Case 15
In December of 2005 the National Academy of Science (NAS) issued a report, which contended, in strong terms, that advertising of junk foods poses a grave threat to the health of young children. The NAS Report was requested by Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who has introduced legislation calling upon the FTC to monitor closely food marketing to children.
The Report’s authors, respected nutritionists, educators, psychologists, and lawyers, urged Congress to consider restrictions upon the marketing of junk food to children if food companies don’t implement them on their own, "Current marketing practices are putting the diet related health of children and youth at great risk," says May Strong, Professor of Epidemiology at the University of Minnesota School of Public Health., a co-author of the NAS Report. However, if food companies use their extensive marketing know-how to market healthier foods to children, Professor Story said, "the food industry and food marketing can play a vital role in turning this around."
Several other co-authors indicated that before looking into the matter in connection with preparing the Report, they had not grasped full the extent of marketing and research targeting children by the food industry. "The industry is so much further ahead in [its] understanding [of marketing food products to children] than anything going on in a university," remarked co-author Leroy Kolbe, Professor of Health Sciences at Indiana University. Such expertise, the NAS Report concluded could be put to use to bring about positive changes in children’s diets. "We want the [industry] to use [its] tremendous creativity to market healthier foods," said co-author Sarah Calvert, Director of the Children’s Digital Media Center at Georgetown University. "They have two years to do [so]," she continued, "or else we have asked Congress to take action."
The above conclusions of the NAS Report coincide closely with the following outlook, stated more than thirty years ago by Francis Moore Lappe in her book Diet for a Smaill Planet:
When they advertise are General Foods and Coca Cola exercising their First Amendment rights? A lot of Americans would agree that they are. But ... should we include in the definition of "free speech" the capacity to dominate national advertising? Isn’t there something amiss in this definition of rights?
.... Once we realize that advertising is a privilege, not a right, isn’t it reasonable to grant that privilege only on certain conditions? An obvious condition would be that T.V. advertising – with its proven power to influence – not be used to promote products that threaten our well being. Society has already banned cigarette advertising on T.V. There is virtually unanimous opinion that high sugar, low nutrition foods – those which monopolize T.V. advertising – threaten our health. So why not ban advertising of candy, sugared cereals, soft drinks, and other sweets?