Last week Michelle Obama gathered 100 food industry representatives, academic experts and public health advocates for a "summit" at the White House to discuss junk food marketing to children. The event included public remarks by the first lady followed by a closed-door discussion among attendees, ostensibly to come up with some solutions. The first lady's speech was better than I had anticipated. As someone who was skeptical about Mrs. Obama's Let's Move program from the beginning -- with good reason, as it turned out -- I am happy to report she didn't pull any punches.
Simply by shining a light on the critical role that marketing plays in influencing children's eating habits, the first lady has taken away the food industry's most common refrain: The solution is for parents to do a better job. Sadly, this sentiment is still extremely common among the American public and is the biggest obstacle advocates face in advancing the cause to protect children against corporate exploitation. But as I've long argued, both ideas are true: Parents have a responsibility to feed their kids right, and corporations should not take advantage of children's vulnerabilities.
Here is how Mrs. Obama described children's susceptibility to marketing:
"You all know that our kids are like little sponges -- they absorb whatever is around them. But they don't yet have the ability to question and analyze what they're told. Instead, they believe just about everything they see and hear, especially if it's on TV. And when the average child is now spending nearly eight hours a day in front of some kind of screen, many of their opinions and preferences are being shaped by the marketing campaigns you all create. And that's where the problem comes in."
Next, the first lady explained how ads get children to nag their parents, saying that
"kids who see foods advertised on TV are significantly more likely to ask for them at the store -- a phenomenon known as 'pester power'... And research shows that a child's first request for a product happens as early as 24 months, and 75 percent of the time, this request takes place in a grocery store."
Mrs. Obama also explained how marketing works to influence what children ask for and how that makes parents' jobs so hard, saying that 45 percent of kids' food requests were for junk food like burgers and fries and candy. "So from the time our kids are still in diapers, we as parents are already fighting an uphill battle to get them interested in the foods that will actually nourish them." Then she even dispensed with another of industry's favorite talking points: that parents should just "turn off" the TV:
Now, like many parents, Barack and I do our best to limit our daughters' TV time. But as you all know, these ads aren't just on TV. They're on the Internet, in video games, smartphones, billboards. They're in schools and store displays. They're everywhere, and parents just can't keep up, no matter how hard we try. So whatever we all might believe about personal responsibility and self-determination, I think we can agree that it doesn't necessarily apply to children.
My favorite line came as she called on industry "to empower parents instead of undermining them as they try to make healthier choices for their families." The first lady said industry should stop undermining parents. That's a pretty big deal.
Thank you, Mrs. Obama, for echoing the sentiments that so many parents, health care professionals and advocates have been saying for a long time. Only one problem: The first lady's office is in the wrong wing of the White House. Imagine if these words were uttered by the president instead. What if our nation's leader told the executives of food and media corporations to stop undermining parents? How much more powerful would those words sound coming from Mr. Obama?
Now imagine an alternative scenario to the secret "closed-door" meeting that came after the speech where various "stakeholders" were brought together in an unrealistic attempt to forge voluntary solutions defined only by industry, given that the first lady has zero policymaking authority. What might that look like?
How about hearings in Congress whereby medical and health experts testified about the terrible toll that diet-related diseases such as diabetes are taking on children, the correlations between predatory marketing and children's eating habits, and parents explained how their best efforts were undermined by the ubiquity of junk food and targeted marketing.
Now imagine our political representatives holding a dramatic hearing that demanded answers from the CEOs of Coca-Cola, McDonald's, and Nickelodeon about why they continue to target children in the midst of this public health crisis. All of this followed up by legislation or regulation to legally restrict industry's predatory business practices, in the name of protecting children from exploitation.
Of course, this is all just fantasy: Neither President Obama nor our very broken Congress has shown any willingness to take on the food industry. Indeed, when the Interagency Working Group (led by the Federal Trade Commission, the agency that regulates advertising) came together in Mr. Obama's first term to try and improve the food industry's own voluntary guidelines by simply making them science-based, the entire effort went down in flames.
Now Mrs. Obama is trying to use her charm to accomplish what four federal agencies could not. Of course, food corporations may make minor tweaks to their marketing practices in hopes of gaining the first lady's stamp of approval and scoring a press conference with her, as Disney and Walmart did. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking these will be meaningful or long-lasting improvements. This sort of voluntary self-regulation has a long track record (across numerous industries) of generating a lot of positive PR with little actual results.
In her speech, the first lady joked that some industry members may be waiting things out, figuring that "in a few years, this lady will be gone and this whole Let's Move thing will finally be over, so we can go back to business as usual." That's exactly what they are thinking. But she correctly reminded them that this issue isn't going away when the Obamas leave office in a few years.
Even if our elected leaders today lack the backbone to protect children's health, the public climate is growing increasingly inhospitable to predatory marketing. For that we have the first lady, advocacy groups like Corporate Accountability International, and a growing chorus of organizations and advocates to thank.
To learn more and take action visit FoodMyths.org.
Originally published at Corporate Accountability International.
How to vote
Vote-by-mail ballot request deadline: Varies by state
For the Nov 3 election: States are making it easier for citizens to vote absentee by mail this year due to the coronavirus. Each state has its own rules for mail-in absentee voting. Visit your state election office website to find out if you can vote by mail.Get more informationTrack ballot status
In-person early voting dates: Varies by state
Sometimes circumstances make it hard or impossible for you to vote on Election Day. But your state may let you vote during a designated early voting period. You don't need an excuse to vote early. Visit your state election office website to find out whether they offer early voting.My Election Office
General Election: Nov 3, 2020
Polling hours on Election Day: Varies by state/localityMy Polling Place