Scott.

 

“When I looked into the McDonald’s meals that are sponsored and endorsed by celebrities, you almost always see a person of color with that meal,” said Rahanna Bisseret Martinez, 18, a Top Chef Junior finalist who grew up in a Haitian-American and Mexican-American household. “Instead, I’d love to see celebrities really being in their community and supporting people that way … If someone tells me a pop star is giving out organic fruit rolls on a corner in the city, I would be there, especially as a kid.”

 

A spokesperson for McDonald’s said that the company “believes in marketing responsibly and ensuring our advertising reflects the diverse customers and communities we serve”. The fast-food giant is “helping lead the industry on self-regulation around advertising to children” the spokesperson added, including “balanced menu offerings and responsible marketing to kids under age 12”.

 

The success of targeted advertising exacerbates existing inequalities around diet and diet-related diseases in Black and Hispanic communities, the recent Rudd Center report concludes.

 

While nearly one in five children in the US is categorized as obese, rates are higher among children of color: 26.2% of Hispanic children and 24.8% of Black children are classified as obese, compared to 16.6% of white children.

 

Children of color are more likely to live in areas lacking affordable, nutritious food. Predominantly white neighborhoods have a higher percentage of supermarkets than predominantly Black neighborhoods, while grocery stores in some low-income communities of color are less likely to stock healthy foods than stores in higher-income, predominantly white areas.

 

“For many in the Black and brown communities, it’s hard to get out of this systemic food depression,” Filemon says. “Not everyone has the financial means to do all the steps required to eat healthy.” Yet despite significant socioeconomic challenges to healthier eating, parents are often blamed for their children’s obesity.

 

Campaigners are calling for structural changes to dilute the power of big food companies but so far federal action has been limited.

 

In the late 1970s, an attempt by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to crack down on advertising to children ended in disaster. A proposed ban on TV ads for junk food aimed at children caused an uproar, not only among the food industry but also politicians. Congress allowed the commission’s funding to lapse and the agency was closed for a short time.

 

Since then, powerful food industry lobbying has worked to prevent the FTC from enacting even voluntary guidelines. In 2011, the organization dropped plans for guidelines banning junk food ads to children 17 and under, instead lowering the age limit to 11, after being pressured by food industry and media giants, who spent tens of millions lobbying against the voluntary standards.

 

In a 2012 report, the FTC said that while there was “legitimate cause for public concern” around ads targeted at children, a ban would be “neither a workable nor an efficacious solution to the health problem of childhood obesity”.

 

Mitchell J Katz, senior public affairs specialist at the FTC, told the Guardian: “The commission does not regulate advertising. We enforce the FTC Act, which prohibits deceptive or misleading advertising.”

 

Policies are being proposed at more local levels. In New York state, the Predatory Marketing Prevention Act (PMPA), a bill that would categorize unhealthy food marketed to children as misleading or deceptive and allow regulators to restrict this kind of advertising, is in review with the New York senate’s health committee.

 

There are also efforts at corporate self-regulation. The Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative was set up to create guidelines around advertising and has 19 food and drinks companies as members. They have pledged to restrict advertising of unhealthy products to children under 12, although the guidelines are littered with loopholes, according to a Rudd Center analysis.

 

Some media companies have implemented their own guidelines. Disney restricts food advertisements across its television channels, radio station and website to food products that meet its nutrition criteria for limiting calories and reducing saturated fat, sodium and sugar.

 

YouTube Kids has a policy prohibiting paid food and beverage advertising but YouTube creators are able to use paid product placement or incentivized endorsements, as long as they disclose them. When it comes to food, these products tend to be unhealthy. An 2020 analysis of 179 videos from five of the most-watched child YouTube influencers found more than 90% of the food and beverage mentions were unhealthy branded items.

 

A spokesperson for Google, which owns YouTube, said: “On YouTube Kids, Made for Kids content and Supervised Experiences on YouTube we do not allow ads for foods and beverages products nor are creators allowed to make money promoting these products. Creators that include paid promotions in their videos are responsible for complying with ads policies and declaring whether they are receiving money for promoting products generally.”

 

If you care about these communities or about increasing equity in racial justice, then look at what you’re marketing

 

Social media advertising can be particularly hard to manage because parents don’t see these platforms as a way for children to receive marketing, said Frances Fleming-Millici, director of marketing initiatives for the Rudd Center. “It’s not advertising in a way that we are programmed to think of. Branded products in child influencer videos are hard for parents to do anything about.”

 

The FTC held an event in October to review these types of advertising, sometimes called “stealth marketing” or “blurred advertising”. Panelists suggested potential solutions including disclosures, parental controls and even a ban on stealth marketing aimed at children.

 

There is much more companies can be doing, Fleming-Millici said, including making deeper investments in marginalized communities. “If you are saying you care about these communities or about increasing equity in racial justice, then look at what you’re marketing and making for communities of color, because it’s actually hurting these communities,” she said.

 

In July, the Council on Black Health (CBH), a research and action network, launched an initiative calling for the availability and promotion of healthier food choices in Black communities.

 

Shiriki K Kumanyika, chair of the CBH, said change will come by keeping the pressure on fast food and packaged food corporations, rather than pointing fingers at individuals. “I don’t believe [junk food] is all consumers want, and this is not an isolated problem that you can fix at the consumer interface.”

 

Filemon says fast-food companies must increase their advertising of healthier items, making them more attractive to kids. “They can still make money by advertising their more nutrient-dense foods,” she said. “The constant marketing of unhealthy food is setting these kids of color and their bodies – the future of their health – up for failure.”

14611: Junk Food Maker Nestle Lectures On The Perils Of Junk Food.

This Nestle campaign from India allegedly attempts to help parents teach their kids about healthy food and mindful eating. Sorry, but Nestle is hardly qualified to mount this soapbox.

14331: Teach Your Children Hell.

TBWA in Spain claims you can count on Mickey D’s to “teach your little carnivores” to enjoy fruits and vegetables. Okay, but the lesson is just a teeny-tiny part of a larger curriculum teaching kids to enjoy overconsumption, commercialization, environmental destruction and unhealthy fast food.

13959: Hot Dogs, Hot Damn.

This probable scampaign from Brazil seems to emulate the over-consumption tactics of U.S. fast feeders, contributing to the obesity epidemic in the South American country. But to position hot dogs as snack options to inhale between fast food meals is as obscene as any marketing messages hawked by Big Tobacco, Big Liquor or Big Pharma.

12770: Big, Fat Liars On Obesity.

Campaign reported the Advertising Association pledged to support Prime Minster David Cameron’s crusade to address childhood obesity. AA CEO Tim Lefroy stated in a letter:

“We must look at regulation, and in partnership with policy makers, seek out the best available evidence and make changes where needed.

“We must turn on the persuasive capability in our creativity and utilise the reach and influence of our brands and media.

“We must work with the government to find effective remedies because that is the proven recipe for positive social change.”

Once again, an advertising wonk believes the industry is capable of affecting social change, despite its abject failure at tackling a simple issue like diversity. Oh, and now you may add obesity to the long list of items that trump diversity. Somebody alert the PM that he’s dealing with big, fat liars.

AA pledges support to PM tackle obesity

By Gurjit Degun

The Advertising Association has pledged to support David Cameron’s mission to tackle childhood obesity.

In a letter to the prime minister, the AA chief executive, Tim Lefroy, said the issue would “require renewed attention from our industries”.

It follows reports that the prime minister may take personal responsibility for the Conservative party’s commitment to tackle obesity.

The AA said: “We must look at regulation, and in partnership with policy makers, seek out the best available evidence and make changes where needed.

“We must turn on the persuasive capability in our creativity and utilise the reach and influence of our brands and media.

“We must work with the government to find effective remedies because that is the proven recipe for positive social change.” The AA explained to the prime minister that it is the “gateway” to adland’s independent self-regulatory system, which is operated by the Advertising Standards Authority, in conjunction with Ofcom.

Scientific advisors to Public Health England said today that added sugars, or those naturally present in honey, syrups and unsweetened fruit juices, should make up no more than 5 per cent of a person’s daily intake.

12176: McScary Halloween Concept.

Handing out sugary, processed candy during Halloween isn’t bad enough? Mickey D’s suggests salt-loaded fries too? Now, that’s fucking scary.

From Ads of the World.

11599: Unhappy Meals.

Mickey D’s is offering to be a wrangler for unruly kids, sorta denying the fact that their super salty, sugary and fatty food-like menu items will probably turn little ones into psycho monsters.

From Ads of the World.

11294: No Más Kid’s Meals At Taco Bell.

Advertising Age reported Taco Bell has decided to dump its kid’s meals. Um, Taco Bell’s adult food is made from Doritos and Fritos—what the hell was in the kiddie cuisine?

Taco Bell Axes Kids Meals

Kids’ Fare Represents Only Sliver of Sales; Chain Says It’s Focused on Millennials

By Maureen Morrison

Say goodbye to kids meals at Taco Bell.

Taco Bell said Monday that it’s eliminating kids’ meals—often a target of nutrition activists—from its menu. Taco Bell is touting itself as the first national fast-food chain to do so, noting that the move will be completed by January.

The chain said it’s ditching kids’ meals because they aren’t relevant to its core customer—millennials, generally in their late teens and early-to-mid ‘20s. “As we continue our journey of being a better, more relevant Taco Bell, kid’s meals and toys simply no longer make sense for us to put resources behind,” said Greg Creed, CEO of Taco Bell, in a statement. “What does make sense is concentrating on expanding choices that meet and exceed the diverse needs of consumers of all ages, without losing focus on what makes us great today.”

While consumer-advocacy groups may applaud the chain for cutting kids’ menus, Taco Bell’s kids’ meals accounted for only a small sliver a sliver of overall sales. Kids’ meals represent 0.5% of its sales, according to the company. Taco Bell posted an estimated $7.5 billion in U.S. system-wide sales in 2012, according to Technomic. Kantar Media does not show any media spending on kids’-meal marketing at Taco Bell in 2012.

Compare that to McDonald’s, where Happy Meals account for about 10% of U.S. sales. Considering McDonald’s had $35.6 billion in U.S. system-wide sales in 2012, according to Ad Age’s DataCenter, that’s more than $3.5 billion in Happy Meal sales last year alone.

And though Taco Bell may be the first national chain, Jack in the Box two years ago announced it would eliminate its kids meals. At the time, consumer-advocacy groups used the news as leverage to convince other chains to consider ditching kids’ meals. Center for Science in the Public Interest even called on Taco Bell in it’s press release: “We hope that McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, and Taco Bell are paying attention to Jack in the Box, which has decided to stop using toys to market fast-food meals to children.”

CSPI did not offer comment on Taco Bell’s move by press time.

Though the kids’ meals will be gone, some of the items, such as the Crunchy Taco, Soft Taco, Bean Burrito and Cheese Roll-up, will still be available on the regular menu.

11291: Fast Feeders Fight First Lady.

From The Los Angeles Times…

Michelle Obama’s nutrition campaign comes with political pitfalls

The first lady has pledged to fight junk-food ads aimed at children. But some say her desire to work with businesses kept her quiet when she was needed most.

By Matea Gold and Kathleen Hennessey

WASHINGTON — Shortly after she launched her signature anti-obesity initiative more than three years ago, Michelle Obama signaled she would take on a contentious issue: advertising for snacks, soft drinks, sugary cereals and fast food aimed at children.

She denounced ads that use cartoon characters to push junk food. She bluntly told executives “to step it up” to improve the foods they market to children.

And she promoted a White House “action plan” on obesity that praised a federal effort to come up with voluntary marketing guidelines — the most significant attempt in decades to limit ads targeting children.

But when food and media companies — including many that supported her anti-obesity campaign — mounted a fierce lobbying battle against the guidelines in 2011, the first lady went silent.

It wasn’t until earlier this year, after the guidelines had been blocked, that Obama resumed her call for more responsible food marketing.

Nutrition advocates disagree over how to rein in food and beverage company practices that they believe contribute to obesity, including the roughly $1.8 billion spent each year on marketing to kids: Will companies respond to voluntary efforts or only to government pressure?

Obama has come down on the side of persuasion. She has used her celebrity to reward corporations that join her campaign to encourage children to eat better and exercise more. And she has largely avoided public policy fights that could pit her against the companies, arguing that obesity cannot be eradicated “by passing a bunch of laws in Washington.”

Administration officials say she has notched some notable successes, and they blame Congress for killing the marketing guidelines.

But some who see themselves as Obama’s allies in the fight against obesity believe her desire to create partnerships with industry kept her quiet when her voice would have counted most. Fourteen companies that back Obama’s anti-obesity campaign helped kill the voluntary advertising guidelines, lobbying reports and other records show.

“The White House got cold feet,” said Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who had championed the guidelines. “It sort of undermines everything that the first lady was doing.”

::

Since Obama launched “Let’s Move!” in February 2010, White House officials have insisted that working with industry is the only way to achieve the first lady’s goal of ending the epidemic of childhood obesity in a generation.

“Business and business leaders are a vital component of the solution,” said Sam Kass, the executive director of Let’s Move! and the first lady’s senior policy advisor on nutrition. Obama declined a request for an interview.

The administration did secure industry backing for a requirement that restaurant menus list calorie information. And the first lady rallied support for a 2010 law that expanded the free school lunch program and set nutritional standards for food sold in schools.

But many public health advocates believe a more forceful approach is needed to limit food marketing.

“The industry has proven itself untrustworthy,” said Kelly D. Brownell of Duke University, a leading expert on obesity who has sometimes advised Obama’s program. “Somebody needs to lean on these companies more strongly.”

Obama has worked through the Partnership for a Healthier America; she is honorary chairwoman of the nonprofit group, which was set up to negotiate pledges from food providers to fight childhood obesity.

Wal-Mart has agreed to promote more healthful foods and build grocery stores in underserved neighborhoods. Darden, owner of the Olive Garden and other restaurants, promised to improve its children’s menus. And 16 food and beverage manufacturers, including Kraft, General Mills and Nestle, pledged to cut calories from their products.

The organization, however, has secured only a few pledges to change the way companies market food.

Read the full story here.

11226: Obesity Is McDisease…?

From USA TODAY…

Medical group recognizes obesity as a disease

Nanci Hellmich, USA TODAY

The American Medical Association decided Tuesday to recognize obesity as a disease, requiring a range of medical interventions to advance obesity treatment.

The American Medical Association, the nation’s largest physician organization, decided Tuesday to recognize obesity as a disease that requires a range of medical interventions for treatment and prevention.

The decision was made at the group’s annual meeting in Chicago.

Experts in obesity have struggled for years to have obesity recognized as a disease that deserves medical attention and insurance coverage as do other diseases. Previously the AMA and others have referred to obesity as “a major public health problem.”

“The American Medical Association’s recognition that obesity is a disease carries a lot of clout,” says Samuel Klein, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. “The most important aspect of the AMA decision is that the AMA is a respected representative of American medicine. Their opinion can influence policy makers who are in a position to do more to support interventions and research to prevent and treat obesity.”

About a third of adults in this country are obese, which is roughly 35 or more pounds over a healthy weight. A third of children and teens are overweight or obese. Obesity increases the risk of many other diseases including type 2 diabetes, heart disease and some types of cancer.

Patrice Harris, an AMA board member, said in a statement, “Recognizing obesity as a disease will help change the way the medical community tackles this complex issue that affects approximately one in three Americans.”

If obesity continues to grow, about 42% of Americans may end up obese by 2030, according to a projection from researchers with RTI International, a non-profit organization in North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park.

Those extra pounds rack up billions of dollars in weight-related medical bills. It costs about $1,400 more a year to treat an obese patient compared with a person at a healthy weight, research shows.

11153: Mickey D’s CEO Grilled.

From Advertising Age…

McDonald’s CEO: ‘The Way You Describe Us Is Not Who We Are’

Thompson Answers Critics Charging Chain with Contributing to Obesity, ‘Predatory’ Marketing

By Maureen Morrison

McDonald’s CEO Don Thompson delivered a pointed retort to critics at the chain’s annual shareholders meeting Thursday morning: “The way you describe us is not who we are.”

Mr. Thompson was responding to critics who say the chain markets unfairly to kids and exploits children of color in its marketing. Corporate Accountability International, a consumer advocacy group that routinely criticizes McDonald’s for marketing to kids, was on hand at the meeting to confront the company about its marketing and issue a proposal. Like last year, CAI brought a proposal up for vote that would call on the company to issue a report assessing the chain’s impact on public health. And like last year, it was struck down, this time with 6.3% of shareholders voting for the proposal.

After Mr. Thompson was asked by a CAI representative when the company will stop targeting kids and undermining childrens’ health, he said: “The way you describe us is not who we are.”

McDonald’s—and many other fast-food chains—for years has been under fire for marketing directly to kids, particularly with its Happy Meal, TV ads and, in recent years, online games. But the chain has said it’s made strides through a modified Happy Meal announced in 2011 that includes apple slices and low-fat milk. It also last year launched Happy Meal ads that focused on nutrition and highlighted the apples and milk.

Though it’s a common occurrence for critics to call on the company to reform its marketing tactics, Mr. Thompson said the issue of kids of color hit close to home for him when he was asked: “CEO Thompson, when is McDonald’s going to stop its aggressive marketing to communities of color?”

The question was posed by Michelle Dyre, a young African-American woman and self-described millennial who recently completed an internship at Corporate Accountability International.

“Especially outrageous is McDonald’s targeting children of color,” she said during the Q&A session. “Children of color are already more likely to live in environments where healthy food is less available. That they are more likely to develop diet-related diseases than their white counterparts should be no surprise considering how McDonald’s overwhelmingly targets them with predatory marketing.”

Mr. Thompson, an African-American, said that McDonald’s has not and will not try to “target people of color with subversive tactics.” He began his response by saying that the issue hits close to home, followed by, “I wonder why.”

“I grew up in the neighborhood,” said Mr. Thompson, a native Chicagoan who is from Cabrini Green, a low-income public housing project. He said that his family often couldn’t even afford McDonald’s. He added that though there needs to be more fresh foods available to people who grew up in circumstances like his, “the epidemic of obesity is not about McDonald’s.”

Ms. Dyre also brought up athletes that appear in McDonald’s marketing such as LeBron James, Gabby Douglas and Venus Williams. “Not only does McDonald’s use athletes of color in advertising such as Gabrielle Douglas, Venus Williams and LeBron James, it also invokes culturally inappropriate stereotypes and borrows liberally from hip-hop culture, to aggressively target children of color.” Mr. Thompson said that the athletes “don’t view us as the brand you view us as…. We’re not the brand that you describe.”

Other critics asked Mr.Thompson when the chain would leave children alone and let parents decide what’s best for them. Mr. Thompson noted that McDonald’s is part of the Children’s Food and Beverage Initiative—a marketing-industry self-regulation group—also noting that the average McDonald’s customer visits the chain three to four times per month, and thus McDonald’s cannot shoulder all the blame for the obesity epidemic. “We’re not the cause of obesity,” he said, adding that the chain doesn’t market unjustly to kids. He said that in recent years the chain hasn’t included Ronald McDonald in ads and noted that it offers apple slices and low-fat milk in its Happy Meals. He added that the chain offers a $1 side salad and also recently unveiled its Egg White Delight McMuffin, which has egg whites and fewer calories than the standard McMuffin.

Other adversaries included a group of protesters outside the meeting that called for $15 per hour wages and the right to form unions without interference—a move that’s part of a campaign called Fast Food Forward. A similar group protested outside of Wendy’s annual meeting Thursday.

McDonald’s wasn’t just barraged with accusations, though. The Humane Society appeared at the annual meeting, not to criticize, but to applaud the company for being a pioneer among fast-food chains to end the widely criticized practice of using gestation crates, which give confined pigs little to no movement for extended periods of time. Since McDonald’s announced the policy to phase out the practice, more than 50 other major pork buyers in the country followed the chain’s footsteps, said a representative of the Humane Society.

The accolades didn’t go unnoticed by McDonald’s. Mr Thompson said the company appreciates the recognition and Chief Operating Officer Tim Fenton said, “We are an industry leader and we take that seriously.”

11141: Ronald Is Watching.

The New York Times article on the adverse health conditions immigrants face in the U.S. was accompanied by a banner ad from Mickey D’s.

11071: Stinking Outside Of The Box.

This Happy Meals campaign from Leo Burnett in the U.K. is pathetic and misses a major point—that is, food for children was never supposed to come out of a box, fools.

From Ads of the World.

11055: Fast Food Fat Cat Speaks Out.

From The Huffington Post…

Healthy Food ‘Not Our Personality,’ Says Fast Food CEO

The Huffington Post

Fast food can have a lot of calories and one CEO isn’t afraid to keep in that way.

Andy Puzder, the CEO of CKE Restaurants which owns Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s, told The Los Angeles Times that he isn’t interested in making his menus healthier. Selling 20 times more bacon cheeseburgers with 740 calories than barbecue chicken sandwiches with 390 calories, Puzder plans to continue to provide the foods that his customers want most.

“It’s not our personality and it won’t become our personality,” Puzder told The Los Angeles Times when asked about the healthy food craze. “All of our products are indulgent, decadent.”

Despite the obesity problem plaguing the entire country, Puzder has remained firm that it is not the fast food industry’s place to tell people what they can and cannot eat.

“We’re not the food police,” he said in an interview with the New Zealand Herald.

The CEO’s stance runs contrary to the direction that a majority of the fast food industry seems to be taking. In July, McDonald’s released its “Favorites Under 400 Calories” menu and more recently the fast food chain came out with a yolk-free version of its Egg McMuffin with 50 fewer calories than the original.

Burger King has also attempted to spruce up its menu with items it claims are more healthy like salads and smoothies.

Despite these efforts, customers should remain wary. A 2012 study found that while fast food menu items have grown to include items like yogurt parfaits and salads, the average number of calories in each item hasn’t decreased significantly.

11054: Force Ethics On Food Industry.

From The New York Times…

How to Force Ethics on the Food Industry

By Michael Mudd

A COURT has struck down, at least for now, New York City’s attempt to slow the growth of obesity by limiting the portion size of sweetened beverages.

But governments should not be deterred by this and should step up their efforts to protect the public health by limiting the marketing tactics of food companies. Anyone who believes these interventions are uncalled-for doesn’t know the industry the way I do.

I was part of the packaged food and beverage business for more than 20 years. As the national waistline grew, the industry sought refuge in the fact that the obesity epidemic has many causes. It has insistently used that fact to fight off government regulators and justify why it should not have to change what it sells or how it sells it.

With tobacco, the link between product and disease is direct and singular. But it is less clear with food: the rise in obesity is the result of multiple factors. Suburban life discourages walking. Escalators have replaced stairs. Schools have eliminated gym class. Kids play video games now, not kickball. Even the vast increase in two-income households over the past 40 years has had an impact, discouraging cooking and increasing reliance on packaged foods and chain restaurants. It all adds up.

So when it’s time to pick the guilty party out of the police lineup, the food industry cries foul whenever critics point to it. “Hey,” the industry complains, “why pick on us when everybody in the lineup is guilty?”

But that’s not true. Everybody in this lineup of cumulative social and environmental changes may have played a role in the growth of obesity, but none are culpable the way the big food processors and soft drink companies are.

The industry is guilty because it knew what the consequences of its actions might be. Large food processors employed a flock of Ph.D. nutritionists and food scientists. The connection between calorie consumption and weight gain was always as plain as the number on the bathroom scale. But instead of acknowledging this and taking corrective action to sell a better product more responsibly, food processors played innocent by blending in with the crowd of causes. It’s time to end the charade and mandate the needed changes that the industry has refused to make.

For much of my time in the food business, I defended the status quo. Then, as obesity’s prevalence increased in the ’90s, I argued for change. Today, more than eight years after leaving the industry because of its failure to reform, I still struggle with the paradox that defined the business. In so many other ways, these are good people. But, little by little, they strayed from the honorable business of feeding people appropriately to the deplorable mission of “increasing shareholder value” by enticing people to consume more and more high-margin, low-nutrition branded products.

Confronted with this, the executives who run these companies like to say they don’t create demand, they try only to satisfy it. “We’re just giving people what they want. We’re not putting a gun to their heads,” the refrain goes. Nothing could be further from the truth. Over the years, relentless efforts were made to increase the number of “eating occasions” people indulged in and the amount of food they consumed at each.

Even as awareness grew of the health consequences of obesity, the industry continued to emphasize cheap and often unhealthful ingredients that maximized taste, shelf life and profits. More egregious, it aggressively promoted larger portion sizes, one of the few ways left to increase overall consumption in an otherwise slow-growth market.

All this tells us two very important things. First, the food industry knows it has a problem, potentially a very big one if the forces against it ever do coalesce effectively. So, in maneuvering for protection by managing public opinion and policy formation, the industry will always try to camouflage itself as just one of many causes in the growth of obesity. Just as the National Rifle Association points to mental illness and violent video games as a way to deflect attention from the inherent dangers of guns, food processors will wring their hands about physical activity and, yes, video games. We shouldn’t fall for it.

Next time you hear of a big food or beverage company sponsoring an after-school physical activity program in your community, you can be sure they’ll say it’s to show “our company’s concern for our kids’ health.” But the real intent is to look angelic while making consumers feel good about the brand and drawing attention away from the unhealthful nature of the company’s products. “Posing for holy cards,” as one of my colleagues used to put it.

Second, as more is revealed about their deliberate indifference, food companies must be made to change their worst practices. After years of foot dragging and hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying fees, it’s obvious the industry won’t change on its own. Quite simply, change will have to be forced — by public pressure, media attention, regulation and litigation. Yes, companies will point to some “better-for-you” versions of their traditional products and they will trot out a few smaller-portion-size packages to show the “choices” they’ve provided. But left alone, the industry will concentrate on selling its problematic core product lines.

The needed changes could take many forms. Here are some of the most promising:

Levy federal and state excise taxes on sugared beverages and a few categories — snack foods, candy, sweet baked goods — that most undermine health. These taxes could help pay for education programs, subsidize the healthiest foods for low-income individuals and, maybe, discourage consumption.

Make mandatory the federal guidelines for marketing food to children that were proposed in 2011. These guidelines — written jointly by the Federal Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Agriculture — were only to be voluntary, and still lobbyists for the food industry persuaded Congress to block them.

Communicate more actively with people about their food choices. Require prominent disclosure of calories for every item on the menu in chain restaurants and vending machines. And create a front-of-the-package labeling system to encourage healthier food choices. Finally, the government should back community-based campaigns to inform and inspire better eating and more exercise.

I left the industry when I finally had to acknowledge that reform would never come from within. I could no longer accept a business model that put profits over public health — and no one else should have to, either.

Michael Mudd is a former executive vice president of global corporate affairs for Kraft Foods. He retired in 2004.