America's Obesity Crisis:Activists: The Obesity Warriors

• Share

(5 of 6)

Idea No. 1 is to ban the broadcasting of junk-food commercials to young children, just as the Federal Government banned cigarette ads from television in 1971."The average child sees more than 10,000 food commercials a year, and most are for high-calorie foods," says Ludwig. The American Academy of Pediatrics has concluded that advertising to children under age 8 is inappropriate, Ludwig says. "It's inherently unfair to market directly to young children, who lack the intellectual maturity to distinguish commercials from the substance of a TV show." Nestle argues that it's unfair to parents too. "Why should you have to fight with your child every day about what goes into the lunch box?" she asks. The restaurant and food industry spends about $13 billion a year on ads that teach children to pester their parents for special foods, she contends. "Children are supposed to have their own foods and not eat boring adult foods. Kids are supposed to have things like Lunchables," she scoffs. "There's your personal responsibility for you. It's your personal responsibility to fight this level of marketing. It's you against them, and they have bigger resources."

Although there is popular support for a ban on food ads directed at children--56% of participants in the TIME/ABC poll said they favor this--it's difficult to imagine the land of free enterprise following the lead of Norway and Sweden, which have banned advertising aimed at children, or Australia, Italy and New Zealand, which have statutory guidelines that limit it. The next best thing, says Nestle, would be a federally mandated campaign of public-service ads that would promote healthy eating and help counteract the effects of junk-food ads. This sort of counterprogramming is exactly what the government required in the late 1960s, before smoking ads were banned from TV. Cigarette use dropped during all four years that the antismoking ads ran.

What sort of message should an anti-obesity campaign send, given that diet experts are still wrangling over such issues as whether low-fat or low-carb diets work better? "How about just eat less, move more and eat your fruits and vegetables?" suggests Nestle. Few people appreciate more fully than she just how difficult it would be for the Federal Government to approve such a message. "Move more" is not a problem. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has budgeted $193 million for its Verb campaign, encouraging young Americans to be active. "Eat less" is another matter. In the past, federal efforts to tell Americans to eat less meat have been foiled by lobbying from the Cattlemen's Association. Attempts to tell people to eat fewer sweets have raised the hackles of the sugar and corn-refining industries. Ultimately, the government winds up putting out such bland advice as "Choose two to three servings of lean meats" and "Moderate your intake of sugars" rather than a clear "Eat less" message. "If you're dealing with obesity, people have to eat less," Nestle insists. "I'm all for activity, but if one of those 20-oz. soft drinks is 275 calories, that's 2 3/4 miles of walking to get rid of those calories right there. People can't easily do that. People have to eat less, and nobody wants to talk about that."