Congress delays food marketing guidelines for kids
Saturday, December 17, 2011
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Trade Commission says it is taking another look at guidelines designed to limit the marketing of unhealthy foods to kids after Congress delayed the effort.
The voluntary guidelines proposed by the government earlier this year set maximum levels of fat, sugars and sodium and ask food companies not to market foods that go beyond those levels to children ages 2 through 17. That could limit colorful cartoon characters on cereal packages, television ads and product websites.
The food industry, backed by Republicans in Congress, has lobbied aggressively against the guidelines. They say they are too broad and would limit marketing of almost all of the nation's favorite foods, including yogurts and many children's cereals. Though the guidelines would be voluntary, food companies say they fear the government will retaliate against them if they don't go along.
The delay, which would require the government to study the costs of the effort before releasing final guidelines, is buried in a massive spending bill to pay for the government's daily operations. The House passed the measure on Friday with expected Senate approval over the weekend.
In a statement Friday, Cecelia Prewett of the FTC said that "Congress has clearly changed its mind" about the marketing guidelines and that the government "will be assessing its language and working toward congressional intent." Congress originally asked for the guidelines in a 2009 spending bill to help combat childhood obesity.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa., who led the 2009 effort, said Friday that the delay "is a huge loss for our nation's children, who will continue to be bombarded with ads for junk food and sugary soft drinks."
The agencies in charge of the effort — including the FTC, the Agriculture Department, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — have already backed off the original guidelines proposed in April, which industry argued were too strict. David Vladeck, director of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Consumer Protection, said at a congressional hearing in October that the government would likely soften the guidelines.
Among the changes he suggested were narrowing children targeted to 2- to 11-year-olds instead of up to age 17 and allowing marketing of the unhealthier foods at fundraisers and sporting events. Vladeck also said his agency would not recommend that companies change packaging or remove brand characters from food products that don't qualify, as was originally suggested.
Vladeck has called the idea that the voluntary guidelines would become mandatory "a myth."
The industry came out with its own guidelines over the summer, proposing to limit advertising on some foods for children but adjusting the criteria. Though the industry proposal is more lenient than the government plan, the effort has won praise from federal officials, who said they will consider it as they finalize the guidelines.

Comments
wyriontair 1 year, 5 months ago
Senator Harkin, D-Iowa should be informed it's parents that buy the food, not the children and the government should get out of micro-managing everyones lives.
Gabrielle 1 year, 5 months ago
I agree, wyriontair. Government get out of it - parents deal with it.
asb 1 year, 5 months ago
Parents buy the foods that baby whines for and the schools buy what's handed them by the monopoly food services who's goods are subsidized and cheap to make, at maximum welfare-grade profits for the fat, salt, grease and such Ag industry. Let's see if Ag will go for the government "getting out of it" by ending corn fat subsidies.
spelchek 1 year, 5 months ago
This comment doesn't address the issue of personal responsibility which is the point trying to be made above. Subsidy or not, parents are responsible for their children's diet, not McDonald's, Central Dairy, Ag business, schools, and especially government.
asb 1 year, 5 months ago
I think it does address personal responsibility, and the limits it has in our food market. Are you saying kids' and suppliers' pressures on parents and schools don't mean anything? There's no peer, advertising or corporate bias in what parents even know about their kids' food options? Don't you know that there are often no real options available at lunchtime beyond what's at the school cafeteria? Don't you recognize the effectiveness of the multi-billion dollar ad campaign and lobby efforts when wielded against good sense? Nuts!
JCLifer 1 year, 5 months ago
If parents would not buy the stuff, the ag companies wouldn't make it.
asb 1 year, 5 months ago
You have it exactly backwards. Parents and schools buy what's offered, and Ag emphasizes the cheapest-to-produce, most subsidized, and so most profitable. They also know the basic monkey drive to find and eat fat, sugar and starch, free advertising.
spelchek 1 year, 5 months ago
There is a vast array of foods I can choose from. There is more than just "Ag" as a variable in the grand scheme of things. We can vote with our wallets as indicated by JCLifer. "Ag" is forced to change it's pattern when say, the government goes on a campaign against sugar (which is absurd by the way). The less food made with sugar means Kellogg, Coca Cola, or whomever have to come up with something else to put in their foods that tastes sweet yet palatable like sugar. Another example of consumer control would be simply drinking water. No sugar, starch, wheat, corn syrup, color #5, etc..... We are not yet slaves to the food industry, there is choice...for now.
asb 1 year, 5 months ago
There is limited choice in the school lunchroom. It's changing but Ag still dominates the options.
spelchek 1 year, 5 months ago
I dominate the options. For the sake of argument, I can buy all the ingredients I want to make a menu that is best for my children and avoid the school's food altogether. School has zero control if I decide I want my children to be on a strict water and flour diet. (I know the example is extreme; just trying to solidify my point) For people that don't care about their children's diet; yes, you're right, the school doesn't offer them much. Then again, it's not the schools job to make sure your child is eating right, it's their job to educate. It's the parents job to educate AND make sure their child is eating right.
JCLifer 1 year, 5 months ago
I will concede that ASB has a point. With all the ag subsidies from the feds, it is difficult to avoid the corn syrup, corn meal, saturated fats, etc. because they are so cheap and so readily available. The truth is that the US Department of Agriculture is the largest federal agency both in terms of # of employees and square footage of office space in Washington, DC. Big AG has its tenticles everywhere in our lives, and it influences and controls our food, our clothing, our medicines, the cars we drive, etc. Federal Government is way too big!
spelchek 1 year, 5 months ago
Government giveth trans fat, and government taketh away.
bluesfan13 1 year, 5 months ago
Actually, you can't give them a water/flour diet, and schools DO control what you can/can't feed your kids. It IS their job to make sure your kids eat right. Right or wrong, somewhere along the way, schools were given that responsibility/authority. School employees are mandated reporters for suspected child abuse and neglect, and malnutrition or even suspected malnutrition is a reportable situation.
evenkeel 1 year, 5 months ago
asb come-on. Really. Are you just trying to be an provocateur? You wrote: "Don't you know that there are often no real options available at lunchtime beyond what's at the school cafeteria?"
Sack-lunch? Ever heard of it? Is a sack lunch a "real option"? Does BIG FOOD control what you pack in a sack lunch?
asb, you don't need to ask the FTC, the Agriculture Department, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for permission to make a sandwich, wrap up some carrot sticks, a piece of fruit and a pudding pack and toss it into a brown paper bag. Hey, look at that! You've just took the first step to becoming a free person exercising your GOD-given right to feed yourself. Keep on rocking in a free world!
John 1 year, 5 months ago
@Evenkeel: I quite often agree with your opinions, however, in this case you probably should do a little more research. There are MANY schools that now prohibit sack lunches brought from home. I have no idea if that is happening there in Jefferson City, but it IS happening in other cities.
evenkeel 1 year, 5 months ago
John, I had no idea things had gotten this bad for ostensibly freedom loving people.
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID