"This month we are presenting you some research that was first called for in 2001 …"
"In 2002, we were charged with developing an action plan to combat this crisis …"
"What we present here is a study of studies: 120 of them to be exact …" How much would you respect this magazine if this page or any other started out that way? Those kinds of statements - the ones in quotes, I mean - don't exactly engender a sense of respect and urgency for any report. Yet they pretty fairly paraphrase the work behind "Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity?" a bombastic report released Dec. 6 by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee of the National Academy of Sciences.Some immediately called it a "landmark report" and likened it to the 1964 Surgeon General's report on tobacco. "Tony the Tiger on death row?" was the front-page headline in Advertising Age.Others pointed out it is nothing more than a study of studies, reports nothing truly new and breathlessly recommends what the food industry already has begun to do. Nevertheless, the National Academies and this particular committee carry weight in Washington, and the report has become a rallying cry for those who want to pin all the blame for childhood obesity on the food and advertising industries.The IOM report has a long list of suggestions that it's difficult to take issue with: establishing inter-departmental task forces and other activities at the federal level; making schools more accountable for nutrition in several ways; and involving the food industry and media in developing and marketing healthier choices.But in its own summary of the report, IOM comes up with just five "key facts," four of which lay the blame solely on food and advertising:
"In 2002, we were charged with developing an action plan to combat this crisis …"
"What we present here is a study of studies: 120 of them to be exact …" How much would you respect this magazine if this page or any other started out that way? Those kinds of statements - the ones in quotes, I mean - don't exactly engender a sense of respect and urgency for any report. Yet they pretty fairly paraphrase the work behind "Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity?" a bombastic report released Dec. 6 by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee of the National Academy of Sciences.Some immediately called it a "landmark report" and likened it to the 1964 Surgeon General's report on tobacco. "Tony the Tiger on death row?" was the front-page headline in Advertising Age.Others pointed out it is nothing more than a study of studies, reports nothing truly new and breathlessly recommends what the food industry already has begun to do. Nevertheless, the National Academies and this particular committee carry weight in Washington, and the report has become a rallying cry for those who want to pin all the blame for childhood obesity on the food and advertising industries.The IOM report has a long list of suggestions that it's difficult to take issue with: establishing inter-departmental task forces and other activities at the federal level; making schools more accountable for nutrition in several ways; and involving the food industry and media in developing and marketing healthier choices.But in its own summary of the report, IOM comes up with just five "key facts," four of which lay the blame solely on food and advertising:
- "There is strong evidence that marketing foods and beverages to children influences their preferences ..."
- "The dominant focus of marketing to children and youth is on foods and beverages high in calories and low in nutrients and is sharply out of balance with healthful diets."
- "Marketing approaches have become multi-faceted and sophisticated …"
- "Given the media and marketing environment that envelopes our children's lives, there is a surprising paucity of research on ways they may be used to promote health."