THCB

First Amendment Doesn’t Apply to Junk Food Marketing

Every year food and soft drink marketers spend billions of dollars tempting children with junk, fueling an obesity crisis that’s already reached epidemic proportions.

Why aren’t policymakers stepping in to help protect our kids? In part because food and media companies are successfully using the First Amendment as a shield.

But new research paves the way for government to take action to protect children from junk food marketing, building a strong case to establish that much of this advertising falls outside the scope of First Amendment protection.

The controversy over whether government has the right to regulate food marketing to kids came to a head last summer, after a group of federal agencies proposed a set of voluntary recommendations suggesting how food companies could market to kids more responsibly. Food, entertainment and advertising lobbyists launched a massive campaign to derail the recommendations, arguing that the First Amendment protects industry from any government action involving food marketing to children.

A coalition of legal scholars stepped in to point out that because companies would be free to ignore the recommendations, no one’s First Amendment rights were at stake. Still, industry has succeeded in stalling, if not quashing, the proposed guidelines.

For the first 200 years of our country’s history, the First Amendment had nothing to do with advertising. It wasn’t until about 35 years ago that the Supreme Court expanded the concept of free speech to apply to advertising, recognizing that the unimpeded flow of commercial information is important for our market economy.

But the court made it clear that false and “inherently misleading” advertising does not qualify for First Amendment protection. In two research articles published this month, I joined with leading scientists on this issue to line the evidence up against the law.

A substantial body of research on children’s cognitive development shows that any advertising targeted at children under 12 is by definition inherently misleading. In an article released Feb. 8 in “Health Affairs,” I joined colleagues to look at the three levels of understanding it takes to comprehend advertising: distinguishing advertising from other media content; recognizing the selling intent of advertising messages and recognizing that the selling intent leads to inherent bias in advertising.  Children generally don’t master all three levels of understanding until they’re 11 or 12 years old because, even if they can identify an ad and its selling intent, they don’t have the critical thinking capacity to grasp the embellishment in marketing messages.

There is no plausible way to advertise to a young child without being misleading. So the government should be able to set limits on all advertising directed primarily at children under 12 — or, if it chooses, to restrict a subcategory (such as junk food advertising) that is particularly harmful to children — without violating the First Amendment.

Food marketing to adolescents raises similar concerns. For an article in this month’s issue of the “American Journal of Public Health,” my co-author and I show how food marketers exploit many of the vulnerabilities inherent in adolescence. Marketers now frequently disguise promotions as video games and other entertainment; track young people online and through cell phones; follow conversations on Facebook and Twitter; and collect personal data to tempt youth with junk food promotions.

Psychological research consistently shows that adolescents are much more vulnerable than adults to advertising messages because the part of the brain that directs impulse control and maturity of judgment does not fully develop until adulthood. And these high-tech marketing tactics are specifically designed to trigger subconscious, emotional behavior such as mindless snacking and the surrender of personal data.

To be sure, parents bear responsibility for teaching their kids healthy habits. But what parent, no matter how well-intentioned, can compete with aggressive and sophisticated multimillion-dollar marketing campaigns? Kids are bombarded all day long with ads countering the messages their parents try to impart.

And while food companies have pledged — with great fanfare — to scale back unhealthy food marketing to kids, studies show these efforts have been woefully inadequate. For instance, on Nickelodeon, the most popular children’s TV station, ads for foods of poor nutritional quality went down from about nine in 10 of all food ads (in 2005, before self-regulation) to eight in 10 (in 2009, after the self-regulation initiative was implemented).

Federal policymakers are legally free to pursue a range of strategies to help protect children and teens from dangerously deceptive marketing, as long as the regulations are tailored to the appropriate age group. They could bar online junk food “advergames” aimed at children and teens. They could cap the number of junk food ads on children’s TV. They could limit the use of product placement in programming and licensed characters in ads directed to children.

It’s only politics, not law, that’s standing in the way.

Samantha Graff, JD, is the director of legal research for Public Health Law & Policy (www.phlpnet.org), a nonprofit research and training center based in Oakland, California. She serves on the steering committee of the national Food Marketing Workgroup, a network of more than 120 organizations and academic leaders in nutrition, public health, advertising and marketing, consumer protection, public policy, and child development working to address the proliferation of marketing of unhealthful foods and beverages targeted at children and adolescents. This post was originally published in Roll Call.

Livongo’s Post Ad Banner 728*90

11
Leave a Reply

10 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Gafas Ray banZapatos MBT onlineZapatillas new balance 574 ropaGHD OutletHealthscribes.com Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Gafas Ray ban
Guest

/Art/1199886/53/Great-Selection-Of-Villas-With-Club-Villamar
Gafas Ray ban http://www.ajearagon.com/gafasrayban.html

Zapatos MBT online
Guest

? Data cleansing and enrichment – Profile, cleanse, enhance, and observe data to make reliable, straight answers.
Zapatos MBT online http://www.nutec.es/Zapatos-MBT-online.html

Zapatillas new balance 574 ropa
Guest

What To Expect From The Indian Airports
Zapatillas new balance 574 ropa http://www.nutec.es/ZapatillasNewBalance574ropa.html

GHD Outlet
Guest

I successfully ruined the second most expensive item I had packed.. When they came in it became apparent that the only string he could find was a shoelace.
GHD Outlet http://odeeh.com/relaunch/wp-content/ghdblack.php

Healthscribes.com
Guest

Very pertinent discussion indeed. Media is a powerful tool. If some folks are out there to take advantage, they can. We keep our son away from all popular media, so far successfully. Also, read this on health diet for kids http://www.healthscribes.com/newsupdate/Children,Kid%27s+Health/85

MD as HELL
Guest
MD as HELL

Parenting was killed off by the welfare state, brought to you by the same bunch who called ketchup a “vegetable”.

The first amendment is always in play when it comes to the government.

Nate Ogden
Guest
Nate Ogden

We all know this Administration has taken hypocrisy to new levels but do we really think our kids are so stupid that she can lecture them to eat one way then turn around and do the exact opposite and they won’t notice? http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/02/27/michelle-governors-gorge-2000-calories/ February 27, 2012, 8:26 am The White House Sunday epically failed to practice what its first lady preaches, serving the nation’s governors a more than 2,000 calorie dinner even as Michelle Obama traverses the country promoting health eating. While Michelle lectures children to cut out the fat and eat their vegetables unadorned with caloric sauces, she served… Read more »

Will
Guest

“Selling food to our kids is about the 100th worst thing being pushed on them right now. ”

No. I would be comfortable putting it in the top 5. The habit of eating unhealthy food will carry into obesity, (potentially) diabetes, heart disease and early death. You’re dismissing a health crisis as less important than kids drawing pictures.

The important issues are the ones that will keep children from leading full lives – and saddling them with malnutrition and obesity IS important. Stop ignoring real problems just because you’re worried it might require some effort.

Nate Ogden
Guest
Nate Ogden

It might seem like splitting hairs but it’s a major distinction. Advertising to kids IS NOT the same as unhealthy eating habits. Your assuming a complete lack of parental involvement if you claim watching a hostess commercial directly leads to a twinkie in the kids mouth. Poor diet, obesity, etc are failures of parenting. Before we look to remove commercials from TV we need to start taking kids away from these parents that allow it to happen. Stop looking for the easy way out by blaming advertisers, the issue is parenting and until you out in the work to fix… Read more »

Nate Ogden
Guest
Nate Ogden

From Obama’s famous attempt to indoctrine all the school kids at once “Critics are particularly upset about lesson plans the administration created to accompany the speech. The lesson plans, available online, originally recommended having students “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.” This should be blocked and kids only allowed to access it with adult supervision; https://my.barackobama.com/page/content/kidskit Get involved in KIDS FOR OBAMA! Studies have shown that kids can affect their parents and their siblings’ opinions and even change the opinions of older family members . . . including those of voting age. Ask… Read more »

Nate Ogden
Guest
Nate Ogden

“There is no plausible way to advertise to a young child without being misleading.” I can only assume you also oppose the Obama outreach to children on the same grounds then? We obviously can’t have kids signing songs about Obama if they are unable to tell they are being sold a bunch of BS. And those commercials Michelle Obama does targeted at kids must also go, thinly disguised political campaigning at best. Or do you advocate the Government should have the power to decide what it feels is acceptable marketing to kids and what is not? Not that government would… Read more »