When asked by my young son, I simply say something to the effect of, “The reason they put cute little cartoon characters on that box is because the product is made of garbage and they know no one would buy it otherwise.” Somehow he accepts this, and makes it a game by pointing out the ubiquitous cartoon characters on everything from cans of pasta to toilet paper. But I have it relatively easy, as most children, who are all aggressively and ceaselessly marketed to, have to run a gauntlet of movie tie-ins, leprechauns, and unicorns all vying for their market share. Most parents cave in to their children’s desires for these sweet, fatty, and salty food stuffs, and most children pack it away and roll headlong into a life of indulgence and health problems.
Here is a brief rundown of some of the proposed standards: (To see the full report, you could download the PDF here.)
Foods marketed to children must provide a meaningful contribution to a healthful diet.
Food must contain at least 50 percent by weight of one or more of the following: fruit, vegetable, whole grain, fat-free or low-fat milk or yogurt, fish, extra lean meat or poultry, eggs, nuts and seeds, or beans.
Food must contain one or more of the following per RACC:
0.5 cups fruit or fruit juice
0.6 cups vegetables or vegetable juice
0.75 oz. equivalent of 100 percent whole grain
0.75 cups milk or yogurt; 1 oz. natural cheese; 1.5 oz.
1.4 oz. meat equivalent of fish or extra lean meat or
0.3 cups cooked dry beans
0.7 oz. nuts or seeds
1 egg or egg equivalent
Basically, any products openly and blatantly marketed to children will, under these new regulations, would have to meet both a stringent food standard, which essentially means that would have to contain real and relatively nutritious food, and a general nutrition standard, which defines how much garbage a product can acceptably contain.
Now the authenticity and veracity of this leaked proposal are somewhat in question, but what is indisputable is the contemporary movement to make both junk food producers and government regulating bodies more accountable for their actions (or inaction, in this case). There was a recent backlash against McDonald’s and its longstanding and hugely successful Happy Meal campaign (Santa Clara County in California recently banned all Happy Meals) and various parent groups around the country have successfully lobbied to remove all soft drinks and junk food from schools and playgrounds. But as we have seen with all manner of marketing, children are psychologically susceptible to targeted marketing, and by allowing companies to trot out the ADHD tiger on a skateboard to peddle highly addictive salty snacks (over and over again) it undermines the development of good health and good health habits. Sure, parents are ultimately responsible for what their children do and do not eat, but remember, parents don’t have cute cartoon characters advocating their more conservative and nutritious agendas. It becomes a battle of who has the most flash and bling, and most often the parents (and ultimately their children) lose out to the undeniable appeal of sensationalism.
What is your feeling? Should the government answer to parents and critics by making these proposed standards real, or should parents just step up their anti-junk food campaign and take care of their own without government interference? Would standards like this even work, or would junk food always have sway over our children? Where do you position yourself in the battle of the hearts and minds (and stomachs) of your children?
Other stories from Care2.com: