Fed Up Page #8

It shapes the whole way

they think about food,

what they think food is.

There have been attempts to

regulate how we market food to children

since the very beginning

of the obesity epidemic.

1977... the same year

as the McGovern Report.

Consumer advocates lobbied

the Federal Trade Commission,

the government arm

in charge of advertising

to regulate ads

for sugar-laden products.

It's grr-r-reat.

The executive director of

the Federal Trade Commission

says the group is slowly

coming to the conclusion

that television advertising

aimed at children is unfair.

The cumulative effect

of the thousands of hours

of advertising viewed by children

is that kids are being told the biggest

lie they will ever hear in their lives.

It's not fair to use the public airwaves

to encourage children

to develop health habits

and buying patterns

which they will probably

keep up in adulthood

that are hazardous to health.

The F.T.C.'s

proposed restrictions

have been defended as vital to protect

the health of America's children

and assailed as an attack on

free enterprise, free speech

and as a dangerous intrusion by the

federal government into family life.

Broadcasters, advertising

agencies and toy companies

all banded together to prevent

the F. T.C. from regulating

children's television.

And an official

of Quaker Oats

said one of the best uses

of sugar he could think of

was getting children

to eat their cereal.

Big Food won the battle.

No regulations were put in place.

But marketing to kids really took off

a few years later with processed foods.

And with the advent of corn syrup,

a cheaper alternative to sugar,

the big food makers

had more money to spend

on bigger sizes

with better prices

and on ad campaigns

with corporate tie-ins

and high-priced

celebrity endorsements.

You're a whole new generation

You're a whole new generation

Now food advertising

is everywhere.

- Diet Snapple?

- I know!

It tastes just like

regular Snapple, doesn't it?

Dr. Pepper's unbelievably satisfying.

We in this Congress

have a responsibility

to protect America's children

from the sophisticated, aggressive,

relentless marketing of junk food

to our children.

With obesity rates skyrocketing,

Congress tried again in 2004

to regulate food industry

marketing to children.

Big Food and Fast Food responded

much like they did 20 years before.

When I hear this discussion,

I hear "marketing to children,"

which really you're saying

"advertising to children."

and you're also saying,

"It's all bad."

And that's just not true.

Ronald McDonald never sells to children.

He informs and inspires

through magic and fun.

Industry under threat

of government regulation...

will say "We can police ourselves."

And they launch into this series

of self-regulatory promises

that we'll market less to children,

we'll pull our products out of schools.

When you hold them accountable

and study whether changes have

been made, what do you find?

It's not a pretty picture.

Keeps 'em full,

keeps 'em focused.

- Get a spectacular Spider-Man toy!

- Made with real fruit!

Thanks, Mom.

With the fox

guarding the henhouse,

children's exposure to junk food ads,

including online

increased 60% from 2008 to 2010.

The Federal Trade Commission

has less authority

to regulate advertising to kids

than it does to adults.

You would think that would be

just the other way around.

There are several studies

that show

that when children

are watching television,

especially with food commercials,

they're primed to eat more.

One study had kids watching TV

and they gave them a bowl

of Goldfish crackers to munch

on while they were watching.

The kids that watched TV, while

they showed also food commercials

they ate 45% more Goldfish crackers

compared to kids watching the same TV

program with nonfood commercials.

I showed the data

on how our neural circuits and the

neural circuits of our kids

are getting sensitized

to all these food cues

to a group of leading diabetologists

and their conclusion,

when they saw that

and they realized that these circuits

get laid down for a lifetime,

is that we're toast as a country.

Hearings begin today on a proposed law

that would ban giving away toys

with meals high in calories,

fat, sugar and salt.

The trouble is, every time the

government tries to regulate Big Food

again and again

the industry protects itself

by sparking a larger public debate

over the role of

government in our lives.

The food police striking again.

They have a predictable script

that they roll out every time

these things come up.

This is the most ridiculous

sort of nanny-statis.

- "Nanny state."

- It is the nanny state.

These nanny-state people

want to tell you what to eat.

"Government doesn't belong

in our private lives."

Apparently now we need

government food cops.

"You're discriminating against us."

To single out one food or beverage.

The mayor of New York City,

Michael Bloomberg

wants to outlaw what he calls

super-sized sodas

and other sugary drinks.

"You don't need the police. Just look

at all the good-guy things we're doing.

You know what Ronald McDonald

is also known for.

For 35 years he's been known

for the Ronald McDonald Houses.

Exactly.

The script is so reliable now

and the lobbying dollars

that are aimed at legislators

from the food industry are enormous

and as a consequence they're pretty good

at fighting things off.

Who should be making

the decisions what to eat

and school choice

and everything else.

Should it be government, or should it be

the parents? It should be the parents.

The fact that parents

have a role to play

does not change the fact that targeting

young children is simply immoral.

I think we need to really

get straight in this country

the difference between

parental responsibility

and the corporation's role in exploiting

the vulnerabilities of a young child.

He's been having many more

problems now with his legs.

He's going through therapy, and he's

still having a hard time with it.

- So you've been having knee pain?

- Yeah.

This bariatric program

came to the hospital,

and my doctor considered me for surgery

that'll change my life for the better.

I don't want it.

I kinda need it.

I've gotten to a point

in my weight where

if I... if I keep

gaining weight like I am,

I'm gonna probably

be dead by 20.

The surgery has complications.

There's no question about it.

But as we've talked about,

you always look at what the risk

is of doing the surgery

and compare it to what the risk

is of not doing the surgery.

And we've all agreed that the risk

of not doing the surgery

is that we're gonna

decrease your life span,

increase your risk of diabetes

and all of these complications.

And so we know that even though

there's risk with the surgery,

there's a bigger risk

of not doing it. Okay?

I've never heard of, you know,

a 15-year-old having this surgery.

Rate this script:5.0 / 1 vote