GOP pushes back on effort to limit kids’ food ads

MARY CLARE JALONICK

Asso­ci­ated Press

WASHINGTON — House Repub­li­cans are sid­ing with food com­pa­nies resist­ing the Obama administration’s efforts to pres­sure them to stop adver­tis­ing junk food for children.

Some food com­pa­nies say the gov­ern­ment is going too far with guide­lines pro­posed ear­lier this year by sev­eral gov­ern­ment agen­cies. The vol­un­tary guide­lines would attempt to shield chil­dren from ads for sug­ary and fatty foods — think col­or­ful char­ac­ters on cereal boxes — on tele­vi­sion, in stores and on the Inter­net. Com­pa­nies would be urged to mar­ket foods to chil­dren ages 2 through 17 only if they con­tain spe­cific healthy ingre­di­ents and are low in fats, sug­ars and sodium.

Even though the guide­lines are vol­un­tary, many com­pa­nies are aggres­sively lob­by­ing against them, say­ing they fear the gov­ern­ment will retal­i­ate against them if they don’t go along.

Repub­li­cans are attempt­ing to delay the guide­lines by includ­ing a pro­vi­sion in next year’s Fed­eral Trade Com­mis­sion bud­get that would require the gov­ern­ment to study the poten­tial costs and impacts of the guide­lines before imple­ment­ing them.

As food com­pa­nies have protested, crit­i­cism has ramped up on Capi­tol Hill. Mis­souri Rep. Jo Ann Emer­son, the Repub­li­can who spon­sored the pro­vi­sion, says she is con­cerned that the vol­un­tary rules “would lead to extra­or­di­nary pres­sure from the fed­eral government.”

Other Repub­li­cans have called the rules over­reach, say­ing they encom­pass too many foods. The stan­dards are meant to crack down on ads for the unhealth­i­est foods, but oth­ers are caught in the cross­fire. Adver­tis­ing for some whole wheat breads would be restricted because they have too much sodium, for exam­ple, and bot­tled water could be tar­geted because it doesn’t include enough nutrients.

Rep. Jack Kingston, R-Ga., a sup­porter of Emerson’s effort, said the guide­lines are “bas­ing deci­sions on emo­tions and not facts.”

Some Democ­rats have shown con­cern with the vol­un­tary rules, as well. Rep. G. K. But­ter­field of North Car­olina, in a let­ter to the gov­ern­ment agen­cies in charge of the effort, said the gov­ern­ment “has pro­duced no evi­dence that I am aware of that the pro­posed restric­tions will serve the government’s goals of chang­ing long-term eat­ing habits.”

The spend­ing bill that includes the delay cleared the House Appro­pri­a­tions Com­mit­tee last month. It could come before the full House as early as next week.

Food com­pa­nies argue that the rules are back-door reg­u­la­tions that could tram­ple their First Amend­ment rights of free speech. Scott Faber, a lob­by­ist for the Gro­cery Man­u­fac­tur­ers Asso­ci­a­tion, which rep­re­sents the nation’s largest food com­pa­nies, says his group esti­mates the stan­dards would affect mar­ket­ing of almost all of the nation’s favorite foods.

“What is very trou­bling about the administration’s pro­posal is that they would have us dras­ti­cally change food mar­ket­ing with­out pre­sent­ing any evi­dence that it changes diets or assess­ing the costs,” Faber said.

Health advo­cates disagree.

“The indus­try is exag­ger­at­ing the influ­ence of these vol­un­tary reg­u­la­tions to gin up oppo­si­tion,” said Margo Wootan of the Cen­ter for Sci­ence in the Pub­lic Inter­est. “These stan­dards are sup­posed to pro­vide a model of how self-regulation can work.”

While oppo­nents of the guide­lines are using exam­ples of healthy foods that would be cov­ered to make their point, Wootan points out that adver­tis­ing for many foods would be allowed — includ­ing children’s chicken nuggets meals from McDonald’s and Burger King and cere­als such as Frosted Mini Wheats and Honey Bunches of Oats.

As crit­i­cism has become louder, the Fed­eral Trade Com­mis­sion — which devel­oped the vol­un­tary reg­u­la­tions with the Agri­cul­ture Depart­ment, the Food and Drug Admin­is­tra­tion and the Cen­ters for Dis­ease Con­trol — has tried to debunk what it says are myths about the standards.

In a post­ing on the FTC Web site, David Vladeck, direc­tor of the FTC’s Bureau of Con­sumer Pro­tec­tion, says there are no legal con­se­quences for com­pa­nies that don’t fol­low the rules.

“Nobody’s say­ing Tou­can Sam has to fly the coop,” Vladeck said. “Ide­ally, dur­ing the next five years it would be great to see the cereal com­pa­nies vol­un­tar­ily tweak their for­mu­la­tions to raise the whole grain con­tent and lower the added sug­ars for cere­als mar­keted to children.”

Vladeck also addressed the issue of gov­ern­ment overreach.

“The pro­posal is designed to sup­port — not sup­plant — moms and dads,” he wrote.

Posted by AP News on Jul 6 2011. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS Feed. Comments can be made below.