Reports are coming in on the House hearings on the IWG report recommendations.  The IWG, recall from the previous post, is an Interagency Working Group of four federal agencies attempting to set nutrition standards for foods allowed to be marketed to kids.

This first report comes from Broadcasting & Cable:

The first panel of a joint hearing Wednesday on government-proposed food marketing guidelines featured government officials explaining that the principles, announced last April, are only voluntary recommendations to Congress that industry can ignore if they chose, while legislators, primarily Republicans, countering that they represent Big Brother government intruding into meal planning for families and a focus on marketing, without scientific backing, rather than focusing on more physical activity.

Republican lawmakers, it seems, want more science.  That’s always step one in undermining public health proposals: attack the science.  Subsequent steps, you may recall, include attacking critics, focusing on physical activity, and blaming personal responsibility for obesity and its consequences.

According to Healthwatch, Representative Henry Waxman (Dem-Calif)

Compared Republican defenders of unbridled food marketing to children to past champions of the tobacco industry. [He]  drew parallels between Wednesday’s hearing on proposed voluntary marketing restrictions and a 2003 hearing during which some Republicans promoted the safety of smokeless tobacco.

“I just find this an amazing hearing,” Waxman said. “The only thing I can analogize it to is after all the tobacco issues we discussed for many years, Republicans took charge and we never heard anything more about tobacco. Then, suddenly we had a hearing about tobacco.

And the hearing was about how smokeless tobacco should be encouraged as a way for smokers to give up smoking. It was geared to promoting an industry that no doubt supported financially many of the members. I wonder if this hearing is about the same subject.”

What I find most disturbing is the FTC’s backing down on the recommendations which were agreed upon by four federal agencies and voluntary.  CNN reports that David Vladeck, director of the FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection, said:

The coalition of government agencies is “in the midst of making significant revisions” to the original proposal.

Among the changes he suggested are narrowing the age group targeted and focusing on children aged 2 to 11 instead of up to age 17 and allowing marketing of the unhealthier foods at fundraisers and sporting events.

Vladeck also said that his agency would not recommend that companies change packaging or remove brand characters from food products that don’t qualify, as was originally suggested in the guidelines.

“Those elements of packaging, though appealing to children, are also elements of marketing to a broader audience and are inextricably linked to the food’s brand identity,” Vladeck said at the hearing.

This, as I keep pointing out, is about protecting corporate health at the expense of children’s health.

Sad.

Sometimes when I hear rumors that I can’t corroborate, I keep fingers crossed that they aren’t true.  Here’s one.

Rumors say that the White House has caved in to food, beverage and advertising lobbying groups on the nutrition standards for food marketing to children developed by the Interagency Working Group (IWG).

Recall: the IWG’s members—the FDA, FTC, USDA, and CDC–produced recommendations for nutrition standards for marketing foods to kids (see previous posts).

The food and beverage industries think that if the standards are adopted, they will have to abide by them, thereby losing sales.  They do not want restrictions on how, when, and where they advertise their products to kids.

Rumors say that the FTC—the agency that regulates food advertising—is being pressed by the White House to back off.

Rumors say the FTC is withdrawing the proposedstandards for teens except for some in-school marketing, and that the FTC’s explanation is that  “to be successful in this endeavor food companies must be given leeway to shape an approach that will promote children’s health, without being overly burdensome on industry….”

Could the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s  October 12 hearings on the standards have anything to do wth this?   Or the tough memo prepared by committee staff in preparation for the hearing?  The staff memo raises highly critical questions about the FTC and the IWG report.

The proposed standards, please recall, are voluntary.  And I didn’t think they were all that restrictive (see previous post).

But if the rumors are true, even this administration can’t do anything to limit  food marketing to kids and we are right back where we were in 1979, the last time the FTC tried to do so.

Please say it isn’t so.

Addition 1: FTC has now posted its prepared testimony: “As a result of the many comments we received from various stakeholders…the Working Group is in the midst of making significant revisions to its preliminary proposal. The anticipated revisions go a long way to address industry’s concerns.”

It gets worse:

The Commission staff believes that this approach resolves many of the flashpoints that generated strongest industry concern.

For instance, FTC staff has determined that, with the exception of certain in-school marketing activities, it is not necessary to encompass adolescents ages 12 to 17 within the scope of covered marketing….In addition, the FTC staff believes that philanthropic activities, charitable events, community programs, entertainment and sporting events, and theme parks are, for the most part, directed to families or the general community and do not warrant inclusion with more specifically child-directed marketing.

Moreover, it would be counterproductive to discourage food company sponsorship of these activities to the extent that many benefit children’s health by promoting physical activity.

Finally, the Commission staff does not contemplate recommending that food companies change the trade dress elements of their packaging or remove brand equity characters from food products that don’t meet nutrition recommendations.

Addition 2:  Margo Wootan of CSPI provides a copy of her written testimony for the IWG .

Addition 3: Here’s the written statement of Dale Kunkel of the University of Arizona.

Addition 4, October 11:  Adweek headlines its story on this fiasco, “Ronald McDonald, Toucan Sam to get pardon from feds?”

According to Food Chemical News (October 7), the European Union has finally agreed on rules for food labels.  These are disappointing.  They allow much of the current confusion to continue. 

Here’s what they are said to do:

• Packaged foods will have to be labeled with amounts of calories, fat, saturated fats, carbohydrate, protein, sugars and salt.  This is the “mandatory nutrition declaration.”
• Amounts are to be expressed per 100 grams or 100 milliliters.  Per-portion will be voluntary as will percentage of reference intakes, meaning that the confusing Guideline Daily Amounts can continue.
• Packages may display traffic lights or other graphics and symbols, as long as they don’t mislead consumers, are supported by evidence of consumer understanding, and don’t create trade barriers in the EU’s internal market [my interpretation: goodbye traffic lights].
• All elements of the nutrition declaration must appear together, but some can be repeated on the “front of pack.” 
• The mandatory nutrition declaration can be supplemented voluntarily with “better for you” nutrients such as mono-unsaturated fats, polyunsaturated fats, polyols, starch, fiber, vitamins, and minerals [alas, this is a sellout].  
• Calories must be expressed per 100 g/ml, but also per portion.

Too bad.  I was hoping for something better, more along the lines of what the Institute of Medicine(IOM)  has proposed and less along the lines of what the Grocery Manufacturers and Food Marketers are doing.

The second  IOM report on front-of-pack (FOP) labeling is due out in a few weeks.  I am eager to see what the IOM committee thinks the FDA should do about FOP labels.  Stay tuned. 

 

 

Video: Today, the Oakland-based Prevention Institute released it’s new 2- minute, everything-you-need-to- know video: We’re Not Buying It: Stop Junk Food Marketing to Kids.  Use it!

Commentary: David Britt and Lori Dorfman have a terrific editorial in The Hill today on why everyone needs to support the government’s proposed voluntary nutrition standards for food marketing to kids.

Newsletter: And I’ve only just discovered the UK-based International Association for the Study of Obesity (IASO)’s weekly news briefing on articles and events in  food marketing to children.

Here is just a sample from last week and this week.  I’ve mentioned some of these in previous posts but it’s great to have them collected in one place:

UK: BBC radio programme on marketing junk food to kids

US: consumer laws can be invoked to protect children from junk food marketing

US: Toys turn healthy foods into ‘happy meals’  for more  click here

India: Ban ki-moon calls upon kids’ processed food makers to act with integrity

US: Packaging gets US high schoolers to pick carrots over cookies

UK: Government rejects calls for ban on junk-food advertising

UK: Alcohol giant set to ‘target children’ through Facebook

Fight about the role of soft drinks at the ADA

Australia: Hungry Jacks to put broccoli on fast food menu

Coca-Cola to invest $3bn in Russia, 2012-2015

Australia: food federation accuses consumer group of promoting unhealthy foods – and uses traffic light criteria to back their argument

US ‘spends $ billions subsidising junk food products’  to view full report Click here

Scientists support the administration’s Inter-Agency Working Group on food marketed to children Click here to view

Some 75 health and marketing experts from the nation’s universities call on President Obama not to abandon the Federal Trade Commission-led nutrition guidelines that would recommend strict limits for marketing foods to children. Click here to view details

 

I was fascinated by the story in yesterday’s New York Times about the problem schools are having as they try to replace the junk foods in vending machines with healthier options.

Students, it seems, prefer to buy the junk foods.

The Times photo says it all:

What are these machines doing in schools at all?

Schools didn’t used to have vending machines.  Somehow kids managed to survive for a few hours not eating between meals.

If schools must have vending machines—a highly debatable point—how about making everything in them be something you’d like your kid to be eating?

Just a thought.

 

 

Here are some of the latest reports on how food marketing influences eating patterns and obesity.

American University’s Kogod School of Business publishes a business magazine, Kogod Now.  It latest CoverStory takes a tough look at at how targeted marketing of foods and beverages contributes to the obesity crisis, especially among minority children and adolescents.

Cornell University’s Pierre Chandon and Brian Wansink ask the question, “is food marketing making us fat?”  Their review of the research leads them to conclude that a “small steps” approach ought to help reverse obesity.   Recent analyses, however, suggest that reversing overweight is likely to take a lot more than small steps, but it’s worth reading what they have to say about marketing practices.

Two reports from Canada indicate that industry self regulation has little effect on actual food industry marketing practices.  Instead, banning the marketing of junk foods, as has been accomplished in Quebec, works somewhat better.

The American Academy of Pediatrics takes a look at how television watching affects obesity in children.  If kids watch a lot of TV–and they have a TV set in their bedrooms—they are at high risk of becoming obese.  The obvious conclusion?  Get rid of the TV!

It is heartening that so much of the research on obesity these days focuses on changing the food marketing environment.  Now if policymakers would just pay some attention!

My once-a-month, first Sunday Food Matters column in the San Francisco Chronicle is about the difficulty of figuring out the health effects of food chemicals consumed in low doses.

_____

Taking steps on food chemicals

Editor’s note: Nutrition and public policy expert Marion Nestle answers readers’ questions in this monthly column written exclusively for The Chronicle. E-mail your questions to food@sfchronicle.com, with “Marion Nestle” in the subject line.

Q: I don’t understand why the FDA does not ban aspartame, food colors, BPA, pesticides and all those other nasty chemicals in food. I can’t believe they are good for us.

A: I can’t, either. But the Food and Drug Administration is required to make decisions on the basis of science, not beliefs.

You eat these chemicals in tiny amounts – parts per billion or trillion. Whether doses this low cause harm is hard to assess for two reasons: science and politics. Scientists cannot easily measure the health effects of exposure to low-dose chemicals. And the industries that make and use these chemicals don’t want to give them up.

Food chemicals elicit plenty of public dread and outrage. But are they harmful?

Controlled clinical trials at normal levels of intake would require vast numbers of subjects over decades. Nobody would fund them.

Instead, researchers use animals consuming much higher doses. I can remember how the diet soda industry ridiculed studies suggesting that saccharine caused bladder cancer in rats: the doses were equivalent to drinking 1,250 12-ounce diet sodas a day.

The difficulties of doing research on low-dose chemicals – and the food industry’s insistence that such doses are safe – explains the FDA’s reluctance to act.

Some examples illustrate the problem.

Aspartame

Some studies suggest that aspartame might cause cancer in rats when consumed at levels typical of diet soft drinks, as well as other problems. But researchers performing better controlled studies have given aspartame a clean bill of health.

Despite public concerns, the FDA’s assessment of the evidence “finds no reason to alter its previous conclusion that aspartame is safe as a general purpose sweetener in food.”

Food dyes

These have been considered a possible cause of hyperactivity in children since the 1970s. Some studies show improved behavior among children placed on additive-free diets. But behavior is difficult to judge objectively, and even controlled studies gave mixed results.

A recent study funded by the British Food Standards Agency is typical. It found most children to be unaffected by removing additives. But a small percentage seemed to get better.

The FDA can only conclude that there is not enough science to decide whether food dyes cause hyperactivity.

BPA (Bisphenol A)

BPA is a component of hard plastic used to make baby bottles and food and beverage cans. It is also an endocrine disrupter. Last year, the FDA concluded that BPA is safe at current exposure levels.

At the same time, the FDA advised children and pregnant women to reduce exposure to BPA. It advised the infant formula and soda industries to find ways to replace it.

The California Legislature has passed AB1319 banning BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups; it’s awaiting Gov. Jerry Brown’s signature.

Recent studies raise concerns about BPA’s effects on the brain and behavior of fetuses, infants and young children, and on cancer, obesity and infertility in adults. Some studies suggest that exposure to BPA is higher than previously estimated. Just last week, the Breast Cancer Fund released a study finding BPA in canned foods designed for children.

Studies by university scientists tend to find harm from BPA at low doses, whereas those by government regulatory agencies and the food industry do not. In the absence of compelling science, regulators have two choices: exercise the “precautionary principle” and ban the chemical until it can be proven safe, or approve it until it can be shown to be harmful.

The United States and European safety agencies – and the food industry, of course – prefer the latter approach.

Pesticides

Research clearly demonstrates that pesticides harm farmworkers exposed to high doses. But recent studies report slightly lower IQ levels in children born to urban women with higher blood levels of pesticides. Although these studies did not control for socioeconomic and other variables that might influence IQ, they raise the possibility that even low levels might be harmful.

What to do?

While waiting for the science to evolve, you can take both personal and political action.

You don’t want potentially harmful chemicals in your foods? Read labels and don’t buy foods with artificial sweeteners or food colors. Kids don’t need them anyway.

Consumer action has already induced baby bottle makers to get rid of BPA. This strategy can work for food colors, too.

Don’t stop eating fruits and vegetables. Their known health benefits greatly outweigh the potential harm of pesticides. Don’t stop eating them.

Buy organic. Pesticides, invisible and unlabeled as they are, constitute a good reason to do so.

Get political. Let your congressional representatives know that more research is needed, but you don’t want to wait for it. You want industry to find healthier alternatives.

_____

Marion Nestle is the author of “Food Politics” and “What to Eat,” among other books, and is a professor in the nutrition, food studies and public health department at New York University. E-mail comments to food@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page G – 10 of the San Francisco Chronicle

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, the United Nations General Assembly met this month to consider resolutions about doing something to address rising rates of “non-communicable” diseases (i.e., chronic as opposed to infectious diseases such as obesity-related coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and cancers).

The Declaration adopted by the Assembly disappointed a consortium of 140 non-profit public health advocacy groups who issued a statement noting the conflicts of interest that occur when international agencies “partner” with companies that make products that contribute to an increase in disease risks.”

The consortium suggested actions that they hoped the U.N. would recommend, such as:

• Realign food policies for food and agricultural subsidies with sound nutrition science
• Mandate easy-to-understand front-of-pack nutrition labeling
• Ban the promotion of breast-milk substitutes and high-fat, -sugar and -salt foods to children and young people
• Prohibit advertising and brand sponsorship for alcohol beverages
• Increase taxes on alcohol beverages
• Expand nutritious school meal programs

The group also said that the U.N. should still work on:

• Developing tools to navigate the trade law barriers to health policy innovation,
•  Establishing disease-reduction targets and policy implementation schedules
• Instituting mechanisms to keep commercially self-interested parties at arms-length and public-interest groups constructively involved

Food companies and trade associations are actively involved in lobbying the U.N. not to do any of these things.  This consortium has much work to do.