Self regulation = NO regulation

In 2007, major food companies sensing impending regulation over the marketing of unhealthy foods to children announced a grand self-regulatory scheme that would be sure to quiet critics. Several companies came together with the help of the Better Business Bureau to create the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI). Under this initiative, transnational corporations (including Coca-Cola, McDonald's and General Mills) promised to stop marketing foods of poor nutrition value to children in the US.

However, two recently released reports conclusively demonstrated that the food industry's voluntary efforts have failed to significantly improve the nutritional quality of foods marketed to children. Children Now commissioned a report that found that nearly 3 out of 4 (72.5%) of the foods advertised on TV for children are for products in the Department of Health and Human Services' poorest nutritional category.

Furthermore, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) issued a similar report that despite utilizing different methods came to a comparable conclusion. CSPI found that products that companies identify as appropriate to market to children (approved products) met
each company's own standards. However, the majority (59%) of approved products did not meet a single, third‐party nutrition standard.

Even worse, some corporations really stood apart from the rest with the largest proportions of products approved by the company for marketing to children that did not meet CSPI's recommended nutrition standards. The worst offenders: PepsiCo (100% of products did not meet third party standards), Kraft (90%), and McDonald’s (88%). You mean McDonald's markets junk food to children? Who knew?

Corporate Accountability International have worked against abusive industries for years and we've certainly witnessed a plethora of voluntary initiatives that promise to rectify social concerns. It's strange though, we've never witnessed a single self-regulatory scheme actually work. Let's chalk up another defeat. Unfortunately, it's our children that pay the price for defeat with their health.

For those who were skeptical, SELF REGULATION DOES NOT WORK! The only accomplishment of self-regulation is to provide the industry cover while they stall any meaningful reforms that might actually benefit the health and well-being of our children. I'm hopeful that the release of these reports will serve as an alarm for those who have put their faith in an industry that has an inherent conflict of interest and should not be trusted to protect our children from their dangerous marketing practices.

Where's Ronald? An update from the field.

The Ronald sightings continue to roll in from our Where’s Ronald? national scavenger hunt. Even though the corporation claims he does not market food to kids, we've caught the clown all across the country doing just that. Here are some examples of submissions we’ve received from our members and activists so far:

Baby Ronald?

One principle of marketing to children is that the younger you can foster brand loyalty, the better. This despite the fact that kids under eight do not understand the persuasive intent of marketing. Here’s an example from a restaurant in Washington, DC of "Baby Ronald" reaching out to even younger audiences (the sign says "Ask about our special toys for children under 3"):











McLiteracy:

Ronald has been visiting libraries in Southern California as part of “National Literacy Month,” promoting reading and handing out McDonald’s gift certificates. Should something as fundamental as literacy become a marketing opportunity for junk food?













Where will Ronald pop up next? Stay tuned, and help us find him at www.WheresRonald.org.

Say Cheeze!

I read a story this week about a mobile dental care unit that visits schools in low-income counties across northern Arkansas and offers low-cost dental care to children without dental insurance. Bill Mathews, a director of the charity, shared its mission: “to create, find and support programs that directly improve the health and well-being of children.” I was delighted, until I learned that the mobile dental clinic is a project of Ronald McDonald House Charities, and Bill Mathews is a McDonald’s franchisee.

I know that some reading this will say, “don’t fault them for trying” or “it’s not perfect, but it’s a start” and I would have to agree – IF – if I believed McDonald’s actually wanted to improve the health and well-being of children. But McDonald’s is the world’s largest fast food corporation and they exist for the singular purpose of earning money and making profits; and this charity helps them do it. Let’s face it:

• A 40-foot trailer parked at an elementary school with a giant picture of Ronald McDonald is marketing.
• All the publicity about the charity that bolsters the public image of the parent corporation is marketing.
• A palatable social mission that makes parents feel better about feeding their children food that is unhealthy is marketing!

Let’s be clear, Ronald McDonald House Charities do offer tremendous services to children and families in need. And while I appreciate that it’s a sensitive thing to criticize a charity that doubles as a corporate PR arm, the very fact that I feel the need to include that disclaimer demonstrates exactly how influential the charity’s reputation is on McDonald’s corporate image.

Bottom line: it is unacceptable to excuse a corporation whose pursuit of profit causes more harm that could possibly be mitigated by its charitable efforts.

McDonald’s wants you to care about dental health because it “has been associated with diabetes, heart disease and malnourishment.” Guess what, so has fast food.

“Tooth decay is fives times more prevalent than asthma and seven times more prevalent than hay fever.” Yet, obesity is now the second leading cause of preventable death behind tobacco.

“Often parents are unable to take their children to see a dentist because they cannot pay or cannot afford time off from work for an appointment.” At the same time, McDonald’s has aggressively fought minimum-wage laws and denied such benefits to their own workers and their families.

“Ronald McDonald Care Mobile ® is a way for us to have a positive and direct effect on the dental health of children here in Northwest Arkansas,” said Mathews, whose own store would be happy to serve your children the “healthy” happy meal option of nutrient-stripped peeled apple slices in an enamel-hating caramel dipping sauce!

Perhaps the numbers tell it best: Ronald McDonald House Charities provided $21million in programs and services last year, McDonald’s made more than one thousand times ($23.5B) that in revenue last year and spent nearly one hundred times as much ($2B) on advertising.

Is there really still a questions about where McDonald’s priorities lie?

Image: (Chang W. Lee/ New York Times)

Obesity, life-expectancy and health reform: Is this our chance to get it right?

A new study in the New England Journal of Medicine (as reported on CNN) tells us that, even though the reduced rates of smoking in this country should have increased our overall life expectancy, the rates of overweight and obesity have more than wiped out any gains; Americans, on average, will die about 1 year earlier than they would have if we were all normal weight. Now, of course we’re not all going to be of “normal weight,” but that is a significant decrease in life expectancy for a completely preventable epidemic.

And it gets worse! Another recent study tells us that “obesity is actually the second-largest carcinogen in the United States. Only tobacco causes more cancer than obesity…”
Despite this, policy makers have been slow to implement the kinds of regulations that have been instrumental in curbing smoking. One small proposal including in the major bills in play, which we previously discussed, would require fast-food outlets and other chain restaurants to post calorie information on their menus and other product displays – unfortunately by pre-empting stronger, local regulations, and in exchange for exempting the restaurant industry from lawsuits or further regulation.

Cigarette taxes and restrictions on marketing have been instrumental in preventing young folks from starting to smoke. Yet, a small tax on a beverage with no nutritional value – soda – never made it into health care reform because (according to industry lobbyists) a tax would not change consumer behavior. Lobbyists also claim the tax could disproportionately affect low-income populations. Question: If a soda tax wouldn’t change consumer behavior, it also couldn’t really have that great of an economic effect on low-income folks, or they’d stop buying soda, right? Am I missing something?

This seems so small - are we missing a huge opportunity to get prevention into health reform? Or - as Michael Pollan suggests - once insurers can no longer deny people coverage for pre-existing conditions, will prevention suddenly rise to the top of the agenda?

Image courtesy of Rutgers Health Law Society

KFC urges consumers to "unthink" at a penny per calorie

KFC’s new product, Kentucky Grilled Chicken (KGC), was recently named 2009 "Most Memorable New Product Launch". The angle? Pay just a penny per calorie for the 395-calorie grilled chicken meal. The meal includes a Kentucky Grilled Chicken drumstick and thigh, green beans and mashed potatoes and gravy.

Imagine what it would be like if other fast food corporations followed suit, charging a penny per calorie for their signature products. That would mean that an average McDonald’s meal, say, a Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese, large French Fries, and a large chocolate shake, would be 1,680 calories, or $16.80. Not exactly a competitive edge over KFC and its claim that they are “asking America to UNTHINK the myth that this meal from KFC can't be both delicious and contain fewer than 400 calories.” But wait, aren’t we missing the “nutritious” piece?

This is a perfect example of how fast food corporations are trying every tactic to manipulate consumers, and push the legitimacy of their junk food brand by strategically offering up calorie counts as part of new “healthier” product advertising. But the reality is, fast food giants are fighting menu labeling laws tooth and nail so they can continue to peddle their dangerous products to children and the public.

Kid Tested, Moms (paid to) Approve!

From toddlers to parents, clever marketers increasingly target even the most vigilant parents with sophisticated media tactics. On one hand, a recent study indicates that children are consuming more hours of TV than ever, with the youngest (aged 2-5) watching 32 hours per week on average!

On the parent side, Mommy bloggers are increasingly wined, dined and financially compensated by food giants for “evaluating” snack food and promoting brands and products on their blogs. Nutrition activists are worried that the food industry is funding a campaign that is “shrewd marketing” says Barbara Moore from ShapeUp America. Though this type of lavish compensation is far from new, food companies from Kraft to Nestlé to Taco Bell have raised the stakes. An article in the LATimes claims that “Some companies are even offering free kitchen appliances, vacations, groceries and enough fruity snacks to feed a neighborhood's worth of kids.”

Though a recent FTC regulation requires bloggers to divulge financial and product compensation, many remain concerned that the disclosure guidelines don’t go far enough. Even the most vigilant moms who read blogs may not realize that they are actively being targeted by their own community and that their favorite blogs may be tainted by direct marketing, rather than genuine content. When kids watch more TV ads and nearly 25 million moms read blogs, how are even the most careful parents supposed to trust the old product catchphrase “kid tested, mom approved?”

Photo found here http://www.velveteenmind.com/velveteenmind/mommybloggers-the-resource.html

Where's Ronald? We're beginning to find out!

Since we launched our "Where's Ronald?" scavenger hunt this fall, folks across the nation have been tracking down the clown, finding him in the most unusual places. Folks have found him on the internet, in restaurants, and children's libraries, just to name a few places.

Wherever they go, our members and activists are finding ample evidence to disprove McDonald's CEO, James Skinner's strange assertion that "Ronald has never sold food to kids in the history of his existence."

Here is one example, from the McDonald's Thanksgiving Parade in Chicago (yes, the whole parade is named after the corporation).

















Ronald in a big, red clown shoe with the McDonald's logo front-and-center.

Have you seen Ronald? Find out how you can get in on the action at www.WheresRonald.org

Photo found here http://picasaweb.google.com/chicagofestivals/McDonaldSBigRedShoe#5278754157874870146