A recent Washington Post article caught my interest: “Sweet Surrender,” subtitled: Under Siege, Companies Begin Replacing Familiar Junk Food Pitches and Products.
The first paragraph is especially telling. “An industry that has been skewered repeatedly during the past decade–blamed for the super-sizing of millions of American children–is altering how it makes and markets snacks, beverages and other temptations of young consumers.”
Altruistic? Hardly. As the article points out, “Motivated by the triple threat of bad publicity, tougher regulation and costly lawsuits, some of the country’s biggest food companies have curtailed child-targeted advertising of certain high-calorie products.” With growing obesity among our youth, and push-back from parents, educators and lawmakers, food companies have stepped back and reformulated many of their popular offerings. They’ve also taken a different stance on marketing them.
“Compared to where we were just two years ago, the progress has been epochal, huge. That fact that companies are agreeing to stop marketing their junkiest foods to the youngest people is incredible”, Stephen Gardner of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, stated. While the winds of change are beginning to blow, much more needs to be done. Still, we seem to be heading in a new direction.
Notable recent changes include:
* Some of our largest food companies, including Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Hershey’s and Mars have pledged to stop all forms of product advertising to kids under the age of 12.
* At least a dozen corporations have pledged through a Council of Better Business Bureau campaign that half of the advertising to kids aged 12 and under will promote healthier nutritional choices.
* Many snack manufacturers are offering and emphasizing “baked” rather than “fried” choices now.
* McDonald’s Happy Meals can be purchased with sliced apples and 1% milk. When McD’s repackaged milk in brightly colored plastic containers, sales doubled. The fast food giant is now exploring adding vitamin-laced drinks and fruit smoothies in the future.
* Disney theme parks have substituted healthy drinks and veggies for kids unless families specifically request soda and fries. Disney has also licensed some of its most popular characters on fruit and vegetable combo trays, and milk.
* Kraft is reducing sodium in some of its Lunchables, and General Mills is lowering fat and sugar in popular cereals like Spider-Man 3.
* The American Beverage Association in an agreement with the Alliance for a Healthier Generation, will no longer be offering 20 ounce beverages in schools in the 2009-2010 school year. The new norm: 12 ounce beverages in high schools and smaller sizes in middle and elementary schools. Vending machines are being retrofitted to accommodate the new, smaller sized containers.
* To date: sodas and sugary drinks have decreased by 45% in U.S. schools; bottled water is up by 23%.
* 100 calorie snack packs have been such a hit, more of the same is on the horizon. These snacks are focusing on providing tasty treats sans unhealthy trans fats.
Bottom line: while personal responsibility and parental guidance are necessary in assisting our kids with their food choices, so too, do food and beverage companies share in that responsibility. By not advertising these clearly enticing products to kids under the age of 12, by not marketing the least nutritious junk foods to youth in favor of better choices, and by lowering the amount of sugar, salt and eliminating harmful fats in many snack foods and beverages, food companies will have begun to do their share to assist parents in the battle to instill good nutrition and to fight against obesity.
Questions:
* What more do you think should be done to clean up our snack foods and beverages?
* Do you think getting away from the “Super Size Me” mentality would help? Would it be helpful if snacks, sodas and sugary beverages came in smaller sizes than they do now?
* Do you think vending machines should be eliminated in schools completely–even if they do provide revenue for school programs?
* Do you think snack food and beverage companies can “do well and do good” to cite a great line from the article?
I’d love to hear from you.
Related posts:
Hi Ted, enjoyed this post and it’s a timely topic. As you mentioned, both parties share a responsibility – consumers need to have more knowledge and understanding of general health issues/ingredients etc, and companies need to provide more transparency and choices for heathier eating. You also made the point that like “going green”, “going healthy” is good business!
The more we can influence manufacturers to switch to better ingredients in their products, and the more educated parents become about nutritional choices for their children, the better off we’ll all be. Making sure kids learn healthy eating habits will likely stay with them through life–even if they do take temporary detours in the Tween and teen years.
Thanks for commenting, Paul. I appreciate it.
We like this too and think that they should definitely make more 100 Calorie snack packs like they are making now. In an ideal world, they’d get rid of all the junkiest food!
Ted, great post here. Both F&B companies and parents are to responsible. BUT more important role is of parents. If parents from the early years, tell their kids that sugar diets are harmful, and educate them on their negative effects. Kids are like sponge, they will absorb it and stay away from Super Size meals.
Great post. I would never know about these sort of initiatives without this blog.
Questions:
* What more do you think should be done to clean up our snack foods and beverages?
Ideally, for foods, whole grains and a lot less salt and sugar. I think (but do not know for sure) that fruit sweetened is probably healthier than, say, corn syrup as a sweetener. If possible, the industry would gradually step down the amount of salt and sugar.
As I think you mentioned in an earlier post, an extremely abrupt change might turn people off.
* Do you think getting away from the “Super Size Me” mentality would help? Would it be helpful if snacks, sodas and sugary beverages came in smaller sizes than they do now?
Yes, I think it is human nature to eat the serving they have in front of them. If they are used to smaller serving sizes, then likely people will eat and drink less. However, some will just go back for seconds and thirds, of course.
* Do you think vending machines should be eliminated in schools completely–even if they do provide revenue for school programs?
Yes. Absolutely. At the risk of sounding trite, health is the most important thing.
Why does junk food need to help pay for school programs anyway? That seems absurd to me…
* Do you think snack food and beverage companies can “do well and do good” to cite a great line from the article?
Yes. Absolutely. The engine driving our system is enlightened self-interest.
“In an ideal world, they’d get rid of all the junkiest food!” Wouldn’t that be nice, Brick Marketing?
Thanks for chiming in to the conversation.
You’re so right, Abhi. As kids grow into the Tween and teen years, their peers carry a lot of weight and kids can get into less than healthy eating habits. And they’ll probably tend to snack more. Still, with parental guidance from a young age, we can hope kids will get back on course if they stray for a while. It’s still helpful if school vending machines have healthier assortments of snacks in them. And it’s still desirable for the manufacturers of food and beverage products to take the “junk” out of junk food. Thanks for opining, Abhi. Much appreciated.
Hi Neil,
Thanks for the kind words, and thank you for your thoughtful answers to the questions I posed in my post. I can’t disagree with any of your comments. Americans have an “addiction” if you will, to sugar. Unrefined sugar, ie, turbinado, honey, stevia or agave are all preferable to high fructose corn syrup. That’s for certain. The Super Size craze has hopefully peaked; it would be great to see that fad go in reverse, wouldn’t it? Vending machines are another big issue. Kids are confronted with an endless stream of candy and soda these days, no matter where they go, including school. That’s why there has been such a push back by parents and educators. Let’s hope we’re turning the corner on some of the worst trends, and getting our children on the right track when it comes to food/beverage consumption.
Thanks for weighing in, Neil, as always.
I do not understand why, if parents and teachers understand that junk food is so bad, that they allow it to be sold in schools?
Of course, adults cannot control the behavior of kids but they do not have to condone it. Sure, some kids are going to smoke but we choose not to capture that revenue with cigarette machines. I believe, but would have to look into it, that more people are killed by junk food than smokes each year.
And, like smoking, the junk food habit starts young. Why condone it? Let the kids who want it, get their own junk food like they get their own cigarettes.
I’m sure many people are asking the very same questions you are. Vending machines have had a presence in schools for so long, and for most adults they’re “out of sight and out of mind”–I think many have simply forgotten about them. Even if they were to be pulled out of schools, though, what about the cafeteria menus? Many school systems have increasingly come under fire from parents and community leaders for their offerings. Fried, greasy foods that are high on calories and low on nutrition have been standard fare for school kids for a long time now. This is another big issue. To be fair, many schools are trying to bring in more fruits, veggies, yogurt and lower fat meals into their menus, but much more has to be done. When it comes to our schools, kids are confronted with few healthy food choices. Unfortunately.
Thanks for a great discussion, Neil.
Ted, you’ve done it again!! This post really comes at a good time. A colleague of mine had a massive coronary last week and passed away. He was only 52. He suffered from diabetes, high blood pressure and was morbidly obese. He would sometimes ask me about how I lost weight and I’d give him some words of wisdom and encouragement, but to no avail. He was addicted to the very food that killed him.
I work in one of the lowest income neighborhoods in the New York. It’s disturbing to me that if I need to stop off at the supermarket on the way home, I’m confronted with humongous Little Debbie and Entenmann’s displays as I walk in the door, but am hard-pressed to find appealing fruit or whole wheat (and I mean REAL whole wheat bread–not white bread with a suntan).
For those of you who are reading this who don’t know me, I lost 200 lbs four years ago and have kept if off. How? By educating myself about nutrition and learning how certain foods negatively impact me.
Yes, food manufacturers and even our government can take a lot of responsibility for the vast increase in obseity and Type2 Diabetes in children.
Why the FDA would allow a food addititve like high fructose corn syrup to be used in almost everything we eat, and to make matters worse, to subsidize farmers to grow corn to continue to poison us, I don’t know. Yet, crops like apples, lettuce and oranges are considered to be specialty crops and don’t get the same slice of the proverbial subsidy pie. So what does that leave us with–fewer healthy choices and more of the sugar, salt and fat laden crap that’s making us all sick.
I sit here in a precarious place. On one hand, I’m a marketer. On the other hand, I’m a consumer that strives to live a healthy, thin life. I think as a consumer, like millions of others, I have the power to change how food products are sold. Once enough of us say, “Enough!,” only then will we be able to get real change.
And by the way, those 100-calorie packs have high fructose corn syrup. I’ll take my 100 calories in the form of a couple of apples. But it is a start, I’ll admit.
There’s nothing like hearing from someone with first-hand experience, Dawn. Your articulate message will resonate with DF readers, I’m sure. You’ve stated the message far more effectively than anyone else could, and I thank you. I congratulate you on losing so much weight–and keeping it off. The point is: we as consumers all need to become better educated about nutrition. As parents, we need to guide the next generation in making sound food choices, but how can we do that unless we’re savvy about it?
So sorry for the loss of your friend. Hopefully, the untimely deaths of family and friends will serve as a wake-up call to the rest of us. You’re absolutely right, Dawn. From a marketing perspective, food/beverage manufacturers will only respond if there are major consumer push backs. That’s the only way we can make change happen. While the process has begun, we all have a long way to go.
Great conversation, Dawn. Thanks again for adding your insights to this post.
I hope you will welcome a contrary view, Ted.
While several, including you have, made passing mention of the role of parents, not one has gone into depth. In fact, of the questions posed at the end of your post none deal with the issue of parents.
As a father of 5 (13 yrs to 4 mos) I am all to familiar with the role advertising plays in shaping what my children want, in all product categories.
What I see today is too many parents, in an attempt to avoid a fight, giving the kids what they want.
From day 1 my wife and I set limits on everything – junk food, TV, video games, etc. – and have stuck by those limits with the occasional exception for special circumstances.
What concerns me is the parent(s), and I see them almost daily, that give into their kids in a misguided attempt to avoid a confrontation. I guess for some it’s easier to give the little one than instill disipline.
Case in point: In an article about this very subject – banning advertising of “junk” food to children – a mother quoted in the story was in favor of the law because she found it too hard to tell her child “no”. In other words, she found it too hard to be the parent.
I believe we turn too quickly to government to provide solutions – something which it is woefully incapable of providing.
Instead, let’s have a discussion about the role of parents in limiting the amount of media their children are exposed to. Let’s have a conversation about how parents can access the infomation necessary to make good decisions about the food they feed their children. Let’s discuss how parents can introduce limits on junk food and candy.
Let’s stop the knee-jerk reaction of identifying “Big (insert industry here)” as evil. Let’s stop considering “Big (insert industry here)” as having so much influence on our children that we are incapable overcoming the impact.
All points of view are welcome on my posts, Mark, contrary or not. I respect everyone’s opinions. I don’t think we disagree in that parents are the first line of guidance–and defense–against a relentless media blitz promoting things that are not necessarily the best for our kids. As a parent of two kids myself, I know exactly what you’re talking about. Having said that, I also feel that educators and parents working in tandem, as well as “big industry” itself need to all do a better job in policing what young kids are exposed to. This is not about “government” per se. Many grassroots organizations have started up in response to the growing obesity epidemic among our youth.
If parents continually cave in to what kids want, they’re doing a long-term disservice to them. As I’ve stated before, and we all know this isn’t easy: parents need to take responsibility for their children’s well-being, nutritional or otherwise. As you point out, Mark, there is enough fodder in this post for ten more posts and this discussion could go into many directions.
You’ve made some very strong, well-articulated points about parenting, and I thank you.
It’s weird to hear all this lip service being paid to parental responsibility, while avoiding the inevitable next question: if it is a parent’s responsibility to choose healthy foods for their kids, why is anybody marketing to kids?
The answer is that while everyone must talk about parental responsibility, they also know that the “nag factor” works and marketing to kids can wear parents down. They also know that research has shown us that younger kids have a hard time distinguishing between advertising and other kinds of communication, leading them to put more faith in adverisers’ claim than adults do.
So the message is, “parents must be responsible, and we’ll be creating counter-forces to make it harder to be reponsible.”
I just can’t find a rationale for why marketing to kids is an ethical practice.
John,
The area of marketing and advertising snacks and sugary beverages has been a flashpoint in the last couple of years, and for exactly the reasons you’ve stated.
Some of the largest food manufacturers are beginning to get on board with limiting their advertising to young children… because of increasing consumer pressure. And because grassroots organizations are forcing the issue. Translation: not advertising the least healthy snack foods on kid oriented TV networks, magazines, Internet sites, etc.
You’re dead on: parents are having to deal with peer pressure and advertising, while trying to hold the line. Nobody said it was going to be easy, did they?
Provocative insights and questions, John. I appreciate your adding another important dimension to the conversation.
John,
The area of marketing and advertising snacks and sugary beverages has been a flashpoint in the last couple of years, and for exactly the reasons you’ve stated.
Some of the largest food manufacturers are beginning to get on board with limiting their advertising to young children… because of increasing consumer pressure. And because grassroots organizations are forcing the issue. Translation: not advertising the least healthy snack foods on kid oriented TV networks, magazines, Internet sites, etc.
You’re dead on: parents are having to deal with peer pressure and advertising, while trying to hold the line. Nobody said it was going to be easy, did they?
Provocative insights and questions, John. I appreciate your adding another important dimension to the conversation.
Mark, I believe there is a consensus that children and teenagers are not fully formed adults.
When they are in the presence of their parents they are under their direct responsibility. When they arrive at school or other venues supervised by adults, those adults, in effect, are passed the responsibilities of the parents.
We sometimes formalize this by saying “in loco parentis.”
That said, people are not in a position to act as parents all the time, so they must rely on other adults to take some responsibility.
Your throwing around this anecdote or that about irresponsible or wimpy parents to me takes nothing away from the idea that schools and food companies share in the responsibility here not to push junk food on kids.
Schools do not vend cigarettes nor sell a stiff drink in the cafeteria regardless of the school programs it could fund. Yes, the government, rightly, forbids it but, beyond that, it would offend our sensibilities to the point where we simply would not tolerate it.
While it is true that parental responsibility is lacking in some households or maybe many, that in no way detracts from the responsibility to recognize children as not fully formed adults. They are not fully able to make decisions. We all recognize and agree on that principle.
That said, we should all recognize that those parents trying to do a good job face and uphill battle. I am not yet a parent but I think the fact that school lunches are almost as disgusting as when I was in school is amazing. That junk food is sold in vending machines is outrageous. Finally, that large corporations directly market junk food, that does demonstrably kills people every day, directly to children to be completely outrageous.
I know that a good parent must be always be vigilante against corrosive influences on their children but our institutions and popular culture have made this task a Herculian one. That is sad. All the forces and powers of our society should be lined up to support not to undermine the good parent.
Don’t get me wrong: I think that it’s good to see marketing of junk food to kids ratcheted back.
But I think there’s a larger question here, which is whether marketing ANYTHING to kids is an ethical activity, given what we know about how human cognitive abilities develop.
Shouldn’t product for children be marketed to their parents?
You’re raising an interesting point, John. Actually, most marketers of kids’ products aim their messages at children and their parents. The reason? They know they have to build demand with their target audience, but the parents as “gatekeepers” have to buy into their products, literally and figuratively speaking.
If anything, you might be shocked to find out that even adult products are being marketed to children now. The reason for this: kids impact big ticket family purchase decisions more than ever before. Thus, car companies and electronics companies, just to cite two huge industries, are marketing to children now. That’s something that ought to give us all pause, isn’t it?
Thanks for adding an important dimension to the conversation, John. I appreciate it.
Great conversation.
I raised my kids on health food – no sugar, chocolate, white bread, etc., When they got old enough, they wanted what they couldn’t have. They saw what their peers had and felt left out.
As parents, we can only have an influence for so long, then the peer group and external influencers take over. The key at his point, is to educate kids in the school system. Encouraging healthy eating habits go hand in hand with promoting exercise and alcohol and drugs abstention. If all the kids get it reinforced and the schools walk the talk by selling healthy foods and scheduling phys ed, there’s a better chance of creating healthier young adults.
Maybe subsidizing these programs nationally would be a more productive use of public funds than programs on sex abstention until marriage.
Great post, thanks!
In my opinion we can not blame only wending machines and snack producers. Big part of responsibility lies on parents. I agree with Abhi Vyas that kids are like sponges. If parents will show good example of eating healthy, will provide their children with healthy meals, explain benefits of that, and encourage them to live a healthy active lifestyle, there will be less obesity problems.
Of course kids friendly packaging for healthy food (green lettuce with Spiderman) will help parents to get kids interested in particular products.
MG,
Could you please my post above that mentions “in loco parentis?”
I do not think it is a mtter of blaming the vending machines or snack producers. Only simpleton would make such a banal argument that one or two things alone are to blame and that parents have no role.
It is true, and manifestly so, that outside forces have made it hard for responsible, good parents to do their job well.
BTW, MG, I was not suggestion that *you* are a simpleton but just that nobody has said that the snack companies or vending machines are to blame. Nor, as anyone suggested that parents have no responsibility.
It vexes me that, for some reason, whenever these sort of issues come up there is a chorus of parental responsibility, parental responsibility, parental responsibility, as though parents operated in a vacuum of absolute control and that there are no other significant factors on their children.
Clearly, this is not the case and this chorus has grown to be very tiresome…
Your points are right on the money, Elaine. As I said earlier in this conversation track, we all know as parents that if we instill good eating habits in our kids, at some point peer pressure is going to come in and derail our efforts. Having said that, though, we have to hope that once past the Tween-teen years, our kids will come back to the basics we’ve given them. Schools can be valuable allies in this matter. But when kids hit the teen years, I’m not sure they won’t tune out those messages, either. At least for a while. . .Still, it’s worth it if the schools assist parents in this. For the kids whose parents aren’t parenting, the schools may be the only line of defense they have, also. Thanks for weighing in, Elaine. Much appreciated.
Excellent point, Marketing Garden. It isn’t enough for parents to tell their kids to eat in a healthy manner, and then consume junk food and soda all day long themselves. Leading by example is very important here. The old adage “Actions speak louder than words” is very true. Kids are smart, and they know if their parents are being honest, or not.
Thanks for making an important point, MG. I appreciate it.
You’re right, Neil. It’s harder and harder for parents to get their kids’ attention these days. There are many messages in modern society that conflict with ours. That’s a good reason why, we need to walk the talk as parents. Being an example is important. And kids do notice. They take everything in.
Thanks for adding your insights to the conversation, Neil.
Ted, you make excellent points about kids coming around to the things parents teach.
I was taught to eat reasonably well and I was not allowed to eat sugar when I was very young.
When I got to be a bit older in my childhood and especially in my teens, I drank mountain dew, ate candy bars, even shop lifted some Ho Hos a couple of times.
When I became an adult I came back around to many of the things my parents taught me from basic values to what to eat. This is not to say I never eat desert but I do limit sugar and try to eat a good diet.
I agree, Neil. When kids mature more, they remember their parents’ messages and hopefully return to the values we’ve instilled in them. The tween and teen years will probably see many lapses, but by the time kids become adults, let’s hope they try to maintain a balanced diet. That’s hard to do these days, even for knowledgeable adults. We put in many hours at work, try to cram in our other activities, and grab convenience foods on the run way too often. So we’re all guilty of not always practicing what we preach to our kids. As I said, kids are very savvy and they’re watching what we’re doing; not just what we’re saying. We have to remember that as adults and parents.
Thanks for your insights, Neil.
At least it’s a move in the right direction. When we can, my wife and I shop at the health food stores. One reason: healthier food. Other reason: no cartoon characters on the boxes. My kids choose things just because Sponge Bob is on the package and I reject it because cartoon characters mean bad food almost across the board. And when we go to the regular store, only I go. Yes, it is the parent’s responsibility. But does it take this much gymnastics to be responsible.
Stephan,
I’m sure a number of Daily Fix readers were nodding as they read your comments. I was because I understand exactly what you’re saying here. It does take a certain amount of “gymnastics” as you put it, to navigate the stores in this age of heavy consumerism. As you stated, it’s nice to see some movement–in the right direction by many of the largest food companies. We all know that much more needs to be done, but we have to start somewhere.
Thanks for adding some good comments to this post, Stephan.