U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

42–798 PDF 2008

IMAGES KIDS SEE ON THE

SCREEN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND

THE INTERNET

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND

COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 22, 2007

Serial No. 110–58

(

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

energycommerce.house.gov

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, Chairman

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

Vice Chairman

LOIS CAPPS, California

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania

JANE HARMAN, California

TOM ALLEN, Maine

JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

JAY INSLEE, Washington

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JIM MATHESON, Utah

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

JOHN BARROW, Georgia

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

JOE BARTON, Texas

Ranking Member

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DENNIS B. FITZGIBBONS, Chief of Staff

GREGG A. ROTHSCHILD, Chief Counsel

SHARON E. DAVIS, Chief Clerk

BUD ALBRIGHT, Minority Staff Director

(II)

(III)

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman

MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania

Vice Chairman

JANE HARMAN, California

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas

JAY INSLEE, Washington

BARON P. HILL, Indiana

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey

BART GORDON, Tennessee

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

GENE GREEN, Texas

LOIS CAPPS, California

HILDA L. SOLIS, California

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex officio)

FRED UPTON, Michigan

Ranking Member

J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSELLA, New York

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

MARY BONO, California

GREG WALDEN, Oregon

LEE TERRY, Nebraska

MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey

JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio)

(V)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 1

Hon. Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress from the State of California,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4

Hon. Hilda L.Solis, a Representative in Congress from the State of California,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6

Hon. Nathan Deal, a Representative in Congress from the State of Georgia,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6

Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington,

opening statement ................................................................................................ 7

WITNESSES

Hon. Dan Glickman, chairman and chief executive officer, Motion Picture

Association of America ......................................................................................... 8

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15

Cheryl G. Healton, president and chief executive officer, the American Legacy

Foundation ............................................................................................................ 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22

Donald L. Shifrin, M.D., chair, Committee on Communications, American

Academy of Pediatrics .......................................................................................... 34

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 36

Mary Sophos, senior vice president, chief government affairs officer, Grocery

Manufacturers /Food Products Association ........................................................ 40

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41

Patti Miller, vice president, Children Now ............................................................ 47

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49

Kyle McSlarrow, president and chief executive officer, National Cable & Telecommunications Association ................................................................................ 54

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 56

Jon Rand, general manager, KAYU FOX 28, Spokane/Coeur D’Alene, Spokane, WA .............................................................................................................. 70

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 72

Adam D. Thierer, senior fellow, Progress & Freedom Foundation ...................... 86

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 88

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

‘‘Hollywood Smoke-out, HSPH Takes on Tobacco on Screen’’ Barry R. Bloom,

Harvard Public Health Review, Spring/Summer 2007, submitted by Mr.

Glickman ............................................................................................................... 10

(1)

IMAGES KIDS SEE ON THE SCREEN

FRIDAY, JUNE 23, 2007

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS

AND THE INTERNET, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., in room

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey

(chairman) presiding.

Present: Representatives Inslee, Harman, Capps, Solis, Upton,

Deal, Pickering, and Walden.

Staff present: Maureen Flood, Colin Crowell, Kyle Chapman, Phil

Murphy, Neil Fried, Courtney Reinhard, and Matthew Johnson.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH

OF MASSACHUSETTS

Mr. MARKEY. Good morning, and we welcome you to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

Kids watch about 2 to 4 hours of TV every day, and one-third to

two-thirds of kids have TVs in their bedrooms. As for the big

screen, in 2004, children age 12 to 17 accounted for almost 20 percent of all box office revenues. Given these statistics, it is no surprise that parents are disturbed by certain images children see on

the screen, as these images can influence kids’ behavior in ways

that harm their health. This is something of a rerun for Congress.

Back in 1996, Congress enacted the v-chip legislation for which I

was the prime House sponsor. That law spurred the television industry to develop a voluntary TV rating system in response to

media violence. It also required all TV sets manufactured after

2000 to include a v-chip, allowing parents to block programs they

deemed inappropriate based upon the rating system. I believe big

mother and big father are better able to decide what is appropriate

for their kids to watch rather than big brother, but we needed the

law to ensure parents had the tools to effectuate those choices.

There is good news and bad news about how this is working. The

good news is that for the parents who are aware of and use these

tools, the v-chip and the ratings system get high marks and have

been a success. The bad news is that far too many parents still

don’t know about them or they don’t know how to use them. I urge

the industry to look at ways to make the technological tools parents already possess more useful and to better advertise their

availability. However, we must also recognize that there is potenVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:47 Jul 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-58 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
2

tially harmful content on children’s television that parents today

cannot use the v-chip to block, such as advertisements. The high

prevalence of ads during children’s programming for fast food, junk

food, sugared cereals and other foods wholly lacking in nutritional

value is deeply concerning, given that these ads have been found

so negatively to influence children’s dietary choices.

Moreover, we must reflect on the fact that childhood obesity

rates have skyrocketed by more than 300 percent over the past

three decades, and the Surgeon General has characterized obesity

as the fastest-growing cause of disease and death in the United

States. Parents and families have an undeniable responsibility to

steer their children to healthy choices, but it is hard for parents to

compete with popular kids TV characters pushing sugary cereal or

Ronald McDonald hocking Happy Meals. There is, after all, no

means for parents to block junk food ads. The v-chip only applies

to programs, not for the advertising on those programs. And there

is a terrible inconsistency in policies that require broadcasters to

air 3 hours a week of educationally nutritious programming for

kids and then to have this programming and other children’s shows

surrounded by a barrage of junk food ads.

As the House sponsor of the Children’s Television Act, I believe

that parents and children deserve better. And that act already

grants the FCC authority to address many of these issues if the industry does not respond to this problem on its own swiftly and concretely. I commend the Kellogg company for voluntarily adopting

nutrition standards for the foods it markets to children. Kellogg’s

recent initiative demonstrates that companies can market their

products to children in a socially responsible way. I urge other food

and beverage companies to commit at a minimum to the same restrictions that Kellogg has assumed. I also urge the television industry to develop its own robust set of commitments to refrain from

overwhelming kids with the sheer volume of junk food ads on many

children’s shows today.

Parents also have expressed concerns about the proverbial big

screen, too, and the prevalence of smoking in the movies. Roughly

80 percent of all smokers begin smoking before their 18th birthday.

This suggests that if a child makes it to age 18 without smoking,

there is a vastly reduced chance that she will ever start. At the

same time, the Institute of Medicine found that the presence of

smoking in a movie significantly influences a child’s decision to

start. And statistics show that smoking in the movies is pervasive;

65 percent of all major movies produced in 2006 included smoking

when only 20 percent of Americans smoke.

The Motion Picture Association of America recently announced

that smoking would be a new factor in a movie’s rating. This is a

very welcomed development. So it is important for us, and we are

glad that Dan Glickman is here today to hear how that is going to

be implemented.

And at this point, because of the press of time, I am going to stop

my opening statement and turn and recognize the gentlelady from

California, Mrs. Capps, if she would like to make an opening statement.

3

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Chairman Markey. I thank you also for

holding this hearing.

I appreciate the witnesses who have come today. It is an important discussion that will happen. As a public health nurse, I know

that the media plays an extremely important role in the lives of

children. You know it, too. Unfortunately, sometimes images on the

screen and in the page can exacerbate the problems, as we are

going to discuss today, of violence, childhood obesity and teen

smoking.

Recently, my colleague, Congresswoman Solis, and I led a group

of Members of Congress, we wrote a letter to the editors of 11 women’s magazines asking them to reject advertisements for a new cigarette, Camel No. 9, that is aimed at young women. Now what is

the word Camel No. 9 reminds you of, especially if it is accompanied by the words ‘‘light and luscious’’? So, today, I know we will

hear about the effects that smoking in the movies has on young

people. We must find a way to balance artistic freedom with the

need to prevent young people, teenagers, from starting to smoke.

One of the other major issues of this hearing is childhood obesity,

one of the fastest-growing epidemics in our land today, huge cost

to lives and to society. Recent studies have shown that more than

30 percent of children are either obese or very overweight. And

there are many reasons for this, of course, including physical inactivity and demands on parents’ time. But the evidence also points

to a role for unhealthy food that is heavily advertised on television.

I want to commend, as my colleague has done, some of the companies that have been leading the way on changing this. Disney

has restricted the use of its characters to nutritious foods and incorporated messages about healthy living in much of its popular

programs. And as Mr. Markey just said, Kellogg recently announced that it would restrict the advertising of its products that

didn’t meet nutritional guidelines. I hope there is a lot of positive

reinforcement for this kind of action, and I hope that other media

and food companies will join these companies to reform their advertising practices.

We also must address the issue of product placement and integration even though these practices are illegal in designated children’s programing. At an earlier subcommittee hearing, we saw

clear product integration for Oreo cookies during the show 7th

Heaven, very popular among children. Potential restrictions on advertising could be undermined by similar practices. So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for holding this hearing. And I look forward to speaking with our witnesses.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. To our panelists,

with the exception of former Congressman and Cabinet Secretary

Glickman, you should understand that we Members of Congress,

don’t really control our time, which is why I think Dan Glickman

is happier with the job he has now. We have a roll call on the floor.

We have 5 minutes to make, Congresswoman Capps and I. And

then there will be a brief roll call after that. So, in approximately

10 minutes, we will reconvene the hearing. And at that point,

Ranking Member Upton from Michigan will return, and I will recVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:47 Jul 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-58 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
4

ognize him, and then we will go right to the panel for your opening

statements. So this committee stands in recess.

[Recess.]

Mr. MARKEY. The subcommittee will reassemble, and I will now

turn to recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Upton.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Mr. UPTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am sorry that

I was not here when the gavel fell. I was actually outside, but

when votes were called, I had to go to the floor, and sadly, I am

going to give my opening statement. I have an amendment on the

House floor, so we will do that; it is going to allegedly pass by

voice. And I will be immediately back in my chair. But good morning.

Today’s hearing is entitled, Images Kids See on the Screen, and

it seems that, as a society, we are much quicker to lay blame for

our ills rather than acknowledging our own foibles. We have drifted

away from personal responsibility. And as the parent of two teenagers, I firmly believe that the primary responsibility for the health

and well-being of all of our kids lies with the parents, not necessarily with the media. Kids get fat from what they eat, not what

they see. They stay fit by what they do or, rather, do not do. Additional Government regulation cannot cure childhood obesity or keep

children from smoking. Parents have a role there, too.

Television is unequivocally the most common source of information available to children growing up in our country. Children are

not only being entertained, but they are also being educated by TV.

Nearly all children, 99 percent, live in a home with a TV. Half have

three or more TVs, and over one-third have a television in their

own bedroom. It is estimated that children today watch 3 to 4

hours of TV every single day. And in light of the growing amount

of time that kids find themselves in front of a TV, the issue of what

they are watching becomes increasingly important.

However, let’s not forget who is ultimately responsible for what

kids watch and for how long. That is for parents. The master of the

clicker must be the adult, not the child, in the household. In terms

of children’s programming, I would particularly want to commend

the Kellogg company and Kraft foods for their leadership on voluntarily restricting marketing practices to kids. Kellogg’s and Kraft

continue to be a leader on so many fronts, and I am proud to represent a number of their great employees in my district.

It should be noted that the industry as a whole is involved in a

large collaborative effort, the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. It is a voluntary program funded in November

2006 by 10 food companies, representing over two-thirds of the advertising devoted to kids. It is administered and monitored by a

Council of Better Business Bureaus, which also oversees CARA, the

self-regulatory children’s advertising program, for all children’s advertising, not just food. Kellogg’s child nutrition and advertising

initiative is their pledge under this program. And I expect that

when all the pledges from the participating companies are in later

5

this summer, we will benefit greatly from viewing the collective impact of the voluntary initiative as a whole.

The quest for solutions concerning kids programs has led some

down the wrong path. Some have mistakenly suggested that choosing channels a la carte is a solution. That is wrong; a la parents

is the answer. For example, with their Control Your TV and TV

Boss, along with other technologies, the cable industry has made

great leaps in educating parents on the technology available to

block any content that they deem inappropriate. Parents can block

a whole channel or block by content ratings. Chairman Markey’s vchip works the same way for broadcast TV. That way, parents are

empowered to decide what is best for their family to view. Cable

operators and programmers should be commended for the work

that they have done in that area. Our broadcasters should be commended as well.

Since my bill increasing the fines that the FCC can levy against

broadcasters for indecency was signed into law, the race to the bottom has ended. And there has been a reduction in some of the stuff

that was permeating the public airwaves. Broadcasters across the

country got the message, and they now think twice about pushing

that envelope. Violating the decency standards is no longer merely

viewed as the cost of doing business. The law provides parents a

little more comfort when their kids turn on the TV or radio during

the hours of 6 a.m. until 10 p.m.

Now I don’t understand why some folks think this is an arena

for regulation, particularly as the private sector continues to make

meaningful progress, not because they are forced to but as a matter

of good policy. The best remedy comes from the industries that are

self-regulating. Let’s look at one example. A leader in kids programming, Viacom’s Nickelodeon has licensed its characters for use

on packages of fruits and vegetables to encourage healthy eating

habits since 2005. Nickelodeon also licenses its characters for

sports equipment and has committed more than $30 million and 10

percent of its air time to Let’s Just Go Play Healthy Challenge, a

multimedia campaign that focuses on health and wellness messaging for kids. The network also goes dark once a year for its Worldwide Day of Play, putting a message on the screen suggesting that

kids go out and play. In addition, Nickelodeon continues to play an

active role in the media and childhood obesity task force. The goal

of that is to provide a forum for the public and private sectors to

examine the impact the media has on childhood obesity rates and

to collaborate on voluntary recommendations to address the issue.

I look forward to hearing from our panel this morning, especially

my good friend and actually my former boss, Mary Sophos, on this

important topic. I appreciate them being here to help us understand and examine the issues before us.

I will return after the amendment is adopted. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Solis.

6

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILDA L. SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, Chairman Markey and Ranking Member

Upton, for having this very important hearing this morning.

Today we have an opportunity to examine the effects of media on

one of the most important constituencies, our children. As chair of

the Congressional Hispanic Caucus task force, I have long advocated for the health and well-being of Latino children. Latino children are more likely to be obese than any other group. In fact, recent statistics by the National Council of La Raza show that 24

percent of Mexican-American children are overweight. AfricanAmerican children also face problems. They represent 20 percent of

children that are overweight. And Anglo children represent 12 percent that are overweight. Any problems we identify today or solutions we may consider will have a disproportionate impact on the

health of minority children.

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the advertising that targets children and the ideas they might have to lower

rates of childhood obesity. I also look forward to hearing from witnesses about ways to better educate parents and consumers on the

tools they already have to limit objectionable content in their

homes. We have often heard from FCC Chairman Martin that the

solution is a la carte cable programming. As many on this committee know, a la carte presents serious issues since it would increase

costs for consumers and limit programming by a per-channel instead of per-program basis. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today to help us provide better information for our children

and for our parents. And I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Deal.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NATHAN DEAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our witnesses for being here today. I have long been concerned about the

level of violence and sexual content which has come to hold a

prominent place in movies, commercials and television programming. There are those who would argue that children are not necessarily harmed by what they see on television. Such arguments I

think fail to pass the test of common sense. Common sense tells us

that when our media glorifies violence, promiscuous sex and other

forms of questionable behavior, as a society, we are undermining

the very principles that we seek to uphold. If we care about the future of our children, then, as a society, we should be taking the

steps necessary to reform the images that they see on television.

Part of the problem, I believe, is lack of consumer choice in television programming and the underlying issue of retransmission

consent which prevents it. We have not given enough control to

parents, communities and local cable operators in order to protect

and support what comes into their homes and neighborhoods.

A perfect example of this is the fact that there are no cable or

satellite companies which allow their customers to pick and pay for

the programming they actually want to watch. Rather, consumers

7

are left with only a small range of packages which often leaves

them paying for hundreds of channels, the vast majority of which

they would never voluntarily pay for. I have been told before by

cable and satellite providers that they would like to offer more

choice to consumers but are prohibited due to forced bundling and

packaging practices. Due to rapid media consolidation, we have a

limited number of media companies controlling the vast array of

video programming. As a result, they can force a take-it-or-leaveit approach for all of their programming, the good and the bad, the

uplifting and the degrading. That, in my opinion, is why we have

much of the offensive programming on our TVs. Until we fix these

broken and outdated regulations which govern video programming,

we will always have a system with no free market which does not

allow parents to choose the programming they want to watch. We

need a system which is free-market based and allows for true

choice. I will end by emphasizing that I realize and don’t believe

that this can be resolved by a forced mandatory Government-regulated regime. That, in my opinion, is not the answer. I yield back.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State, Mr.

Inslee.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAY INSLEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. We start out with some pretty terrifying

statistics. One in three of all children born in the United States in

the year 2000 will develop diabetes during their lifetime. And having just lost my mom a few months ago to the ravages of diabetes,

I can tell you that is a very, very stunning and threatening statistic. It really is a national epidemic that we are going to experience

if we don’t turn around our kids and their eating and activity behavior. And maybe it is one of our principle challenges of the country. So I am glad we are having this hearing today.

I will just talk about two issues. One is the bombardment of our

children of advertising for certain types of food, and the other is

our lack of physical activity of our children. I just want to address

them briefly. American children ages 2 to 7 see an average of 12

food ads a day or 4,400 ads a year. Kids 8 to 12 see an average

of 21 food ads a day; they will see 7,600 ads a year for food. Fifty

percent of all ad time on children’s shows are for food. The interesting thing about those ads is the kind of food that those ads portray.

They see 8.8 food ads per hour; 34 percent of those ads are for

candy and snacks; 28 percent are for cereal; 10 percent are for fast

food. And this is kind of interesting to me, 1 percent are for fruit

juices, and zero are for fruits and vegetables. And I think that is

interesting.

If you look at the book ‘‘Omnivore’s Dilemma,’’ it is a very interesting book about the food industry and what we eat in this country. And it basically says processed foods are what we sell because

our industry, basically the only profit they found is in processed

foods, which are high in sugar and concentrated fats. Somehow we

have got to figure out how to get real food. Our kids need real food.

So I appreciate this group is going to talk about that.

8

Second, on education, Representative Wamp and I and others

have introduced a Strengthening Physical Education Act of 2007,

with 19 cosponsors. It will require that our schools start getting

our kids involved in physical education, and we as parents have a

responsibility in that as well. There are two parts of this equation,

parents and activity, and the industry and bombardment of kids

with sugar, and I think all of us have to get real serious about this

diabetes epidemic. Thank you.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am actually going to

wave an opening statement because I know we have votes—they

say as soon as 11:45—so I want to make sure we hear from our

witness panel, so I will wave.

Mr. MARKEY. That is great. And all time for opening statements

by the members has expired. We will now turn to our panel. And

it is an extremely distinguished panel indeed.

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN GLICKMAN, CHAIRMAN AND CEO,

MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Mr. GLICKMAN. Thank you very much, Chairman Markey and

members. It is a pleasure to be back home here in the House. I

served with many of you. I am delighted to be here.

The American film community has long been committed to empowering parents by helping them make informed decisions about

what is appropriate for their kids. This is in fact the core mission

of the movie rating system which we jointly manage with the National Association of Theater Owners; that is to inform parents

and, in doing so, to maintain, uphold creative freedom and artistic

freedom in this country.

It is no secret that the ratings system gets its share of heat from

all sides, and that is expected, even healthy, in our society. Some

people say, that movie should have been rated this way and that

movie should have been rated that way. And the process is an art,

not a science. But it should be noted that the rating system continues to enjoy an overwhelming approval among the folks for whom

it was created, parents of young children. To maintain the rating

system as a useful and relevant tool, we work hard to make sure

it evolves alongside modern parental concerns.

In recent years, if you have noticed, we have added more detailed

rating descriptions, so that gives specificity to parents about why

a movie is rated a certain way. We focused as well on advertising

and marketing materials in movies, both the content and making

sure our products are marketed to age-appropriate audiences. We

have added a stern warning to R-rated films, making it clear that

even in the presence of a parent or guardian, some of these films

are not suitable for young children. And we have added new tools,

such as red carpet ratings, which delivers ratings on the Internet

about current films in an e-mail account to people all over the

country.

As you know, we have recently made all smoking a factor in the

rating of films. In the past, we focused only on teen smoking. Now

our analysis also encompasses depictions that glamorize smoking

or films that feature pervasive smoking outside of a mitigating hisVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:47 Jul 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-58 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
9

torical, public health or other context. That decision has been

strongly supported by major public health groups like the American

Cancer Society, and we work closely with the Harvard School of

Public Health and Dean Barry Bloom to proceed along with this.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, I have the latest dean’s message from the

Harvard School of Public Health, which I would like to ask be part

of the record, which talks about their role with us in working on

the program as we have done it.

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, it will be included in the record.

[The material follows:]

10

11

12

13

14

Mr. GLICKMAN. And I would add that many, many State attorneys general have indicated strong support of what we have done.

In the real world, this change will translate in two ways. First,

films that glamorize smoking or feature pervasive smoking may

well receive a higher rating and/or a specific note of caution to parents, such as, quote, glamorizes smoking.

The second and most likely the far-reaching impact is greater

self-restraint. Given this new higher bar set by the ratings board,

if the objective is a G, PG or PG–13 film, there is likely to be even

more careful consideration at the studio and filmmaker level of any

scenes of smoking. It is still a creative decision on the part of the

filmmaker, but the knowledge is there that if there are certain

types of smoking described in the situation, it could affect the rating.

I would say that we spent a lot of time on thinking about ‘‘thou

shalt not’’ in this debate. We talked about obesity and smoking;

both are very important. And as you know, ironically, in my former

position as the Secretary of Agriculture, I was very much involved

in issues like teen nutrition, dietary guidelines, and it is just ironic

that I find myself engaged in a debate that I never expected to be

in in this particular job.

But I do think, if you look at films overall, for example, two films

come to mind, ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth,’’ the film about climate

change, or whether it is the movie that is coming out today, ‘‘A

Mighty Heart,’’ a film about how a journalist relates in the war on

terrorism, the fact of the matter is, this industry has a long and

proud legacy of shining a spotlight on issues of great importance

and having an often game-changing impact. In the area of public

health, we have had a partnership that began in the 1980s between

our industry and the medical community on drunk driving. Experts

came in and talked to everyone in the industry. What came out of

it voluntarily was the depictions of designated drivers and helped

bartenders call cabs because it became the norm on both film and

our society.

We have now joined at MPAA with the Entertainment Industry

Foundation, the Directors Guild of America and others in a similar

voluntary industry-led effort called ‘‘Hollywood Unfiltered.’’ Again,

the aim, like the designated driver aim—this does not relate to ratings. This is more an operational issue, but the aim is to raise

awareness of the many voluntary creative choices, in this case to

help further reduce the glamorization of smoking in film. And lest

we dismiss these efforts, it is worth noting that the drunk-driving

campaign, not based on censorship, has been credited with saving

more than 50,000 American lives. So I want to make sure that we

make the point here that ratings are not the sole solution of the

problem. But it gives parents the information that they need to

make choices for their kids. And the voluntary effort is one that we

think will ultimately have a bigger role.

Now in the area of obesity, which I just thought I would mention

today, this is an important precedent, and this is a complex problem. I took this up as Agriculture Secretary. We developed teen nutrition. We provided the 2000 dietary guidelines. This is a tough

issue because the idea of fresh fruits and vegetables added to our

diet, the idea of a more balanced diet is one that is absolutely critiVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:47 Jul 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-58 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
15

1 The Motion Picture Association of America is the voice and advocate of the American motion

picture, home video, and television industries. Its members include: Buena Vista Pictures Distribution; Paramount Pictures Corporation; Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Universal City Studios LLP and Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.

cal, as Congressman Inslee talked about, in terms of—my blood

sugar is often a little bit at the upper level, and I understand this.

There is no panacea in all of this. What do we do? Do we ban depictions of unhealthy foods? Who defines unhealthy? But we each

have to do our part, individuals, government, society at large.

It has been mentioned about the Walt Disney company introducing more healthful options, Nickelodeon, Universal Studios. And

the list goes on; that helps. Children’s programming and even the

advertising are stepping up big time to encourage a more healthy

lifestyle. And it also helps when we parents and grandparents set

an example, look at our own habits and think about our responsibilities as well. Government edicts alone won’t solve the problem.

We have to work together, which is what we are trying to do today.

I think we can make real progress on all of these issues. I think

we can ask, what are the messages we are sending to our kids?

Can there be more positive messages? Can we enlist the ingenuity

of the creative community to help address these broader societal

challenges? Can we do so in a manner that celebrates rather than

inhibits creative freedom? For our kids, for the public health and

for our democratic society, I hope the answer is yes. And I thank

you very much Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glickman follows:]

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN GLICKMAN

Good morning. Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Upton, members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and its

six member companies, I thank you for the opportunity to address this important

set of topics relating to media and children.1

As a parent and grandparent, I fully appreciate that the prevalence of media and

the rapid development of the technology that delivers it are a challenge to parents.

We must work together to ensure that parents have the tools they need to make

sound, informed decisions on behalf of their children because in the end, it is parents—not industry, not interest groups, and not the government—that should make

those decisions.

Technology and the availability of media are not bad things. In fact they are two

of our country’s great equalizers and reflect the bedrock freedoms and opportunities

for advancement upon which the country was founded. Technology enables a child

in rural Kentucky to access online the same research as a child in the wealthiest

suburbs of Los Angeles or New York or Washington.

For example Mr. Chairman, you are acutely aware of the complexities and challenges of global warming, and you would probably agree that nothing has done more

to raise awareness to that complex issue than the documentary film, ‘‘An Inconvenient Truth.’’ This is just one example of how media, and movies in particular, can

educate and elevate socially important issues.

Our industry has provided tremendous leadership over the last few decades to

make sure movies are being viewed by appropriate audiences by providing information to parents, through the establishment of the movie ratings system. This system

is the gold standard of parental informational tools, and parents consistently report

that it is useful.

As the market and consumer expectations are constantly evolving, our rating system is constantly being reevaluated to make sure that it is keeping pace with that

transformation. In recent years we have introduced several refinements, adding

more detailed ratings descriptions, expanding ratings factors, improving advertising

and marketing regulations and establishing new delivery systems for ratings information.

16

We all share the goal of shielding children from inappropriate images. We must

face this problem keeping in mind that in our country, motion pictures and television programs are forms of expression protected by the first amdendment and that

any governmental effort to regulate that speech must comport with our proud Constitutional history. Efforts to regulate speech that violate that basic principle, no

matter how well intentioned, do not protect a single child.

Rather than throwing up our collective hands and feeling overwhelmed, we must

continue working aggressively and creatively to empower parents so they can take

advantage of what’s good and set limits for what they do not want their children

to be exposed.

My industry has been a leader in providing parents with the resources they need

to make the right choices for their families. I would like to highlight just a few of

our efforts for you here today.

For nearly 40 years, MPAA has led the way with a workable voluntary ratings

system that has stood the test of time and continues to have widespread support

among American parents.

Established in 1968, the Classification and Ratings Administration (CARA) is the

gold standard of parental informational tools by which all others are measured.

Using the now familiar and easy-to-understand G, PG, PG–13, R and NC–17 motion

picture ratings, the ratings system provides parents with guidance about a movie’s

content so that they can determine what motion pictures are suitable for their children. Parents make the decision, the ratings system provides them with tools to do

so.

According to annual outside surveys, parents have consistently found it extremely

useful in helping them make the right decisions about their children’s moviegoing.

Last year’s survey, released on the 38th anniversary of the establishment of CARA,

showed that 80 percent of parents found the rating system to be fairly to very useful

in helping them make decisions about what movies their children see.

The success of the ratings system lies in its straightforward simplicity. It provides

an overall familiar framework while still allowing for adjustments as circumstances

warrant. We have worked extremely hard to make sure that in addition to being

easy to understand and use, the ratings are accessible to parents in an increasingly

busy and complicated world.

Our ratings Web site www.filmratings.com is highly trafficked by parents who

visit it to look up the rating of a motion picture and its rating reason. They can

also access the various descriptions of the ratings and see a list of the most frequently asked questions about ratings.

All official movie sites must link directly to the film ratings site and to

www.parentalguide.org, a comprehensive central site which provides parents with

information about CARA and each of the other ratings systems other industries

have developed. If a film has not yet been rated, the television and online advertising for that film must note that and reference the ratings Web site for up-to-date

information.

To provide this information in the most convenient way, MPAA last year launched

a free email alert service called Red Carpet Ratings which automatically sends parents ratings and ratings reasons for the most recently released movies. Parents can

sign up for the service at the MPAA Web site at www.mpaa.org or on the film rating

Web site.

Aside from parents looking up the ratings of a film on one of these Web sites or

obtaining the ratings information by other means, the most basic way we can provide that ratings information as guidance is ensuring that the ratings information

and descriptors are provided in all of the advertising and marketing material for

a rated movie, no matter in what medium, and that the movies are marketed to

age appropriate audiences.

Movie advertising, whether in print, on television, or online is required to include

rating information and descriptors highlighting the reasons—such as violence—that

caused the film to receive its rating.

The FTC recognized the importance of these steps in its recent report on marketing to children, noting that the industry has made steady progress in disclosing ratings and rating reasons clearly and prominently in advertising since 2000. Specifically, we have now included ratings reasons for all films in newspaper ads, Web

sites, and posters.

As part of the requirements to receive a film rating, all advertising and publicity,

including Internet sites, must be submitted to the Advertising Administration for

review and approval prior to being released to the public. The Advertising Administration reviews over 50,000 pieces of advertising a year. Its comprehensive rules

were just updated last year to ensure the guidelines are keeping pace with new deVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:47 Jul 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-58 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
17

velopments in content distribution, and we plan to continue to update them as needed.

Movie advertising shown on network and cable television can only be placed during programming of compatible content and at appropriate hours. In reviewing a television spot for approval, the Advertising Administration will take into consideration appropriate placement and audience demographics.

Similarly, movie trailers shown in theaters must be compatible with the feature

so that inappropriate content is not advertised to younger viewers. For example,

PG-rated features must not be preceded by trailers advertising R- rated films.

Online advertising, including Internet sites, banner ads and video clips, must also

be reviewed and approved. Distribution of movies and movie advertising on the

Internet pose a whole host of new challenges as well as opportunities. MPAA and

its member companies continue to explore and implement technological solutions to

help block inappropriate movie advertising from being accessed by younger Internet

users, and MPAA staff continually review sites for inappropriate content.

Failure to comply with any of the advertising guidelines can result in significant

penalties for distributors. This includes the revocation or suspension of their movie’s

rating.

Non-MPAA member companies are not bound to have their films rated; however,

once they submit their film for a rating, they are bound by our rules requiring review and approval of their materials.

The ratings system is constantly evolving to meet the changing needs of parents.

Recently we have taken several steps to make the system more user friendly and

transparent for families. First, we have made improvements to ensure parents are

informed about ‘‘depictions of violence’’ in our motion pictures and marketing materials. The ‘‘depictions of violence’’ category is one that can trigger a stricter rating.

To help parents better understand the severity of violence, over time we have added

additional descriptors to better describe the type of violent content contained in a

movie.

Second, we added an additional warning to parents that R-rated movies are not

appropriate for young children. Earlier this year, responding to concerns from people who frequented R rated movies to which parents were taking their children,

MPAA decided to add an additional warning to the definition of R-rated movies:

‘‘Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to bring their young children with them

to R-rated motion pictures.’’

Third, we are constantly looking at potential new factors to determine what additional information the ratings system may need to include. It was through this process that we recently made the decision to add ‘‘depictions of smoking’’ as a ratings

factor.

Last month, MPAA announced that depictions of smoking will be considered as

a ratings factor. Depictions that glamorize smoking or that feature pervasive smoking outside of an historic or other mitigating context may receive a higher rating

or the inclusion of smoking may be included in the rating descriptors for the movie

such as ‘‘glamorized smoking’’ or ‘‘pervasive smoking.’’

In the past, illegal teen smoking had been considered as a factor in the rating

of films. We have now extended that ratings factor to encompass adult depictions

of smoking.

Smoking is a unique public health concern that we believe, when depicted in a

motion picture, warrants giving parents additional information. Our change will do

just that. Three questions will have particular weight for our rating board when

considering smoking in a film and its effect on the rating: One, is the smoking pervasive; tTwo, does the film glamorize smoking; and three, is there an historic or

other mitigating context for the smoking?—

Beyond enhancing our ratings to account for smoking, we have also joined with

the Entertainment Industry Foundation and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers to work on a project called Hollywood Unfiltered. This entertainment industry-led initiative is dedicated to educate and raise awareness within the

industry of the public health consequences of depicting smoking in movies and television.

Hollywood Unfiltered is a voluntary effort aimed at educating members of the entertainment industry about how on-screen smoking impacts young people, while encouraging the industry to take action to reduce the glamorization of smoking in

their creative work.

Fortunately, the trend seems to be moving in the right direction. Statistics show

that there is a declining prevalence of smoking in the movies in general. From July

2004 to July 2006, the percentage of films that included even a fleeting glimpse of

smoking dropped from 60 percent to 52 percent. Of those films 75 percent received

18

an R rating for other factors. In other words, three out of every four films that contained any smoking at all over the past few years are already rated R.

Finally, let me address the issue of childhood obesity and food marketing, an issue

with which I’m very familiar and about which I care deeply from my work in the

House and as Secretary of Agriculture under President Clinton.

During my tenure at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we revised and modernized the dietary nutrition guidelines and the familiar food pyramid. This was no

small feat. For the very first time, the guidelines emphasized the importance of exercise—and suggested that people moderate the amount of sugar, fat, salt, alcohol

and cholesterol they eat. And we made significant progress with improvements in

teen nutrition as well.

As part of that initiative, we undertook a comprehensive program to educate children about nutrition and healthful eating habits. Through our Team Nutrition program, we reached into elementary schools all across the country with educational

materials and instruction in clear, easy to understand, and kid-friendly terms.

Also, I shepherded the organic food program into existence. It had languished in

the bureaucracy for years, and I undertook to make it a reality, and today, for

adults as well as children, the program provides healthy alternative food choices.

Given my background with these issues, I was heartened to find that much

progress has been made in this area in the media industry.

MPAA member companies take their responsibility in the marketing of their entertainment seriously and have engaged in several recent efforts in the area of food

marketing and children.

At the end of last year, The Walt Disney Company introduced new food guidelines

aimed at giving parents and children healthier eating options. The guidelines for licensed foods and promotions aimed at children—which are based on The Dietary

Guidelines for Americans and developed in cooperation with two top child health

and wellness experts—will govern Disney’s business partnerships and activities in

the U.S. on a going-forward basis and will be adapted for international use over the

next several years.

Under the new policy, Disney will use its name and characters only on kid-focused

products that meet specific guidelines, including limits on calories, fat, saturated fat

and sugar. In addition, Disney announced nutritionally-beneficial changes in the

meals served to children at all Disney-operated restaurants in its Parks and Resorts

and unveiled a company-wide plan to eliminate trans fats from food served at its

Parks by the end of 2007 and from its licensed and promotional products by the end

of 2008.

Similarly, at the end of last year, Universal Studios theme parks also cut

transfats from use in the foods at its parks and now offers healthier menus.

There have been great strides in children’s programming also. For instance, this

year marks the fifth year of Nickelodeon’s award-winning, Let’s Just Play Go

Healthy Challenge program, a multi-media campaign to which Nickelodeon has committed more than $30 million and 10 percent of its airtime. The campaign empowers

kids to recapture the spirit and benefits of active play. More than 70 PSAs on health

and wellness have aired featuring prominent figures such as former President Bill

Clinton, Gov. Mike Huckabee and Tiki Barber.

Throughout the summer, Nickelodeon will air the Let’s Just Play Go Healthy

Challenge half hour television series that follows four children as they take the

healthy challenge to eat better and exercise. In 2006, 6 million viewers tuned in to

follow the Challenge, and since the launch of the Let’s Just Play Go Healthy Challenge in 2006, 221,000 kids have registered at Nick.com to make healthy choices.

In addition to programming, Nickelodeon has adopted an approach to licensing

characters to help encourage healthier diets and lifestyle choices for children.

SpongeBob, Dora the Explorer and other popular characters are now licensed on a

wide variety of healthy food from broccoli, green beans, and spinach to cherries, apples, pears, and grapes.

At the end of the day, the focus of our collective efforts should be solely on the

question of have we provided parents with the information they need—whether that

is the nutrition and diet information of a product so that parents can decide what

their kids should eat or information about a movie’s content so that they can decide

what their kids can watch. Government should not and indeed cannot make those

choices. Only parents can.

In the recent FCC report on television violence that the full Committee requested

three years ago, Commissioner Adelstein stated ‘‘that parents are the first, last and

best line of defense against all forms of objectionable content’’ before highlighting

the extent to which DVDs, digital video recorders and online offerings give parents

more control than ever.

19

As I am sure you will hear from Adam shortly, parents have more technological

tools at their disposal than ever before to help filter what their children see and

hear. The V-Chip is already built into television sets to allow programming blocking.

Additional parental controls are often just one click away on remote controls as

every digital set top box includes parental screening tools with password options.

These parental controls are far less restrictive methods of protecting children from

inappropriate content than government imposed content controls.

Unfortunately, the FCC Report’s findings both glossed over the entertainment industry’s recent efforts with respect to parental controls and virtually ignored the serious constitutional implications of government attempts to regulate violent content

on television.

That is why, after noting that ‘‘the Report does not even discuss the full menu

of parental assistance tools that are available to millions of families’’ thereby resulting in incomplete analysis and resulting in a skewed set of recommendations to help

parents, Commissioner Adelstein admonished his colleagues for such dismissive

treatment of the fundamental constitutional issues involved. The depiction of violence in entertainment ‘‘is a protected constitutional right under the First Amendment that we are recommending Congress to curtail without any thoughtful legal

analysis.’’

The first amendment is clear. Government cannot regulate speech without first

finding a compelling government interest and then narrowly tailoring a solution

that furthers that interest and is the least restrictive alternative. The attempted

government regulation of ‘‘depictions of violence’’ suggested by the FCC in its report

fails to meet that constitutional threshold. As you know, the FCC did not even attempt to define ‘‘inappropriate violence’’ as it was asked to do given the challenge

of such a definition. I submit that such a definition cannot be crafted in this context

to meet constitutional muster, and similar government mandated content restrictions would certainly result in the same unconstitutionality.

Instead of pursuing a government solution, Commissioner Adelstein recommended

that there be a close look at the significant industry efforts on ratings awareness

and parental controls. We agree.

MPAA has already been actively working with groups like Pause Parent Play and

others to provide parents with the information they need to make those decisions

and with the parental controls to then help them limit their children’s access to only

what they have deemed appropriate.

In 2006, we partnered with the fellow entertainment industry groups and the

Consumer Electronics Association in establishing TheTvBoss.org multi-million dollar

ad campaign which was created by media companies in partnership with the Ad

Council to raise awareness of V-chip technology which allows parents to control television programming.

We have also worked closely with a number of private entities like Pause Parent

Play to streamline the provision of ratings information and get it into the hands of

parents. For instance, with Pause Parent Play, the MPAA and its member companies partnered with entities such as the YMCA, Girl Scouts of America and WalMart, among others, to sponsor a one-stop Web site www.PauseParentPlay.org for

ratings information about all forms of media—movies, music, television and video

games. The aim of the site is to compile tools and information so parents can make

more informed choices about their kids’ entertainment.

Indeed, the key to all of the issues before this Committee today is how to best

empower parents to make the decisions as to what their kids see. Only they can

best judge what is and what is not appropriate for their own children. And that is

what we hear time and time again from parents.

Parents are very clear with us in indicating that they—not the industry and certainly not the government—should determine what is appropriate for viewing by

their kids. What they want is information that is accurate and timely.

The movie ratings system is an evolving system, and we are constantly evaluating

what additional information should be provided to make it even more useful. That

is why we took the steps we did with respect to smoking, and that is why we will

continue to look at potential additional improvements.

Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Upton, members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the chance to discuss these issues of importance to our industry, and I look

forward to answering any questions you may have regarding what I have just discussed. Thank you.

Mr. MARKEY. We thank you, Mr. Glickman, very much.

20

Now we are going to hear from Cheryl Healton, who is the president and chief executive officer of the American Legacy Foundation. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF CHERYL G. HEALTON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, THE AMERICAN LEGACY FOUNDATION

Ms. HEALTON. Thank you. Good morning. I am Dr. Cheryl

Healton, president and CEO of the American Legacy Foundation,

the national public health foundation dedicated to building a world

where young people reject tobacco and anyone can quit. I commend

the subcommittee on holding this important hearing, and I very

much appreciate the invitation to testify.

The media images children and teenagers are exposed to exert a

powerful and too often negative impact on their health. I will address the devastating impact that the pervasive images of smoking

in the media has on adolescent smoking and the steps that must

be taken to protect our children. I will start with a short reel of

images of smoking in recent PG–13 as well as images of smoking

in movie trailers that are aired on TV to advertise films.

[Video shown.]

Ms. HEALTON. Tobacco is one of the most significant public

health challenges facing the United States. It is the largest preventable cause of death, with over 400,000 Americans dying every

year from smoking, and fully 63 percent of all cancer deaths are

tobacco attributable. Most astounding is that this is 100 percent

preventable in theory. One of the most pernicious aspects of the

epidemic is that over 80 percent of smokers start before their 18th

birthday. The tobacco industry has chillingly referred to teenagers

as replacement smokers for their customers who die or manage to

quit. It is therefore critically important to take action to prevent

teens from starting to smoke.

The Truth campaign, the only non-tobacco-industry-sponsored

national tobacco countermarketing campaign, does just this. Edgy

and hard-hitting, Truth communicates with teens in their own

voice about the toll of tobacco and the marketing practices of the

tobacco industry. Peer-reviewed research found, in the first years,

Truth was responsible for about 300,000 fewer smokers in 2002

alone. But Truth cannot do it alone, even when fully funded, which

is no longer the case.

Due to declining resources, our media buys have been drastically

cut. At the same time, reports suggest that the historic decade-long

decline in youth smoking reduction has begun to end, and youth

smoking rates may be trending back up. We truly face a national

crisis. Research establishes that smoking on screen recruits about

390,000 new smokers every year, accounting for between one-third

and one-half of all adolescent smoking initiation.

In 2004, tobacco was depicted in three-fourths of youth-rated

movies and 90 percent of R-rated movies. Because teens are less

likely to see R-rated movies, about 60 percent of youth exposure

comes from youth-rated movies. Smoking is also pervasive in TV.

And many movie trailers, you just saw some, that are shown on TV

contain images of smoking, which is ironic since most movies have

only a few minutes of smoking, that they seem to appear in so

21

many televised movie trailers. The foundation research found that,

for a 1-year period, 14 percent of these ads for movies included images of tobacco use and that nearly all youth between age 12 and

17 years of age saw at least one of these movie trailers, with 89

percent seeing at least one of them three or more times.

What then should we do? One, get smoking out of the movies and

television shows that are produced for and marketed to teens and

children. And two, to the extent that smoking images remain in

these media, counteract their effects. Along with other leading public health organizations, we support the guidelines that limit smoking in movies. If put into practice, this will significantly reduce the

movies’ influence on adolescent smoking. I think the committee is

familiar with these principles:

Rate new smoking movies with an R. A recent nationally representative sample of adult Americans found that 70 percent of

adults support the R rating.

Certifying no payoffs. There is a long and well-documented history of paid tobacco placement in the movies. Steps that have been

taken to stop this through the master settlement agreement and

the FTC tobacco marketing expenditure report are far from air

tight. It is extremely important to continue to shine a bright light

on tobacco product placement which the industry voluntarily

agreed not to do under the settlement.

Require anti-smoking ads. Research shows that strong antismoking advertisements shown immediately before a movie can

help counteract the impact of smoking images. We have worked

closely with the State AGs to make available without charge our

Truth ads to be included before movies, DVDs released and other

home-viewing formats. While I know they would be effective, our

declining budgets make it almost impossible for us to otherwise

show Truth ads before movies with smoking.

Stop identifying tobacco brands. Seventy-five percent of teens

smoke three most heavily used brands: Marlboro, Camel and Newport. Given this, images of nonbranded smoking are already a powerful influence on youth smoking initiation.

Finally, I recognize that after years of urging, the MPAA has

taken a hesitant step forward. We will watch very carefully the result of this, and we end by finally, once again, thanking the committee for taking up this topic.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Healton follows:]

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

Mr. MARKEY. We thank you very much, Doctor.

Our next witness is Dr. Donald Shifrin. He is a pediatrician and

the chair of the Committee on Communications of the American

Academy of Pediatrics.

Welcome, Doctor.

STATEMENT OF DONALD L. SHIFRIN, M.D., CHAIR, COMMITTEE

ON COMMUNICATIONS, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS

Dr. SHIFRIN. Good morning, Chairman Markey. I want to thank

you for calling this hearing and for your years of leadership on media’s impact on children. I also thank the members of the subcommittee for their time and attention today on what we think is

a critical issue.

I am Dr. Don Shifrin, representing the American Academy of Pediatrics, at 60,000 pediatricians. And for the past 4 years, I have

served as the chair of the academy’s Committee on Communications; served as a member of the academy’s National Task Force

on Obesity. I am a general pediatrician. I have been seeing patients

for 29 years. For more than 25 years, the Academy of Pediatrics

has been addressing the issue of media and its positive and negative effect on the physical and mental health and behavior of children and adolescents. With greater access and time to influence

young people’s attitudes and actions from infancy into adolescents,

television, movies, video games, music and the Internet have displaced parents and teachers as children’s primary role model,

sources and filters of information about their world and how they

can choose to behave in it. Children learn by observing and imitating. They cannot help but be influenced by the media. Media are

a significant part of our lives and have much to teach. But some

media messages are negative and can be harmful to children.

Please note that the academy has covered the issue of violence

and tobacco for our written testimony. But for purposes of time, I

will focus my oral remarks today just on advertising, the impact on

childhood obesity.

It is now common knowledge by everyone that the prevalence of

overweight and obese children has increased at some incredibly

alarming rates in the United States. These children are much more

likely to be at risk for medical problems, such as higher blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular and mental health issues.

Prevention is the hallmark of all pediatric care. The present

trends indicate that families, schools, communities, policymakers,

health care professionals, the food industry and the media all influence what is now the most significant ongoing chronic health

threat to children. Therefore, everyone has a critical role in working to reverse the trend of increasingly obese children.

As a practicing pediatrician, I see parents and caregivers every

day who are searching for help for their overweight children.

As I speak to you today for these 5 minutes with a significant

sense of urgency, I can assure you that these 5 minutes are statistically more time than many of my colleagues have with families

to discuss nutritional and activity awareness, media time and literacy issues during a once or every other year office visit. Contrast

that time with the amount of time children spend seeing 40,000

ads per year on television alone. And according to the Kaiser FounVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:47 Jul 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-58 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
35

dation, the fact that one-third of children younger than 6 have televisions in their bedroom, there is no question it is not a level playing field for parents or pediatricians.

Leisure activity for children is increasingly sedentary, with wide

availability of entertainment including televisions at home, in cars

and on cell phones as well as videos and computer games. According to national survey data, children who watched 4 or more hours

of television per day were significantly heavier compared to those

watching fewer than 2 hours.

Furthermore, having a television in the bedroom has been reported to be a strong predictor of being overweight, even in preschool-aged children. In addition to not getting enough exercise,

children who consume media are being overwhelmed with junk food

advertising and marketing. They are seeing an unhealthy disproportionate amount of advertising for products that are high in

fat, sugar and sodium and low in nutrition. In the recent Kaiser

Foundation report, ‘‘Food For Thought,’’ food was the top product

seen advertised by children.

Mr. Inslee did very kindly give the statistics of 34 percent of all

food ads were for candy and snacks. Of the more than 8,000 ads

reviewed in the Kaiser study, none were for fruits and vegetables;

yet advertising healthy food has been shown to increase wholesome

eating in children as young as 3 to 6 years of age. Since 1999, the

Academy has recommended no more than 1 to 2 hours of screen

time per day for children. And we discourage any screen time for

children under age 2 to encourage more interactive activities with

parents and caregivers. But we recognize that educating families

about moderation, helpful choices, balance rather than restrictions,

portion size and physical activity many times are lost in the tsunami of their children’s media exposure to less healthful foods.

Children now grow up in demographic niches rather than neighborhoods targeted at the earliest ages by advertising wanting to brand

them early and brand them often.

There are many risk factors that contribute to childhood obesity

and certainly many lines of defense, beginning with parental responsibility, but that is not the only line of defense. The following

are some of the Academy’s recommendations:

The Academy of Pediatrics considers advertising directly to

young children to be inherently deceptive and exploits children

under the age of 8. Children younger than 8 cannot discriminate

between fantasy and reality, and as such, they are uniquely vulnerable. Advertising and promotion of energy-dense, nutrient-poor food

products to children should be reduced and restricted. The academy

has called for a ban on junk food advertising during programming

that is viewed predominantly by young children. The Government

should limit commercial advertising on children’s programming to

no more than 5 to 6 minutes per hour which would decrease by 50

percent the current amount. And the Academy of Pediatrics supports and advocates for social marketing intending to promote

healthful food choices and increased physical activity. The food and

beverage companies and media industry should develop and advertise healthful food and eating choices, and the American Academy

of Pediatrics wants the Federal Government to fund research on

36

the impact of media on the ongoing health and behavior of children.

In conclusion, media permeates our lives, and therefore, it deserves our collective action. Pediatricians will continue to do their

part. Policymakers need to keep protecting the public interest in

this arena. Parents need to understand the impact of media on

children’s health and take responsibility for finding—and that is

difficult—and making informed choices about what media their

family consumes. The industry needs to drastically reduce the

number of junk food ads and rate programs properly. And together

we can make a difference in the health and well-being of all children. And that is going to benefit all of us. Thank you, sir.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Shifrin follows:]

STATEMENT OF DONALD L. SHIFRIN, M.D.

Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to testify today before the Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee at this hearing, Images Kids See

on the Screen. My name is Dr. Don Shifrin, and I am proud to represent the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a non-profit professional organization of 60,000

primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical sub-specialists, and pediatric surgical

specialists dedicated to the health, safety and well being of infants, children, adolescents, and young adults. For the past 4 years, I have served as chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Communications, which has developed

several AAP policy statements on media, including advertising, media violence, television, sexuality and media, and media education. I also served on the AAP Task

Force on Obesity. I am a general pediatrician in Seattle, Washington, where I have

been treating newborns through young adults for 29 years. I also hold a clinical professorship in pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine.

For more than 25 years, the American Academy of Pediatrics has been addressing

the issue of media and its positive and negative impact on the health and behavior

of children and adolescents. With greater access and time to influence young people’s attitudes and actions from infancy into adolescence, television, movies, video

games, music, and the Internet have displaced parents and teachers as children’s

primary role models, sources, and filters of information about their world and how

they can choose to behave in it. Children learn by observing and imitating—they

cannot help but be influenced by the media. Media are an important part of our

lives and have much to teach, but some media messages are negative and can be

harmful to children.

Children in this country drink from a seemingly inexhaustible supply of media

every day. What would we do if we discovered that the water our children drink

was full of things toxic to their physical and mental health? There is a lot of toxic

programming and advertising that’s flowing unimpeded into homes, and it’s impacting the health of our children. We want media experiences for children to be positive

as well as limited. Just as we would limit certain foods in a child’s diet that may

be unhealthy, we also need to limit their media diet of messages.

It takes a village to raise a child, but our concern is that the electronic village

is supplanting parental values. The AAP believes there is a role for parents, medical

professionals, the entertainment industry, food and beverage industry, advertising

industry, and yes, our government, in addressing the impact of media on children.

AAP HISTORY ON IMPACT OF MEDIA ON CHILDREN

For its part, the American Academy of Pediatrics has been directly involved in

numerous voluntary, legislative, and regulatory solutions. For example, we supported the Children’s TV Act of 1990 and the legislation creating the V-chip and

participated in the TV ratings negotiations—an AAP member currently serves on

the TV Oversight Monitoring Board. We launched a Media Matters campaign 10

years ago to train pediatricians about media issues and to educate parents and children about how to make good media choices. We provide materials for pediatricians

to use during office visits to ask families about media use. The AAP is an active

member of the Children’s Media Policy Coalition, which recently reached an agreement with the media industry over public interest obligations for children’s programming and advertising for digital TV. The AAP also currently serves on the

Joint Task Force on Media and Childhood Obesity, initiated by Senators Brownback

37

and Harkin and FCC Chairman Martin, FCC Commissioner Tate and FCC Commissioner Copps. This Task Force is several weeks away from completing its work, and

the Academy hopes the groups involved can reach a final agreement that makes

substantive changes in the way food is advertised to children.

ADVERTISING AND CHILDHOOD OBESITY

By now it is common knowledge that the prevalence of overweight and obese children has increased at an alarming rate in the United States, doubling in the past

20 years. Overweight and obese children are much more likely to be at risk for such

medical problems as higher blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular and

mental health issues.

Prevention is the hallmark of all pediatric care. The present trends indicate that

families (traditional, single-parents, divorced, and stepfamilies), schools, communities, policy makers, health care professionals, the food industry, and the media all

influence what is now the most significant ongoing chronic health threat to children.

Therefore, all play a critical role in working to reverse the trend of increasingly

obese children. Much like it has been stated that smoking is a pediatric disease, the

same could be said for obesity. Pediatricians are committed to helping kids and families lead healthy, active lives.

As a practicing pediatrician I see parents and caregivers every day who are

searching for help for their overweight children. As I speak to you today for 5 minutes with a significant sense of urgency, I can assure you that these 5 minutes are

statistically more time than many of my colleagues have with families to discuss

nutritional and activity awareness, media time, and literacy issues during an annual or every other year health maintenance appointment. Contrast that time with

the amount of time children spend seeing 40,000 ads per year on television alone,

and according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the fact that 33 percent of children

younger than age 6 have a TV in their bedroom. It hardly seems like a level playing

field for parents or pediatricians.

Leisure activity for children is increasingly sedentary, with wide availability of

entertainment, including televisions at home, in cars and on cell phones, as well as

videos and computer games. According to national survey data, children who

watched 4 or more hours of television per day were significantly heavier compared

to those watching fewer than 2 hours a day. Furthermore, having a TV in the bedroom has been reported to be a strong predictor of being overweight, even in preschool-aged children.

In addition to not getting enough exercise, children who consume media are being

overwhelmed with junk food advertising and marketing. They are seeing an

unhealthy, disproportionate amount of advertising for products that are high in fat,

sugar and sodium, and low in nutrition. In a Kaiser Family Foundation report released this year, Food for Thought, food is the top product seen advertised by children. The study found that ‘‘tweens ages 8–12 see the most food ads on TV, an average of 21 ads a day, or more than 7,600 a year. Teenagers see slightly fewer ads,

at 17 a day, for a total of more than 6,000 a year. For a variety of reasons—because

they watch less TV overall, and more of their viewing is on networks that have limited or no advertising, such as PBS and Disney—children ages 2–7 see the least

number of food ads, at 12 food ads a day, or 4,400 a year.’’ According to that same

Kaiser report, 34 percent of all food ads targeting children or teens are for candy

and snacks, 28 percent are for cereal, and 10 percent are for fast foods. Of the 8,854

food and beverage ads reviewed in the study, none were for fruits or vegetables targeting children or teens. Yet, advertising healthy foods has been shown to increase

wholesome eating in children as young as 3 to 6 years of age.

Since 1999, the AAP has recommended no more than 1–2 hours of screen time

per day for children, and we discourage any screen time for children under age 2

to encourage more interactive activities with parents and caregivers. We also advise

parents to take TV sets out of children’s bedrooms. But we recognize that educating

families about moderation, healthful choices, balance rather than restrictions, portion size, and physical activity many times are lost in the tsunami of their children’s

media exposure to less healthful foods. To put it simply, advertising works. If it

didn’t, the industry wouldn’t spend billions of dollars persuading children and their

parents. Unfortunately, children do not grow up in neighborhoods any more. They

grow up defined by demographic niches, targeted at the youngest ages by advertising wanting to brand them early and brand them often.

Granted, there are many risk factors that contribute to childhood obesity. And

there are many lines of defense, beginning with parental responsibility. But that is

not the only line of defense. According to the 2005 Institute of Medicine report,

‘‘Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity?’’ ‘‘...food and bevVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:47 Jul 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-58 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
38

erage marketing influences the preferences and purchase requests of children, influences consumption at least in the short term, is a likely contributor to less healthful

diets, and may contribute to negative diet-related health outcomes and risks among

children and youth.’’

It has been 43 years since the first Surgeon General’s report on smoking, and we

are still dealing with its terrible toll on our Nation’s health. Our children and their

children cannot wait another 40 years for us to address the issue of food advertising

and marketing and its role in obesity.

Advances in technology will definitely exacerbate the problem. Children’s advertising protections will need to be updated for digital TV, which, if all goes according

to plan, will be in place in 2009. Children watching a TV program will be able to

click an on-screen link and go to a Web site during the program. Interactive games

and promotions on digital TV will have the ability to lure children away from regular programming, encouraging them to spend a long time in an environment that

lacks clear separation between content and advertising. Interactive technology also

allows advertisers to collect information about children’s viewing habits and preferences and target them much more specifically.

What should be done? The following are the Academy’s positions and recommendations on advertising and marketing issues specifically as they relate to

media and childhood obesity:

• AAP considers advertising directly to young children to be inherently deceptive

and exploits children under the age of 8 years. Children younger than 8 cannot discriminate between fantasy and reality, and as such they are uniquely vulnerable.

• Advertising and promotion of energy-dense, nutrient-poor food products to children should be reduced and restricted. The AAP has called for a ban on junk-food

advertising during programming that is viewed predominantly by young children.

• The government should limit commercial advertising on children’s programming

to no more than 5 to 6 minutes per hour, which would decrease the current amount

by 50 percent.

• AAP supports and advocates for social marketing intended to promote healthful

food choices and increased physical activity. The food and beverage companies and

media industry should develop and advertise healthful food and eating choices.

• The AAP wants more federally funded research on the impact of media on the

health and behaviors of children.

• The government should prohibit interactive advertising to children in digital TV.

Information about children and their viewing habits should not be collected without

affirmative parental consent.

MEDIA VIOLENCE

America’s young people are being exposed to increasing amounts of media violence

through television, movies, video games, and popular music. The American Academy

of Pediatrics recognizes exposure to violence in the media as a significant risk to

the health of children and adolescents. Extensive research evidence indicates that

media violence can contribute to aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence,

nightmares, and fear of being harmed. This ‘‘fear factor’’ has also extended to television news reports of violence locally, nationally, and internationally.

Although exposure to media violence is not the sole factor contributing to aggression, antisocial attitudes, and violence among children and teens, it is an important

health risk factor on which we, as pediatricians and as members of a compassionate

society, can intervene.

In its 2001 Media Violence policy statement, the AAP calls for simplified, contentbased media ratings to help parents guide their children to make healthy media

choices. Following the release of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

media violence report, the AAP would like to open discussions with the broadcast

industry about improving the 10-year-old TV ratings system. For example, the ratings are inconsistent between networks. One network might apply a ‘‘V’’ for violence

to a program, and another network with a similar level of violence in a program

doesn’t. The AAP has also long advocated for content-based, not just age-based, ratings. Tell parents what’s in the program, and let them determine if they believe it’s

appropriate for their children. The ‘‘alphabet soup’’ of the TV ratings—-V, S, D—

are not understood by the public, especially ‘‘FV’’ which denotes fantasy violence,

but many parents believe these letters stand for family viewing. A majority of parents also are not even aware that E/I stands for educational and informational children’s programming. We would recommend displaying the ratings more often during

shows and increase their visibility in on-air and print guides.

39

The AAP has promoted media literacy among children and parents and conducted

public education campaigns to help parents understand all the ratings systems and

to make them aware of the tools available, like the v-chip, to control content. We

advise pediatricians to advocate for more child-positive media, not censorship, and

created a ‘‘media history’’ form for pediatricians to use in their offices with families.

Having such information can assist in reviewing and changing media diets.

What else can be done? The AAP offered recommendations from its Media Violence policy statement to the entertainment industry, such as:

• Avoid the glamorization of weapon carrying and the normalization of violence

as an acceptable means of resolving conflict.

• Eliminate the use of violence in a comic or sexual context or in any other situation in which violence is amusing or trivialized.

• If violence is used, it should be used thoughtfully as serious drama, always

showing realistic pain and suffering, and loss.

• Video games should not use human or other living targets or award points for

killing, because this teaches children to associate pleasure and success with their

ability to cause pain and suffering to others.

TOBACCO

Tobacco manufacturers spend $30 million per day ($11.2 billion per year) on advertising and promotion. Exposure to tobacco advertising may be a bigger risk factor

than having family members and peers who smoke and can undermine the effect

of strong parenting practices.

Preventing young people from starting to use tobacco is the key to reducing the

death and disease caused by tobacco use. The AAP has joined with other public

health groups, and 31 state attorneys general, through the Smoke Free Movies

project to urge moviemakers to change how smoking is portrayed in films. Mainstream movies are one of the most important factors in recruiting preteens and

teens to begin smoking. Research published in our scientific, peer-reviewed journal

Pediatrics just last month found that U.S. films deliver billions of smoking impressions to 10–14 year olds, which is the age when most kids are likely to experiment

with cigarettes.

The U.S. film industry can cut adolescent exposure substantially by extending the

R-rating to tobacco imagery. This voluntary step will not result in more films being

rated R. It will simply keep smoking out of future G, PG and PG–13 films, producing public health benefits at virtually no cost.

The Smoke Free Movies project has four goals:

• Rate new smoking movies ‘‘R’’—any film that shows or implies tobacco should

be rated ‘‘R.’’ The only exceptions should be when the presentation of tobacco clearly

and unambiguously reflects the dangers and consequences of tobacco use or is necessary to represent the smoking of a real historical figure.

• Certify no pay-offs—declare in the credits that nobody received anything of

value in exchange for using or displaying tobacco.

• Require strong anti-smoking ads—to run before any film with any tobacco presence, regardless of the rating.

• Stop identifying tobacco brands in films.

These are four voluntary solutions that could and should be adopted immediately

by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and their movie studios. Actions by them to date have fallen short. The AAP looks forward to the MPAA joining

the effort to protect children and teens from becoming addicted to the largest avoidable cause of death in the United States by implementing evidence-based policies

in rating movies.

The American Academy of Pediatrics also continues to urge Congress to pass Federal legislation (S. 625/H.R. 1108) that gives the Food and Drug Administration

(FDA) authority to regulate both current and new tobacco products and restrict tobacco product marketing. It bans such tactics as cartoon advertisements, free tobacco-themed merchandise that appeals to children, and sponsorship of sports and

entertainment events.

Finally, in its December 2006 Advertising policy statement, the AAP calls on Congress to implement a ban on cigarette and tobacco advertising in all media, including banners and logos in sports arenas. We believe advertisements can be restricted

if there is a significant public health risk, particularly to children.

I appreciate this opportunity to present testimony on behalf of the American

Academy of Pediatrics. Media permeates our lives, and therefore it deserves our collective action. Pediatricians will continue to do their part. Policymakers need to

40

keep protecting the public interest in this arena. Parents need to understand the

impact of media on children’s health and take responsibility for making informed

choices about what media their family consumes. The industry should drastically reduce the number of junk food ads children see, rate their programs properly and

standardize the ratings, offer more responsible portrayals of violence, and increase

the amount of quality, educational programming for children. Together we can make

a difference in the health and well being of all children, and that will benefit all

of us.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Shifrin.

Our next witness is Mary Sophos, who is the senior vice president and chief government affairs officer for the Grocery Manufacturers/Food Products Association. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF MARY SOPHOS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT,

CHIEF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS OFFICER, GROCERY MANUFACTURERS/FOOD PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION

Ms. SOPHOS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the

opportunity to be here today.

Reducing childhood obesity and encouraging healthy lifestyles for

children and adults is an important cause that the food industry

has made one of its top priorities.

The Grocery Manufacturers/Food Products Association represents

the world’s leading food, beverage and consumer packaged goods

companies. GMA and our member companies are committed to

helping Americans live healthier lives, and we believe that balanced nutrition and active lifestyle and healthy choices is the key

for both children and adults.

The food industry recognizes that it can help by providing a

wider range of nutritious product choices and marketing those

choices in ways that promote healthy lifestyles. We are also committed to supporting parents, schools, communities and others

whose participation is crucial if we are to have any measurable

success.

The most important contribution that the food and beverage sector has made to help Americans improve their diets is the development and introduction of thousands of new and reformulated products. Companies are making meaningful improvements across their

product portfolios, introducing over 10,000 new or reformulated

products with reduced calories, reduced saturated and trans fats,

reduced sodium and sugar, over the past 5 years. Companies have

enhanced products with whole grains, fiber and micronutrients and

have modified package sizes to help consumers focus on serving

size and portion control, including new package sizes created for

kids. While the cumulative impact of these individual efforts is already significant, we believe it will grow substantially.

So just how do people find 10,000 new and improved products?

Overwhelmingly, the information is carried by the media represented here today. TV, radio and newspapers, magazines and

Web sites will carry messages about these healthy and tasty

choices to millions of consumers across the country. GMA members

strive to deliver messages that are ethical and accurate. We take

very seriously our obligation to advertise responsibly and to take

into account the special needs of children. We have always had a

strong voluntary self-regulation system in this country, and the

41

Council of Better Business Bureaus has just made it better by its

recent modernization and strengthening of the cable guidelines.

Our members have been challenged to do even more with our

marketing, and they have responded. Chairman Majoras of the

Federal Trade Commission recently said, marketing can be part of

the solution. And we agree. Food and beverage advertisers, accounting for over two-thirds of all TV advertising to children under

12, have announced their commitment to devote the majority of

their messages to healthy choices and lifestyles as part of a new

children’s food and beverage advertising initiative which was

launched last November under the auspices of the Council of Better

Business Bureaus. In addition to shifting a mix of advertising messages to children to encourage healthier choices and lifestyles, participating companies commit to apply similar principles to interactive games and to licensed characters. And also to not advertise

food or beverage products in elementary schools and not to engage

in product placement in editorial and entertainment content.

Charter participants are Cadbury Schweppes USA, Campbell

Soup Company, the Coca-Cola Company, General Mills, Inc., the

Hershey Company, Kellogg Company, Kraft Food Inc., McDonald’s,

PepsiCo, Inc. and Unilever. We all know that marketing will be

part of the solution, and our industry will not be the only one involved.

Public health authorities and experts in the U.S. and abroad

have told us that success will depend on an unprecedented partnership of stakeholders from all sectors of society. We need to join

forces, and we know from experience that we can achieve great results, and we do. In the last 3 years, GMA members have contributed over $100 million for nutrition and health-related activities

and grants to communities that represents over 30 percent of the

total charitable contributions. In particular, effective communication of sound nutrition guidance and promotion of healthy lifestyle

is essential, and the U.S. Government plays a pivotal role in setting national policy in this area. GMA has undertaken a number

of initiatives to augment Government’s efforts to reach consumers

and to ensure, for example, that the new U.S. dietary guidelines

are relevant and useful tools in consumers’ everyday lives.

Let me conclude with this, there is simply too much at stake for

us to fail. The food and beverage industry has responded to the

challenge, and we remain committed. But we all know that one industry can’t win the battle alone. We can introduce new products

and choices to the public. We can promote healthier lifestyles, and

we can even remind folks that eating is fun now and then. Advertising can help consumers choose healthier lifestyles and healthier

diets, but consumers, parents, teens and children must make those

decisions, and they will need the support from every sector of society today. So thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sophos follows:]

TESTIMONY OF MARY SOPHOS

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Reducing childhood obesity and

encouraging healthy lifestyles for children and adults is an important cause that the

food industry has made one of its top priorities.

42

The Grocery Manufacturers/Food Products Association is the largest trade association representing the world’s leading food, beverage and consumer packaged

goods companies. In the wake of the Surgeon General’s alert to the Nation about

the rising trends of obesity in this country—and indeed around the world—in 2003

GMA’s Board declared our goal of working to ‘‘help arrest and reverse the growth

of obesity around the world. Achieving this goal will require multiple strategies, the

integrated efforts of many sectors, and long-term resolve. We are committed to doing

our part and will support others in doing theirs.’’

Experts in the U.S. and around the world agree that an effective solution to the

problem requires a comprehensive approach to incorporating sound nutrition, increased physical activity, consumer education and community support. Collaborations and partnerships with stakeholders across the spectrum of government, academia, the public health community, the private sector, schools, non-profits, and

parents are critical if we are to succeed.

The food and beverage industry recognizes that it can improve the situation by

providing a wider range of nutritious product choices and marketing these choices

in ways that promote healthy lifestyles. We also recognize and have focused on the

importance of achieving a balance of physical activity and nutrition throughout life;

the need for improved awareness and understanding by the public of nutrition and

of the concept of energy balance; responsible advertising practices that take into account the special needs of children; clear communications across labeling, packaging,

Web sites, brochures; in-store communications to enable consumers to make informed choices; and the need to work in partnership with other stakeholders in all

of these endeavors.

PRODUCT INNOVATION AND REFORMULATION

The most important effort that the food industry has undertaken to help Americans live healthier lifestyles is the introduction of ten thousand new and reformulated products over the past five years. Virtually all companies are enhancing nutritional choices for consumers. Respondents to a 2006 GMA/FPA health and wellness

survey of its membership reported that 98 percent of companies are reformulating

and introducing new products. Individual companies are making meaningful nutrition enhancements in their broad product portfolios with products that offer reduced

calories, reduced saturated and trans fat, reduced sodium and sugar, and with

added whole grains, fiber and micronutrients. The overall impact these product

changes are having on the nation’s food supply and on the increased selection of

healthier foods for consumers is impressive and unprecedented.

Those product innovations can be broken down into the following categories:

Development of products with low- or reduced-calorie options. Those companies

participating in the GMA/FPA health and wellness survey reported that they had

introduced more than 1,300 reduced-calorie products since 2002.

Development of products with low, reduced sugar and carbohydrates. Those companies participating in the GMA/FPA health and wellness survey reported that they

had introduced more than 1,200 products offering reduced sugar and carbohydrates

since 2002.

Reducing or eliminating saturated or trans fat. Those companies participating in

the GMA/FPA health and wellness survey reported that since 2002 they had introduced more than 7,800 products and sizes with reduced saturated fat and trans fat.

Reducing salt content. Those companies participating in the GMA/FPA health and

wellness survey reported that they had reduced sodium in nearly 700 products since

2002.

Development of products fortified with specific minerals and vitamins. Fortified

vitamins and minerals can be found in nearly 1,000 products introduced since 2002

by those companies participating in the GMA/FPA health and wellness survey.

Increasing the range of portion sizes. Food and beverage companies have been

working to help consumers manage their food intake. The GMA/FPA health and

wellness survey found that half of all respondents had changed multi-serve packaging or were in the process of making changes, amounting to modifications of more

than 350 products and sizes. Sixty-one percent had changed single-serve packaging

or were in the process of making changes, affecting more than 450 products and

sizes. The greatest focus has been on children, where 55 percent of respondents indicated they had created sizes for kids or were in the process of making changes to

more than 400 products.

Finally, companies are also increasing the use of whole grains and fiber and developing products with specific health benefits.

43

ADVERTISING, MARKETING AND MEDIA

And how do people find 10,000 new and improved products? Overwhelmingly, the

information is carried by the media represented here today—TV, radio, newspapers,

magazines and Web sites will carry messages about the healthy and tasty choices

to millions of consumers in homes across the country. GMA/FPA members strive to

deliver messages that are ethical and accurate. The industry plays a central role

as key communicator of healthy lifestyles to Americans through marketing and advertising, and our members take this responsibility very seriously. And we have systems in place to make sure we succeed. We have always had the best voluntary system of self-regulation in the world, and the Council of Better Business Bureaus has

just made it better. GMA/FPA is a proud supporter of Children’s Advertising Review

Unit and participated in the recent modernization and strengthening of the CARU

guidelines.

Our members have been challenged to do even more with our marketing, and we

are answering the call. Chairman Majoras of the Federal Trade Commission recently said marketing can be part of the solution, and we agree. Food and beverage

advertisers accounting for over two-thirds of all TV advertising to children under

12 have announced their commitment to devote the majority of their messages to

healthy choices and lifestyles. The Council of Better Business Bureaus launched the

Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative in November 2006— a voluntary self-regulation program designed to shift the mix of advertising messages to

children to encourage healthier dietary choices and healthy lifestyles. Here is how

CBBB describes the program:

Under the terms of the Initiative, participating companies commit to:

• Devote at least half their advertising directed to children on television, radio,

print and Internet to promote healthier dietary choices and/or to messages that encourage good nutrition or healthy lifestyles.

• Limit products shown in interactive games to healthier dietary choices, or incorporate healthy lifestyle messages into the games.

• Not advertise food or beverage products in elementary schools.

• Not engage in food and beverage product placement in editorial and entertainment content.

• Reduce the use of third-party licensed characters in advertising that does not

meet the Initiative’s product or messaging criteria.

Each participating company will submit to the CBBB a commitment, tailored to

the company’s product portfolio, which complies with the principles of the Initiative.

Company commitments that identify better-for-you dietary choices must be consistent with established scientific and/or government standards.

Charter participants are Cadbury Schweppes USA; Campbell Soup Company; The

Coca-Cola Company; General Mills, Inc.; The Hershey Company; Kellogg Company;

Kraft Foods Inc.; McDonald’s; PepsiCo, Inc. and Unilever. We expect to hear announcements of their pledges very soon.

An essential element of effective self-regulation is a strong monitoring and enforcement component, and the CBBB Initiative contains several important monitoring and enforcement provisions, all of which will be available to the public and the

FTC. Monitoring and enforcement will include:

• Review of advertising materials, product information, and media impression information (submitted on a confidential basis) to confirm participant compliance. The

program will also respond to public inquiries relating to compliance.

• Develop procedures that provide for the expulsion of a company that does not

comply with its Pledge after being given notice and an opportunity to bring its conduct into compliance and notice of any expulsion to regulatory authorities such as

the Federal Trade Commission under appropriate circumstances.

• Publicly issued reports detailing its activities, including any expulsions or notices of such to regulatory authorities.

• Periodic review of its procedures and the overall impact of this initiative.

Organizations participating in this initiative have also agreed to use the Ad Council’s Coalition for Healthy Children’s messaging to fulfill their commitments to promote healthy lifestyles among youth. The Coalition’s messages have been developed

and extensively researched by the Ad Council and made possible by a grant from

the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The goal of the program is to provide Coalition members, which include non-profit, government and corporate entities, with a

set of unified communications focused on key lifestyle behaviors. The initial round

of messages center around three areas: Physical activity, portion control and energy

balance.

44

In conjunction with the launch of the CBBB Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative last November, the CBBB also announced a revision of the guidelines that the Children’s Advertising Review Unit applies to advertising directed to

kids. Again, in the words of CBBB,

The revised CARU Guidelines have been expanded to:

• Provide new authorization for CARU to take action on advertising targeted to

children that is ‘‘unfair,’’ in addition to advertising that is misleading. • Specifically address ‘‘blurring,’’ or advertising that obscures the line between

editorial content and advertising messages. A new provision, which applies across

all media, prohibits advertising that ‘‘blurs the distinction between advertising and

program/editorial content in ways that would be misleading to children.’’ • Specifically address the use of commercial messages in interactive games,

sometimes referred to as advergaming. The revised Guidelines require that ‘‘if an

advertiser integrates a commercial message into the content of a game or activity,

then the advertiser should make clear, in a manner that will be easily understood

by the targeted audience, that it is an advertisement.’’

COLLABORATIONS, PARTNERSHIPS AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

We all know that marketing will only be a part of the solution. And the food industry will be only one of the important groups working for it. Every public health

authority that has spoken on the subject—CDC, the Surgeon General, HHS, IOM,

WHO—has told us that success will depend on an unprecedented partnership of

stakeholders from all sectors of society. Quoting from the 2006 IOM Report Progress

in Preventing Childhood Obesity: How Do We Measure Up?, ‘‘Addressing the childhood obesity epidemic is a collective responsibility involving multiple stakeholders

and different sectors—including the Federal Government, state and local governments, communities, schools, industry, media, and families.’’ We need to join forces,

and GMA/FPA members know from experience that we can achieve great results

when we do.

We asked 50 GMA/FPA members what they were doing in the area of health and

wellness, and over three quarters of them told us that they are conducting consumer

health promotions in local communities and partnering with public health organizations. Nearly 90 percent of the companies surveyed support national or local health

and wellness initiatives. In the last three years, GMA/FPA members have contributed over 100 million dollars for nutrition and health-related activities and grants

to communities representing over 30 percent of total charitable contributions. Let

me give you just a few examples:

• GMA/FPA and individual companies have joined the Ad Council’s Coalition for

Healthy Children: Combating Childhood Obesity campaign

• ‘‘Triple Play’’ program. ‘‘A $12 million joint health and nutrition program held

in partnership with Kraft, Coca-Cola and the Boys & Girls Clubs of America.

• General Mills sponsors the Champions for Healthy Kids—A program that

awards 50 grants of $10,000 each to grassroots organizations each year to support

innovative efforts that teach and promote youth nutrition and fitness habits. The

program will celebrate its 5th anniversary this year and has committed $8,000,000

over the past four years.

• Kraft partners with the National Latino Children’s Institute in ‘‘Salsa, Sabor

y Salud,’’ a healthy lifestyle course for Latino families in the U.S. • Kellogg Company sponsors Earn Your Stripes—an initiative that is designed

to help kids build their confidence, stay fit and at the same time have fun.

• PepsiCo, Kellogg Company and General Mills are corporate sponsors of the

Partnership for Play Every Day, a collaboration convened by the YMCA of the USA,

National Recreation and Park Association and National Association for Sport and

Physical Education. Its focus is to bring together the public, private and non-profit

sectors to advance policies, programs and practices that ensure all children and

youth engage in at least 60 minutes of physical activity every day.

• Dannon awarded to selected community organizations the first ‘‘Dannon Next

Generation Nutrition Grants’’ which support improvement in children’s nutrition

education.

• Hershey sponsors the Hershey’s Track and Field Games, the longest-running

youth fitness program of its kind in North America. In 2007, Hershey will conduct

a sustained awareness-building campaign with the National Recreation and Park

Association to encourage increased youth participation in the program’s local and

state-level events.

Together, the food and beverage industry in partnership with our retail partners

and MatchPoint Marketing have launched an in-store promotion campaign ‘‘Take a

45

Peak into MyPyramid’’ to provide information about MyPyramid and the 2005 Dietary Guidelines to consumers in the grocery store aisles where shoppers ultimately

make their food choices. Take a Peak represents the largest collective effort to

date—including education and sales promotion—by the food and beverage industry

to build an environment that supports Americans’ efforts to live healthier lifestyles.

Through clear and simple in-store point-of-purchase messaging, Take a Peak provides easy-to-follow advice that shows consumers how small, progressive changes in

their product purchasing habits can improve their diets and their health. The campaign displays the tremendous efforts of the industry to change the food supply to

make it easier for Americans to eat a healthier diet.

The campaign has grown to 32 retailers in over 5,500 stores in 30 states. Multiple

Hispanic retailers are undertaking a Spanish execution of Take a Peak. Retailers

that have completed executions are signing on for fall 2007 and January 2008. New

retailers are selecting more elements than early adopters based on the positive response from consumers and continuing media coverage. Preliminary sales data is extremely positive, demonstrating that consumers are changing behavior.

Take a Peak will reach millions of Americans through educational mailer coupon

booklets, point of purchase messages and materials, including aisle banners, informational kiosks, floor graphics, wobblers, displays, shopping lists and other means.

The program will also increase consumer demand and sales for the foods and beverages that the Federal Government recommends consumers eat more of to get essential nutrients and build a healthy diet.

Retailers can customize Take a Peak to meet the diverse ethnic and cultural

needs of their local shoppers, bringing it further to life for shoppers.

Finally, we are exploring opportunities to link Take a Peak to an ongoing collaboration between the Ad Council and USDA to promote MyPyramid in specific communities that may be at higher risk.

Let me spend a little more time telling you about another particular partnership

that I think has great promise. It combines the two most basic elements of a healthy

lifestyle—nutrition and physical education.

In 2007, the American Council for Fitness and Nutrition Foundation, which was

founded by food and beverage manufacturers to promote healthier lifestyles, will

conduct a pilot program in schools in the greater Kansas City-metro area in partnership with PE4Life and the American Dietetic Association Foundation. The school

pilot will implement a cross discipline ‘‘energy balance’’ approach that focuses both

on energy intake and energy expenditure. Physical education teachers and nutrition

‘‘coaches’’ will work side by side in the schools to implement strategies to get the

students to be more active and to eat a more balanced and nutritious diet. The lessons learned from the pilot will allow us to create a blueprint for student health

and wellness that could be replicated in schools across America. Support from a

broad cross-section of interests will be critical to achieving effective scale for this

project. In addition, the Kansas City Public Television PBS will be documenting

physical activity and nutrition policies within schools this fall, and we hope that it

will help to spur even greater interest.

Food and beverage, advertising and media companies continue to support the Ad

Council’s The Healthy Lifestyles PSA campaign, which is a partnership between the

Ad Council and the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS). Since its

launch in March 2004, the program has garnered approximately $270 million in donated media support. The campaign Web site attracted an average of 190,000 visits

per month during 2006 and holds visitors’ interest for an average of 61⁄2 minutes.

In addition, consumer tracking research data indicates the beginnings of positive

changes in attitudes and behaviors around the campaign messages.

The Ad Council’s Coalition for Healthy Children was initiated in 2005 to complement and increase the impact of their PSA efforts and has focused on developing

consistent, research-based messaging for marketers, media, government agencies,

non-profits, academics and the private sector. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

provided support for the Ad Council’s research and development of these health

messages, which will ultimately be disseminated to the public by Coalition member

organizations such as PepsiCo, General Mills, Kraft Foods, Kellogg, Coca-Cola, SUBWAY, McDonald’s, American Heart Association, Girls Scouts of the USA, Shaping

America’s Health, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network and Univision Communications.

GMA/FPA and our member companies have also been collaborating with government to promote the new U.S. Dietary Guidelines and MyPyramid consumer education platform with the goal of making the Dietary Guidelines relevant to consumers’ everyday lives and to balance energy intake with energy expenditure. Our efforts to help ensure that the updated Dietary Guidelines and the Food Guide Pyramid were relevant to all Americans has specifically included initiatives to overcome

46

potential barriers that may exist—specifically socioeconomic and cultural factors—

in understanding and using these tools.

On the same day the Federal Government released its new Food Guide Pyramid,

GMA/FPA announced a partnership with the Weekly Reader Corporation to promote

the new Food Guidance System through a national education campaign reaching an

estimated 4 million teachers, students and their family members. The campaign

consisted of a teacher’s guide; math, nutrition and science activities; and a bilingual

parent take-home component in English and Spanish. More than 58,000 posters

were distributed to Weekly Reader teacher subscribers in fall 2005, coinciding with

the start of the school year.

Industry funding has helped the Weekly Reader MyPyramid curriculum reach underserved populations. A Spanish translation of the curriculum, paired with the

English-language materials, has been distributed free of charge to schools with

high-Hispanic populations. Through a partnership with America’s Second Harvest—

The Nation’s Food Bank Network, the MyPyramid curriculum has been distributed

in 1,300 Kids Cafes, after-school programs that serve free, hot, nutritious meals to

hungry children in a safe environment. Kids Cafes combine meals with other activities, including nutrition education, cooking and tutoring.

In 2006, GMA/FPA funded reprints of the Weekly Reader materials for incoming

4th graders for the 2006–07 school year, including targeted Spanish-language versions.

As part of our commitment to partnerships, GMA/FPA and five member companies are also participating in the Joint Media Task Force on Media and Childhood

Obesity. GMA/FPA chose to participate because we think that this kind of engagement affords us a unique opportunity to build partnerships with an important group

of stakeholders and through greater collaboration increase our chances of achieving

the goal that we all share—health and fitness for our kids and ourselves. One of

the most valuable aspects of this initiative has been the chance to learn in greater

detail about the tremendous ongoing efforts of so many of the groups on the Task

Force, including the media groups, the advertising community, advocacy groups and

those in the public health community. Just one example of a possible future collaboration identified in Task Force discussions may be greater support for initiatives to

promote more time spent on family activities, including the family dinner hour.

There is growing evidence that the simple matter of families eating together results

in a whole host of positive outcomes, including healthier nutrition habits.

As you in the Congress grapple with how best to address this problem, we urge

you to keep in mind the 2004 Institute of Medicine report that identifies ten broad

areas that all levels of government, business and individual citizens must address

to reverse these alarming trends in childhood obesity. One of those ten areas involves media and advertising, but the report focused on many other essential elements and concluded that no single measure can be expected to solve the problem.

Multiple strategies and the commitment of many stakeholders will be necessary to

address this important public health issue. We believe that in the future among the

things we can do working together are the following:

• Incorporate nutrition education and physical activity in our nation’s schools;

• Continue to find additional ways to encourage people to incorporate physical

activity in their daily lives;

• Educate the public on the connection between calories consumed and calories

burned and provide the tools for individuals to understand and assess their caloric

needs;

• Raise consumer awareness of proper serving sizes;

• Encourage employers to promote employee wellness; and

• Address the needs of different population groups.

There is too much at stake for us to fail; the food and beverage industry has responded, and we remain committed to the task. But we all know that one industry

cannot win the battle alone. We can introduce new products and choices to the public, we can promote healthier lifestyles, and we can even remind folks that eating

is fun now and then. Advertising can help consumers choose healthier lifestyles, but

consumers—parents, teens and children—must make those decisions. They will

need support from every part of society.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very much.

And our next witness is Ms. Patti Miller, who is the vice president and director of children and the media for Children Now. Welcome.

47

STATEMENT OF PATTI MILLER, VICE PRESIDENT, CHILDREN

NOW

Ms. MILLER. Entertainment and media play a powerful and ubiquitous role in the lives of our Nation’s children. Children spend

more time with media than they spend doing anything else, except

for sleeping. They look for media in all its forms for their role models, often imitating their favorite characters’ style of dress, attitudes and behaviors.

Yet much of what children see in the media can have a serious

negative impact on their physical health and well-being. According

to the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, tobacco use in

movies is a major factor in teen smoking. Hundreds of research

studies show that children who are exposed to violent programming

face a higher risk of suffering from harmful consequences, including a belief that it is acceptable to behave aggressively and violently and increased desensitization towards violence in real life, a

greater tendency for engaging in violent behavior later in life, and

a heightened fear of becoming a victim of violence.

Finally, the Institute of Medicine has found strong compelling

evidence that television advertising influences the food and beverage preferences, purchase requests and consumption habits of

children. Children Now thanks Chairman Markey and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet for hosting this

hearing today to address the role of media in children’s health. It

could not come at a more crucial time. We are facing a public

health crisis. For the first time in modern history, we have a generation of children whose life expectancy may be lower than that

of their parents because of childhood obesity. The U.S. surgeon general has identified overweight and obesity as the fastest-growing

cause of disease and death in America.

While there is a confluence of factors that contribute to childhood

obesity, advertising is one of those factors, and it is a significant

one. American companies are spending $15 billion a year advertising and marketing to children under the age of 12, and that is

twice the amount they spent just 10 years ago. Children are exposed to thousands of food ads every year on television alone, the

majority of which are for candy, snacks, cereal and fast foods. In

addition, a recent Kaiser Family Foundation study found that 85

percent of the top food brands targeting kids TV also used branded

Web sites to market to kids, using a range of strategies including

advergames, viral marketing sweepstakes, promotions, memberships and online TV ads.

So why does this matter? Research shows that young children

are uniquely vulnerable to commercial persuasion. Children under

the age of 8 do not recognize the persuasive intent of ads, and they

tend to accept them as accurate and unbiased. In fact, research

shows that 30-second commercials influence food preferences in

children as young as 2 years old.

Congress and the FCC have recognized children’s vulnerability

and have placed limits on the amount of advertising during children’s shows and established rules about how children’s TV characters can be used to pitch products to them. But that is simply

not enough to protect children from a food advertising environment

that is currently skewed toward promoting unhealthy, nonnutriVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:47 Jul 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-58 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
48

tious food to the Nation’s youth. In December 2005, the Institute

of Medicine released a report that concluded, ‘‘Food and beverage

practices geared to children are out of balance with healthful diets

and contribute to an environment that puts children’s health at

risk.’’

Children Now believes that in order to address the role of advertising and marketing in the childhood obesity epidemic, we must

focus on and ensure the implementation of two Institute of Medicine recommendations. The industry must, one, shift the balance of

advertising and marketing targeted to kids to foods and beverages

that are substantially lower in calories, fat, salts, and added sugars

and higher in nutrient content. This should be across media platforms. Two, use licensed characters only to promote food and beverages that support healthful diets for children and youth. Licensed

characters should not be used to sell food and beverages that are

high in fat, calories, salt, added sugars, and low in nutrient content.

Children Now is currently working with the media industry, food

and beverage companies, advertising associations, and advocacy

and public health organizations on the Task Force on Media and

Childhood Obesity at the request of Senator Brownback, Senator

Harkin, and the FCC. The task force is currently engaged in discussions and working recommendations with a final report scheduled for release this summer. It is our hope the task force will

achieve meaningful solutions to address the advertising and marketing of unhealthy foods to kids. However, if the task force is unable to address these issues sufficiently, we believe that Congress

needs to intervene on behalf of the Nation’s children. We must

work towards tangible, real solutions to improve the media environment for our Nation’s kids, and we must act now. Our children’s

health depends on it.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Miller follows:]

49

50

51

52

53

54

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Ms. Miller, very much.

Our next witness is Kyle McSlarrow. He is the president and

chief executive officer of the National Cable and Telecommunications Association.

We welcome you back before the committee, and whenever you

are ready, please begin.

STATEMENT OF KYLE McSLARROW, PRESIDENT AND CEO,

NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

Mr. MCSLARROW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee. And thank you for having me here to testify on this set of important issues.

I think the starting place for us, Mr. Chairman, is that we don’t

believe that society, acting principally through you as policymakers

and parents should be forced to choose between protecting the first

amendment and protecting children. Now, that means a lot of people have to step up and act responsibly in order to achieve that

goal, and our industry is very much at the forefront of that.

If you think about the set of issues that sort of swirl around violence and decency, profanity, family programming, general audience viewing, the cable industry, I would assert, has done more

than any other industry to ensure that households, parents, families have more family-friendly viewing than any other industry.

You look at cable networks like Disney Channel, Nickelodeon,

Sprout, PBS, other networks that are devoted specifically to children, you have got Hallmark and other channels that are devoted

to family viewing, the list is actually so long that I would use the

remaining few minutes of my time. The point is there is a plethora

of choices in this model with cable programming that is providing

exactly the kind of programming that everybody says that they

want.

We also are attempting to provide tools to ensure that for the

other sets of programming where there is clearly going to be content that is unsuitable for children, that parents have the ability

to control and shape how that content is viewed in the home. Now,

I am not going to argue that those tools are perfect, but they are

pretty good.

Now, obviously, as you said at the outset, Mr. Chairman, you are

the author of the v-chip legislation. Every cable household actually

has that option. It is not just broadcast households. But in addition

to that, cable and satellite companies have developed increasingly

sophisticated parental controls. So these are controls that in today’s

world, particularly with digital set-top boxes, you can control so

that you can block by time, by channel, by program, clearly by age

rating, by content descriptors that are at the bottom of the rating.

So language, dialog, and violence and so forth, you can block. If a

program is not rated, there is actually an ability now to block that.

And you can hide titles and some of the information that themselves may be unsuitable for children from being even shown on a

program guide.

So all of these tools are available today, and in most households,

certainly any household that has bought a TV since the year 2000

that has a v-chip in it, and certainly in those households which are

digital cable households, you have all these tools. We still have a

55

large customer base that is analog. They have some of those tools.

They are not perfect. But increasingly, all of those people will be

in a digital household.

So with the family viewing that we do have, the tools that we

provided to help parents control other programming that may be

unsuitable, we are left with a couple of policy decisions. One is are

parents even using those tools? Do they know about them? And are

we making them as easy as we can for them?

I think there is a lively debate about whether or not parents actually understand and are deciding affirmatively to use parental

controls or rejecting them. But I don’t think it much matters from

our point of view in terms of acting responsibly. The industry for

over a decade has stepped up to engage a partnership at its origins

with the national PTA to engage in media literacy not just surrounding television, it is broader than that, but it specifically included literacy to try to educate parents about the choices that they

have in front of them.

More recently the cable industry has engaged in a massive public

service announcement campaign. Many members of this committee

actually participated in PSAs, and we thank you for that, trying to

get the message out about the v-chip and parental controls. And

then more recently even than that, the entire media industry, so

organizations like NAB and MPAA, the satellite industry, cable industry, got together to do the TV Boss campaign. And we are

roughly in the middle of that campaign now, which is another $300

million media campaign to tell parents about the tools they have,

to drive them to Web sites and to other sites that have information

so they can use them.

I can’t report today that every parent is using the v-chip or parental controls. I can report that most of the data that we are seeing shows some modest improvement, a lot more awareness, and

we are willing to keep working this problem.

And really I would end where I started, Mr. Chairman, which is

if we are trying to avoid putting people to the test of the first

amendment, certainly we want to make sure that we are protecting

children, our industry very much wants to work with you and this

entire subcommittee on how we can make what is a pretty good

system, but not a perfect system, better.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McSlarrow follows:]

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. McSlarrow.

And our next witness is Jon Rand. He is the general manager of

several local television stations in Washington State and in Idaho.

Welcome, sir.

STATEMENT OF JON RAND, GENERAL MANAGER, KAYU FOX 28,

SPOKANE/COEUR D’ALENE, SPOKANE, WA

Mr. RAND. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Upton. My name is John Rand, and I am the general

manager of three Fox affiliate stations, serving all of eastern Washington and northern Idaho, broadcasting out of Spokane. I am here

today to testify on behalf of the National Association of Broadcasters about the issue of childhood obesity and the efforts my stations have taken to fight this battle.

Education is key to combating obesity challenges facing our children and families. Therefore, our stations have chosen to play a

part in reversing this trend. The result of that commitment is a

campaign called Healthy Choices = Healthy Families. The genesis

for this campaign becomes evident when you consider the facts. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the prevalence of overweight children ages 6 to 11 has more than doubled in the past 20

years. The rate among adolescents ages 12 to 19 has more than tripled.

Just as frightening are the health risks associated with obesity

in children. For example, overweight children and adolescents are

more likely to have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and type

2 diabetes.

The goal of our Healthy Choices = Healthy Families campaign is

to utilize the power of television and the Internet to make a difference in the health of our children. This campaign, which began

in January 2007, is a three-pronged effort. First, we have

trademarked and branded the Healthy Choices = Healthy Families

logo and created public service announcements aimed at children

and their parents. To date we have created 16 different PSAs that

we are showing at all times of the day and every day of the week.

To give you a flavor of what we are doing, I would like to share

with the committee one of the PSAs that we have produced.

[Videotape played.]

Mr. RAND. The second prong of the campaign involves utilizing

our news broadcasts to inform our viewers about the threats from

childhood obesity.

Lastly, we have launched a Healthy Choices = Healthy Families

Web site, filled with resources that families can use to find expert

knowledge and helpful tips about nutrition, exercise and childhood

obesity. This site directs visitors to information provided by health

professionals about childhood obesity, including how overweight is

defined, the prevalence of children who are overweight, the factors

associated with being overweight, and the related health consequences. In fact, we have partnered with Sacred Heart Children’s

Hospital in Spokane. And I have attached a letter to my testimony

from the hospital indicating that because of the PSAs, viewers are

utilizing the Web site to ask for help and information. This is a

campaign to which we are dedicated for the long term. We plan to

71

keep the information fresh and continually add new research to

educate our viewers.

While I agree that we need to view the issue of childhood obesity

as a serious national dilemma, I do not believe that regulation of

children’s advertising is the best way to solve this problem. I fear

that regulation of that kind of advertising may diminish the availability and quality of children’s programming. The harder it is to

find advertising for children’s programming, the harder it is to convince the creative community to produce high-quality programming.

At my Spokane station over the last few years advertising in

children’s programming has dwindled. In the late 1990s, we had

just over a million dollars in children’s advertising on our station.

In 2007, we had $2,415 in children’s advertising. The main reason

for this dramatic change is that much of children’s programming,

and consequently the advertising, has migrated to cable networks

where there are niche channels geared specifically to children.

There are many factors that contribute to childhood obesity.

Computers, video games and television all contribute to a child’s inactive lifestyle. But the solution to this problem is found well beyond what kids see on broadcast television. Children must be encouraged to exercise. Parents must take the responsibility for providing their children healthy foods, and schools should serve nutritious meals and reinstate physical education.

As a broadcaster, I take my responsibility to my local community

seriously. It is because of this responsibility that we have undertaken this Healthy Choices = Healthy Families campaign against

childhood obesity.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me here today, and I welcome any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rand follows:]

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Rand, very much.

Our final witness is Mr. Adam Thierer. He is a senior fellow and

director of the Center for Digital Media Freedom at the Progress

and Freedom Foundation.

STATEMENT OF ADAM D. THIERER, SENIOR FELLOW,

PROGRESS & FREEDOM FOUNDATION

Mr. THIERER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

committee, for inviting me here today to testify on this issue. My

name is Adam Thierer, and I am a senior fellow with the Progress

and Freedom Foundation, a think tank here in Washington, DC.

This hearing is particularly timely for me because just this week

the Progress and Freedom Foundation has released this new special report I have spent the last 2 years compiling, entitled ‘‘Parental Controls and Online Child Protection: A Survey of Tools and

Methods.’’ The booklet provides a broad survey of everything that

is on the market that can help parents better manage media content today, whether it be on broadcast television, cable or satellite

TV, music devices, mobile phones, video game consoles, the Internet, or even social networking Web sites.

Incidentally, the booklet can be downloaded free of charge on the

PFF.org Web site, and I plan on making frequent updates to the

publication as new information comes to my attention.

As I note in my book, we live in an always on, interactive multimedia world. Parents need to be prepared to deal with media on

multiple platforms, screens and devices. While this can be a formidable challenge, luckily there has never been a time when parents have had more tools and methods at their disposal to help

them determine and enforce what is acceptable in their homes and

in the lives of their children. And that conclusion is equally applicable to all major media platforms or all the screens our children

might view.

In the past, the off button was the only technical control at parents’ disposal. Today, by contrast, parents like me have myriad

tools and methods to restrict or tailor media content to their own

household tastes or values. I could spend all my time here today

discussing merely those restrictive tools that could help parents

block or curtail media. Those tools include, of course, the v-chip

and television ratings, cable and satellite set-top box screening

tools, DVD blocking controls, cell phone blocking tools, video game

console controls and ratings, Internet filtering and monitoring

tools, instant message monitoring tools, operating system controls,

Web browser controls, search engine safe tools, and media management time devices, so on and so on. These devices are all extensively discussed in my book, along with many other tools. But

while those restrictive tools are very important, they are only part

of the parental control story today.

Enabling or tailoring tools are what makes today’s parental control market so exciting. By enabling or tailoring tools, I mean any

tool or method that a parent might use to enable their families to

see, hear or consume content they would regard as more appropriate, ethical or enriching. For example, for televised media,

VCRs, DVD players, and personal video recorders have emerged as

important parental control devices. These technologies give parents

87

the ability to accumulate libraries of preferred programming for

their children and then determine exactly where and when it will

be viewed. Pay-per-view options also help parents better tailor

viewing choices. And don’t forget about the huge and growing market for educational DVDs, videotapes, and computer software.

Speaking of computers and the Internet, parents can now tailor

their children’s on-line activities in many similar ways. In my new

book I document dozens of kid-friendly search engines or Internet

portals that are essentially on-line walled gardens, filled with

prescreened content and safe chat areas. And even in the world of

mobile media, new wireless handsets and services offer parents the

ability to not only monitor the content their child might try to access, but also establish preapproved calling lists and tailor the communications experience for even very young kids.

But it is also vital we not overlook the importance of informal

household media rules in this discussion. Oftentimes debates about

inappropriate content get so caught up with disputes about technical controls, ratings, or even regulation, that we forget that parents often view these things merely as backup plans. In my book

I identify four categories of household media rules that surveys

show almost all parents use in some combination to control their

children’s media consumptions. This four-part taxonomy I have created is first ‘‘where’’ rules; second, ‘‘where and how much’’ rules;

third, ‘‘under what condition’’ rules; and fourth, ‘‘what’’ rules.

I don’t have time to run through all the possible examples, but

certainly most of us are familiar with widely used household rules

like no watching TV or playing games until your homework is done

or you can’t watch that movie until you complete your chores. Such

household rules can be actually far more effective in controlling

children’s media habits than technical controls. But debates about

parental controls and media policy often treat them as an afterthought if they are discussed at all. It is time we start thinking

and talking about them.

Finally, let us not forget that the ultimate parental control tool

is the power of the purse. In most cases, when kids want to consume a certain type of media, or even consume something they see

advertised in the media, they need money to do so. Televisions,

movies, video games, cell phones, computers and so on do not just

drop into our kids’ laps from a high-tech heaven. When our kids

want those things, they have to come to us and ask for them. And

that includes the things that are advertised on those platforms.

And although at times it may be difficult for us to say no, we always have the power to do so. That is the ultimate way to control

the images our kids see on the screen.

Thank you again.

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Thierer.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thierer follows:]

88

89

90

91

92

93

Mr. MARKEY. Five minutes on the button. You and Ms. Miller actually win the award for closest to the time that we asked you to

hit.

The Chair will now recognize himself for a round of questions.

I will say to you, Ms. Miller, that I am prepared to ask the Federal

Communications Commission to initiate a rulemaking under the

Children’s Television Act, which I am the author of, on the issues

of advertising on children’s television so that it is not inconsistent

with the goals of the 1990 Children’s Television Act, which is to

have educational and informational programming for 3 hours per

week on every television station in America.

So I just wanted to let you know that it is something that I am

putting people on notice that I am really willing to pursue. And I

think it is something that is very important that we ensure that

that be a safe haven for kids and for parents, that they know that

those programs are there.

Let me ask you, if I can, Mr. Glickman—and, again, I want to

commend you and the MPAA for including smoking as a rating factor in the movies. It is an important step. Now, two of our witnesses have proposed additional steps, which include banning tobacco brand imagery in movies and certifying that no one working

on a movie took payments or other consideration from tobacco companies. And Ms. Healton mentioned running antismoking public

service commercials, announcements, before the movie began as

kind of a countermessage to children watching those movies. They

seem like good ideas. It seems like that would help to mitigate this

problem. Can you comment upon those ideas?

Mr. GLICKMAN. Yes. First of all, I think John Fithian is here

from the National Association of Theatre Owners, but the theatre

owners have run I don’t know how many, many, many tens of thousands of spots in theatres. Many of you have seen them. And so

those spots have run and have had great impact, and we certainly

support that particular effort on their part.

Mr. MARKEY. Have the MPAA members been asked to implement

these types of recommendations?

Mr. GLICKMAN. Well, let us put it this way: we work with NATO

in terms of on those particular spots. I just was talking here with

Mrs. Healton about other things that we may talk about doing in

the future. But individual companies may make those decisions.

But I would say this: now recognizing that about 900 movies a year

go through our ratings system, about 300 of those are our member

companies and 600 of them are independent producers and a lot of

other people. And to the best of my knowledge, none of our companies are responsible for containing paid product placement of tobacco products in our motion pictures.

Although we are not a party to the master settlement agreement,

that is of course the tobacco companies themselves, we believe that

is very, very important. And so what we do as a trade association,

what my personal view on this is, we have got to continue to work

with our companies in all possible ways to try to minimize the

amount of smoking in movies and in the country as a whole. Both

my parents died of lung cancer, both were smokers, so I have a personal interest in seeing this done but doing it in a way that does

not abridge the normal creative freedom process.

94

Mr. MARKEY. I understand that. And my father died from lung

cancer as well. And unfortunately, as Mrs. Healton said, it is the

most preventable of all diseases. Is it possible—and my father was

ticked, too, when he was dying from it. He was really angry.

Could you put the antismoking PSAs in the DVDs when they are

released as well?

Mr. GLICKMAN. That would be a decision that each company

would make on their own. There has been some discussion about,

I think, one company, not one of our member companies, has determined to do that. But there are a lot of options that we are going

to continue to explore both in terms of marketing options as well

as ratings options as well.

Mr. MARKEY. Could you survey the companies that you represent

and report back to the subcommittee on which of them are willing

to and which are not willing to put PSAs in their DVDs so we can

identify——

Mr. GLICKMAN. What we would do is, in addition to that, I think

it would be useful to have representatives of the companies come

and talk to you all about the various programs that they are proposing in these areas. So we will certainly provide you the information that you requested and try to do more than that.

Mr. MARKEY. OK. And just on the issue of banning tobacco imagery in movies, could you just comment on that as well?

Mr. GLICKMAN. Again, our member companies do not in their

content, to the best of my knowledge, do not contain paid product

placement of tobacco products in our pictures. But I cannot speak

for every picture done by every film producer in the country who

are not part of the MPAA organization.

Mr. MARKEY. What I would like to do is just make a request from

the subcommittee that you do a survey of the companies that you

represent in terms of their positions on these issues, on banning tobacco brand images, on certifying that no one is working and receiving payments. And is the NATO representative here?

Mr. GLICKMAN. He is.

Mr. MARKEY. Yes. What I would like to do, I know you are not

testifying here today, but I would like to ask you as well, if I can

just informally here, if you would give your organization’s position

to the subcommittee on running PSAs before any movie that has

tobacco in it. It would be very helpful for us to understand. That

is the National Association of Theatre Owners, by the way. That

is not the North American Treaty Alliance, protecting the world

from nuclear threats, although many of the movies that they

show——

Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Chairman, although sometimes they act like

it. But John and I are very good friends as well. May I just make

one point, too, is that in the depiction of smoking in movies, and

while Mrs. Healton and I may have some disagreement about how

to measure those things—there is an awful lot of negative depiction

of smoking in movies. For example, the film ‘‘Good Night, Good

Luck.’’ I have got the movie ‘‘Constantine’’ where the character

played by Keanu Reaves just about dies when he lights up a cigarette; in the movie ‘‘Stranger than Fiction’’ a similar type of situation. So we want to point out that qualitatively there are lots of

ways that movies can be portrayed—smoking can be portrayed in

95

not positive ways. And that is our goal is to try to encourage more

of that as well.

Mr. MARKEY. Ms. Healton, would you just like to make a brief

comment here on what you have heard?

Ms. HEALTON. I would just simply say that the research suggests

very strongly that any form of smoking, unless it is entirely unambiguous with regard to health effects, definitely has a negative impact. It is not just whether it is a bad guy with the cigarette. In

fact, bad guy can be even more attractive considering the personality profile of kids who start smoking at a young age.

The other point is Legacy Foundation is paying for a very substantial proportion of the placement of Truth PSAs in film. And, in

fact, most States that choose to use their PSA dollars or other

money to advertise there frequently use our ads, which we provide

gratis.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank you. And the subcommittee is going to be

paying a lot of attention to this issue over the next 2 years. And

so we will be working with NATO and all of the organizations that

are represented here today as well.

Ms. HEALTON. I am sorry, I did want to add one point. I respect

the statement made by Mr. Glickman with regard to his own companies, but I think it is important for the committee to understand

that those companies distribute films that are made by independent collections of people who put them together. And the request

for the certification would cover not only the companies themselves,

but everyone else along the line, whether internationally or domestically. And the fact of the matter is that there is such pervasive

smoking that frankly it is very hard to believe there isn’t money

changing hands. If there isn’t, it is just totally confusing about how

there could be so much brand placement occurring and no money

changing hands anywhere.

Mr. GLICKMAN. Just I have great respect for Mrs. Healton, but

a lot of her allegations are not based on facts whatsoever. It is hard

to believe, she says. The truth of the matter is that our companies

are committed that there be no product placement and stand by

that and are committed to try to reduce the amount of smoking in

movies. And that is why we changed the ratings system to allow

the new factor to be put in.

Mr. MARKEY. And I appreciate that. And, again, it would help us

if we could have in writing some sense of what individual companies are doing as well.

Mr. GLICKMAN. Sure.

Mr. MARKEY. What happens oftentimes is each part of all of

these industries in the entertainment area have annual awards

shows and give out awards for all the good things. But who claims

credit for all the bad things? They don’t have that awards ceremony. And that is what we are trying to be able to get at; have

the people who really don’t want to testify here. Rooting out who

they are could help the committee if in writing you tell us who

wants to, which companies will do it, and which will not sign on,

because that will help us to focus in on that problem.

Let me turn and recognize the gentleman from Georgia Mr. Deal.

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

96

Let us take a family that has two small children, and they get

their television programming, Mr. McSlarrow, through one of your

cable providers. Is that cable provider allowed to offer that family

who might say to them, I don’t even want television programming

coming through my cable system that is rated TV PG and below,

is that cable operator allowed to offer that family such a package?

And if not, why not?

Mr. MCSLARROW. If you were restricted to PG and G, I don’t

think you could. And the reason would be that even for those cable

operators who are offering family tiers, so the cable networks that

would be part of the family tier would most likely be G-rated,

maybe some PG, they also by law have to offer broadcast stations

must carry and retransmission consent alike. And while most of

those are not going to be MA, certainly not before 10 o’clock, there

is some point during the day that you would have TV14 a lot. So,

no, you couldn’t.

Mr. DEAL. I mentioned in my opening statement that retransmission consent appears to me to be one of the impediments in allowing a cable operator to offer more family-friendly packaging in

their cable service area. Is retransmission consent an issue, and

how does it impact the packaging and the bundling that comes

with cable presentations?

Mr. MCSLARROW. I think at least in this context the issue, I

would say, is actually broader than retransmission consent. It is

the broadcast carriage regime. So it is both must carry and retrans.

And it really impacts the bundling of packages in two ways. Number 1, by law any station that is a must carry broadcast station has

to be carried on that cable operator’s system. Don’t have a choice

about it. And then number two, all those stations, the must carry

stations and the retransmission consent stations, by law must be

part of a package offered to a cable subscriber. It’s called the must

buy tier. You have to have all the broadcast stations before you can

even think about adding any of the cable networks.

So in a sense, with those two rules, you have a forced bundle.

And I happen to like the bundles. I am not saying it is a bad thing,

but I am just saying it is not a choice that the consumer has.

Mr. DEAL. And that is something that only Congress can change

since it is legislatively mandated.

Mr. MCSLARROW. Correct.

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Rand, since you are here representing the National Association of Broadcasters, we all have heard, and it has

been alluded to by several here today, about the public’s opinion

through polling about there being too much violence, too much profanity, et cetera, on television programming. Would you elaborate

on what steps that the broadcast industry is taking in this regard,

and what limitations, if any, are you faced with in that area of

being able to be more proactive on these issues?

Mr. RAND. Well, along with Mr. McSlarrow’s organization, we

certainly have been very supportive, both on a network level as

well as local broadcasters, of the measures that are available to

families to limit different images coming into their homes through

a v-chip, through identifying by ratings, and also through the TV

Boss campaign.

97

I am often asked if we have the ability to block programming

that comes from the network, if we choose to look at it and say that

it is not appropriate for local viewing in our estimation. Our stations in Spokane and in Yakima/Tri-Cities were among the first

Fox affiliates last fall to say no to the Fox Television Network on

the O.J. Simpson special. And it ultimately led, through the efforts

of that group of people who said no to begin with, to them canceling it and canceling the book associated with it. So there is that

level of control and ability to say no.

Mr. DEAL. Could I ask a follow-up on that particular issue? That

was courageous, in my opinion, on your part to do that. But is that

the norm in the industry, or is it only those who have shown that

kind of courage that have been able to deal with broadcast networks in that regard? And what, if anything, is being done or can

be done to give you that autonomy?

And let me just follow up before you answer my question. As a

former prosecutor and as one who prosecuted some of the first pornography cases in my part of the world, one of the tests always was

whether or not something had met a community standard. It was

always one of the elements of determining that. I have always

viewed, in a rather simplistic fashion, that a local cable operator,

or in your case a local broadcaster, in some form or fashion serves

as the determiner of a community conscience about some of these

issues. I have run over my time.

Mr. MARKEY. Yes.

Mr. DEAL. I guess I will have to come back later. But I thank

you both from the cable operator and the broadcaster.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman is over by a minute, but I ask unanimous consent that the witness be allowed to answer the question.

Mr. DEAL. Can you respond to that?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. RAND. Will you repeat the question?

Mr. DEAL. In simple terms, what degree of autonomy are individual broadcast stations being able to have in terms of what is coming to them from the big broadcasters?

Mr. RAND. Well, it is difficult to speak on behalf of the whole industry, but in the last couple years, as the profanity issue grew to

be of more and more interest, you saw a number of ABC affiliates

choosing to preempt ‘‘Saving Private Ryan’’ as it was going to run

as it was made to begin with. And you saw a lot of stations that

chose to preempt that program for that reason. And the network

was faced with putting up with that. So there is that ability to do

that.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California Mrs. Capps.

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you to each of our panelists for your presentations. I want to talk about or ask about obesity. Ms. Sophos, as

you know, the Council of Better Business Bureaus has established

a voluntary initiative among 11 companies that represent twothirds of food advertising targeted at children. These companies

have committed that half of their advertising will promote healthy

lifestyles, a laudable commitment. I am pleased that the industry

is recognizing this as a problem.

98

Here is my question. When advertising is integrated with

healthy messages, how healthy is the resulting impact on children?

For example, and this is not a stretch, when an advertisement features someone eating french fries and then riding a bike, what is

the child going to learn from that, and how does that really satisfy

the healthy lifestyle goal?

Ms. SOPHOS. I can’t speak to that specific example. We haven’t

looked at——

Mrs. CAPPS. Just as an example.

Ms. SOPHOS. But I think what the overall purpose of the CBBB

program is is to take very seriously the requests that have been

made of the industry by the IOM and by FTC Chairman Majoras

to shift the mix of products that are advertised to children, to shift

the balance into healthier products and to also communicate

healthy lifestyle messages. So I think the industry is very keenly

focused on both those aspects. And I think as the pledges that the

companies are making become public later this summer, that we

will have an ability to assess just how much they have been able

to sort of meet expectations on that point, because I think they are

very much focused on both aspects of making and marketing better

for you foods. So I think that we are going to have to try and get

a sense of what the impact has been overall once the pledges are

out and once we see them actually play out in the advertisements.

Mrs. CAPPS. Two other of the panel are eager to respond. Dr.

Shifrin, and then I will turn to you, Ms. Miller. But I wanted to

just—the topic is mixed messages. What does this do to a young

child? This is your area of expertise.

Dr. SHIFRIN. When you watch children’s commercials, children’s

commercials talk about the fun of the food. You rarely see children

eating the food on the commercials, if you look at children’s commercials with a contextual eye. So children are enamored because

the food is fun. You look at the music, you look at the quick cuts.

So what we would like from the industry, the American Academy

of Pediatrics would like to use the most bright minds in the marketing industry and say, let us create these commercials. Let us do

focus groups. Let us look at what is going to work. Let us not try

things and then wait again down the road to see that perhaps they

are not working.

So I think it is up to the industry to say if we are devoting a

huge amount of our budget to this process and project, let us do

it right. They have the brightest minds in the industry. They have

changed children’s purchasing and preferences for years. Let us let

them do the work. We will work with them.

Mrs. CAPPS. That is good. I will give my own 2 cents’ worth. Ms.

Miller, you raised your hand. And being from California, I am very

familiar and a big fan of the work of Children Now and your yearly

scorecard on children in California. This must be one of the topics

you have examined as well.

Ms. MILLER. Yes, it is one of the topics. We are examining not

only media but across other issues, kids’ health and education. And

just a quick note on shifting the balance. What public health advocates and children’s advocates need to see is an actual reduction in

junk food advertising to kids. When we talk about shifting the mix,

it is actually seeing less unhealthy food ads. So what we are conVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:47 Jul 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-58 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
99

cerned about with the healthy lifestyle messages is the idea of a

child riding a skateboard in a skateboard park and then eating a

bowl of sugar cereal to us isn’t getting to that issue.

So what we are really hopeful, and when we see some of these

pledges, that we actually see reduction in some of these unhealthy

food ads in terms of trying to shift that mix so it is more of an

equal playing field for kids in terms of healthy versus unhealthy

images.

Mrs. CAPPS. Ms. Sophos, you are nodding. And here is a question

for you. Wouldn’t industry-funded public service announcements

separate from your advertisements be more effective than integrating healthy messages? Is that something the industry might consider bringing to the table at the FCC Task Force on Childhood

Obesity?

Ms. SOPHOS. We believe there is a role for both integrating the

messages and also for PSAs. Our industry is joined with a lot of

the media groups and advertising communities supporting work

that is being done by the Ad Council now. And whether it is PSAs

or companies using the messages that have been developed by the

Ad Council and the Department of Health and Human Services in

communicating through labeling and other ways, we do think carrying those messages as part of broader social marketing campaigns can be very helpful.

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you all.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee,

Mr. Upton from Michigan.

Mr. UPTON. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I regret that I

wasn’t here for the opening statements. I did read them. But I

have good news. When Ms. Harman and I walked back into the

room, in fact, our amendment did pass on the House floor, saving

the taxpayers millions of dollars in energy costs. So it was good

news.

Just a couple things. We are going to have votes on the House

floor, so I may not use my whole 5 minutes, so I can let other Members ask some questions before we adjourn.

Ms. Sophos, just in follow-up to Mrs. Capps’s question, do you

think that it is wise then, yes or no, for the FCC to move forward

in terms of their Task Force on Media and Childhood Obesity report? Do you think that is a wise thing, or should they be waiting

until they hear more from you all? It is not supposed to be a softball question, but as my former boss I have to be careful.

Ms. SOPHOS. I understand.

We have been participating in the Joint Task Force as well,

along with a number of our member companies. And I think it has

been a useful dialog that we have had. I think the one thing that

has been clear throughout this is that everyone in the room is very,

very interested in making a difference, in trying to push the envelope and do something. I think that there are a lot of things that

the task force can recommend, and I am hopeful that we can find

some consensus around a lot of things. So I think that that process

should move forward.

We have been trying to talk a good deal about the pledge program, about the initiative that is under way through the CBBB, beVerDate 11-SEP-98 09:47 Jul 11, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Q:\DOCS\110-58 SCOM1 PsN: SCOM1
100

cause we think a lot of the issues that are currently being discussed on the task force are actually being implemented through

that program. And we think that there is a nice dovetailing of effort there.

Mr. UPTON. Great. And, Mr. McSlarrow and Mr. Thierer, as I

have watched my two kids grow up, and now they are both teens,

and we have cable, as you know, we watch a lot of different programming. From when my son used to beat me up, beat me up in

terms of getting up earlier than I on Saturday mornings to race

down to turn on the TV, and now it is all I can do with school out

to get him up before noon now that he is 15, but, as we watch and

think about how a la carte—we think about so many different programs that are truly geared for kids that they enjoy and they learn

from, Nickelodeon, Discovery Kids, Disney Channel is terrific,

Planet Earth is a great one, particularly when you have HD, can

those types of programs, those types of channels survive in an a la

carte world? What is your thoughts?

Mr. MCSLARROW. Many of them could not.

Mr. UPTON. They never would have started.

Mr. MCSLARROW. In most cases, no. A la carte really has the

honor of being one of the truly awful policy ideas floating around

Washington. Every study that has been done on it has shown it

will be more expensive for consumers, and they will have less

choice. You just put your finger on an obvious downside, which is

the very family programming you want will be at risk. And then

there is another one, which is if you were in an a la carte world,

and each network had to punch through in the marketing haze in

order to survive, they are more likely to produce edgier content, so

you would go exactly the opposite direction that people say they

want.

Mr. UPTON. Mr. Thierer?

Mr. THIERER. Yes. I sincerely hope those educational enriching

options for children don’t disappear. And in my book on Parental

Controls & Online Child Protection, on page 38 I list two dozen

educational and enriching options for children, only two or three of

which existed when I was a child. And I hope they wouldn’t disappear, but I think they probably would under a la carte regulation.

But beyond that, I just want to say that the great things about

these educational options is not only that they are there today, but

that they are always there for me, because, through either the

cable provider in my area or the telco provider, Verizon, I can

record all of these on the integrated PVRs and the boxes in my

home, tailor them to when I want my kids to watch them. And my

two kids, who are under the age of 6, they don’t see any advertising

because either I record certain programs that don’t have any, like

on the Noggin Network, which is my personal family favorite, or

I actually sit there—and I hate to say this with my media friends

on the panel—I zap through those commercials. And that is the reality. That is tailoring, that is empowering parents to provide those

sorts of choices to their family.

So I hope these media programs can get funded as I fast-forward

through the ads. That is another problem to discuss, but the reality

101

is that is the way we have empowered parents in our new media

environment.

Mr. UPTON. Dr. Shifrin, last word here with my time.

Dr. SHIFRIN. Speaking from a truly pediatric standpoint, it is

doubtful that any child in America doesn’t see advertising. When

we have parents that say—and I see these parents every day—I

don’t have TV in my house, the children are going elsewhere, they

are going to malls, they are going to sporting arenas. So they are

seeing advertising, no question.

Mr. UPTON. I think my time has expired.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California Ms. Solis.

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you. And I want to thank the witnesses for

some very courageous statements, I guess, that are being made

here about what we need to do here for our children to prevent further chronic diseases.

I am concerned about tobacco use, and I want to direct my question to Mrs. Healton regarding any movement that you see occurring on the rise amongst young teen Latinas, and if there is any

kind of advertising that is being projected to them to somehow attract them or to become smokers, because I have seen some evidence that the number has gone up. But maybe you could enlighten

me a little better.

Ms. HEALTON. Essentially in the most recent year for which we

have data, 12th-grade smoking has continued to decline, and both

8th- and 10th-grade smoking has stalled. So that is a bad sign. And

it is something to be very concerned about, because it is the first

stall since 1997.

Really tobacco advertising in general targets every possible subgroup imaginable. It may use different methodologies depending

upon the population prevalence of the ethnic group or gender group

in the region. But clearly, I will take an example, this most recent

brand, Camel No. 9, that was referred to earlier today, this brand

with its menthol teal and its shocking pink wrapper, is clearly a

brand meant to appeal to young teens and meant to draw in new

smokers.

The growth in smoking among Latinos, Latinos have relatively

lower rates, Latino girls have relatively lower rates of smoking.

But the picture in South America is extraordinary. In Santiago,

Chile, for example, over 65 percent of girls smoke. So because the

rates are low, one way of looking at it is they are more aggressively

a target of tobacco industry marketing, because there is a growth

curve there. And you could argue there is some theoretical cap

above which the smoking rate can’t go, so the low rate is a marketing opportunity.

Ms. SOLIS. And for Dr. Shifrin, I wanted to ask you quickly, in

your research have you taken a look at advertising with respect to

Spanish-language television and how that affects this whole issue

of obesity and targeting some vulnerable populations?

Dr. SHIFRIN. Well, quickly, the American Academy of Pediatrics

puts out a number of Spanish-language products and publications.

Certainly Healthy Kids in Espanol is one. We don’t have any research at this point about that. But it is an ongoing area that we

are interested in.

102

Ms. SOLIS. Is that something we might want to entertain?

Dr. SHIFRIN. Oh, absolutely.

Ms. SOLIS. Testing that?

Dr. SHIFRIN. Absolutely. Because there is a big difference in how

it is viewed.

Ms. SOLIS. Absolutely.

Ms. Sophos.

Ms. SOPHOS. Yes. I just wanted to add that one of the things that

GMA has done is to fund a person at the Children’s Advertising

Review Unit specifically to address the Hispanic market. Advertising monitoring is something we did on a voluntary basis. And also

when the USDA came out with its newest dietary guidelines, GMA

partnered with the Weekly Reader to distribute the MyPyramid

educational curriculum into the schools in both English and Spanish as a way to try and reach specific audiences that may be at

higher risk.

Ms. SOLIS. Good.

I wanted to just mention to Mr. Thierer that one of the issues

that we face in the Hispanic community, and sometimes just lowincome community, is access to the Internet. And so a lot of the

tools that you talked about, and the vehicles, there is no way of

people knowing in some sections of my district where they just

don’t have the availability and economically it is not feasible. How

would you recommend we get the message out to those communities and in multicultural communities?

Mr. THIERER. You look at what some of the industries are doing,

for example video games, distributing brochures and pamphlets

and other materials in Spanish, and making sure that it is not just

on the Internet, but also in stores and elsewhere where families

might want to take a look at these things.

Clearly more education and awareness efforts are necessary. If I

could recommend one thing the Government should do more of in

this area, it would be building awareness about all these wonderful

tools. When we wanted to build awareness about the dangers of

forest fires, we had Smokey Bear. When it is littering, it is Hoot

the Owl. Where is that equivalent effort when it comes to building

awareness and doing it for many different ethnic groups, many different languages and so on? That is an important part.

Ms. SOLIS. It is amazing Thomas the Train seems to be able to

captivate all kids from all backgrounds. So I know it can be done.

I am sorry, Ms. Miller, you wanted to comment?

Ms. MILLER. I just wanted to add one of the big concerns we have

is that many of the tools we are talking about here are just out of

the economic reach of a lot of families in this country, such as, you

know, DVRs, for example. And so that is why I think it is so important that we give parents accurate content-based descriptors so

they can make informed choices, that there is public education, and

the ratings are accurate.

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you.

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired.

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State Mr.

Inslee.

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. Obviously something is going on. I am

told compared to 20 years ago children drink two times more soda

103

than milk, and 20 years ago they drank two times more milk than

soda. Advertising works. Our kids are being deluged by an avalanche of corn fructose syrup that is the basis for all of these processed foods. And I guess I heard some discussion about how to

limit the number of messages of these high-caloric-density, highcorn-fructose foods that that are bombarding our kids. And I appreciated Mr. Rand’s suggestion to have some PSAs like the one he

showed us, but these kids are seeing 7,600 of these ads a year. And

I am just concerned that these PSAs are going to be like having

an umbrella during the London blitz given the number of the ads

that these kids are being hit with.

So I guess maybe I can ask Ms. Miller and Ms. Sophos to elaborate on what restrictions there may be on these high-density foods.

Now, here is just an idea. Maybe there ought to be some limitation

per manufacturer of how many high-density-calorie-per-gram ads

you can bombard these kids with, particularly for ads that are targeted for the kids under 8. I am interested in Ms. Miller’s idea that

advertising to kids under 8 might be an unlawful trade practice in

itself, because these kids have no rational freedom of thought, if

you will. So I just wonder if you could each give us maybe, Ms. Miller and Ms. Sophos, what could we do to limit the number of these

hits on these kids for this high-density food?

Ms. MILLER. It is unfair to advertise to kids under the age of 8.

They have no cognitive ability to discern that someone is trying to

sell them something. I think what we want to see is a shifting the

balance to more healthy foods being advertised to kids. I would

suggest that we start shifting the balance within a 2-year time period, a 25 percent reduction in the next year of foods that are higher in fats, salts, added sugars, and lower in nutrient content, with

a goal of at least getting to balance in the next 2 years.

To your point about public service announcements, according to

the Kaiser study, children ages 2 to 7 see one PSA on fitness or

nutrition every 2 to 3 days. So there is not an equal playing field

here. And so I think we just have to start really shifting the balance of those unhealthy food ads. And I would say we have to get

to a level playing field, so when kids are actually seeing these ads,

they are seeing an equal number, at least, of healthy food choices.

And as we have seen right now, the fact that no fruits and vegetables are being advertised is pretty frightening.

So actually I would say there has to be a point, a percentage reduction within a certain time period to say that we are actually

moving the needle on this issue.

Mr. INSLEE. Ms. Sophos.

Ms. SOPHOS. Well, first I want to say that all of our members

take very seriously their responsibility to advertise in a way that

is sensitive to children no matter what the age. And there is the

FTC and CARU also to help make sure this advertising is ethical

and responsible.

But to your point about reducing or shifting the balance, I think

that is exactly the commitment that the companies who have been

part of the Children’s Food and Beverage Initiative have made and

that their efforts are going to be unfolding over the next several

weeks and months and years. And I think we should take a look.

I think through part of that program is an element where the

104

CBBB is required to monitor compliance and issue a report on impact. So I think we are going to have available the data to show

what progress we were able to make. But I think the goal is, in

fact, fairly widely accepted that we need to shift the balance.

Mr. INSLEE. Could we get to numerical targets that would be legally enforceable? The reason I say this is you represent a great

industry with great people that care for the kids. No one wants to

hurt our kids. But cumulatively, the impact of this is what we are

concerned about. So the question is could we get to numerical requirements?

Ms. SOPHOS. I think one of the things we have seen is that all

the experts, IOM and others, say, look, we need to do this through

a voluntary basis, because, in fact, that is probably the quickest

way to get there. The commitment and the initiative is that a minimum of 50 percent of the ads that are directed to children by these

companies representing two-thirds of all advertising will be for

healthier foods and delivering healthy messages. So we do have numerical goals in there, and my guess is that when the pledges come

up, that those goals will be exceeded in many cases.

Mr. MARKEY. I apologize to you, but there are only 6 minutes left

to vote on the House floor, and in order to give Ms. Harman only

4 minutes to ask questions, we have to——

Ms. HARMAN. I thank my colleague, and I thank the chairman,

and I think we have to also walk, so let’s do this in two. I am late

because I had an amendment on the floor with Mr. Upton. But I

had to show up first to tell our former colleague Mr. Glickman how

fond we are of him, and how fond we were of Jack Valenti, and how

important the MPAA remains in this issue of trying to figure out

what violent content there is in movies and what responsible people should do about it.

Having said that, I just want to make a couple of points. First,

at least to me, government censorship is a blunt and dangerous instrument. I believe that regulating violent content on the airwaves

is a slippery slope and that censorship has no place in a society

that values the free exchange of ideas, speech, and expression.

Having said that, I believe in good parenting. Now, how many of

you are parents? How many in the audience are parents? Right.

And some of us up here are grandparents. Right. So, I think all of

you should do a better job than I did as a parent in using the tools

that are out there wisely to be sure that your kids don’t eat the

wrong stuff and don’t watch the wrong stuff. And I think that parents who take that responsibility must take that responsibility and

can do it well.

And finally, on this issue of an a la carte option, I did want to

weigh in here, it may be an easy tool for techno-lazy parents like

I was, but the problem with it is that it also may take away the

diversity in programming that people like me, and I think most

people, have come to value.

So let us pick the right tools. Let us exercise our responsibilities

as parents. And again, my apologies for missing what I am sure

was excellent testimony.

I thank the chairman for yielding. Two minutes and two seconds

to go make it.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady.

105

Mr. Glickman, you had a few words you wanted to add. I saw

your hand was up.

Mr. GLICKMAN. I was going to say to Mr. Inslee, under the Clinton administration and it has been continued under the Bush administration, there has been some funding to try to increase the

quality of food in the National School Lunch Program, School

Breakfast Program. Those programs need significant additional

funds, particularly fresh fruits and vegetables. It would really train

kids. And you know, it is an area we haven’t discussed today, but

it is part of this mix.

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentleman. Look, here is the bottom

line: the first amendment is precious, but the children of our country are just as precious. And we need a healthier balance in our

country. We have to make sure that these children are not

bombarded with messages from commercial America that is, in

fact, to the detriment of the children of our country. And most of

these parents aren’t in a position—they are both working; they are

out of the house; they need help. Parents are heroes, but they need

the help that makes it possible for them to protect their children.

And so, again, I just want to make clear that while these kids have

all of these unhealthy choices that are being presented to them in

the media on an ongoing basis, that if there is not a proper response from industry, that I am prepared to press the Federal

Communications Commission to put on the books the rules that

will protect the children of our country from these unhealthy messages. The FCC has the authority under the Children’s Television

Act to do that, and I just hope that the industry responds, that

they do, in fact, protect the children of our country. We have to put

the tools in the hands of the parents to be able to do it. But that

also includes the work of the Federal Communications Commission

to fulfill the mandate of the law, that the children’s programming

of our country is nutritious for children, both intellectually but also

their diet as well.

I can’t thank the panel enough. This was a great, great day for

us. And I apologize to you for the chaos that is going on out on the

House floor, drawing away the Members. But with that, this hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ