In 2009 Congress passed legislation directing four Federal agencies: the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), the Food & Drug Administration (FDA), the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA) and the Center for Disease Control (CDC) to conduct a study of
food marketed to children and teens and to make recommendations to Congress. Instead
of completing that study and report, these four agencies, known as the Interagency
Working Group (IWG), proposed sweeping restrictions of food marketing that would
curtail marketing of thousands of healthy food products, force dramatic changes to food
packaging, undermine financial support for television shows and charitable organizations,
and radically change the way consumers receive information about food.
Regrettably, the IWG restrictions ignore industry progress. New research shows
dramatic shifts in advertising to children. The average number of food and beverage
commercials viewed by children on children’s shows has fallen by 50 percent between
2004 and 2010. The number of commercials for cookies, candy, soda and snacks fell
even more dramatically. Many of the changes in advertising on children's programming
can be attributed to the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI), a
self-regulatory program created in response to a 2005 Federal Trade Commission report.
Nevertheless, the IWG restrictions prohibit marketing of healthy foods. Food
manufacturers and retailers would no longer be able to market many healthy foods –
including most soups, cereals, yogurt, bread, and cheese -- and thousands of products that
have recently been changed to reduce sugar, calories, sodium and fat.
The IWG restrictions contradict nutrition science and federal standards. For
example, the IWG’s standards disqualify foods that meet the standards used for the
school lunch or Women’s Infants and Children (WIC) programs and even contradict US
Department of Agriculture’s nutrition recommendations to Americans. What’s more, the
IWG failed to provide any evidence that marketing restrictions would help anyone lose
weight – even though a 2005 Institute of Medicine report found insufficient evidence to
attribute obesity to food advertising.
The IWG restricts marketing to everyone, not simply marketing to kids. The IWG
defined marketing to broadly include packaging, point of sale displays, text messages,
sponsorships, and even the shape of food. The economic impacts extend far beyond food
manufacturers and retailers because funding for hundreds of television shows would be in
jeopardy. Because the IWG defines marketing to include “philanthropic activity,”
thousands of charitable organizations could lose critical financial support.
The IWG restrictions are not voluntary. The IWG includes three agencies – USDA,
FDA, and FTC -- with broad regulatory power over food safety, food prices, food claims,
and food marketing and the Supreme Court found that “suggestions” like the IWG’s
marketing restrictions should be treated as rules. In addition, the IWG restrictions will
serve as the foundation for future government action, shareholder action, private
litigation, and federal and state enforcement.
The IWG should withdraw the marketing restrictions. The IWG should withdraw
proposed food marketing restrictions and should instead complete a study and report to
Congress, as Congress originally intended in the 2009 legislation. In particular, the IWG
should base their study and report on peer-reviewed science and a careful consideration
of benefits and costs.