FOOD MARKETING: CAN ‘‘VOLUNTARY’’ GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS IMPROVE CHILDREN’S 

HEALTH? 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, 

AND TRADE 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 12, 2011 

Serial No. 112–94 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

FOOD MARKETING: CAN ‘‘VOLUNTARY’’ GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS IMPROVE 

CHILDREN’S HEALTH? 

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

77–930 PDF 2013

FOOD MARKETING: CAN ‘‘VOLUNTARY’’ GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS IMPROVE CHILDREN’S 

HEALTH? 

JOINT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, 

AND TRADE 

AND THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 12, 2011 

Serial No. 112–94 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND TRADE

MARY BONO MACK, California 

Chairman 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

Ranking Member 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

Chairman 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

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

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

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 8 

Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 9 

Hon. Mary Bono Mack, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 13 

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina, opening statement ............................................................................... 13 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Hon. Pete Olson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 19 

Hon. Adam Kinzinger, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 19 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 20 

Hon. Lee Terry, a Representative in Congress from the State of Nebraska, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 122 

WITNESSES

William H. Dietz, Director, Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health 

and Human Services ............................................................................................ 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Answers to submitted questions 1 ...................................................................

Robert Post, Deputy Director, Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, 

Department of Agriculture .................................................................................. 33 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Answers to submitted questions 1 ...................................................................

David C. Vladeck, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 43 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 45 

Attachments to submitted questions .............................................................. 357 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 367 

Jim Baughman, Senior Marketing Counsel, Campbell Soup Company .............. 138 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 141 

Daniel L. Jaffe, Executive Vice President, Government Relations, Association 

of National Advertisers ........................................................................................ 171 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 173 

Elaine D. Kolish, Vice President and Director, Children’s Food and Beverage 

Advertising Initiative, Council of Better Business Bureaus ............................. 209 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 211 

Beth Johnson, Principal, Food Directions LLC, on behalf of the Grocery 

Manufacturers Association .................................................................................. 237 

Page

VI 

Beth Johnson, Principal, Food Directions LLC, on behalf of the Grocery 

Manufacturers Association—Continued 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 239 

Margo G. Wootan, Director, Nutrition Policy, Center for Science in the Public 

Interest .................................................................................................................. 289 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 291 

Dale Kunkel, Professor of Communication, Department of Communication, 

University of Arizona ........................................................................................... 317 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 320 

John S. Irons, Research and Policy Director, Economic Policy Institute ............ 331 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 333 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement, dated October 12, 2011, of Brad Figel, Vice President, North 

America Public Affairs, Mars Incorporated, submitted by Mrs. Capps ........... 74 

Letter, dated October 11, 2011, from the Hon. Eric Paulsen, et al., to Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, Health and Human Services, et al., submitted 

by Mr. Pitts ........................................................................................................... 78 

Statement, dated October 12, 2011, of the American Bakers Association, 

submitted by Mr. Pitts ......................................................................................... 83 

Testimony, dated October 12, 2011, of Kraig R. Naasz, President and Chief 

Executive Officer, American Frozen Food Institute, submitted by Mr. Pitts . 98 

Letter, dated July 14, 2011, from John T. Allan III, Director of Regulatory 

and International Affairs, American Frozen Food Institute, to Office of 

the Secretary, Federal Trade Commission, submitted by Mr. Pitts ................ 100 

Memo, dated July 15, 2010, from Michelle Rusk and Carol Jennings, attorneys, Division of Advertising Practices, Federal Trade Commission, to 

David Vladeck, Director, Bureau of Consumer Protection, submitted by 

Mr. Olson .............................................................................................................. 117 

Open letter, dated September 6, 2011, from Gary D. Allison, Vice Dean 

and Professor Law, University of Tulsa College of Law, et al., to Jon 

Leibowitz, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, et al., submitted by Mr. 

Pallone .................................................................................................................. 132 

1Mr. Dietz and Mr. Post did not answer submitted questions for the record. 

(1) 

FOOD MARKETING: CAN ‘‘VOLUNTARY’’ GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS IMPROVE CHILDREN’S HEALTH? 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, MANUFACTURING, AND

TRADE, 

JOINT WITH

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joseph R. Pitts (chairman of the Subcommittee on Health) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Pitts, Bono Mack, Barton, 

Shimkus, Terry, Murphy, Burgess, Blackburn, Bass, Gingrey, 

Latta, Harper, Lance, Cassidy, Guthrie, Olson, McKinley, Pompeo, 

Kinzinger, Upton (ex officio), Dingell, Towns, Pallone, Engel, 

Capps, Schakowsky, Gonzalez, Butterfield, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Clay Alspach, Counsel, Health; Charlotte Baker, 

Press Secretary; Jim Barnette, General Counsel; Debbee Keller, 

Press Secretary; Ryan Long, Chief Counsel, Health; Brian 

McCullough, Senior Professional Staff Member, CMT; Carly 

McWilliams, Legislative Clerk; Jeff Mortier, Professional Staff 

Member; Gib Mullan, Chief Counsel, CMT; Monica Popp, Professional Staff Member, Health; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment and Economy; Heidi Stirrup, Health Policy Coordinator; 

Stephen Cha, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member; Alli Corr, 

Minority Policy Analyst; Eric Flamm, Minority FDA Detailee; 

Karen Lightfoot, Minority Communications Director and Senior 

Policy Advisor; Felipe Mendoza, Minority Counsel; and Will Wallace, Minority Policy Analyst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. PITTS. The subcommittees will come to order. 

I am pleased today to be holding a joint hearing with the Health 

Subcommittee and the Commerce, Manufacturing and Trade Subcommittee on such an important issue. The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

2 

The fiscal year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act directed the 

USDA, the FTC, CDC, and FTC to complete a study on food marketing to children and report back to Congress. Instead, what these 

4 agencies, collectively known as the Interagency Working Group 

on Food Marketed to Children, or IWG, delivered was a sweeping 

set of voluntary principles for marketing foods to kids. These principles are based on nutritional standards that exceed and conflict 

with those of other government programs, some administered by 

these same agencies, such as the WIC program, the school lunch 

program, and the SNAP, the food stamp program. 

The guidelines are so restrictive that many healthy foods like 

low-fat yogurts, whole-wheat bread, and 2 percent milk could not 

be marketed to those 17 and under. Cereals, even non-sweetened 

cereals would not meet the IWG guidelines, including Cheerios. According to one analysis, 88 out of the 100 most advertised foods and 

drinks would be in violation of these standards. 

Please don’t misunderstand. I am very concerned about the obesity epidemic in our Nation. I have 4 young grandchildren. I want 

them to make good dietary and lifestyle choices and grow up 

healthy. And the parents, not government bureaucrats, are in the 

best position to see that that happens. Frankly, banning peanut 

butter commercials during hours when they may be watching TV 

is not going to accomplish that goal. 

The IWG should completely withdraw these recommendations 

and do what they were instructed to do by Congress in the fiscal 

year 2009 omnibus, conduct a study and report the findings of the 

study and their recommendations to Congress. That report was due 

July 15, 2010. 

I yield the remainder of my time to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Upton. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitts follows:] 

3 


77930.001
4 

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

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you going 

out of order as I have another supercommittee meeting this morning. So I need to be there. But I thank you and Chairman Bono 

Mack for calling this hearing today. 

You know, 2 1⁄2 years ago, Congress established an Interagency 

Working Group, IWG, composed of the FDA, the Center for Disease 

Control and Prevention, USDA, and FTC. The IWG was created to 

conduct a study and develop recommendations for standards in the 

marketing of food to children and teenagers. The study results and 

recommendations were supposed to take the form of a report to 

Congress, which we as the representative branch of government 

can consider as we decide whether and how to proceed. 

But instead of conducting the study or providing recommendations, the IWG unilaterally proposed guidelines that were so extreme that they would prevent the marketing to children of foods 

that most parents consider a win if their kids eat, such as yogurt, 

cheese sticks, even soup. 

Moreover, the IWG’s definition of marketing was so broad that 

it endangered the philanthropic funding that many community 

sports programs and schools rely on to fund athletic activities, the 

one thing proven to combat childhood obesity. 

And while the initiative was portrayed as a helping hand to parents to reduce children’s exposure to advertising for foods with limited nutritional value, to many of us and our constituents that appeared to be the first step towards Uncle Sam planning our family 

meals. The IWG’s preliminary proposal states flatly that foods 

would have to be reformulated and in some cases may disappear 

altogether. 

While the testimony suggests that the agencies are dealing with 

some of the most extreme aspects of the proposal, significant concerns still remain. These guidelines are labeled as voluntary, which 

to me means they are largely aspirational. But what happens when 

a litigious group sues a food manufacturer because it showed a 

commercial advertising a new kind of chocolate treat? Regardless 

of whether a child sees a commercial for that treat, the ultimate 

purchasing decision rests with the parent who purchases the groceries, and those groceries carry nutritional labels that every parent can read. 

I am also very concerned regarding the impact of the guidelines 

on jobs. According to a study by IHS Consulting, the guidelines 

would lead to a loss of as many as 74,000 in just 1 year and perhaps 378,000 jobs over 4 years. 

The Senate report language called for a study and a report to 

Congress. We have neither a study nor a report. Rather, we have 

a quasi-regulatory maneuver that has drawn fire from a broad 

range of organizations and Members of Congress. 

I am concerned about both the IWG’s recommendations and the 

manner in which they were produced going beyond the scope of 

that charge. I believe that this approach opens the door to needless 

and expensive litigation, and ultimately I believe there are much 

better approaches to improve the health of our children. 

I yield back. 

5 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

6 


77930.002
7 


77930.003
8 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

ranking member of the Subcommittee on Health, Mr. Pallone, for 

5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Chairman Pitts. 

Childhood obesity is a tragic public health epidemic in this country, and the statistics are alarming. One out of every 3 children is 

affected by obesity, and over the last 3 decades rates have skyrocketed. According to data from the Center for Disease Control 

and Prevention, rates of obesity have doubled in children and tripled in teens. In addition, there are millions more kids who are 

just at the cusp and are in endanger of becoming obese. 

As a result of this epidemic, health problems that were rarely 

seen in children 30 years ago are now quite common. A report conducted by the Trust for America’s Health in 2009 highlighted that 

more and more children are being diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, 

hypertension, sleep apnea, joint problems, and depression, to name 

just a few. Shockingly, 1 in 3 children born in the year 2000 is expected to develop diabetes during his or her lifetime; and 25 percent of children between the ages of 5 and 10 years old have early 

warning signs for heart disease such as high blood pressure and 

high cholesterol levels. 

What is so important to understand is that these children are 

likely to continue having health problems as they age into adulthood. Studies have shown that up to 80 percent of obese children 

will become obese adults. Some experts have even predicted that if 

the trends in childhood obesity continue, we will for the first time 

in American history see a generation that lives sicker and dies earlier than their parents. 

Many factors contribute to the public health problem. Personal 

habits definitely play a part, but so does less exercise and lack of 

access to healthy foods. Regardless of the reasons, the bottom line 

is that children’s diets are too high in calories, saturated in trans 

fat, refined sugars, and salt, and too low in fruits, vegetables, 

whole grains and calcium. As a result, they have an increased risk 

of many serious and costly diseases. 

We also know that marketing is a factor in the types of foods 

children eat. A 2008 FTC report found that the food industry spent 

more than $1.6 billion in 2006 alone to market messages to kids 

promoting foods that often are high in calories and low in nutrition. 

In 2006, the Institute of Medicine released a study on food marketing to children that examined the role that marketing may play 

as a determinate of the nutritional status of children and the ways 

in which marketing approaches might be adopted to help address 

the epidemic of childhood obesity. In fact, as a result of this study, 

the industry launched their own initiative designed to shift the mix 

of foods advertised to children to encourage healthier dietary 

choices and healthy lifestyles. 

I believe that our government has an obligation to work with industry leaders, parents, schools, and advocates to address and 

hopefully reverse the trends of childhood obesity. The recommendaVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:28 Jun 06, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-09~1\112-94~1 WAYNE
9 

tions by the IWG being examined today are one step in that direction. I, for one, certainly share the goal of improving children’s 

diets and addressing the high rates of childhood obesity. 

Is the IWG proposal perfect? No, not at all. In fact, I think, as 

written, many of these recommendations are unworkable. But 

today we will hear from many witnesses, including the consumer 

advocates who will attest to that. But that is why the proposal 

poses 30 specific questions designed to elicit input on a variety of 

issues. So I fully expect the IWG to carefully consider the many 

comments that were received. 

I do not agree with some of our witnesses who believe that the 

IWG proposal should be withdrawn completely and instead endorse 

an industry-only approach. Today’s hearing will allow our witnesses to publicly provide important input into the development of 

a complete set of recommendations to Congress. If we want to facilitate and induce real change, it is critical that any voluntary 

guidelines encourage and incentivize American companies to participate. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues, and I would like 

to now yield the remainder of my time to Representative 

Schakowsky. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 

You know, we are going to spend our time today attacking the 

Interagency Working Group, whose mission was simply to—I am 

looking for exactly the words. The working group’s job was to submit a report to Congress. And that is it. And that is what Congress 

told the group to do. 

This is not a regulatory document. It doesn’t enforce, but it does 

inform the conversation we have about a very serious problem, and 

that is childhood obesity. 

I did want to refer Mr. Vladeck to a myths and facts article that 

you wrote some time ago and refer to what the chairman was saying, it is the parents that are supposed to do this. And the myth 

is that this proposal represents the government’s attempt to do a 

parent’s job. Absolutely not. Parents, not the government, make decisions. But the proposal is designed to support, not supplant, 

moms and dads. After all, the more marketing that kids see that 

is for foods that make up a healthy diet, kids will start asking for 

healthier foods. And so I think that we need an open mind to listen 

to these reasonable proposals. 

Thank you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARY BONO MACK, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. BONO MACK [presiding]. I thank the gentlelady, and the 

Chair now recognizes herself for 5 minutes for my opening statement. 

Today, the evidence is all around us. There is an indisputable 

link between childhood obesity and diabetes. It is an issue that I 

10 

have been working on for many years. More and more overweight 

kids are leading to more and more cases of full-blown diabetes 

among children all across America. That alarming trend demands 

our attention. 

But what is far less clear to me is whether the Interagency 

Working Group’s proposed nutrition principles are even achievable 

for most food groups and what effect they could have on food prices. 

Hopefully, we can get some straight answer to these and some 

other very important questions before committing to a national policy that may shrink family budgets but no waistlines. 

Clearly, the IWG’s initial proposal went way too far. It had a 

dangerously high content of plausibility. To its credit, the FTC did 

substitute a little commonsense for an otherwise rigid menu that 

could leave American businesses as well as consumers with a bad 

case of heartburn. People are smart enough to recognize that Girl 

Scout cookies or cake bought at a bake sale are not health foods, 

and they should act accordingly. But, that said, I still remain very 

concerned that healthy foods like yogurt could wind up not meeting 

these new standards. So much for counting calories. 

I am also concerned by a lack of science-based evidence in some 

of the IWG’s recommendations. For example, despite study after 

study, the link between saturated fat and obesity remains inconclusive. Is there a plausible connection? Yes. But is there a definitive 

one? No. Over the years, Americans have decreased their saturated 

animal fat intake, and yet cardiovascular disease rates remain 

mostly unchanged. 

I am also worried about what may happen every time there is 

a new cook in the kitchen. While these standards are voluntary, 

they can be changed on a whim, creating uncertainty for both businesses and consumers. Let us rethink that approach before the 

standards become finalized. 

As a former small business owner, I am troubled as well by the 

impact that the IWG’s nutrition principles could have on smaller 

U.S. companies, which often struggle to comply with these type of 

standards. I am anxious to learn what steps are being taken to ensure that thousands of Americans don’t lose their jobs at a time 

when unemployment nationwide stands at a stubborn 9.1 percent. 

And, finally, why hasn’t this committee received the IWG report 

which was supposed to have been delivered to Congress by July 15, 

2010? Frankly, we would like to find out what you have been cooking up in the kitchen. Right now, I am not sure I like the smell 

of it. 

And at that point, I will yield the balance of my time to the vice 

chair of the Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee, 

Mrs. Blackburn. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Bono Mack follows:] 

11 


77930.004
12 


77930.005
13 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Welcome to our witnesses. 

As a mother and a grandmother, I have always been concerned 

with diet, nutrition, obesity. This goes back to my interest in foods 

and nutrition when I was a young 4–H Club member in South Mississippi. I love that issue, and for decades I have watched as government has tried to dictate portion sizes and regulation. But I 

have come to realize nothing replaces understanding of the food 

pyramid and the basic food groups and how those impact your body 

and your life. 

I think that the nanny state, that government should be held responsible for how its IWG marketing rules will suppress free 

speech, choice, harm our economy, and fail at reducing, fail at reducing childhood obesity. The government should stop pretending 

after all of these decades that it has the answers, because it does 

not. Big government is no replacement for parental involvement in 

our children’s everyday lives and their understanding of the food 

that they consume, what they eat and the individuals that they become. 

Furthermore, private industries are already sensitive to consumer demands and they are bowing to parental concerns. I see 

this in the choices for my grandchildren. These broad marketing restrictions are supposedly voluntary, but it is clear they will inevitably form the basis for NGO attacks, shareholder actions, and private litigation. 

This hearing is an opportunity to explore these concerns further. 

I thank you all for your interest in being here today. I want to let 

both panels know that we look forward to having them here, that 

we look forward to furthering this discussion, and to visiting with 

you about what is a thoughtful way to move forward with helping 

to educate parents and children as to what they are consuming. 

Now, I am one of those that I cook for my children and grandchildren every single weekend. One of the favorite incentives I have 

for my 2 grandchildren is an old Mr. M&M. And when you flip his 

hand, he dispenses a little M&M. After they eat the appropriate 

amounts of meat and veggies and a little bread and drink their 

milk, Mr. M&M gives them that candy token that they are looking 

for as their reward for doing things right. 

It is my choice as a grandmother. We don’t need the FTC. We 

don’t need the IWG. We do not need the Federal Government 

weighing in. Yep. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Butterfield for 

5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH 

CAROLINA 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Thank you. 

To the 2 subcommittee chairs and Chairman Pitts and Chairman 

Bono Mack, thank you for holding today’s hearing on the InterVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:28 Jun 06, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-09~1\112-94~1 WAYNE
14 

agency Working Group’s preliminary proposed nutrition principles 

on food marketed to children. 

Children’s health and well-being are paramount. I think we can 

all agree on that. We must do all we can to ensure the next generation of leaders are as healthy as possible. To that end, Congress directed the Federal Trade Commission, the Food and Drug Administration, the Center for Disease Control, and USDA to conduct a 

study and develop recommendations for standards for the marketing of food when such marketing targets children who are 17 

years old or younger. 

It seems that the working group took that charge and tried to 

complete as thorough a document as possible, resulting in the preliminary proposed nutrition principles to guide industry self-regulatory efforts. The working group proposal includes many great 

suggestions like incorporating more fresh fruits and vegetables and 

whole grains into a child’s daily diet in addition to the M&Ms. The 

working group also suggests limiting nutrients that are generally 

accepted as not being healthy in large quantities, like sodium and 

saturated fat, trans fat, and added sugars. 

I agree with these principles. I also believe, however, that certain 

parts of the preliminary working group report recommended overly 

specific standards that would be difficult, difficult for industry to 

meet. 

In 2006, in response to an Institute of Medicine report, the Council of Better Business Bureaus and the member companies of its 

Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative instituted a 

wide-reaching self-regulatory standard. Representing the overwhelming majority of companies marketing food products to children, this initiative’s goal was to devote at least half, half of all advertising directed at children to healthier food options and a 

healthier lifestyle. 

The initiative’s self-regulatory requirements were recently expanded to be more rigorous. Now, when marketing to children 12 

and under, member companies must advertise healthier products, 

healthier products and 100 percent of the time. Member companies 

cannot pay for or actively seek product placement in programming 

directed to children. Member companies are not permitted to advertise in schools serving pre-kindergarten through 6th grade. Member companies have also reformulated more than 100 products advertised to children. They have decreased caloric levels and reduced 

sodium, sugar, and fat levels, all of these voluntarily. 

It is true that children want what is advertised to them on television, magazines, or in a store, whether it is a sugary cereal or 

the Red Rider BB gun made famous recently, but it is ultimately 

the responsibility of parents and caregivers to make informed and 

thoughtful decisions about the kind of food their child eats, just as 

they do for the kind of toys they play with. 

The government can play a role, however, in the overall health 

of our children, nutritional education, and to both parents and children who can go a long way in helping to develop long-term, 

healthy eating habits. 

Last month, the USDA retired the 20-year-old food pyramid and 

replaced it with My Plate, a simpler and more relatable way to 

teach parents and children what they should be eating and how 

15 

much. The government also runs the Web site, nutrition.gov, where 

anyone can learn more about weight management, dietary supplements, and even provides recommendations for healthy shopping, 

cooking, and meal planning. 

I share the President’s goal of ending childhood obesity and related conditions like high blood pressure, heart disease, and diabetes. I respect the working group’s commitment to the same. But I 

also believe that children’s food and beverage advertising initiatives should be encouraged and given a chance to test out their impact. 

Moreover, government entities involved in the working group 

should not ignore or forget their important role, providing nutritional education in schools and on television, in print and on line. 

Parents must be able to make informed decisions about what their 

children eat through exposure to all food choices, the ones that are 

good for them, the ones that they should enjoy sparingly. 

And so, Madam Chair, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for 

convening the hearing. I look forward to the remainder. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the gentleman, and the Chair now recognizes Mr. Barton for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I have an opening statement I am going to put in the record. 

I want to do a little focus group with all of the people in this 

room. We have got about 200 people. How many had a sit-down, 

home-cooked meal with your family last night? Raise your hand. 

I am impressed that that many of you did. That is good. We had 

about, I would say, 25 percent of the audience. You folks are the 

solution to our problem. 

It is not the government giving these guidelines, and the agencies here are well-meaning, I am sure. It is the fact that we don’t 

take the time to do what we know is right. 

I have a little condo here in Washington. I know this is about 

children’s obesity, but this is illustrative. I have a gas stove that 

has an oven and a 4-top cooker—burners. It hasn’t been connected 

for 20 years. OK? I have a microwave that I use to do microwave 

popcorn. 

When I got elected to Congress, I weighed 160 pounds. I weigh 

215 on a good day now. It is not because I don’t know what is nutritious to eat. It is because I don’t take the time. I go to a reception or I go to the Whip’s office or I go to a dinner or I stop at 

McDonald’s. If I am really trying to be healthy, I will stop at Subway and maybe get a sandwich. 

My wife is an excellent cook. And when I am in Texas at home, 

I would say about half the time we actually have a sit-down meal 

with her and my 6-year-old son. But she works full time, too. So 

we go to fast food, whether it is Pizza Hut or McDonald’s or 

Braum’s or Wendy’s or Popeye’s Chicken or whatever, and on the 

weekends maybe we have the meals. 

The problem is not government guidelines. The problem is not 

knowing what is nutritious. The problem is that in our world today 

16 

we just don’t take the time to do what we know we need to do, and 

you can’t regulate that. You can’t mandate that. We can’t mandate 

that everybody sit down with their family for an hour and a half 

and have a balanced meal like Congresswoman Blackburn does 

with her children and grandchildren when she is in Tennessee. 

So this is going to be a good hearing. We are going to have a lot 

of good sound bites. But I haven’t heard anybody on either side of 

the aisle, my friends on the Democratic side or the Republican side 

over here, saying that the government giving us mandatory—even 

voluntary regulations is going to solve this problem. It is up to each 

of us individually to do what we know needs to be done. 

And with that, Madam Chairwoman, I want to yield, I think, a 

minute to Mr. Olson of Texas. 

[The prepared statement of Mr.Barton follows:] 

17 


77930.006
18 


77930.007
19 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I am happy to recognize Mr. Olson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PETE OLSON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. OLSON. I want to thank the chairman emeritus and my colleague from Texas. I would like to thank Chairmen Upton, Bono 

Mack, and Pitts for calling this very important hearing. 

Last year, I visited a Frito-Lay plant in the district I represent 

with my 11-year-old son. The plant has 465 employees. There is another Frito-Lay office in my home district which has 181 employees. That is 646 Frito-Lay jobs in the 22nd Congressional District 

of Texas. 

These jobs involve the manufacture, sale, distribution, and marketing of snack food products, including products that qualify as 

healthy under FDA regulations. However, under the proposal by 

the Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children, 

many of these products would be restricted, and the jobs that 

produce them would be at risk. 

It is my job as a parent, not the government’s job, to ensure that 

my children eat healthy foods and develop healthy habits. We don’t 

need the Federal Government dictating which foods can be marketed to children. 

Thank you. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. I yield 

back. 

Mr. BARTON. I would like to yield the balance of my time to Mr. 

Kinzinger. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ADAM KINZINGER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you for yielding and for the opportunity 

for the witnesses to come in and testify today. 

The 2009 report language included in the Omnibus Appropriation Act directed the IWG to complete a study and submit a report 

to Congress with its recommendations. Congress is still waiting. Instead, the IWG devised voluntary nutrition standards for food marketing to children that would require product reformulation with 

no scientific evidence that these new marketing restrictions would 

lead to long-term changes in eating behaviors or obesity rates. 

I was elected to Congress by Illinois families that want a government that fosters a safe and free economy, a government that is 

limited in its scope and effective in its goals. This proposal is 

counter to that. As many as 74,000 food manufacturing jobs are in 

jeopardy with these guidelines. These jobs are held by parents 

working hard to feed their children. 

It is time we return government to the people and rein in Washington’s culture of senseless regulation. I look forward to hearing 

from the witnesses and hope the IWG sees the need in providing 

a science-based report that includes how the proposal will benefit 

children’s health and what it will do to the cost of our Nation and 

jobs and economic growth. And I yield back. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. The Chair recognizes Mr. Waxman for 5 minutes. 

20 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Let me get this straight. Congress said that we should create an 

interactive task force from the Centers for Disease Control, the 

Food and Drug Administration, the United States Department of 

Agriculture, the Federal Trade Commission. We asked that this 

task force be set up to give recommendations about a real problem. 

And what is this real problem? There is an epidemic of obesity 

among our children. This is a serious health matter. A third of our 

kids are now overweight or obese. It is a public health problem. It 

is also a problem of national defense. The Pentagon complains they 

can’t find enough kids who are not so overweight that they can’t 

go into the military. It is a problem any way you look at it. It is 

a complex problem. But the food industry can contribute to this effort of helping to educate the public. 

Now, how can they do that? Well, they could talk about safer 

foods, healthier foods, and not target our kids. The food industry 

spends $1.6 billion on marketing to the kids each year. And when 

they are marketing candy, they are not saying take only one M&M 

from your grandmother. They are saying eat M&Ms, eat candy, eat 

all the food that we know is not great. But kids don’t know. 

So we have got this interagency task force, and they came out 

with a preliminary report. And our committee is going crazy. We 

have called a hearing. The Republicans who run this committee 

called a hearing. It is a preliminary report. It means they want to 

get comments. So before they get comments from anybody else, we 

are going to give them our comments. 

And what are the comments of the Republicans? ‘‘Their preliminary proposal is extreme. We don’t want Uncle Sam planning our 

family meals. It is going to have an impact on jobs.’’ That is what 

they always say. They even have a figure, 70,000—or 700,000 jobs 

would be lost each year. I don’t know where they got that figure. 

‘‘This is going to lead to litigation.’’ Well, I don’t know how it is 

going to lead to litigation. If there is a reason to sue because people 

manufacture and sell legal products that may or may not be 

healthy, that is not a tort as I understood everything I studied in 

law school. And just because there is a government guideline for 

a voluntary effort, I don’t know how that leads to more litigation. 

So the Republicans say it is going to lead to litigation, it is big 

government, we better find out what the impacts are on our prices 

for food, there is not enough of a scientific basis to even deal with 

this issue, big government is not a replacement for parents, as if 

anybody said big government was a replacement for parents. 

This is a way for the industry to do something on a voluntary 

basis to help deal with a real public health problem. It is a way 

to educate the public. It is a way not to have our kids subjected 

to advertising that they don’t know how to deal with. They are 

kids. 

And then we hear it is too difficult to implement. Well, if it is 

too difficult to implement, then the industry doesn’t have to implement it. 

21 

I cannot believe this hearing. I cannot believe the statements 

that I have been hearing from the other side of the aisle. 

This is an interim report. They are asking for comments. The 

comments seem to suggest that they shouldn’t have a task force. 

Well, the Congress set it up. All the rhetoric. ‘‘We want limited 

government, freedom in our country, no regulated markets,’’ on and 

on and on. 

Well, let me tell my Republican friends, if we did nothing, the 

epidemic of obesity in children is not going to stop. It is going to 

continue. The food manufacturers and advertisers are not going to 

change what has been working for them, because what has been 

working for them is adding to their profits. 

So somebody should do something. If not government suggesting 

ideas, will industry act on its own? 

I just find this an amazing hearing. The only thing I can analogize it to is the hearing we had, after all of the tobacco issues that 

we discussed for many years, the Republicans took charge, and we 

never heard anything more about tobacco. And suddenly we had a 

hearing about tobacco, and the hearing was how smokeless tobacco 

should be encouraged as a way for smokers to give up smoking. It 

was geared to promoting an industry that no doubt supported financially many of the Members. I wonder if this hearing is about 

the same subject. 

I yield back my time. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the gentleman, and now we will turn 

our attention to the panel. 

Our first panel of witnesses will include William Dietz, Director 

of the Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity at the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Then we have Dr. 

Robert Post, Deputy Director of the Center for Nutrition Policy and 

Promotion at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. And then David 

Vladeck, Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission. 

Thank you all very much for coming today. We have your prepared statements in front of us all, and we recognize you to summarize them. And we will begin with you, Dr. Dietz. 

STATEMENTS OF WILLIAM H. DIETZ, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF 

NUTRITION, PHYSICAL ACTIVITY, AND OBESITY, CENTERS 

FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, DEPARTMENT 

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; ROBERT POST, DEPUTY 

DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR NUTRITION POLICY AND PROMOTION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE; AND DAVID C. 

VLADECK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF CONSUMER PROTECTION, 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM H. DIETZ 

Mr. DIETZ. Thank you, Chairwoman Bono Mack and members of 

the subcommittees. It is a great honor for me to be here today to 

talk to you about the Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Excuse me, Doctor. Would you please pull the 

microphone closer to your mouth and make sure that it is turned 

on? 

22 

Mr. DIETZ. Is this better? 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Yes, thank you. 

Mr. DIETZ. Before coming to CDC, I was a professor of pediatrics 

at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston; and I am a prior 

President of the Obesity Society and prior President of the American Society for Clinical Nutrition. My statement provides background on the burden of childhood obesity and cardiovascular disease risk factors, a discussion of how advertising and the marketing of foods and beverages influence the diets of children and 

youth, and an overview of the Institute of Medicine’s 2006 report 

on food marketed to children and youth. 

The 2 greatest diet-related health threats to children and adolescents in the United States are obesity and the development of cardiovascular disease risk factors. Our most recent data indicate that 

17 percent of U.S. children and adolescents are obese. 

The caloric imbalance necessary to reverse the obesity epidemic 

in children is surprisingly small and ranges from 30 to 170 calories, depending on the age of the child. Modest shifts in consumption can reduce this excess. 

Obese children are at a greater risk for a variety of health conditions. Approximately 30 percent of obese children have high blood 

pressure, 10 percent of all children have elevated cholesterol, and 

obesity increases the risk of elevated cholesterol even further. 

Obese children also have an increased risk of Type 2 diabetes 

and multiple other health problems. Virtually every system in the 

body is affected. 

In addition, obesity may lead to severe psychological and social 

problems, such as absenteeism from school, discrimination, victimization, and poor self-esteem. 

Although elevated blood pressure and elevated cholesterol accompany obesity, sodium and saturated fat in the diets are also important contributors. Reductions in salt intake could decrease adult 

heart attacks by 9 percent and adult strokes by 14 percent. 

The poor quality of the diets of 0- to 5-year-old children is emphasized by recent data from the feeding infants and toddler study 

conducted by Nestle. This study showed that 45 percent of 1- to 2- 

year-old children and 78 percent of 2- to 4-year-old children have 

sodium intakes above the upper limit recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. 75 percent of children consume excessive saturated fat. Approximately 30 percent of children consumed 

no vegetables on the survey day, and 20 to 30 percent of children 

consumed no fruit. Approximately 30 percent of children are consuming pre-sweetened cereals. High-caloric-density foods are frequently consumed as snacks, and almost 40 percent of 2- to 4-yearold children consume fruit-flavored drinks daily. These dietary patterns increase the risk of obesity and cardiovascular disease. 

Furthermore, food marketing to children leads to increased consumption of foods of low nutritional value. The 2006 IOM report on 

food marketing concluded that, quote, food and beverage marketing 

practices geared to children and youth are out of balance with 

healthful diets and contribute to an environment that puts their 

health at risk. Specifically, the IOM report found that in 2- to 11- 

year-olds there is strong evidence of the effect of food marketing on 

food and beverage preferences, food and beverage purchases, food 

23 

and purchase requests, short-term consumption, and moderate evidence on the effects of food advertising on food and beverage beliefs 

and usual dietary intake among 2 to 5-year-olds. 

We also know that there is a linear relationship between television viewing and obesity, and it appears that food marketing to 

children plays an important role. The more television a child 

watches, the more likely they are to consume foods while watching 

television, and those foods are more likely to be the foods that are 

advertised on television. 

Furthermore, several studies have now shown that reductions in 

television time are associated with weight reduction without increases in physical activity. This observation suggests that the effects of television on childhood obesity are not due to television 

viewing displacing more vigorous physical activity. Multiple studies 

have shown that among products marketed most frequently to children are sugar sweetened beverages, sugar sweetened cereals, restaurant foods, and salty snacks, the same types of foods that contribute to obesity and cardiovascular disease risk factors. Foods 

containing meaningful amounts of fruits, vegetables, or whole 

grains are rarely advertised. 

We want to support parents in providing healthful foods to their 

children. The advertising directed at children prompts them to nag 

their parents to purchase the products that are marketed to them. 

The high-fat, high-salt, and h-i-g-h sugar foods consumed as a result of these ads increases the risk of obesity and cardiovascular 

disease, while the provision of meaningful amounts of healthful alternatives to these foods reduces these risks. The Interagency 

Working Group is committed to developing principles for foods marketed to children that can improve the health of our children and 

ultimately reduce health care costs. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dietz follows:] 

24 


77930.008
25 


77930.009
26 


77930.010
27 


77930.011
28 


77930.012
29 


77930.013
30 


77930.014
31 


77930.015
32 


77930.016
33 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you, Dr. Dietz. 

Dr. Post, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT POST 

Mr. POST. Thank you. 

Chairman Bono Mack and Chairman Pitts and members of the 

committee and subcommittees, it is an honor to have this opportunity to provide this statement for today’s hearing on the Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children. 

I am Dr. Robert Post. I am Deputy Director for the Center for 

Nutrition Policy and Promotion in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. I represent USDA on the IWG. 

My role of reviewing the technical basis for the IWG’s nutrition 

principles is commensurate with my role as the policy official leading the development of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. 

The current epidemic of overweight and obese children in the 

United States is a major concern for USDA. The 2010 Dietary 

Guidelines for Americans reports that eating patterns established 

in childhood often track into later life, making early intervention 

on adopting healthy nutrition and physical activity behaviors a priority. 

As you know, the USDA supports a number of food and nutrition 

policies and programs that aim to improve not only the nutrition 

but also the overall health and well-being of America’s youth. Primary prevention of obesity and related risk factors is the single 

most powerful public health approach to reversing America’s obesity epidemic over the long term. Lifelong habits are developed 

throughout childhood, and every opportunity should be provided to 

build healthy habits at the earliest stages of life. 

Among the strategies reported in the dietary guidelines that can 

be used to help create and promote healthy lifestyles for children 

is supporting effective policies to limit food and beverage marketing 

of unhealthy products to children. Since May 2009, the IWG has 

met regularly to study and assess the science, critically examine 

the components of voluntary efforts already being employed by various organizations, and exhaustively work through scenarios of applying different criteria to individual foods and foods marketed as 

meals. 

To satisfy the directive of the 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Act, 

which called for the creation of the IWG, the working group reviewed the 2010 Dietary Guideline Advisory Committee’s comprehensive report on nutrition research, the Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans, regulations promulgated by the FDA and USDA concerning nutrient content and health claims, and relevant IOM reports, as well as nutrition standards developed by industry groups 

and various public and private entities prior to developing recommendations. The recommendations represent voluntary recommendations that might inform and guide industry efforts to voluntarily change the promotion of foods and beverages to children. 

Based on this study, in April of 2011, the IWG released for public 

comment a draft set of preliminary proposed nutrition principles 

for foods marketed to children and solicited public comment on the 

draft recommendations to gain insights on the practicality and feasibility of the proposed recommendations that would be in a report 

34 

to Congress. About 29,000 comments were received, 100 or so of 

which provided substantive discussion of the tentative proposed nutrition recommendations. 

Also during this period, the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, CFBAI, and its participants released a new set of 

food-category-specific uniform nutrition criteria that are being 

adopted by all members of the CFBAI. The CFBAI is a voluntary 

self-regulation program comprising many of the Nation’s largest 

food and beverage companies. It is designed to encourage advertising of healthier dietary choices to children under the age of 12. 

There are 17 food manufacturers and restaurant chains that have 

signed on to this effort. 

The newly released criteria represent a significant change on 

how the program operates, as each participating company has now 

agreed to follow a unified set of nutrition criteria. The goal is that 

participating companies will adopt these new criteria by December 

31, 2013. According to the organization, its new criteria impose significant challenges on the participating companies and require reformulation of many of their products if they wish to continue advertising them after the criteria go into affect. The CFBAI estimates that one-third of the products currently advertised to children do not meet the criteria. 

On review, it appears that with the new uniform criteria, the industry has made considerable efforts to design and reformulate its 

products closer to the principles tentatively proposed by the IWG. 

The new nutrition criteria of the CFBAI appear to be a step forward in changing the food advertising landscape, while also taking 

into consideration the feasibility of manufacturers making meaningful changes to the nutrient content of food products. 

There are many aspects—or several aspects—of the criteria that 

are helpful in simplifying the IWG’s preliminary approach. Overall, 

the CFBAI standards present in many respects a reasonable set of 

criteria to consider for revising the IWG preliminary proposal. 

While the criteria represent a very good start towards the marketing of healthier foods, food manufacturers should continue to 

work in improving the nutritional content of foods that they intend 

to market to children. We believe that additional changes to nutrition principles for advertising can be considered over time, and we 

believe that manufacturers will in fact make earnest progress. 

Thank you very much, Chairman and members of the committee 

and subcommittees, for this opportunity to provide USDA’s views. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Post follows:] 

35 


77930.017
36 


77930.018
37 


77930.019
38 


77930.020
39 


77930.021
40 


77930.022
41 


77930.023
42 


77930.024
43 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you, Dr. Post. 

Mr. Vladeck, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID C. VLADECK 

Mr. VLADECK. Good morning, Chairman Bono Mack and members of the subcommittee. I am David Vladeck, Director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss the important 

issue of food marketing to children. 

Every parent knows how difficult it is to get children to eat a 

healthy diet. We rarely see children having tantrums in the 

produce aisles pleading for mom or dad to load up the shopping 

cart with broccoli or Brussels sprouts. Indeed, a cottage industry 

has formed to advise parents on ways to smuggle healthy ingredients into foods their children will eat. 

The FTC wants to support parents in their challenging quest to 

get their kids to eat healthier foods, including, by the way, yogurt, 

peanut butter, Cheerios, some of the other foods that were mentioned this morning. But let me be clear about this. Not by issuing 

regulations. The FTC has long encouraged strong and meaningful 

industry self-regulation. We have sent reports to Congress with 

recommendations on a broad range of self-regulatory initiatives, including media violence and alcohol marketing, in addition to food 

marketing to children. 

Regardless of what role marketing may or may not play in the 

problem of childhood obesity, the marketing ingenuity of America’s 

food manufacturers and entertainment providers can be an important part of the solution. The Commission began to focus on the 

issue of childhood obesity in July, 2005, when the FTC and the Department of Health and Human Services held a workshop on marketing, self-regulation, and childhood obesity which, by the way, 

sparked the industry self-regulatory program. 

Several months ago, acting pursuant to a bipartisan directive 

from Congress, the working group released for comment proposed 

recommendations for voluntary industry self-regulation—voluntary 

industry self-regulation. 29,000 comments were received. 

Now, Congress did not require us to seek public comment or engage with stakeholders, but we did so because we wanted the working group process that was used to shape these recommendations 

to be as open and transparent as possible. And because it is ultimately up to the food companies to decide whether to adopt the 

guidelines, we needed their input to ensure that our recommendations to Congress would be attainable for industry. 

The working group took Congress’ directive seriously, and the 

draft recommendations we issued were ambitious. As we studied 

the comments, however, we realized that perhaps we were too ambitious. 

One significant comment came from the Children’s Food and 

Beverage Advertising Initiative, the industry self-regulatory group, 

the CFBAI. The CFBAI’s comments announced substantial improvements in its self-regulatory program, not just by tightening 

standards but most notably by adopting uniform nutritional criteria for its 17 member companies, making the program much more 

transparent and strong. 

44 

The framework of the CFBAI program has much to commend it, 

and I am confident that this framework will be reflected in the 

final working group report. But the FTC’s focus and expertise is on 

marketing, not nutrition. So let me highlight for you the 3 most 

significant marketing changes that I contemplate with respect to 

the final working group report. Of course, these changes will have 

to be approved by the Commission and the other working group 

agencies, but I believe that these changes will focus the final report 

on ads targeted directly to children and will thereby avoid having 

the working group’s recommendations covering marketing activities 

that are family oriented or directed to a more general audience. 

First, I anticipate that the final report will not encompass adolescents 12 to 17 within the scope of covered marketing, except for 

certain in-school marketing activities; second, philanthropic activities, entertainment and sporting events also do not appear to warrant inclusion with marketing that is child directed; and, third, I 

do not anticipate that the final report will recommend that food 

companies change the trade dress elements of their packaging or 

remove brand equity characters from food products that do not 

meet the nutritional recommendations. 

Parents don’t have an easy task when it comes to getting their 

kids to eat healthier foods. The FTC is committed to working with 

its sister agencies and all stakeholders to make that burden on 

parents less daunting. 

On behalf of the Commission, I would like to thank the committee and subcommittees for this opportunity to present testimony 

on this important issue. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vladeck follows:] 

45 


77930.025
46 


77930.026
47 


77930.027
48 


77930.028
49 


77930.029
50 


77930.030
51 


77930.031
52 


77930.032
53 


77930.033
54 


77930.034
55 


77930.035
56 


77930.036
57 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you, Mr. Vladeck. 

The Chair will recognize herself for the first 5 minutes of questioning, and I will start with you, Mr. Vladeck. It is good to see you 

again. A different issue that we are working on today. 

But before I go to you, I just want to sort of answer something 

that Mr. Waxman had said. He and I had worked together on tobacco issues. I have been a staunch supporter of the anti-tobacco 

work both on the Federal level and the State. And I also have been 

working very hard to address the issue of prescription drug abuse 

in our adolescents, and I wish that the panel would devote as much 

attention to that as we are to this. 

You spoke about kids having tantrums in the vegetable aisles. 

When I was a child—I am having flashbacks to my own childhood 

as I sit here and listen to you. And I remember being forced—I 

don’t know if anybody in the audience was forced to eat cooked 

liver as a child, but it would smell up the house—clearly, some people were—it would smell up the house for a week. But our mothers 

thought it was good for us. And you know what? They made us eat 

it because they thought it was good for us. 

But I have been looking at this issue of childhood obesity for 

years. Dr. Frist and I introduced a bill years ago, the IMPACT Act, 

to try to address this problem. 

But I don’t think this is the answer. I don’t think we are there 

yet. And I recognize all of the work you have done, and I am happy 

to continue to work with you, but I just don’t think we are there 

yet. 

And, Mr. Vladeck, you testified that the FTC is currently completing a follow-up study of food marketing to children to its 2008 

study, and it will submit it to Congress later this year. Shouldn’t 

the working group report wait at a minimum until the FTC has 

concluded that study and the study required by the 2009 appropriations language? And wouldn’t the working group benefit from 

the FTC’s report? 

Mr. VLADECK. I think that that is a possible approach. 

We are, of course, dealing with a mandate from Congress that required us to finish our work a year ago; and, as has been pointed 

out on numerous occasions this morning, we are late. This has been 

a complicated task, and part of the delay has been occasioned by 

our effort to engage closely with stakeholders. 

This process has been a long one in part because we have held 

2 workshops, we have solicited comments. Industry has, to its credit, come forward with a dramatic shift in its own self-regulatory approach that we need to take into account. 

I don’t know whether at this point it makes sense for us to wait 

for what will be at least another 6 months or so while we analyze 

the data that we got from industry. I think my colleagues’ testimony this morning makes this clear. I think we are at a point 

where I wouldn’t say that there is clear convergence between the 

working group and industry, but the gap has been narrowed to a 

point where I think we should go ahead, try to finish up. These are 

voluntary guidelines. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Let me jump ahead again why I think we are 

missing the boat and I think it is a mistake. Because one hand of 

government doesn’t want to talk to the other or wait to work toVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:28 Jun 06, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-09~1\112-94~1 WAYNE
58 

gether collaboratively on this. And I will turn to Dr. Post and Dr. 

Dietz for their answer to this. 

I grew up as a gymnast and I would spend an awful lot of time 

in the gym as a child. I mean, I am 5’7’’. It was kind of a dumb 

sport to do when you are a kid being so tall, but I did it. I grew 

up—I literally grew up on SpaghettiO’s and some other cereal. 

That is what I would eat every day. 

You testified that you do not believe that the lack of exercise is 

contributing to this problem. I believe that is what I heard Dr. Post 

say, that you have—is that what you said? I might have misheard 

you. What is the interplay between exercise and diet? Where does 

it come in? 

Mr. POST. In fact, the 2010 Dietary Guidelines stress that we 

are, in fact, at energy imbalance. We need to balance our calories 

with physical exercise. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. What does that mean to a mother? You are basically saying that the amount of television and what you eat, that 

it doesn’t matter. That is really what you said. Again, I think you 

all are trying to throw a panacea out there. 

And I will tell you as a mom—this is even far more complicated 

than that. Mothers are looking for time and answers to, you know, 

how do we raise our children when we are busy working and how 

do we do it. Maybe we have to look at the fact that mothers are 

busy and stressed and it is easier to grab a box from the center 

aisle than to go to the produce aisles. 

But this troubles me, because I am convinced that our children 

have to get active. And if they were active, they wouldn’t be watching the TV and they might not see the ads that you are afraid of. 

Is that not true? 

Mr. POST. We are very supportive in all of our programs at 

USDA to balance the idea of energy and physical activity or calories in. I think, though, that the comment was made by Dr. Dietz 

in the connection between advertising—— 

Mrs. BONO MACK. OK. Can Dr. Dietz then have the last 22 seconds to solve this problem for me—in 22 seconds? 

Mr. DIETZ. I think physical activity in children is critically important, and the best data we have suggests that it has declined 

over time. It is certainly a contributor. But one of the things about 

obesity is that I don’t think any single answer is going to work. I 

think that we require a multisectoral, a multicomponent approach; 

and physical activity is one of those approaches. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you. My time has expired. And I appreciate your answer very much. 

The Chair will recognize Mr. Butterfield for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I thank the chairman. 

Mr. Vladeck, in the Trade Commission’s memo accompanying the 

release of the proposed standards back in April, the Federal Trade 

Commission indicated that the goal was to steer children away 

from foods of little or no nutritional value. My question is, what 

evidence do you have that cereal and foods the FDA has deemed 

healthy are foods of little or no nutritional value? 

Mr. VLADECK. Well, I will ultimately refer that question to my 

colleagues who work for the nutrition agencies. 

59 

The way our approach worked was quite simple. We want to encourage kids to eat healthy foods that make meaningful contributions to diet. Many cereals do that. And we wanted to discourage 

kids from eating foods that do not make a meaningful contribution 

to their diet. How the FDA and USDA categorize foods, that is not 

the FTC’s expertise. And I would defer to my colleagues. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. All right. Dr. Dietz, Dr. Post, do you want to 

try that one? 

Mr. DIETZ. One of the principles that we included was that foods 

marketed to children should contain a meaningful amount of a food 

to encourage according to the dietary guidelines, such as fruits, 

vegetables, whole grains, or dairy. So it was less about restricting 

advertising and more about encouraging the advertising of foods 

that would contribute to a healthy diet. 

Mr. POST. And to add to that, of course, the idea is that we need 

to consume less often certain food constituents like sodium and 

saturated fat, and certainly added sugars. So there was an emphasis, here again, to promote the more healthful choices out there and 

empower parents with the ability to make those choices for their 

children. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. As I recall, Congress directed the working 

group to include in its study consideration of the role of calories in 

obesity. But it seems that the working group did not include calories in the standards. That is despite the fact that the working 

group members have consistently said balancing calories in against 

calories out is the most effective way for consumers to maintain a 

healthy weight. 

For example, the FDA has said that although there is much discussion about, one, the appropriate makeup of diet in terms of relative proportions of micronutrients and, two, the foods that provide 

those micronutrients for maintenance of a healthy body weight, it 

is the consumption and expenditure of calories that is most important. Health and Human Services has said that a calorie is a calorie is a calorie, whether it comes from fat or carbohydrates. Anything eaten in excess can lead to weight gain. You can lose weight 

by eating less calories and by increasing your physical activity. 

Despite Congress’ directive to consider calories, and despite your 

own agency’s statements that calories are the key to maintaining 

a healthy weight, your proposal it seems does not address calories. 

Help me with this, please, either one of you. 

Mr. POST. Yes. I would be happy to. The thresholds for the added 

sugars and the solid fats are a way to get to the calories issue. By 

setting thresholds, some level, the tentative or the preliminary proposal, in fact, had a proxy for the calories issue. And by promoting 

food groups like low-fat and fat-free dairy, more nutrient-dense 

foods, fruits and vegetables, that is also a way of decreasing calories from added sugars and solid fats. So we dealt with the calories issue by the types of nutrients and food components that are 

the subject of the proposal. 

Mr. DIETZ. Just to add to that, we were compelled by the capacity of certain foods to auto-regulate weight independent of calories. 

So we knew that low energy density foods, foods that contained 

fewer calories per gram, such as fruits and vegetables, were more 

filling than other foods. And in addition, we knew that fiber inVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:28 Jun 06, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-09~1\112-94~1 WAYNE
60 

creased the regulation of satiety. So that if those foods contained 

a meaningful amount of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, satiety would be automatically regulated independent of calories. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. I am going to start this question. I might have 

to finish it during the second round. Dr. Dietz, industry is concerned about obesity. In fact, broadcasters donate a tremendous 

amount of time to produce and air public service announcements, 

including anti-obesity public service announcements to their viewers and listeners. Earlier this year, NAB coordinated a let’s move 

flash workout, featuring Beyonce, in support of First Lady Obama’s 

initiative aimed at curbing childhood obesity. Middle school kids 

across the country participated in this endeavor, as well as local 

radio and television stations, to underscore the importance of physical activity as part of a healthy lifestyle for children. 

I am going to continue this question, Madam Chairman, in the 

second round. I yield back. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I appreciate that. The Chair now recognizes 

Mr. Pitts for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I apologize for having 

stepped out to testify in front of the Rules Committee. In fiscal 

year 2009, Congress explicitly directed the IWG to complete a 

study and a report to Congress. However, the guidelines you released in late April did not include a study, and the guidelines you 

developed are directed to industry, not a report to Congress. 

I have a series of questions here that each of you can respond 

to. Have you calculated the impact of your food marketing restrictions on charitable organizations like food banks, Dr. Dietz? 

Mr. DIETZ. No, we did not. That was not part of the scope of the 

report as we were instructed. 

Mr. PITTS. OK. Have you calculated the impact of your food marketing restrictions on jobs in the food industry? Any of you can respond. 

Mr. DIETZ. No, we have not. And I know that some numbers 

have been promoted today that suggest that jobs will be lost. And 

I think one of the people on the second panel is going to present 

data which contradicts that assertion. 

Mr. PITTS. What about have you calculated the impact of your 

food marketing restrictions on jobs in the broadcasting industry or 

cable? 

Mr. DIETZ. No, we have not, although we think that food advertising, food marketing to children will continue, and that for example the promotion of healthy products that would replace those that 

are currently advertised would result in no loss of jobs in the advertising industry. 

Mr. VLADECK. Can I add one comment? 

Mr. PITTS. Yes, Mr. Vladeck. 

Mr. VLADECK. The CFBAI proposal, which sort of moves the discussion in ways that we had not anticipated when we issued our 

preliminary report, I think reflect industry’s view that it can move 

ahead without sacrificing economically. I assume that the CFBAI 

proposal is based on industry’s clear-eyed assessment of the costs 

and benefits of making these changes to their products. And so, you 

know, part of the concerns that you are raising I think go to the 

economic rationality of our proposal. I think that, you know, there 

61 

has been a change in the game. And it is not at all clear to me that 

those concerns are necessarily going to have traction given where 

the industry itself has moved to. 

Mr. PITTS. Well, what about did you consider the impact of your 

food marketing restrictions on the price of food? 

Mr. VLADECK. Sir, we asked comment broadly in large measure 

to have a dialogue with stakeholders, including food producers and 

marketers, about what would be the impact of adoption of these 

guidelines. So, you know, those are the kinds of issues that we 

tried to discuss. We did not get in our comments any information 

of the kind that you have just identified. This was not an issue that 

was raised by any of the 29,000 commenters that commented on 

the preliminary draft. 

Mr. PITTS. OK. The nutrition standards underlying your proposal 

are inconsistent with, and stricter than the standards for the 

standards USDA applies to school lunches or the WIC program. 

Does it make sense that the government has two sets of nutrition 

standards, one for the food a child can be served in school and a 

second for a food advertisement a child can see on a cartoon network? And why? 

Mr. POST. The thread that holds all of the food nutrition programs together in the Federal sector is the Dietary Guidelines for 

Americans. And that, in fact, is the foundation that sets directional 

approaches for nutrients and foods: more food groups, less of the 

nutrients of health concern. And so that is, in fact, the way all of 

our efforts are joined. When it comes to differences between the 

IWG’s proposal and programs like WIC, we have got to understand 

that these are programs that focus on a particular need for a particular circumstance or a client that has particular nutritional 

needs. So the market baskets would be different and the food meal 

patterns would be different for postpartum moms, for children up 

to 5 years who are looking for nutritional assistance. And the same 

thing would apply to the school program, where a complete meal 

is depended on for giving the nutrients and the food groups that 

a student needs. So you would see those differences. There really 

isn’t a valid comparison. But the foundation is the same. And that 

is the dietary guidelines for Americans. 

Mr. PITTS. If private industry—my time is almost up—is already 

doing this, doesn’t that mean that government action isn’t necessary? 

Mr. VLADECK. We were asked by Congress to submit a report, 

and we will do that. I think that government action here is simply 

giving our views about what would be the kinds of foods we would 

like to see marketed to kids. Again, I can’t stress enough that these 

are voluntary guidelines. And our mandate was to help give guidance to industry. And that is what we are trying do. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. My time has expired. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes 

Mr. Engel for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Vladeck, I am glad 

you reemphasized voluntary guidelines, because this is all that this 

is. I have heard some comments from my friends on the other side 

of the aisle that I really just find incredulous. I mean if we want 

to have the head in the sand approach and pretend that obesity is 

62 

not a problem, or know that it is a problem but have this sort of 

visceral reaction to government doing anything about anything, 

then I think we are really just frankly kidding ourselves. There can 

be no substitute for the family. There can be no substitute for parents. Government is not in it to substitute. But I think that government, the panel of professionals and people doing this report can 

help guide us. You know, I am a father of three. My kids are grown 

now. Any help that I could get I would take. And what responsible 

parent wouldn’t do it? 

So rather than being attacked for government intrusion or other 

such nonsense, you know, we should be saying thank you, because 

I think your report helps all of us as parents and all of us as a 

country. Obesity is a problem that we can’t ignore, and we need engagement from all sides. Of course responsible parenting, as well 

as industry participation, government participation. I mean working together, you know, maybe we can get at this problem. We have 

directed FDA and FTC and CDC and USDA to come up with these 

proposals. And I think that the proposal you have all come up with 

is a reasonable response that all parties should be able to support. 

It is a voluntary proposal, and it meets the industry more than 

halfway. And it is a positive step forward as we all work together. Now, let’s look at some statistics. Obesity costs the country $147 

billion per year in direct medical costs, which is over 9 percent of 

all medical spending. And economists have calculated that the total 

economic cost of the obesity epidemic nears $270 billion per year. 

Kids would just have one of the testimonies here before, I think it 

was Dr. Post talked about kids drinking Kool-Aid or whatever it is. 

They don’t eat fruit. They don’t drink things. And this is something 

that we have perpetuated on these kids. 

I want to just ask you about industry self-regulation. I am told 

that the percentage of unhealthy TV food advertisements has decreased significantly since industry tried to self-regulate in 2006. Is 

that true? Is it not true? How is the industry self-regulation working, in your opinion? 

Mr. DIETZ. There was a recent paper which indicated that the 

products advertised by adherence of CFBAI decreased by about 10 

percent, but were replaced by an increase in fast food restaurant 

advertising. I would describe that as a modest change. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, I think that that shows that we still have a lot 

of work do, and that if we can use some commonsense approaches, 

which is what you are doing with these voluntary guidelines, I 

think it is very important. You know, Mr. Waxman before raised 

tobacco. I mean I have been in this Congress long enough to remember when the tobacco industry came and sat right in front of 

us and told us that tobacco was not something that had injury, that 

tobacco was just fine. And the industry resented it, and resisted for 

years and years. I mean we now have stamped on cigarettes that 

tobacco kills, yet people buy tobacco and smoke them. I mean we 

are not talking about a panel that intrudes into people’s lives and 

tells them what they can or cannot do. We are talking about a report that helps us understand the problem and helps us to take 

steps as a country to ameliorate the problem. 

So I just want to thank you, and unless you have anything else 

to add, I will yield back my time. Because I think that it is so unVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:28 Jun 06, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-09~1\112-94~1 WAYNE
63 

fair for people to portray this as obtrusive, big government. It is 

just nonsense. This is something that Congress directed you to do. 

I think it is a guideline. As a parent, I would have wanted to have 

this guideline. And I listened to all your testimony, and I just want 

to thank you for the good work you are doing. I yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS [presiding]. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus, for 5 minutes for 

questions. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And sorry I missed 

your opening testimony. I had to go to the Rules Committee on another bill. So obviously, I have had a good opportunity to evaluate 

your opening statements, along with what was involved with the 

letter sent by Members to kind of raise issues of concern based 

upon the Senate language that asked for you all to do that. 

I guess the first question is you all were asked, through the language in the bill, to actually do a report back. Is that correct? 

Mr. VLADECK. Yes. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So Mr. Vladeck says yes. And what we have seen 

is guidelines being offered, which for us has a concern that we 

don’t have the full report. We just had a submission, or the proposed guidelines. Now, to my good friend from New York State and 

the city, our concern is that when these guidelines are not voluntary, they will be in essence the force of law. And if I look at 

the top 100 most commonly consumed foods, beef burgers, I just 

had one for lunch—I am not a child any more—beef burger, hamburger, 95 percent lean, one patty cooked and bun doesn’t make it. 

Bottled water, noncarbonated. Bottled water doesn’t make it. Egg 

scrambled. Egg scrambled, made with added fat and salt, doesn’t 

make it. Hot cereal, a leading instant oatmeal, raisin, prepared 

with water does not make it. Leaf salad, iceberg lettuce chopped 

with salad dressing, light ranch, doesn’t make the list, doesn’t 

make it because of the dressing, the sodium in the dressing. That 

is our problem with the government. That is the problem with— 

you know, when I go home, my constituents are saying government 

is too big, it costs too much, get out of things that it really has no 

constitutional right to be delving in. The ability of parents to adequately take care of their kids, feed them what the parents would 

like the kids to be fed, the nutritional issues, to have big government do this, this is really bizarre. 

And so I am glad we have had this hearing today. And I guess 

the question is—I mean we already talked about it, we would like 

to see the science based before guidelines, a true analysis of this. 

But let me go to a question for Director Vladeck. 

Can you comment on the role taken by FTC during the Interagency Working Group process related to appropriate nutritional 

levels? What did you all do? 

Mr. VLADECK. Well, our expertise is more in the marketing side 

than the nutrition side. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Exactly. 

Mr. VLADECK. Though I think it is important to note, Congressman, that many of the foods that you mentioned as somehow being 

excluded by the draft guidelines, I don’t believe that is correct. I 

64 

think that Dr. Post would love a minute to just sort of clear up the 

record on this issue. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, we can have you submit additional comments for the record. Let me go on and continue on this line of 

questioning to Mr. Vladeck. Did FTC make any judgments or issue 

specific recommendations on this topic informally or formally during the Interagency Working Group? The question is what has the 

FTC done on—I mean if you question my analysis of the food 

groups based upon—I don’t want to know what Dr. Post did. I want 

to know the FTC’s involvement in the health analysis of these 

foods. And is that a role that you have any expertise in? 

Mr. VLADECK. This is not our area of expertise, no. We were certainly at the table, but I think it is fair to say the nutrition guidelines were principally the product of the expert agencies, the Food 

and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and 

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yet here is an FTC memo questioning the USDA 

on their nutritional standards. So you all are questioning the 

USDA, who should have the expertise on nutritional aspects. Our 

concern is you are playing the role of food analysis, when you 

should be in advertising and the like. And I yield back my time. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and yields to the 

ranking member emeritus, Mr. Dingell, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. DINGELL. You are very kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Like 

everybody in this room, I am troubled about children’s nutrition. 

But the process by which we arrive at good standards is a matter 

of great importance to me. I note that in 2009 the working group 

was, and I quote, directed to conduct a study and develop recommendations for standards for the marketing of food when such 

marketing targets children who are 17 years old or younger. Now, 

that was not done. I find myself curious, because here you are coming forward with guidelines. Congress has suggested that you 

should tell us what is going on. You have not done so. We find that 

this gives us real problems in terms of understanding what is to 

be done or should be done. And we have to think that you, despite 

the fact that you are hired full-time to work on these matters, will 

be having equal difficulty. 

Now, according to your testimony, the guidelines you released in 

April are not based on any new studies conducted by the working 

group’s agencies. Is that correct? Yes or no? Yes or no? 

Mr. POST. We did—— 

Mr. DINGELL. I don’t have a lot of time. Yes or no? 

Mr. POST. No new study. 

Mr. DINGELL. No new studies. The guidelines you developed are 

directed at industry, and not a report to Congress. Is that correct? 

Mr. POST. Excuse me? No. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, you note in your testimony that the working 

group recommendations, quote, will cover all the most important 

aspects of children’s marketing, without being unduly restrictive. 

Did the working group weigh any cost-benefits that the recommendations would have on industry? Yes or no? Either Mr. 

Vladeck or Mr. Dietz, you may proceed. 

Mr. VLADECK. Not in the way you are describing it, no. 

Mr. DINGELL. OK. Now, does industry agree on this? Yes or no? 

65 

Mr. DIETZ. More or less. 

Mr. DINGELL. OK. Now, you note in your testimony that FTC has 

long been an advocate for strong and meaningful self-regulation. I 

happen to agree with that, and I happen to have been a strong supporter of that. In the instance of food marketing, industry has been 

self-regulating marketing to children to ensure that foods advertised are healthier since 2006. And this is to Mr. Vladeck. Do you 

believe that the industry’s self-regulation of food marketing to children has helped to ensure the products advertised to children and 

their parents are healthier? Yes or no? 

Mr. VLADECK. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. OK. Now, as you know, the Children’s Food and 

Beverage Advertising Initiative recently released recommendations 

to improve nutritional standards of food marketed to children that 

member companies must meet by December 31, 2013. Do you believe that these recommendations will help to improve the nutritional content of products advertised to children? Yes or no? Again, 

Mr. Vladeck. 

Mr. VLADECK. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Have you consulted with industry and do you have 

their comments or agreement? Yes or no? 

Mr. VLADECK. We have had lots of comments from industry, yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, do you believe that these recommendations 

will help encourage development of healthier foods for children? 

Yes or no? 

Mr. VLADECK. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, will the working group take into consideration the set of nutrition principles set forth in the initiative before 

finalizing its own guidelines? Yes or no? 

Mr. VLADECK. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, I would like to focus for a moment on breakfast cereal—this is a major product of my home State of Michigan—and the science regarding the relationship between cereal 

consumption and body weights. Specifically, I note that several significant studies appearing in the Journal of the American Dietetic 

Association, including a study conducted by the NIH’s National 

Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, established that children who eat 

cereal frequently are less likely to be overweight than those who 

eat it less frequently. The result was obtained for all age ranges. 

But to take an example from one of the studies, kids 7 to 9 who 

eat cereal eight or more times per 14 days are three times less likely to be overweight than kids who eat cereal zero to three servings 

per cereal in a 14-day period. In fact, dietary guidelines recommended eating nutrient-dense breakfast, and suggested that not 

eating breakfast is associated with excess body weight, especially 

among children and adolescents. Eating breakfast has also been associated with weight loss and weight loss maintenance. 

Shouldn’t we perhaps be encouraging kids to eat more cereal as 

a part of a healthy breakfast instead of a less amount of this as 

the preliminary proposal would do? Yes or no? I will take Mr. 

Vladeck on that. 

Mr. POST. No. We support breakfast cereal. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, like all members of this committee and the 

witnesses before us, I believe strongly we must address the rising 

66 

issue of children obesity in this country. It is costly for health and 

future success of the country, and it is costly to our health system. 

So as we work to address this issue, though, we must ensure that 

the actions and guidelines proposed by the Federal Government do 

not negatively impact business, industry, and job creation. 

One more question, and I know I am beyond my time, Mr. Chairman, but I am curious, how do you assure us that these voluntary 

guidelines will not become grafted into the law as a statement of 

government policy or something which will achieve a mandatory 

impact upon industry? 

Mr. VLADECK. We have issued—— 

Mr. DINGELL. How are we to ensure that some lawsuit or some 

good lawyer at some future time is not going to say, oh, these 

guidelines say this, and therefore these people have done a significant hurt, have committed a tort, and this class action is going to 

be decided against them? 

Mr. VLADECK. Sorry, I didn’t mean to interrupt. 

Mr. DINGELL. Pardon? 

Mr. VLADECK. Were you finished? I didn’t mean to—— 

Mr. DINGELL. I am more than finished. I am over my time by a 

minute and 21 seconds. 

Mr. PITTS. You may respond if you wish. 

Mr. VLADECK. There is this myth that somehow voluntary guidelines will be the foundation of litigation brought against the food 

companies. We have not ever seen any evidence of that kind of litigation being brought. We issue voluntary guidelines on a number 

of topics, including seven reports to Congress on media violence 

that suggests all sorts of industry self-regulatory proposals. Industry has adopted them to some extent, but not completely. We have 

never seen litigation on that. The Supreme Court recently relied 

heavily on our self-regulatory proposals in Brown v. Merchant Education Enterprises, this was the video violence case that the Court 

resolved last term, cited extensively to our research on this issue 

and talked about the industry compliance. Some parts of the industry comply, some do not. It has never been the trigger of litigation. 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and 

yields to the gentleman from Kentucky, Mr. Guthrie, for 5 minutes 

for questions. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some of the concerns 

that we have when we have these kind of situations, I was at a 

rock quarry on Monday, and a Federal prosecutor went to a rock 

quarry because the garbage can was overflowing. And in the whole 

criteria of safety in the section that the inspector looked at, part 

of it was are you having workers at high altitude not strapped, and 

another one is can you close the lid on the garbage can. So that 

is where you get to that we just got to make sure that we have reasonableness in what is going forward. 

And I just took the same sheet, I don’t know if you all have that 

or not, that Mr. Shimkus was showing to Mr. Post. And I kind of 

came up with a day’s meal for my kids, and ask if this would meet 

the 2021. If I start out with scrambled eggs, wheat toast with jam, 

and then 2 percent milk. And then for lunch when they went to 

school I had a turkey sandwich on wheat toast with vanilla yogurt, 

low fat, and either bottled water or 2 percent milk. And then for 

67 

dinner we had a light salad—a salad with light ranch, chicken 

breast, corn, green beans, I did put in a roll, and bottled water or 

2 percent milk. 

Would any of that meal fit the guidelines of the 2021 criteria? 

Mr. POST. Well, yes, it would. We, in fact, went through considerable effort to conduct a study. We reviewed and incorporated findings from numerous studies. We looked at IOM reports. We looked 

at the Dietary Guidelines. And then we did testing. We did our 

homework and did testing of our proposed thresholds. To test the 

feasibility of the April 28 preliminary proposed criteria, we analyzed foods commonly advertised to kids, to children. And we are 

concerned that parents continue to depend on the foods that they 

have learned are the more healthful choices. We found that many 

products in the various product lines meet the April 28 proposed 

principles, including tuna, peanut butter, flavored low-fat milk, orange juice, oat cereals, instant oatmeal, popcorn, baked chips, salted peanuts, yes, salted peanuts, whole wheat bread, and even fastSfood meals. Water was never excluded. Canned vegetables, we 

have heard about that as well, that are low in added sodium would 

certainly meet the criteria, although it is doubtful many are advertised to kids. But we did our homework, and we do have the information to know that there are foods that are eligible for advertising. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. I don’t know if you all have this list or not. It 

shows meets 2021 target criteria, the same one Mr. Shimkus had. 

And everything I just mentioned didn’t—it says bottled water 

doesn’t meet the guidelines, less than 50 percent of a food group. 

Chicken breast, see if I can find it on here. Anyway, none of those, 

according to this analysis, meets that criteria. And I know you can 

prepare things differently. If you fry an egg you can do it differently than if you scramble an egg, and you can add sodium if 

you salt. But it just seems that as I looked at this list, you know, 

I am concerned about childhood obesity. If anybody want to do 

something to really open their eyes, tour a dialysis place and see 

what people are doing when they are older and they are obese and 

it happens when they get diabetes. It really opens your eyes. But 

as you start looking through things that according to this analysis, 

all family cereal, all leading family ready to eat cereal, no, sodium, 

added sugar; lasagna, no, saturated fat, sodium. I mean just different things that are on this criteria, it just seems like it is not 

just the M&Ms that Congresswoman Blackburn talked about and 

getting a couple M&Ms so you eat the healthy stuff. It seemed like 

a whole list of things that most American parents would say I am 

giving my kid a turkey sandwich on wheat bread and giving them 

vanilla low fat yogurt. It is because of the vanilla flavoring I think 

is why it doesn’t meet—but it is low fat—doesn’t meet the guidelines. That is when I was looking through that and said this is— 

we are spending a lot of time on stuff that—go ahead. It is almost 

like the guy getting cited for his garbage can being full. 

Mr. POST. If I can respond, we were focused on foods that are 

marketed to kids. I think the list you have are foods that are consumed, not necessarily the same foods that we considered. Beer 

and coffee are on that list. You know, we wouldn’t consider that as 

68 

foods marketed to children. So it is a matter of looking at what we 

did, and that is the foods that are commonly advertised. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Even if these aren’t marketed to children, somebody is putting these guidelines saying that that is not a recommended 2021 target, meets the guidelines for a healthy meal. I 

mean whether it is marketed to a child or not. Because I try to find 

a turkey sandwich when I am traveling around for the purpose of 

being healthy. And I am about out of time. But as I was saying, 

as you start going through these guidelines, you say it just seems 

to be—you know, it is not about certain foods that we would all 

look at and say, well, maybe that is too much for a kid to be eating, 

you know, whatever, I am not going to bring all those up. But 

when you look at this 2021 it doesn’t meet the target, it just kind 

of opens your eyes of—well, I will let you finish. I guess I am about 

out of time. 

Mr. POST. Just as a last response, we are looking to industry in 

changing the nature of the foods out there, obviously, and we know 

through the CFBAI effort there is a great effort there. So we are 

looking forward to the work that that proposes occurring over the 

next couple of years. So, we know we can get more healthful 

choices out there. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and yields to the 

ranking member of the Health Subcommittee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 

minutes for questions. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentleman, I am kind 

of following up on what Mr. Guthrie said. I don’t mean to be repetitive, but I wanted to ask. The Grocers Manufacturing Association 

says that the working group recommended nutrition standards are 

arbitrary, have no basis in scientific evidence, and conflict with 

Federal dietary guidance and nutrition policy. And then they go on 

to say that under the working group’s recommendations, and I 

quote, whole wheat bread, breakfast cereals, reduced fat yogurt, 

canned vegetables, and bottled water could not be promoted for 

consumption by children. 

I just wanted to start with Dr. Post to comment on that, if you 

would. Is it really true that your report recommends against marketing to children whole wheat bread or reduced fat yogurt and 

these other listed foods that they talk about? 

Mr. POST. Well, in the work that we did, in the study that we 

did, and what we reviewed and incorporated, we did look at the numerous studies that are already out there on the issue. We did, in 

fact, exhaustively go through the Dietary Guidelines advisory committee’s comprehensive nutrition research report. We looked at the 

Dietary Guidelines exhaustively as well. And we considered regulations that are promulgated by FDA and USDA governing nutrient 

content claims and health claims and food labeling. We looked at 

relevant IOM reports, and industry groups’ reports, and various 

public and private entities’ standards that are out there. We know 

that there are foods, because we did our homework and we did 

what we called food runs, we did our analyses to know that foods 

like whole wheat bread, and orange juice, and oat cereals, and popcorn, and I mentioned salted peanuts, will in fact pass the thresholds that were established for the preliminary recommendations. 

And we know, too, now with the CFBAI effort, that there are foods 

69 

that can in fact be advertised. Although some work is needed, as 

that organization reported; to continue to reformulate is a necessity. But for the most part, yes, there are foods out there. So the 

assertion is incorrect. There are foods that can be advertised. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. And Dr. Dietz or Mr. Vladeck, did you 

want to comment on that at all? No? OK. I mean I think it is important that, you know, the standards that you recommend to Congress have to remain aimed at promoting healthy children, but 

they have to be achievable, or otherwise the industry is just going 

to ignore them. And they also have to set clear targets that will 

lead to improved nutritional quality of the foods that are marketed 

to children. 

You mentioned the IOM. You know, some today are saying that 

we don’t have enough science to justify these guidelines for marketing foods to kids. And the IOM did in fact say there is no clear 

causal relationship between advertising and body fat levels of kids 

in their report, I guess in 2006. Now, I know none of you served 

on that IOM panel, but can someone help me understand why the 

working group, you know, recommends changes in marketing foods 

to kids given, you know, that the IOM is saying there is no clear 

causal relationship? What is your response to that? 

Mr. DIETZ. I am not sure whether you were here for my opening 

comments. 

Mr. PALLONE. I wasn’t. I had to go to Rules. Sorry. 

Mr. DIETZ. The caloric imbalance necessary to reverse obesity is 

pretty small. It is about 30 calories for young children, 2- to 5-yearolds, and about 150 calories for 6- to 11-year-olds. Our belief is that 

modest reformulation or modest reductions in the caloric content of 

foods commonly consumed by children could achieve that deficit. 

Not a single food, but across the board. And we also know that 

there is a direct relationship between television viewing and obesity in children that seems to be mediated by the consumption of 

foods advertised on television. So there seems to be this linkage between television advertising, consumption of foods advertised on 

television, and obesity. 

Despite the conclusions of the IOM panel, it is worth examining 

a little more carefully what the studies were that they looked at. 

They reviewed about 65 studies. About 75 percent of those studies, 

some of which were cross-sectional, so you can’t really demonstrate 

causality from those, but about 75 percent of those studies found 

an association between food marketing and obesity in children. But 

the more important studies, in my view, are the intervention studies that have shown that reductions in television time are associated with reductions in weight without a concomitant increase in 

physical activity, pointing to that connection between television 

viewing and obesity in children. 

Mr. PALLONE. So there may not be a direct or clear causal relationship, but it is still something that, you know—— 

Mr. DIETZ. Admittedly circumstantial. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Anyone else want to comment on that? All 

right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and recognizes the 

gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes for questions. 

70 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And gentlemen, thanks 

very much for joining us today. It is a very interesting conversation 

that we are having here this morning. You know, one of the things 

that I would like to ask is let’s go back in time, if we can. 

I know that on page 3 of Mr. Vladeck’s testimony you have that 

the Institute of Medicine has strong evidence that TV ads influence 

food and beverage purchases and requests for kids under the age 

of 12. When these studies were being done, did you go back and 

check what happened with advertising 40 years ago, 50 years ago, 

60 years ago, 70 years ago? Because I am just kind of curious. Because I grew up in the late 50s and early 60s when I was a kid. 

Now, granted we got two channels on a good day when I was a kid, 

black and white, and some days they came in, some days they 

didn’t come in. But Saturday mornings was my favorite day of the 

week because that is when all the cartoons were on. Plus that is 

when all the cereal commercials were on. OK? And I am thinking 

back through the kids I went to school with that we didn’t have 

an obesity problem. But I tell you what, we ate so much what we 

would consider junk food today. But it is kind of a difference in 

time. 

And also if you go back to the late 30s and 40s, I am always interested in listening to old recordings of old advertising, and some 

of the things how they used to advertise to kids at that time. Of 

course, they were sitting at a radio staring at a radio. Nothing was 

happening except for a sound coming out. But we have had advertising going on for decades specifically to children, but it seems like 

only recently that we have had this obesity problem really starting. 

And I guess the question I would ask is this, that Mr. Barton, 

or Chairman Emeritus Barton I think was right on point when he 

was talking about families and sitting down and eating meals and 

preparation. And I tell you when I came home as a kid from school, 

if my sister and I got home and we said, gee, is there something 

to eat, my mom would actually make oatmeal. We would eat cabbage hearts, carrots, apples, and all these other things. And also 

we had this great fear. When I was a kid, if our parents ever saw 

us in the house, I don’t care if you were at your friend’s house, if 

you were sitting, that must mean you had time to do more work, 

I don’t care if it was school work or housework or yard work. So 

we took off. But, you know, are there studies out there that go back 

and look at what was advertised 40, 50, 60 years ago and how that 

affected kids when you did the study? 

Mr. VLADECK. You know, we are about the same age. And I remember Saturday mornings fondly as well. Of course, in those days 

there wasn’t very much fast food. There wasn’t much prepared 

food. Most of the meals, my mom worked, but she cooked dinner 

from scratch every night. I don’t know whether they are the kinds 

of long-term studies that you are describing. We will take a look, 

and we are happy to get back to you on that. Maybe one of my colleagues does, but I am not aware of the kind of analytic work that 

you—— 

Mr. LATTA. If there are studies from back then, I would be very 

interested to see if somebody went back and looked at that, especially with obesity rates. 

71 

Mr. POST. Just to add to that to bring on the issue of complexity, 

we know the food environment is so much more complex, and the 

Dietary Guidelines for Americans has a whole chapter now that 

recognizes how complex the food environment has become, that it 

is not, you know, simply a household influence anymore; there are 

so many other influences. 

Mr. LATTA. Also, if I may, and I just throw this out because I 

know Mr. Dietz’ testimony on page 6 when he is going through 

about of the more than $200 billion for children and youth collectively spent annually, ages 8–12, I didn’t have any money when I 

was a kid unless I shoveled somebody’s driveway or mowed. So the 

money I got came from my parents somehow. So it is really a question I think also today is that where these kids are getting the 

money, who is buying the TVs, who is buying the computers? It is 

the parents. And unfortunately, in a lot of cases, as we all know, 

the parents plop their kids in front of the TV set, put a snack in 

front of them, and voila, you now have instant food, you have an 

instant baby-sitter. So I think a lot of it falls back on where the 

parents are. And I know I think Mr. Dietz made the comment in 

regards to that, you know, kids nag their parents. And I told both 

my girls a long time ago that I want them to always remember 

there is a difference here, that I was their dad, not their best 

friend, and they had to figure out there a was a big difference between the two. But I really would be interested if we could find out 

if studies have been conducted in the past, especially in the 40s— 

40 or 50 years ago, in the infancy of television, when those commercials were still really out there, but the obesity from then to 

today, I would like to really get that analysis. 

And I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the 

time. Thank you very much for being here. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman, recognizes the 

gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am really pleased 

that we are able to have today these two subcommittees coming together to discuss what is such an important topic. And I appreciate 

the testimony of the three presenters so far. I am pleased that we 

are here today to discuss the partnership that has in the past and 

I hope will continue to exist, between private industry and public 

health professionals to address the marketing of less healthy food 

to children, that being our goal. But I worry that we are losing 

sight of the reason we are having this discussion at all. 

Your testimony, Dr. Dietz, clearly makes that point. About onethird of our Nation’s kids are overweight or obese, affecting not 

only their physical and emotional health, but also the fiscal health 

of their families and of our Nation. Specifically, Dr. Dietz, you note 

that the direct costs of childhood obesity are at least $3 billion a 

year. And this health condition, that is an epidemic really, and the 

high costs often continue into adulthood. In light of these numbers, 

it is clear to me that the obesity epidemic necessitates an equally 

strong response. As a former school nurse as my background, protecting the health and well-being of our children is one of my greatest concerns. However, the potential benefits of these voluntary 

guidelines on our national health care expenditures is also an imVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:28 Jun 06, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-09~1\112-94~1 WAYNE
72 

portant factor that I believe these guidelines could themselves address. 

So Dr. Dietz, would you take a minute or two to explain more 

to us on the record about the costs of the obesity epidemic to our 

health care system? 

Mr. DIETZ. As you point out, the costs in childhood are about $3 

billion a year. This was a recent study published in about 2009 by 

Leo Trasande. That is trivial compared to the costs of obesity in 

adults, which somebody else mentioned earlier is about $147 billion. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And isn’t it true that obesity in adults almost always 

starts at some point in childhood? 

Mr. DIETZ. The majority of obesity in adults, at least historically, 

has started in adulthood. The childhood obesity has contributed a 

minor portion of that obesity. But what is a concern about childhood obesity that persists into adulthood is that it accounts for a 

disproportionate share of severe obesity in adulthood, and therefore 

may contribute disproportionately to the costs of obesity in adulthood. 

Mrs. CAPPS. So in terms of other costs? 

Mr. DIETZ. Well, the costs that have been estimated in the paper that we published that cited the $147 billion, that was the costs associated with obesity, which also accounted for the costs of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and the hospitalizations and medications associated with all the diseases associated with obesity. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right. So Medicare, Medicaid, private insurers are 

shelling out more money. 

Mr. DIETZ. Well, a big concern is about half those costs are borne 

by Medicare and Medicaid. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And this is not to mention the additional indirect 

costs from decreased productivity and absenteeism from school. So 

there are some ripple effects as well into the rest of society. Like 

most chronic health conditions, I am convinced that primary prevention, doing all we can to stop obesity before it ever starts, is key 

to addressing these concerns. 

I want now to turn to Mr. Vladeck. As you may know, a different 

take on this topic, in 2003 the IOM issued a report on the marketing of alcohol to kids. A similar kind of questioning came from 

my colleague Mr. Pallone. But with respect to the comparison with 

alcohol, IOM concluded, like in the case we are discussing today, 

that there was no clear causal link between marketing alcohol and 

the use of it by kids, but still recommended limitations on alcohol 

marketing to kids. 

There are of course differences between alcohol and food. But a 

few years later, in 2008, at the close of the Bush administration, 

the FTC issued a report. Mr. Vladeck, the industry was engaged 

in self-regulation at that time. They said the IOM report was not 

based on strong science. What did the FTC do in that 2008 report? 

Mr. VLADECK. We encouraged self-regulation. And these are difficult areas for us. We do not have, particularly in the food area, 

rulemaking authority that would permit us to regulate in these 

areas. And there are, as you know, there are First Amendment 

issues that would arise if we tried to regulate aggressive marketing. We have, through enforcement efforts, such as our recent 

73 

case against Phusion, taken action against marketers who are marketing to children. One of the counts in the Phusion complaint was 

a count alleging that Phusion, which is the seller of FourLoko, 

which is an alcohol product, used images plainly of kids, people 

under the legal age, in order to promote alcohol. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Right. I know I am going over time now, but I 

would—saying that there are differences between alcohol and food, 

there also is a close parallel for how the agencies provided a framework when voluntary industry-based efforts were not adequately 

addressing a vital public health problem. There isn’t anything extreme in this document on marketing to kids. It may not be perfect, 

but I believe it is clearly the next sensible step to take. 

And in closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit testimony 

submitted by Mars for the record. I believe this document may 

have identified areas that I hope we can use to form a common 

ground. I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady, and the gentlelady’s 

unanimous consent request to include in the hearing record a statement of Mars. I also have four other items, a letter to HHS, FTC, 

Department of Agriculture, and CDCP from Members of Congress, 

led by Eric Paulsen of Minnesota from October 11, 2001; statement 

from the American Bakers Association; testimony from the President and CEO of American Frozen Food Institute; and a statement 

of the American Frozen Food Institute to the FTC. Without objection, both sides have seen these, without objection these will be included in the record. 

[The information follows:] 

74 


77930.037
75 


77930.038
76 


77930.039
77 


77930.040
78 


77930.041
79 


77930.042
80 


77930.043
81 


77930.044
82 


77930.045
83 


77930.046
84 


77930.047
85 


77930.048
86 


77930.049
87 


77930.050
88 


77930.051
89 


77930.052
90 


77930.053
91 


77930.054
92 


77930.055
93 


77930.056
94 


77930.057
95 


77930.058
96 


77930.059
97 


77930.060
98 


77930.061
99 


77930.062
100 


77930.063
101 


77930.064
102 


77930.065
103 


77930.066
104 


77930.067
105 


77930.068
106 


77930.069
107 


77930.070
108 


77930.071
109 


77930.072
110 


77930.073
111 


77930.074
112 

Mr. PITTS. And now the Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Mississippi, Mr. Harper, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HARPER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank each of you 

for being here. And as I look at this, and Dr. Dietz, your opening 

statement and remarks, and looking at your report, you know, you 

have a statement here that says not only does obesity increase the 

likelihood of a child developing those serious physical issues, you 

also said but it also may lead to severe psychological and social 

problems, such as absenteeism from school, discrimination, victimization, and poor self-esteem. So I just wonder what you are doing 

here for the skinny kids like me. You know, I was 6–5 and 160 

pounds. Now, I got a little, you know, I added a little. By the time 

I got married I was 165. So you know, I did beef up some during 

that time. But you know, when you are a skinny kid, particularly 

going into young adulthood, and you have to have a suit—back in 

that day you had two choices. You could get navy blue, or really 

dark navy blue. I mean that was pretty much your choice. So as 

you look at this, you know, every child is different. But it appears 

that your report is focusing more on obesity. And I understand the 

physical reasons for that. But tell me exactly what was the charge 

or the task that was given the IWG? What was the verbiage for 

that? 

Mr. DIETZ. I will just jump to the directive. The working group 

is directed to conduct a study and develop recommendations for 

standards for the marketing of food when such marketing targets 

children who are 17 years or younger or when such food represents 

a significant component of the diets of children. In developing such 

standards, the working group is directed to consider positive and 

negative contributions of nutrients, ingredients, and food, including 

calories, portion size, saturated fat, trans fat, sodium, added sugars, and the presence of nutrients, fruits, vegetables, and whole 

grains, to the diets of children; and secondly, evidence concerning 

the role of consumption of nutrients, ingredients, and foods in preventing or promoting the development of obesity among such children. 

Do you want—— 

Mr. HARPER. Sure. That is fine. Now, you know, one of the 

things, one of the proposals, and I want to make sure I have got 

this right, one of the proposals is it would eliminate sports figures 

and also animals from boxes. That is correct on what the recommendation is? 

Mr. VLADECK. In our proposed draft there is a discussion about 

that. As I tried to signal in my written testimony, and in my oral 

statement today, my sense is that we are moving away from that. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. And would it be your personal recommendation 

that you move away from that? 

Mr. VLADECK. Yes. 

Mr. HARPER. And what about you, Dr. Post? 

Mr. POST. We are in agreement, yes. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. Dr. Dietz? OK. Well, that is—you know, as we 

look at the correlation you were talking about, Mr. Vladeck, about 

television and obesity, each of you have heard this, you know, is 

it because—is the obesity connection for television because of the 

113 

advertising or the sheer number of hours that a child will sit in 

front of the television to watch? 

Mr. DIETZ. Well, certainly inactivity is a contributor. And as time 

has gone on, we have been more and more concerned about screen 

time, because it is not limited to television time. The data we have, 

though, is about television time, and the advertising on television, 

and the connection that that has to the consumption of foods advertised on television while watching television. 

Mr. HARPER. So if it is related to the advertising of the food product, then you are saying that the child, who is a child, is the one 

who sets the standard for what the parent will buy at the store and 

not the parent? 

Mr. DIETZ. Well, not always, but children have a huge influence 

on parental decision-making. And that is derived from the advertising that directs children to want products. 

Mr. HARPER. We have all seen or experienced certainly, in aisle 

6 the child pitches a fit, and it is easier to give in and put it in 

the basket than it is to be the parent and maybe not shop in the 

store with the child. So what is the average number of hours that 

your study shows that the typical child will spend watching television? 

Mr. DIETZ. We have not done a recent study of that. My recollection is that on average it is 3 hours. It is variable by age. But I 

think on average—and there are significant ethnic disparities. African American children tend to watch more television. 

Mr. HARPER. OK. Anybody else have different figures besides the 

3 hours that you have heard or are familiar with? OK. And during 

that let’s say a typical 3-hour period that a child is watching TV, 

they are inactive, obviously during that time. 

Mr. DIETZ. Yes. 

Mr. HARPER. During that 3-hour period, how many advertisements would typically be about a food item? 

Mr. DIETZ. I think the majority of ads, and I can’t remember, 

FTC has those numbers, I want to say 11. But I think—a Saturday 

morning is quite different than weekday. 

Mr. VLADECK. I think the average is somewhat lower than that, 

outside of the cartoon hours on Saturday morning. 

Mr. HARPER. And I know my time is up, but it sure seems like 

we are trying to do these—and I know we have many things, many 

regulations that are well intended, and we certainly want people 

and kids to be healthy, but it seems to me that we are trying to 

do what the parent is supposed to be doing here, to have the responsibility for that self-discipline of the family and to do those 

things that need to be done. So we are in a situation where this 

doesn’t mean that—we all want to see an end to childhood obesity, 

but this seems to be a farfetched approach, when what we should 

be doing is expecting the parents to do their job. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and yields to the 

gentleman from New York, Mr. Towns, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You know, I 

want to follow up on Mrs. Capps’ question. Is it true that the IWG 

agencies do not have regulatory authority over food advertising to 

children? 

114 

Mr. VLADECK. I think it would be very difficult for the Federal 

Trade Commission to issue regulations that had any binding effect 

in terms of marketing food to children. Our rulemaking authority 

is very limited in this area. We have enforcement authority, but it 

wouldn’t extend to the kinds of issues that we are talking about 

today. 

Mr. TOWNS. Could you give me an example of your enforcement 

authority? Just a classic one, you know. 

Mr. VLADECK. Our authority is deception. It rests on a company 

committing a deceptive act or an unfair act. But here the only example I could come up with would be if, you know, if a company 

were making completely unsubstantiated claims about the beneficial health effects, selling, you know, lard covered in fat and making claims that this is going to improve your heart health or something like that. But our authority here, our regulatory authority 

and our enforcement authority is pretty limited. And even if it 

were not, regulating in this kind of area might raise First Amendment issues. And so one of the points that we tried to make repeatedly is there is nothing that isn’t voluntary about the proposal. If 

industry decides not to adhere to it, then we spent a lot of time and 

we haven’t accomplished very much. 

But it is up to the industry ultimately to decide whether it is 

going to abide by these standards. 

Mr. TOWNS. Why do the companies feel that it is not truly voluntary? Why do they feel that way? 

Mr. VLADECK. I don’t know. If you look at—we have been doing 

this sort of work for quite some time. For example, we have, I 

think, submitted several reports to Congress making recommendations about media violence. The fact of the matter is, is that the 

industry, I think, has welcomed our role here. But some of the industry complies, some of it doesn’t. We have never brought a case 

because not abiding by these standards doesn’t fit the deception 

theories that we can rely on. 

The Supreme Court discussed our voluntary approach at length 

in a recent Supreme Court case, involving violent video games sold 

to children. So there is a long track record of the FTC engaged in 

this kind of voluntary self-regulatory guidance without any coercion from our part, without any enforcement from our part, without 

any collateral litigation being brought by third parties. So I am 

mystified by that claim. 

Mr. TOWNS. They are saying that these rules and regulations will 

bring about a job loss. I mean, what are your views on that? 

Mr. VLADECK. Well, there is one study which we find perplexing 

because it assumes that as a result of our voluntary standards, industry will stop advertising to children altogether and the loss to 

the economy will be $2 billion, which greatly exceeds the amount 

of advertising directly to children that we found in our most recent 

study. And that study goes on to conclude that there will be substantial job loss. 

We have had our economists look at the study. There are no citations in the study. So we don’t know where these figures come 

from. But the figures don’t match the industry’s own data about 

how much it spends in advertising to children. So we do not understand that study and we certainly don’t agree that a voluntary selfVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:28 Jun 06, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-09~1\112-94~1 WAYNE
115 

regulatory proposal is going to have that kind of a consequence on 

the economy. 

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the Chair. I would like to welcome the witnesses again and thank you for your time and expertise today. And 

my first question is going to be for you, Dr. Post. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, hundreds of jobs in the 

district I represent and thousands in my home State of Texas involve the manufacture, sale, distribution, marketing of snack products, including wholesome and nutritious products. These products 

qualify as healthy under FDA regulations and are eligible under 

the Healthier U.S. School Challenge, a Federal nutrition program. 

I am referring to products like Sun Chips, Baked Lays Potato 

Crisps and Baked! Cheetos snacks, and yet the IWG draft proposal 

would deem them unacceptable. And to make things more confusing, my staff has told me that classic hummus, right here, as 

sold under the Sabra label, is not restricted but green olive 

hummus sold under the same label is restricted. Why is green olive 

hummus a threat to children’s health and not classic hummus? 

Help me understand why there is such a disconnect between these 

Federal agencies? 

Mr. POST. Well, as I had mentioned earlier, we did in fact do 

analyses of food composition, the products that are commonly out 

there in the world of advertising. And our findings are products 

like the whole wheat bread and the other products, even the baked 

chips that you had there, would, in fact, be allowable under our 

structure. Some products, because of higher sodium contents, would 

fail. I mean, I imagine olives as a source of an ingredient in a food 

would be a problem. We were interested in following the Dietary 

Guidelines and, in that regard, we were looking for reductions in 

sodium, saturated fat, and certainly sugars as well. So, in some 

cases, the threshold couldn’t be achieved. But there are certainly 

a lot of products that would be viable out there for marketing. 

Mr. OLSON. Also with all due respect, we are talking about a lot 

of marketing. And look at the packages, exactly the same exact 

three words here, Greek olive hummus and classic hummus. Again, 

I appreciate what you are talking about—some of the sodium and 

what all this might add. But the fact here is we are talking about 

advertising. Those two products look the same to a kid, to an adult. 

And I think we have got to be careful here because again we 

can’t—the responsibility ultimately rests with parents. And that to 

me in my mind is not some sort of danger to children’s health. I 

mean, no child is going to look at that different packaging and say, 

‘‘Mom, I want that one because it is classic’’ or ‘‘Mom, I want that 

one because it has olives.’’ 

A question for you, Dr. Vladeck. I am troubled by your testimony 

today. In response to a question from my colleague, Mr. Shimkus 

from Illinois, regarding the FTC’s role in recommending specific 

nutritional standards in the IWG process, you said that the Commission should and did defer to USDA’s judgment given the subject 

matter and expertise on nutritional standards. Yet in a July 15, 

2010, memo written at your request by attorneys in the Division 

116 

of Advertising Practices at FTC—Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 

consent to put this memo in the record. 

Mr. PITTS. So ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

117 


77930.075
118 


77930.076
119 


77930.077
120 


77930.078
121 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, sir. Employees at the FTC expressed 

strong disagreement with the nutritional standards recommended 

by the USDA. In the memo, attorneys at your Commission delve 

into inherently scientific questions about nutrition, such as proper 

thresholds for sodium intake and the associated risks related to 

blood pressure in children. Commission employees also expressed 

concern with the saturated and trans fat levels recommended by 

USDA. This memo seems to contradict your assertion to Mr. 

Shimkus just a few minutes ago that FTC did not involve itself in 

nutritional aspects of the working group process. I find your juxtaposition of this letter and your statements troubling. 

Can you explain your assertion and the seemingly contradictory 

fact? I have got a copy of the memo if you need it, sir. 

Mr. VLADECK. I am aware of this memo. I think the thrust of this 

memo is that we were worried and these were—there were many 

drafts—as you know, this process is—we are in our second year of 

this process and we are not done. But what we were concerned 

about was one of the interim update USDA proposals may have cut 

back on industry’s own self-regulatory efforts. If you look at page 

3, what we were concerned about is that there was a USDA proposal that might actually be weaker than some of the industry selfregulatory guidelines. And that was a cause of concern to us. I 

would note that this is an internal FTC memo. I am not sure that 

this was shared with anyone other than within the FTC. And this 

is simply a memo to me suggesting that there may be concerns 

about the IWG process if we are going to undercut industry’s own 

self-regulatory efforts. 

Mr. OLSON. I appreciate that, sir. Again in your testimony to Mr. 

Shimkus, you said you defer to USDA’s judgment about the—— 

Mr. VLADECK. I said USDA, FTC and CDC, yes, sir. 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, sir. Again, I don’t believe this is a proper role 

for the FTC. I ran out of time. I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. I recognize—just a 

minute. Do you have a problem with this? All right. We will reconsider a unanimous consent request if you want to take some more 

time to look at that. All right. Do you want to yield to Mr. Terry 

for 15 seconds? All right. We will recognize the gentleman from Nebraska. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All I want to do is ask 

unanimous consent that I may place a statement into the record. 

Mr. PITTS. Without objection. He wants a unanimous consent request for a statement in the record. So ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Terry follows:] 

122 


77930.079
123 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, 

Dr. Cassidy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Gentlemen, I am a physician. I am totally aware 

of this issue and very much concerned. And thank you for your 

input. My questions are not to challenge. My questions are to understand. Dr. Post, what a great name for a guy from USDA talking about childhood nutrition. I see that the State of New York and 

other States had a proposal that would not allow sugar sweetened 

beverages to be purchased in the SNAP program. USDA would not 

allow this restriction saying there was no proof that decreasing 

sugar consumption would decrease the health in SNAP beneficiaries. Man, that just seems very kind of counter to the whole 

thrust of this discussion. Any comments on that? 

Mr. POST. That is an issue that is obviously very deeply being 

dealt with in the Food and Nutrition Service, our sister agency. 

And I haven’t been part of the discussion regarding the SNAP program. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I see that there is a correlation, at least in some 

studies, between SNAP participation and obesity. And, in fact, I am 

wondering if there was a regression analysis, some sort of statistical analysis that said, oK, what is the relative role of participation in SNAP versus the relative role of Tony the Tiger. And so I 

say that because I have read that there is a boom and bust type 

cycle with SNAP programs, that people get their SNAP benefits 

once monthly, they purchase a lot of goods and then they get them 

again the next month. You cannot purchase vegetables and fruit to 

keep them for the whole month. We are effectively saying go out 

and buy high caloric stuff at stores. Do we really know that we 

have met the enemy and the enemy is SNAP? 

Mr. POST. A response to that is that we aren’t aware of any evidence, convincing evidence, that establishes SNAP participation or 

participation in other food nutrition assistance programs as the 

cause of overweight or obesity. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Do you mean there is stronger evidence that kids 

watching commercials on Saturday morning are more likely to be 

obese than the SNAP program, which encourages the consumption—because I have seen evidence that people on SNAP don’t buy 

more fruits and vegetables, but they do buy more calorie dense 

foods. 

Mr. POST. Well, with regard to the evidence on nutrition assistance programs, including SNAP, the evidence that exists is in fact 

mixed and that while some studies have shown an association between participation and certain of these programs and higher 

weights for some groups of participants, others have found no association. So none have, in fact, shown a causal relationship. 

Mr. CASSIDY. And so you are saying that, you are emphasizing 

causal relationship. Again, have we seen a causal relationship between advertising to children and not just an association but causal 

association between advertising to children and increased obesity? 

Mr. POST. Well, I will defer to the CDC, but I will say that there 

is certainly a contributing factor there. Perhaps not a causal relationship, but certainly a contributing factor. 

Mr. CASSIDY. The difference between a causal and just being associated. 

124 

Dr. DIETZ. Mr. DIETZ. Now, the whole debate about causality of obesity is 

complicated. And I tend to focus more on what can be done about 

obesity than emphasizing another longitudinal study trying to control for all of the factors which affect it. What we do know about 

obesity is that one of the most powerful interventions is reductions 

in television time. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, you say that, but I was wondering we don’t 

necessarily know that reductions in TV are not associated. Is that 

a secular thing or does it actually influence other things? 

Mr. DIETZ. Sir, these are randomized clinical trials. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So if you have somebody who is watching more TV, 

is she or he more likely to be in an area which is a food desert, 

an area in which the built environment is less conducive to getting 

out and walking or in families which have more children and perhaps mom is using TV to baby sit? 

Mr. DIETZ. Now, those are sound questions. I don’t think we 

know the relationship of television viewing to food deserts, for example. We do know that there is a relationship between television 

viewing and neighborhood safety, that parents—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, that in itself—because my wife will not let my 

children bicycle on our busy street. So clearly built environment 

figures. Do we really not—as I was listening, I kept on thinking, 

man, I bet you TV watching correlates with lack of an appropriate 

environment for a child to exercise without mama’s supervision. 

Mr. DIETZ. There have been some studies that confirm that. I 

don’t think it accounts for all the television viewing that is going 

on. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I accept that, but on the other hand we are making 

the case for these rules based upon something which may have an 

alternative explanation. Is that a fair statement? 

Mr. DIETZ. First, these are not rules. They are voluntary proposals. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I am sorry. You are right. I apologize. 

Mr. DIETZ. And you are right. I think we still need more data on 

factors that affect obesity and most importantly on how to resolve 

it. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Again, gentlemen, I am not saying all of this to 

challenge, but rather to understand better. 

Thank you for your participation. I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

vice chairman of the health subcommittee, Dr. Burgess, for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can we just continue 

on that concept for a moment, both Dr. Post and Dr. Dietz? It does 

seem like the focus now is regulating the end product. Have we 

sufficiently studied the issue of lack of access to healthy foods? And 

I know in part of the district that I represent, I am dealing with 

the problem of food deserts. And it seems like that is a more appropriate place to start, the access to healthy foods rather than some 

of the voluntary guidelines that are being talked about this morning. Do you have any thoughts on that? 

Mr. DIETZ. It is true that food deserts are a significant problem 

that impair the intake of the healthful diet. We were not asked to 

125 

look at the impact of food deserts on food intake. We were asked 

to look at the effect of food marketing. 

Mr. BURGESS. Not meaning to interrupt, but you still in your testimony you talk about the disproportionate impact on minorities 

and lower socioeconomic status. And certainly in the areas that I 

am thinking about at home, I mean, your only option for nutrition 

is a convenience store. And not being derogatory to convenience 

stores—I use them all the time myself. But if that is your only option, it is tough to get a head of lettuce when all you have got is 

a Twinkie display. Do you know what I mean? 

Mr. DIETZ. No question about it. 

Mr. BURGESS. Again, I would just ask the question. Would we be 

better focusing our efforts in a time of limited budgets, should we 

try to fix that problem first before we go into this direction? 

Mr. DIETZ. Well, I think those efforts are underway. As I said 

earlier, I think we need a multi-component, multi-sectoral approach. As I am sure you are aware, there is the Healthy Food Financing Initiative which has allocated substantial sums of money 

for the development of grocery stores and other retail changes in 

food deserts or areas with limited access to food. I think that is an 

important step forward. Unfortunately, we don’t know what the impact of that intervention will be on obesity rates. 

Mr. BURGESS. I guess, Dr. Dietz, let me stay with you. I mean, 

you referenced a moment ago in your discussion with Dr. Cassidy 

that the causality of childhood obesity is complicated and multi-factorial and multi-faceted and I may have some words there to your 

discussion. But nevertheless, it is a complicated issue. So do you 

have available and can you provide us—has the CDC compiled a 

compendium of articles and data and data collections on the scientific basis for the conclusion that banning food advertising will 

promote public health? What is the precise scientific basis for the 

conclusions of the working group that banning food advertising will 

promote public health? 

Mr. DIETZ. We are not talking about banning food advertising. 

We are talking about modifying food advertising directed at children. 

Mr. BURGESS. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some people 

would say your modification results in a ban. But oK. Fair enough. 

But you were really not even asked to provide guidelines, but you 

kind of did, didn’t you? 

Mr. DIETZ. Well, we were very careful not to call them guidelines. What we called them were principles. 

Mr. BURGESS. Look, we don’t call income relating means testing, 

but everybody knows that it is. So were these guidelines or not? 

Mr. DIETZ. No. I think they were principles. 

Mr. BURGESS. Very well. On the principles then that you developed, can you provide us with the precise scientific basis for the 

conclusions detailing those principles? 

Mr. DIETZ. Yes. I think Rob reviewed the data sets that we analyzed. 

Mr. BURGESS. And I apologize for not being here. But perhaps if 

the CDC has that available. I know you guys compile a lot of data. 

Maybe you would be able to do that for us. 

126 

Mr. DIETZ. We have referenced those studies in our testimony. I 

think all three of us have done so. But if you would like additional 

information, we would be happy to provide it. 

Mr. BURGESS. I think that would be helpful to the overall direction of where this committee is going. And again, just like Dr. 

Cassidy, I am not trying to be confrontational. We appreciate all 

of you making time to be available to us here on the committee this 

morning. But at the same time, these are issues that have significant impact and import. And I appreciate the fact that there is 

work being done on providing for areas of food deserts, but I have 

got to tell you I am not seeing the results. I am not seeing the activity. So if the CDC is doing that, I am grateful and I welcome 

your participation. But in some parts of the world it is not happening. And the difficulty is these are parts of the world that are 

otherwise affluent. The surrounding communities you would drive 

through and say, ‘‘Nothing to see here, let us keep moving.’’ But 

the reality is you have got pockets of poverty within these relative 

areas of affluence that are significant and of course they have been 

hurt harder by the recession than the surrounding communities. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your indulgence. I will yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Kinzinger, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess this will go 

to all three, but Director Vladeck first and Dr. Post second. In a 

fiscal climate where every dollar is precious, we do have to be focused on protecting jobs and we have to be focused on our economy. 

That is where the real concern is right now. But it appears that 

the IWG has completely disregarded any attempt to find out an 

economic impact that any kind of a ban or suggestion or whatever 

would have on this. The reality is the food and beverage industry 

employs 1.4 million workers, 12 percent of our manufacturing 

workforce, and it is one of the biggest sources of manufacturing 

jobs. 

Now, you said you didn’t consider the economic impact or benefits when creating these guidelines. Is that true, there were no economic benefits taken into account? 

Mr. VLADECK. We did solicit questions in our comments. And we 

expected if there were economic objections to get them in our comments. That was not the focus. 

Mr. KINZINGER. You got zero comments of anybody that was concerned about the economic impact? 

Mr. VLADECK. No. I am not saying that. We did get submitted 

a study which we gave to our economists to take a look at. The 

study purported to be based on advertising expenses for ads geared 

at children. And the economic analysis posited that if our voluntary 

guidelines, principles were adopted by industry, it would essentially end all advertising to children, costing about $2 billion in expenditures a year. 

Mr. KINZINGER. And specifically, what about jobs? What about 

jobs—— 

Mr. VLADECK. I think it concluded ultimately that there would 

be a loss of 74,000 jobs. Our concern is—we have many concerns, 

one of which is there is no underlying data, there are no citations 

127 

to any of the assertions made in the study. But more problematic, 

it assumes that advertising to kids will stop and it uses a figure 

for advertising expenditures that greatly exceed what industry tells 

us it is spending. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Your study says 74,000 jobs it costs but you don’t 

have the basis of probably not actually the case? 

Mr. VLADECK. It is not our study. 

Mr. KINZINGER. The study that you have seen that we are talking about. 

Mr. VLADECK. I mentioned the comments. I was explaining that 

in connection with the comments this study was submitted. But 

more importantly, as I tried to make clear before, industry itself 

has proposed quite substantial changes in its own self-regulatory 

proposal, bringing it very close to where we are likely to end up. 

Industry is not proposing making these changes if it thinks it is 

going to cost it money, revenue or jobs. And so I understand your 

concern about—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. Yes, it is a big concern. I mean, you have a lot 

of people that want jobs out there. And when you talk about killing 

jobs from the government perspective, that is not a good way to get 

on the right train of creating jobs. 

Mr. VLADECK. We agree. 

Mr. KINZINGER. I appreciate that. 

Mr. VLADECK. But voluntary standards don’t kill jobs. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Let me ask another one. You contend that these 

restrictions are voluntary, but some of the most distinguished 

scholars of the Constitution argue that these would violate the 

First Amendment, these voluntary proposals. Do you believe the 

food and beverage industries will treat these restrictions or principles, or mild hints or general reminders, do you believe they will 

consider them rules, they will count them as rules? I mean, do you 

think that they will? Either of you. 

Mr. VLADECK. I don’t. They are not enforceable in any respect. 

Mr. KINZINGER. But if they are not rules and they are not enforceable, then why even go through the trouble of creating them 

in the first place? 

Mr. VLADECK. Well, because Congress told us to issue—— 

Mr. KINZINGER. Well, we also wanted a report, right, that we are 

still waiting on? 

Mr. VLADECK. That is correct. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Do you expect that any time within the next few 

whatever that we are going to see the report that we actually requested? 

Mr. VLADECK. We are hoping to get you a report by the end of 

this year. 

Mr. KINZINGER. So we are able to get some of these guidelines 

out, but the report we will hold off—we are hoping we will have 

by the end of the year? 

Mr. VLADECK. The report will constitute our—what we are calling principles, guidelines. 

Mr. KINZINGER. Gentle suggestions may be the new word. All 

right. Thank you. And I yield back. 

128 

Mr. PITTS. The gentleman yields back. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the gentleman from Kansas, Mr. Pompeo, 

for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for your 

time today. It has been a long morning for you all. It started with 

Mr. Waxman saying he was mystified by the fact that we are holding this hearing. That is maybe one of the first things I have 

agreed with Mr. Waxman on in my 9 months in Congress. I am 

mystified, too. I am mystified that the Federal Government believes that it can identify a problem, childhood obesity. And I think 

everyone here has agreed that there is a challenge, there are 

health risks, but think that the Federal Government has got a solution and that we can get so detailed and we can spend hours 

talking about these things and that the Federal Government can 

solve this problem with a set of principles out in the air. I am deeply troubled by that fact. I know you would use the defense of Congress made me do it, but I will tell you that was a previous Congress. And I hope this one will reconsider that. 

Having said that, Mr. Vladeck, I wanted to talk to you about 

your notion of voluntary. You continue to say that the industry 

came up with a set of principles that are very close to where you 

are going to be. Don’t you think that is at least in part because 

they are afraid of you? 

Mr. VLADECK. I assume it is because they think it is the right 

thing to do. 

Mr. POMPEO. Right, right. Because they are afraid that the Federal Government is going to come put a more onerous set of restrictions and it is often the case the industry will respond by trying 

to move close enough that they can convince regulators like you 

that they have been good citizens. So it may well not be the profit 

motive that drove them but the fear of regulation that drove them 

to do it. 

Mr. VLADECK. I would disagree. We have voluntary standards, 

for example, for media violence, violent video games, movies. Industry has adhered to some and has not adhered at all to others. We 

have no enforcement role in that space. The voluntary principles 

that we articulated were done pursuant to a congressional mandate 

just like the congressional mandate here. No one has suggested 

they have a coercive effect. I think one of the things that we need 

to look at—— 

Mr. POMPEO. Until just this moment I suppose. I just suggested 

that. So one person—— 

Mr. VLADECK. I apologize. I didn’t mean to put it that way. I was 

talking about the media. I understand that you suggested it. But 

two other quick points. One is this is an area in which we have 

very limited regulatory authority. So the idea that we could turn 

around tomorrow and take these principles and codify them in a 

binding—you know, in a binding regulation, there is no basis for 

that concern even though—you know, I know Kathleen Sullivan, I 

know Marty Redish, the First Amendment scholars. I have litigated in this area extensively. I have argued commercial speech 

cases before the Supreme Court. I know this area of law. It takes 

a law, a statute, a regulation or some other practice that is the 

129 

force of law to create a restraint or to create coercion. And it is not 

there. 

Mr. POMPEO. I appreciate that. Would you commit today to filing 

a friend of the court brief in defense of the industry if someone 

should choose to sue on this matter, saying that the principles we 

put forth provide no basis for it on behalf of the FTC? 

Mr. VLADECK. I don’t have that discretion on my own. 

Mr. POMPEO. Would you recommend to the FTC that they would 

do that? 

Mr. VLADECK. I will commit to putting something if we can persuade our colleague agencies to say that in the final report that 

this is not intended to create binding legal standards and should 

not be the basis of something along those lines, which should signal 

quite clearly our view that industry has no legal obligation to follow. 

Mr. POMPEO. I appreciate that. Yes, thank you. This is a question 

for all three of you and then I will be complete. Have we seen any 

examples in other countries where this type of principle or guideline has been effective at changing behavior and improving health 

conditions in children? 

Mr. DIETZ. I am sorry. I don’t have any of that data at my finger 

tips. 

Mr. POST. And we are aware that other countries have these 

kinds of voluntary standards, organizations in other countries do. 

Whether they are successful on their own, no. This is a complex 

issue. So it is part of the puzzle. 

Mr. POMPEO. Great. Thank you. I yield back the balance of my 

time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes the 

gentleman from Pennsylvania, Dr. Murphy, 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. MURPHY. Morning, gentlemen. I am all the way over here. 

Good to be with you. Just a little background. I am also a psychologist. I have dealt a lot with obese kids over the years and I maintain a faculty appointment with the University of Pittsburgh 

School of Medicine in pediatrics. So I appreciate your concerns 

about youth here. 

I am thinking as I am hearing all of this, I don’t know how we 

survive because a typical menu some of you may have had may 

have been similar to mine. I can still recall that we would have 

meatloaf, fish sticks, canned vegetables, canned fruit cocktails, 

fried chicken, Campbell’s tomato soup and that wonderful thing 

that cures all ills, that Velveeta sandwich on white bread. I don’t 

know how we survived. And yet the CDC has this great map on 

your Website which shows obesity rates changing over time. It 

seems to me there are some big differences here. I just want to 

make sure as you prepare some reports on this that you are looking 

at the full breadth of what I think is making a huge difference 

here. I am also noting as these guidelines on marketing come by, 

I am looking at this Website here that has some things in there 

which sounds like it may be one of those things I just want to 

make sure we are not going after in terms of attacks. 

You know what Tagalongs are? Does anyone know what those 

are? Tagalongs? They are Girl Scout cookies. My favorite. Now, the 

130 

serving size unfortunately is 2 and I think most kids would say I 

would rather have 8 or 10 or 12. And I am concerned. I want to 

make sure we are not going to attack those poor Girl Scouts on the 

box cover there as well. Because the issue here—I want to make 

sure we are broadening this. 

And, Dr. Dietz, I think you brought it up about the television 

time. I think you would agree it is not television. It is what they 

are doing instead of television, that years ago it was not just what 

we ate but what we did when we were not eating. Perhaps some 

of you also grew up in an area where your parents told you in the 

morning get out of the house, play all day; if you come in here, I 

am going to put a vacuum cleaner in your hand, you are going to 

wash windows, you are going to do something else. Kids were very 

active and now they are not. 

What I am concerned about here in guidelines coming forth—and 

I am doing this more as recommendations than I want your comments. Are any of your familiar with the Naperville School District? Their program is pretty exemplary and one which I hope at 

some time we can even bring someone in to talk about that from 

the school district. They actually spend less per student in expenses than some other school districts in Illinois, but they require 

an hour of vigorous activity, elevated heart rate every day. And in 

turn, these students actually exceed many other countries and 

many other Asian countries on transit international mathematics 

and science studies, reading tests, et cetera, and obesity rates 

where as nationwide is—we are approaching about 30 percent, nationwide obesity rate? They are, like, 3 percent. How much is it in 

children? 

Mr. DIETZ. 17 percent. 

Mr. MURPHY. 17 percent in children. But they have—97 percent 

of eighth graders turn out very bright and a very small percent of 

them have obesity rates. So as you are talking about these guidelines and as we are looking at marketing, I would like to know 

what your thoughts are in terms of—the big culprit here is also immobility, lack of activity, dealing with thumb movements on gaming or dealing with clicking things on the Internet. It is not activity. But I would like you to comment on marketing of those issues 

too as a key ingredient of burning off calories and getting healthy 

nutrition. Could each one of you going through that, starting with 

you, Dr. Dietz? 

Mr. DIETZ. I couldn’t agree with you more about the importance 

of activity and equally importantly the contributions of inactivity. 

And certainly physical activity is a strategy to be encouraged not 

only because it helps weight control but also because it reduces the 

co-morbidities associated with obesity. And I have known about 

Naperville for a long time. And it is a model. I have worried that 

it is confounded by income and socioeconomic status and perhaps 

other factors. I would love to know whether kids walk to school in 

Naperville because they don’t in most parts of the country. And we 

have certainly eliminated physical activity as part of a child’s daily 

behavior in life. 

Mr. MURPHY. I have got a few seconds, but I want to hear from 

each person. Next. Dr. Post. 

131 

Mr. POST. I think this comes back to this being a very complex 

issue. We are totally supportive of ensuring that we empower people with information: kids in schools, where we learn, where we 

play, where we get fitness, certainly in health care settings. So I 

think we can look at all of the solutions being part of a multi-sectoral effort. And certainly advertising is one way we can deal with 

this, certainly also enhancing school meals. And there are a lot of 

other opportunities that are working—— 

Mr. MURPHY. Dr. Vladeck. 

Mr. VLADECK. We agree, this is a complex issue and physical activity is one important step in the right direction. 

Mr. MURPHY. Well, I would venture to say I think it is of critical 

importance. It is not something that should be a postscript to this, 

but one I think that is absolutely essential. And I think we are 

going down the wrong road of going after advertising with regard 

to food if we are not doing other things. One of the companies in 

my district is Dick’s Sporting Goods. I venture to say they do more 

to reduce childhood obesity than some of these other things to deal 

with some advertising of some foods that we will be doing. So I 

hope that is something that you all include in your report right up 

front. It is extremely important. And this is something that I hope 

this committee takes into account in the future too, Mr. Chairman. 

With that, I yield back. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. The ranking member has a unanimous consent request. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an open letter on the First Amendment and the Interagency Working Group principles. This is from 

various constitutional law professors from around the country, and 

I believe you have it. 

Mr. PITTS. We have it. Without objection, so ordered. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 

132 


77930.080
133 


77930.081
134 


77930.082
135 


77930.083
136 


77930.084
137 


77930.085
138 

Mr. PITTS. That concludes the questioning for our first panel. 

And the Chair thanks the witnesses for your testimony, for your 

responses. And we will dismiss the first panel and call the second 

panel to the witness table. While the staff is setting up the table, 

we will suspend for 5 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. PITTS. The subcommittees will come to order. And I will introduce the second panel at this time. Our second panel consists of 

seven witnesses. Our first witness is Jim Baughman, Senior Marketing Counsel for the Campbell Soup Company. Next is Dan Jaffe, 

Executive Vice President for the Association of National Advertisers. Our third witness is Elaine Kolish, Vice President and Director of the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. 

Our fourth witness is Beth Johnson, Principal and Founder of Food 

Directions. Next we will hear from Margo Wootan, the Director of 

Nutrition Policy at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. 

We also have Dale Kunkel, a Professor of Communication from the 

University of Arizona. And finally Dr. John Irons, Research and 

Policy Director at the Economic Policy Institute. 

Thank you all for coming. We have your prepared statements. 

They will be entered into the written record. We ask that you summarize in 5 minutes your opening statement. 

Mr. Baughman, you are recognized to summarize your testimony. 

STATEMENTS OF JIM BAUGHMAN, SENIOR MARKETING COUNSEL, CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY; DANIEL L. JAFFE, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL ADVERTISERS; ELAINE D. KOLISH, VICE PRESIDENT AND DIRECTOR, CHILDREN’S FOOD AND BEVERAGE ADVERTISING INITIATIVE, COUNCIL OF BETTER BUSINESS BUREAUS; BETH 

JOHNSON, PRINCIPAL, FOOD DIRECTIONS LLC, ON BEHALF 

OF GROCERY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION; MARGO G. 

WOOTAN, DIRECTOR, NUTRITION POLICY, CENTER FOR 

SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST; DALE KUNKEL, PROFESSOR OF COMMUNICATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA; AND JOHN S. IRONS, 

RESEARCH AND POLICY DIRECTOR, ECONOMIC POLICY INSTITUTE 

STATEMENT OF JIM BAUGHMAN 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

Mr. Pallone. My name is Jim Baughman. I am Senior Marketing 

Counsel for Campbell Soup Company, and I very much appreciate 

the opportunity to speak with you today about just some of the concerns we have with the Interagency Working Group’s proposal to 

define marketing to children and to adolescents and then to lay out 

the nutrition criteria for products that are promoted in ways that 

meet those definitions. 

Our biggest concern is that the proposal loses sight of what we 

believe is the national priority on which we should be focusing 

childhood obesity. Cracking obesity is the key to diet-related conditions such as heart disease and diabetes. As the only corporation 

in America having an executive devoted to childhood hunger and 

obesity, we are fully committed to that priority. By taking their eye 

139 

off obesity, the agencies have proposed criteria that, for example, 

not only fail to address calories, but would discourage the promotion of soup, a food associated with managing weight. 

But why are the agencies discouraging people from eating a food 

that isn’t related to obesity? The essential reason is that the agencies have been focused on idealized foods, rather than on foods parents will actually include in the family meal plan. Moms look for 

foods that kids will eat and parents will enjoy too. And, yes, there 

are men and women in every food company who roll up their 

sleeves and figure out how to make actual foods that taste really 

good, have a pleasing texture—that is not just a kid’s concern— 

that won’t spoil as soon as you get them home, won’t cost an arm 

and a leg and will provide good nutrition. 

The problem is that the IWG nutrition criteria are simply not realistic when it comes to making great tasting food. For example, 

while calling for more whole grain content than can readily be put 

in baked products for kids, they call for reducing the very things 

that help kids find whole grain products good to eat, a little salt 

and sugar to help with texture and to reduce that little bit of a bitter taste that kids can find objectionable. 

It is all in the power of definition. Advocacy organizations have 

been telling you and anyone who will listen that practically all we 

make and sell are unhealthy foods. But healthy and unhealthy 

have to be defined. When Campbell calls something healthy, we follow the FDA and the USDA requirements for using that term. For 

example, we only market healthy soups and healthy canned pasta 

to kids. The IWG proposal uses definitions that are, in fact, inconsistent with the government standards. For example, when it 

comes to sodium, they impose a requirement that foods contain 

about one-fourth the level that is in the healthy definition, an 

amount in foods that are already not enjoyed by everyone. To 

produce foods to definitions that are even less tolerant of salt and 

sugar and fat would discourage people from eating the healthy 

foods they are now enjoying and it would discourage food makers 

from even trying. 

We are told that we should not complain about the agency’s proposal because it is voluntary and just a suggestion. That is not how 

it feels from here. These four agencies are the agencies that regulate our business, that have the power to shut us down, that look 

hard at everything we do and say. They are not advisers to the food 

industry. What they say in their official capacities matters. If 

adopted, these so-called voluntary principles will certainly evolve in 

that dimension. Even now, Senator Tom Harkin has introduced 

legislation laying the groundwork to make them binding in S. 174. 

We are all impatient to see some results in our national struggle 

with childhood obesity. And in that impatience, it is important to 

not put obstacles in the path of helping real people and real families eat better. Creating nutrition standards and marketing definitions that would put what we decide to call healthy food out of the 

reach of most people’s taste buds and wallets will not help us eat 

better and manage our weight as a nation. It is a different kind 

of leadership we need from our government, leadership in 

partnering with stakeholders to educate the Nation in how to eat 

and live in a way that will better promote our health and leaderVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:28 Jun 06, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-09~1\112-94~1 WAYNE
140 

ship in promoting scientific research to better understand what 

practical tools may help reverse the incidence of childhood obesity. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baughman follows:] 

141 


77930.086
142 


77930.087
143 


77930.088
144 


77930.089
145 


77930.090
146 


77930.091
147 


77930.092
148 


77930.093
149 


77930.094
150 


77930.095
151 


77930.096
152 


77930.097
153 


77930.098
154 


77930.099
155 


77930.100
156 


77930.101
157 


77930.102
158 


77930.103
159 


77930.104
160 


77930.105
161 


77930.106
162 


77930.107
163 


77930.108
164 


77930.109
165 


77930.110
166 


77930.111
167 


77930.112
168 


77930.113
169 


77930.114
170 


77930.115
171 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes Mr. 

Jaffe for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL L. JAFFE 

Mr. JAFFE. Good afternoon. So again I would like to thank Chairwoman Bono Mack, Chairman Pitts, Congressman Pallone and the 

other members of the subcommittees for this opportunity to testify. 

I am Dan Jaffe, Executive Vice President of the Association of National Advertisers. And our membership includes 400 companies 

with 10,000 brands that collectively spend over $250 billion in marketing and advertising annually in the U.S. 

ANA strongly opposes the proposed IWG guidelines. These are 

unprecedented extreme proposals with far reaching implications for 

individual companies and our Nation’s economy. The IWG’s proposed guidelines defy common sense and are inconsistent with 

other Federal nutrition standards. They are not well-founded or 

likely to reduce childhood obesity. 

You have heard a great deal about childhood obesity throughout 

this hearing. But there is no words in the report that you have received, in the preliminary report that in any ways discusses how 

the various proposals if followed would have an impact on obesity. 

These guidelines need to be formally withdrawn and returned to 

the drawing board. 

The IWG in effect is attempting to reengineer the American diet 

by declaring war on many healthy products, including whole wheat 

bread, 2 percent milk, cereals, yogurt, oatmeal and literally thousands of other healthy products. Again you have heard this questioned, but when we have had this study by our experts and then 

talked to our company members, they all confirmed that this is the 

truth. 

Of the 100 most popular foods consumed in America, only 12 

could be advertised under the IWG standards. And you say, well, 

that is your claim, but the IWG in its own report on page 5 admits 

that, quote, a large percentage of food products currently in the 

marketplace would not meet the IWG principles, which I think 

really answers the question pretty definitively when they admit 

that they are wiping out most products in the marketplace. 

The Federal Government seems to be suffering from a severe 

split personality when it comes to nutrition standards. The IWG 

proposals are dramatically inconsistent with other Federal nutrition standards. They do not match the standards set forth in the 

School Lunch Program. They could not match the Department of 

Agriculture’s dietary guidelines issues just last year. They do not 

match the WIC, Women, Infants and Children Program. 

This defies common sense. Foods that meet the Federal Government’s stringent criteria for being labeled healthy both by the 

USDA and by the FDA should be advertised more, but the IWG 

says that they should not be advertised at all. In his Executive 

order issued in January, the President required Federal agencies 

to consider the costs and benefits of any regulation. It does not appear that the IWG involved here have ever considered these impacts. Lost jobs and lost sales are certainly likely outcomes of the 

proposal. 

172 

The noted economic firm, his Global Insight, analyzed the IWG 

proposal using a macroeconomic model developed—and I emphasize 

this—by Nobel Laureate in economics, Dr. Lawrence Klein. They 

estimate that the guidelines, if acceded to, could drive down food 

and beverage advertising expenditures substantially. These reduced expenditures would result they claim in a decreased in total 

annual sales of $28.3 billion and elimination of 74,000 jobs. This 

has already been argued about in this hearing, and we will hear 

from another witness questioning that. But the facts are that there 

is nothing in the report on the costs or benefits. So how is the Congress going to determine who is telling the truth and who is stating 

things that are not accurate? 

The IWG proposal is a veritable Sword of Damocles hanging over 

the head of industry while avoiding the requirements of cost-benefit analysis that any sweeping proposal such as this should require. 

Two of our country’s leading constitutional scholars, Professors 

Martin Redish, Northwestern University Law School, and Kathleen 

Sullivan, former Dean of the Stanford University Law School, analyzed the IWG proposals and found them to be a thinly disguised 

attempt at backdoor regulation. 

The four agencies were specifically directed to conduct a study 

and make recommendations to Congress concerning nutrition 

standards and their impact on childhood obesity. So far, the IWG 

has produced no study. And instead of reporting to Congress, they 

issued a specific, highly technical performance mandate with an 

implementation timetable. Worst of all, there is absolutely no proof 

or discussion about how the massive changes called for in the proposal which would cost multi-billions of dollars just in reformulations would have any direct impact on reducing childhood obesity 

rates if they were all carried out. 

We believe it is critical that before any final report is issued by 

the IWG, that the Congress demand at the very least, two key 

things: A complete cost-benefit analysis and a specific demonstration on how any proposed changes will directly impact childhood 

obesity rates. This is what the Congress called on the IWG to do 

and what they still have not even attempted to provide. 

Thank you again for giving me this opportunity to speak to you 

today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jaffe follows:] 

173 


77930.116
174 


77930.117
175 


77930.118
176 


77930.119
177 


77930.120
178 


77930.121
179 


77930.122
180 


77930.123
181 


77930.124
182 


77930.125
183 


77930.126
184 


77930.127
185 


77930.128
186 


77930.129
187 


77930.130
188 


77930.131
189 


77930.132
190 


77930.133
191 


77930.134
192 


77930.135
193 


77930.136
194 


77930.137
195 


77930.138
196 


77930.139
197 


77930.140
198 


77930.141
199 


77930.142
200 


77930.143
201 


77930.144
202 


77930.145
203 


77930.146
204 


77930.147
205 


77930.148
206 


77930.149
207 


77930.150
208 


77930.151
209 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes Ms. 

Kolish for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ELAINE D. KOLISH 

Ms. KOLISH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Madam Chairwoman, 

members of the committee. I am delighted to be able to participate 

today, and I would like to make three points. 

First, self-regulation through the Children’s Food and Beverage 

Advertising Initiative is steadily improving the foods in child directed advertising. Our participants, 17 of the Nation’s leading food 

companies, represent the vast majority of child-directed advertising. By using meaningful nutrition criteria, they have shifted the 

emphasis of their advertising to children to foods that are substantially lower in total calories, lower in fats, salt and added sugars 

and higher in nutrient content, just as the Institute of Medicine 

recommended in its 2006 report on food marketing. 

Indeed, many of the foods advertised to children today meet the 

FDA’s definition of healthy foods. The companies have accomplished these product improvements by devoting vast amounts of 

time and by spending millions and millions of dollars. As a result, 

kids watching children’s television programming regularly see ads 

for foods such as apples or applesauce or other fruits, milk, yogurt 

and veggies either as a part of a canned pasta dish or as part of 

a meal. And now more than ever, products are including whole 

grains or larger amounts of whole grains. 

And I would like to say in response to Mr. Waxman’s concern, 

it is also important to know that major candy companies, Mars, 

Hershey, Cadbury’s have agreed to stop advertising to kids under 

self-regulation and are participating—Nestle has agreed to stop advertising its Wonka and other confections to kids as well. 

Second, the CFBAI’s new groundbreaking category specific uniform nutrition criteria will further improve the foods in child-directed advertising and make self-regulation work even better. Our 

new criteria build on the successes from our current program in 

which companies use meaningful but individually based standards. 

Our new uniform criteria will replace the company standards by 

the end of 2013. After that date, products across companies will 

meet the same criteria for the relevant product category. 

Our process for developing the new criteria was informed by the 

experience of high level in-house nutrition professionals who on a 

daily basis work on the development of new products and recipe 

changes. As a result, we have the benefit of their food technology 

and food science experience, as well as their understanding of the 

barriers to consumer acceptance of changes to popular products 

and newly developed products. 

In developing the criteria, we also were sensitive to competitive 

issues, and the criteria are purposely flexible to encourage even 

greater participation and self-regulation and to promote competition in the marketplace. The new criteria take into account the inherent differences in food product categories. A one-size-fits-all approach simply does not work. Grain products and dairy products, 

for example, are different and they need to be treated differently. 

Accordingly, we set limits for calories, fat, trans fats, sodium, sugars and requirements for positive nutrients such as fruits and 

210 

whole grains that are appropriate to each category to spur product 

improvement and innovation. And our new criteria are tough. They 

will require the participants to change almost one-third of the 

products they currently advertise to children, products that already 

meet meaningful nutrition standards if they wish to continue advertising them after these criteria go into effect. 

Third, the Interagency Working Group proposal was not realistic 

or workable. It inappropriately would have swept in advertising to 

moms and families and its proposed nutritional criteria greatly underestimated the technological and consumer acceptance barriers to 

reformulating well-liked products. Our new criteria, in contrast, 

provide a rigorous yet realistic roadmap for future improvements. 

Our new criteria also are well within the scope of what the IWG 

said it was seeking as an alternative to its own proposal. Our new 

criteria are based on or closely aligned with regulations to finding 

healthy products and disclosure levels just as the IWG suggested. 

They also are informed by IOM’s recommendations for school meals 

and other foods sold in schools. 

In conclusion, we were delighted to learn that the IWG considers 

our new criteria a significant development and that it intends to 

take them into account in its report to Congress. That is good 

news. Self-regulation has accomplished a significant amount in just 

a few short years. It has changed not only what products are advertised to kids, but the expectations about what should or should 

not be advertised to kids. So our new criteria will continue the 

steady improvements already occurring in foods advertised to kids 

and result in self-regulation working even better. 

Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kolish follows:] 

211 


77930.152
212 


77930.153
213 


77930.154
214 


77930.155
215 


77930.156
216 


77930.157
217 


77930.158
218 


77930.159
219 


77930.160
220 


77930.161
221 


77930.162
222 


77930.163
223 


77930.164
224 


77930.165
225 


77930.166
226 


77930.167
227 


77930.168
228 


77930.169
229 


77930.170
230 


77930.171
231 


77930.172
232 


77930.173
233 


77930.174
234 


77930.175
235 


77930.176
236 


77930.177
237 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady and recognizes Ms. 

Johnson for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF BETH JOHNSON 

Ms. JOHNSON. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Pitts, 

Madam Chair Bono Mack, Mr. Pallone and Mr. Butterfield and 

committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today. My name is Beth Johnson. I am a dietician and mother of 

two girls, 8 and 11, and have worked in the food policy world for 

almost 20 years. I am pleased to be speaking to you today on behalf 

of the American Beverage Association, Food Marketing Institute, 

Grocery Manufacturers Association, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Grocers Association, National Restaurant 

Association and the North American Millers Association. 

I want to start with what most of us agree on, there is an obesity 

problem in the United States. How to address the problem, though, 

has been a question for as long as I have been working in the area 

of food policy. Some ideas that the government is wisely engaged 

in, as is the private sector, are backed by clear evidence, like community interventions or school interventions that we talked about 

earlier. Others, like food marketing, are less clear in their causal 

evidence. 

To that end, Congress directed the Interagency Working Group 

to conduct a study of the issue and report its findings and recommendations to Congress. Among other issues, Congress directed 

the IWG to consider calories. Instead of conducting a study, it appears the IWG did a literature review and proceeded directly to 

proposing comprehensive food marketing restrictions that contradict established nutrition science, ban the marketing of many 

healthy products to our children, and impact thousands of food and 

farm jobs. Interestingly, even though the effort was clearly about 

obesity and the agencies have longstanding positions on the importance of calorie balance on obesity, the calorie portion of the report 

is at a minimum very confusing, if even there. 

What the restrictions would do, however, is add to the confusion 

that is already out there on nutrition. Once fully implemented, the 

proposal would restrict the marketing of most whole grain breads, 

not all, yogurts, even though those foods provide important nutrients like fiber and calcium. Many cereals, too, would be prohibited 

from advertising because of sodium and/or sugar, both of which are 

far lower today than in the past. Some would argue that many children’s cereals are high in sugar and shouldn’t be advertised. But 

sugar levels have come down significantly and now represent a 

mere 5 percent of daily sugar intake and only 4 percent of calories. 

Cereal provides significant levels of important vitamins and minerals and is a vehicle for about 40 percent of milk consumption. 

Numerous government studies show that kids who eat cereal for 

breakfast have lower BMIs and do better in school. As a dietician 

and a mom, I think that is a pretty good track record. 

Equally as troubling is the lack of consistency within the Federal 

Government. Recently the Department of Agriculture updated the 

WIC food package based on recommendations by the Institute of 

Medicine. Certain foods like yogurt and cereal have been determined by nutrition experts to be important enough to supplement 

238 

children’s up to 5 diets through the WIC program, yet most of 

these same foods couldn’t be advertised according to the IWG. The 

IWG criteria also don’t match FDA’s definition of healthy. At a 

minimum, this is very confusing and adds to the confusion that 

Americans are already facing today about nutrition. 

To be clear, the industry supports finding innovative ways to address the obesity challenge. In the past few years, the industry has 

reformulated over 20,000 product choices to reduce calories, sugar, 

sodium and other ingredients. These changes have occurred with 

significant research and resources to ensure safety, quality and 

consumer satisfaction. Kids are not fooled that easily. If it doesn’t 

taste good, they won’t eat it. And preventing the advertising of 

foods won’t make healthier foods taste better. 

In addition to reformulation, the industry has listened to concerns about marketing to children. As a result of the Children’s 

Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, all marketing to children 

by CFBAI participants is for nutritious foods that meet the sciencebased standards. Let me note that critics dispute some of the results as far as the lowering of advertisements for food and beverages, but that is because their standards—they base their analysis on different standards. 

Finally, the question of costs and benefits must be addressed. A 

recent study by Georgetown Economic Services concluded that 

IWG’s proposed restrictions if fully implemented would have a significant and negative impact on the U.S. economy in part because 

the cost of the IWG compliant foods are much higher than healthy 

foods in the diet. Indeed, if we ate the way the IWG would like us 

to eat, we would be spending 60 percent more on our food than we 

do today. There would be other implications across the economy as 

well. But despite two recent Executive orders, which require government proposals to take into account benefits and costs and to 

be based on best available science, the IWG has not done a costbenefit analysis. 

We urge the administration to withdraw the food marketing restrictions proposed by the IWG. Instead, we urge the IWG to do as 

Congress directed and conduct a study. Additionally, we urge them 

to follow the President’s direction and look at the benefits and costs 

of its proposal. Obesity needs attention, but none of us can afford 

to waste limited government resources. 

Thank you for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:] 

239 


77930.178
240 


77930.179
241 


77930.180
242 


77930.181
243 


77930.182
244 


77930.183
245 


77930.184
246 


77930.185
247 


77930.186
248 


77930.187
249 


77930.188
250 


77930.189
251 


77930.190
252 


77930.191
253 


77930.192
254 


77930.193
255 


77930.194
256 


77930.195
257 


77930.196
258 


77930.197
259 


77930.198
260 


77930.199
261 


77930.200
262 


77930.201
263 


77930.202
264 


77930.203
265 


77930.204
266 


77930.205
267 


77930.206
268 


77930.207
269 


77930.208
270 


77930.209
271 


77930.210
272 


77930.211
273 


77930.212
274 


77930.213
275 


77930.214
276 


77930.215
277 


77930.216
278 


77930.217
279 


77930.218
280 


77930.219
281 


77930.220
282 


77930.221
283 


77930.222
284 


77930.223
285 


77930.224
286 


77930.225
287 


77930.226
288 


77930.227
289 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. I recognize Dr. 

Wootan for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MARGO G. WOOTAN 

Ms. WOOTAN. Good afternoon. I am Margo Wootan, the Director 

of Nutrition Policy At the Center for Science and the Public Interest. I know that I am supposed to say that I am happy to be here, 

but actually I am quite concerned about the focus of this hearing 

and the food advertising and entertainment industry’s aggressive 

lobbying to prevent the Interagency Working Group from providing 

even voluntary suggestions for how they might improve upon selfregulation of food marketing to kids. 

You have heard about some of the progress that has resulted 

from the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, and 

we support self-regulation and have successfully urged many companies to join the CFBAI. But after 5 years of self-regulation, 

progress is very modest and insufficient given the huge effect that 

childhood obesity is having on our children and children’s current 

diets. 

From the time before self-regulation was in place until after, the 

percentage of food ads that are for unhealthy foods has decreased 

only a little bit, from about 90 percent of food ads to 80 percent. 

Recently, the CFBAI announced a common set of nutrition standards for food marketing to children, and that is a positive step forward. But it is only a baby step. Unlike the Interagency Working 

Group, the industry standards were developed through a closeddoor process, with no opportunity for parents, the public, and public health experts to provide input. Under the CFBAI’s so-called 

groundbreaking new standards, Cocoa Puffs, some varieties of 

Kool-Aid, fake fruit snacks, sugary Popsicles, and many other food 

that nutrition professionals consider to be unhealthy are considered 

healthy by the industry. 

I worked with Senators Brownback and Harkin on the bipartisan 

provision that required the formation of the Interagency Working 

Group, and I know firsthand that the intent was not to supplant 

self-regulation but simply to strengthen it. The Interagency Working Group guidelines would simply be suggestions for how companies could strengthen their food marketing policies to make them 

more effective. 

In fact, the CDC, USDA, and FDA lack regulatory authority over 

food advertising to children; and Congress itself took away this authority from the FTC in 1980. 

The Interagency Working Group’s proposed guidelines are based 

on science and what is best for children. Those recommendations 

have overwhelming support from health groups and researchers 

and from the public. Out of the 29,000 comments that the agencies 

received, over 28,000 of them are in full support of the proposals 

by the agencies. The industry has proposed its own new marketing 

guidelines that are what business wants. 

As much as we support the original IWG proposal, we know that 

there will be a compromise somewhere in between. Unfortunately, 

for children and families, industry doesn’t even want a compromise. 

They want Congress to step in and kill the Interagency Working 

Group. 

290 

Few deny that childhood obesity and poor diets are national 

health concerns. We all agree on that. And of course there are multiple contributors to children’s poor diets and obesity. But food 

marketing plays a key role. Industry representatives have been arguing that food marketing isn’t effective. But if marketing doesn’t 

work, why are companies concerned about these voluntary standards and why do they spend almost $2 billion a year marketing to 

children? 

Marketing is effective. Studies show it. Companies and parents 

know it. The reason that marketing has a negative effect on children’s diets and health is that the overwhelming majority of products marketed to children are still of poor nutritional value. 

Now, of course, parents bear much of the responsibility for feeding their children healthfully. But parents are outgunned by industry that has psychologists, market researchers, great music, cartoon characters, and other sophisticated marketing techniques at 

its disposal. 

A parent’s job is hard enough. Companies should support parents 

by not encouraging our children to desire and to expect to be fed 

food that undermines their diets and health. 

In closing, I ask you to let the Interagency Working Group finish 

its work; and I urge the food, entertainment, and advertising industries to work with the Interagency Working Group, not against 

it. The IWG is simply providing companies with much-needed advice on how they could continue to strengthen self-regulation. Then 

it will be up to the companies to decide what to do next. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wootan follows:] 

291 


77930.228
292 


77930.229
293 


77930.230
294 


77930.231
295 


77930.232
296 


77930.233
297 


77930.234
298 


77930.235
299 


77930.236
300 


77930.237
301 


77930.238
302 


77930.239
303 


77930.240
304 


77930.241
305 


77930.242
306 


77930.243
307 


77930.244
308 


77930.245
309 


77930.246
310 


77930.247
311 


77930.248
312 


77930.249
313 


77930.250
314 


77930.251
315 


77930.252
316 


77930.253
317 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentlelady. 

The ranking member has a unanimous consent request. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Olson from Texas requested unanimous consent to submit an 

FTC document into the record during the questioning of the first 

panel. I just wanted to note a few things about this document. 

There was no signature on it, no time stamp, no evidence that this 

was a final document. My staff has asked for the origin of the document, and we have not heard anything yet. And, without further 

information, this isn’t even an internal memo. It is a draft of an 

internal memo from staff to their chairman. 

I am not really sure why the majority would want to enter it into 

the record. However, in the interests of full transparency, the FTC 

has no objection to entering it into the record. Therefore, I have no 

objection either. But, in doing so, I just want to make it clear that 

I don’t believe the document merits a great deal of attention from 

the committee. 

With that, I would withdraw my objection. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. Without objection, 

it will be entered into the record. 

And, Dr. Kunkel, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DALE KUNKEL 

Mr. KUNKEL. Thank you. 

Let me start by asking, why are we here today? Based upon 

much of the discussion so far, one might surmise it is to argue 

about where to draw the line in terms of defining foods as healthy, 

or maybe to debate the proper role of government in people’s lives. 

While both of those issues may be central to what we have discussed today, the fundamental reason why we are here is that the 

Nation faces a staggering epidemic of childhood obesity; and, contrary to assertions we have heard from some, there is compelling 

evidence that food marketing to children contributes significantly 

to the crisis. 

There are many elements involved with the obesity epidemic. 

Fewer family meals, increased reliance on fast foods, less physical 

activity, and a host of other elements all contribute to the problem. 

But we now know with great confidence that children’s exposure to 

advertising for unhealthy foods stands prominently among the factors that contribute to childhood obesity. That evidence-based conclusion should remain front and center in the discussion about the 

fate of the IWG guidelines. 

In 2005, I served on an Institute of Medicine panel that produced 

this report, which has been referenced quite a bit today. More than 

a dozen of the Nation’s leading scientists in nutrition, child development, marketing, and media effects systematically reviewed 

every scientific study that has been conducted on the topic, reaching back more than a quarter century. 

Among our key findings that were unanimously reported: One, 

children are heavily exposed to food advertising; two, the vast majority of child-targeted food ads promote obesogenic products that 

are high in added fat, salt, and sugar; three, child-targeted food advertising is highly effective; and, four, children who see more food 

318 

advertising have a significantly higher risk of succumbing to obesity. 

Based upon that overall body of evidence, the IOM report concluded that food and beverage marketing practices put children’s 

health at risk. It is well-known that the IOM report had several 

recommendations. One was that food marketers should shift their 

children’s product portfolios to healthier foods, and two is that they 

should similarly shift their advertising practices. 

But the IOM issued yet another key recommendation that has 

largely been overlooked, and I want to draw your attention to that 

today. It explicitly recommended that if voluntary efforts failed to 

shift advertising during children’s television to healthy foods, Congress should enact legislation mandating that shift on both broadcast and cable television. 

That report was released more than 5 years ago. That is when 

the IOM rang the bell that this is a problem that is harming our 

Nation’s children’s health. That has certainly been ample time for 

the industry to respond effectively. 

What we haven’t heard anything about today is what does the 

evidence say regarding how well industry self-regulation is achieving the goal of shifting child-targeted food advertising to healthy 

foods? So on this point I have some evidence that—in fact, the evidence across a number of studies is strong and consistent. The 

large majority of child-targeted food ads still promote unhealthy 

products that should not be a part of a regular diet. 

Prior to the advent of self-regulation, my research shows that 84 

percent of all foods advertised on TV to children were for products 

in the poorest of three nutritional categories used by DHHS; and 

that consists mostly of highly sugared cereals, beverages, snacks, 

and fast foods. If self-regulation was achieving its goal perfectly, 

the percentage of foods that fall in that category now should come 

down from 84 percent to zero. If self-regulation was even moderately effective, that proportion should at least be below 50 percent. But my studies show that in 2007, following self-regulation, 

the proportion of foods marketed to children that remained 

unhealthy was 79 percent, and in 2009 it was still at 72 percent. 

I will soon release some findings from research I have conducted 

this year that indicate more of this pattern of inching in tiny steps 

in the desired direction, while falling very far short of the actual 

goal. 

In sum, industry self-regulation has not yet achieved any meaningful improvement in the nutritional quality of the foods marketed 

to children; and at the current rate of reform my data indicate it 

will take until the year 2033 for self-regulation to eliminate all 

child-targeted advertising for foods in the poorest nutritional category, all of which are products that should not be part of a child’s 

regular diet. 

But instead of pursuing the regulation that the IOM report recommends, this committee has called a hearing that questions the 

mere recommendations that industry should be more responsible in 

their billion-dollar campaigns to influence children’s eating patterns. It seems to me that this committee has lost sight of the fundamental cause for concern in this realm, that the marketing of 

319 

unhealthy foods to children contributes to the epidemic of childhood 

obesity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kunkel follows:] 

320 


77930.254
321 


77930.255
322 


77930.256
323 


77930.257
324 


77930.258
325 


77930.259
326 


77930.260
327 


77930.261
328 


77930.262
329 


77930.263
330 


77930.264
331 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now recognizes 

Dr. Irons for 5 minutes for your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN S. IRONS 

Mr. IRONS. Great. Thank you, and good afternoon. Thank you for 

the invitation to speak with you today about this very important 

topic. 

My name is John Irons. I am the research director at the Economic Policy Institute. My organization, the Economic Policy Institute, has been a leading nongovernmental voice emphasizing the 

need for more jobs in this weak economy. As an economist, I am 

very concerned about the impact of high and prolonged levels of unemployment on families and on the long-term health of the economy. 

With the current economic weakness in the labor market, it is 

important to assess the economic and employment effects of the 

voluntary marketing guidelines that are the subject of today’s hearing. Let me briefly outline the prime impact of the proposed guidelines on employment. In my view, to the extent that companies follow these guidelines, the impact would be primarily a shift in advertising and a shift in product sales, not necessarily a reduction 

overall in these industries. 

First, to restate the obvious, the IWG proposed guidelines are 

voluntary, and thus there is no automatic reduction in advertising 

as a result of these guidelines. 

Second, if companies do choose to adopt the voluntary guidelines, 

a primary change that would result is a shift in consumption across 

food categories, for example, from foods with high levels of fats, sodium, and sugars towards foods lower in these nutrients. This shift 

in either advertising dollars or in sales could occur across product 

lines within a single firm or across firms within the industry. 

There might not be a net reduction in advertising, in sales, or employment even within the industry. It is also possible that advertising dollars would be shifted from marketing to children towards 

advertising on other products, or advertising on the same products 

to other people, such as their parents. 

Over time, we can expect firms and industry to respond to the 

guidelines by establishing new, healthier products and product 

lines that could then be marketed to kids. In fact, a surge in advertising might result as companies seek to expand product recognition for new product lines amongst kids and their parents. 

For example, as the FDA was considering adopting regulations 

requiring trans fat labeling, many companies reformulated their 

products to remove trans fats and invested in marketing those 

products. For example, Frito-Lay back in 2003 had an ad campaign 

that was placed in the top 25 newspapers around the country announcing zero grams of trans fat for their products that they had 

recently reformulated. 

Further, industry advertising is often designed to compete with 

other brands, transferring market share across companies but resulting in little to no change in their final industry level sales. 

A report by his Consulting has been cited widely, including in 

this hearing today, that claims to show that guidelines could result 

in a 20 percent reduction in ad sales and a loss of 74,000 jobs. My 

332 

submitted testimony includes a more detailed critique, but let me 

summarize that the assumed 20 percent reduction in ad sales 

would seem to be a significantly exaggerated response, given the 

existing advertising patterns, the voluntary nature of the guidelines, and the likely shifting of ad dollars to other products or to 

targeting other age groups. 

Even if it still were the case that advertising reduction led to 

fewer sales in the food and beverage industry, consumers would 

simply shift some or all of those expenditures to products in other 

industries. A realistic assessment is that the proposed guidelines 

would have, at most, a modest impact on overall advertising levels 

and an even more modest impact on industry level sales and employment. Even if there were a job impact at the industry level, the 

shifts to other industries would likely yield job increases that 

would offset some or all of the impact on the food and beverage industry. 

As I said earlier, I am an economist, and I am concerned with 

the health of the economy. However, as a father, I am primarily 

concerned with the health of my two daughters. I am well aware 

of the challenges of getting a 3-year-old to eat healthy. In my family, fruits and vegetables are sometimes ketchup and French fries. 

I realize that my girls will see thousands of ads while they grow 

up, but I would much prefer that the advertising that they do see 

be for healthier products. 

As an economist, I think that the IWG guidelines would primarily result in a shift of ad dollars towards healthier products 

and not a reduction in overall industry advertising, sales, or jobs. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Irons follows:] 

333 


77930.265
334 


77930.266
335 


77930.267
336 


77930.268
337 


77930.269
338 


77930.270
339 


77930.271
340 


77930.272
341 


77930.273
342 


77930.274
343 


77930.275
344 


77930.276
345 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman, thanks the panel for 

your prepared testimony. 

We will now begin questioning, and I will recognize myself for 5 

minutes for that purpose. 

Mr. Baughman, should the IWG withdraw its recommendations 

and start over? If you believe that, why? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Well, yes, I do believe that. As I said in my prepared statement, IWG has really focused on idealized foods. And I 

was heartened to hear that in fact they are looking at the precedent that we set as part of the CFBAI to look at different foods differently, because they play a different role in the diet, and they 

offer different plusses and minuses, if you will, in the diet. Even 

within categories of foods, there are differences in how much—for 

instance, how much whole grain you can put in something, how 

much salt it may need to be palatable. So, yes, the approach that 

they have taken has really been not a productive one. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Jaffe, should the IWG withdraw its recommendations and start over? If you believe that, tell us why. 

Mr. JAFFE. Yes, I do. And as I said in my testimony earlier, we 

believe these are very radical proposals. There is nothing in the 

proposals that answers the key question that the Congress has 

asked, which is how these proposals, if acceded to by industry, 

would affect obesity. We think they would have extremely significant economic impacts. So, across the board, we think that the proposal as it now stands is so flawed it should be withdrawn. 

If it is not going to be withdrawn, at the very least the agency 

should answer the 10 questions that came out of this committee 

and also the specific questions that were in the report before they 

ever file it. And I believe that, because they missed the target so 

dramatically and they have admitted that they have to substantially change their report, that there should be a chance for comment from the industry once again before they finalize it. 

Mr. PITTS. Ms. Kolish, would you respond to that question as 

well? 

Ms. KOLISH. I believe that the IWG’s proposal was very unrealistic and unworkable, but I am very heartened to hear they are 

taking our new criteria into account and will be using them in 

their report to Congress. I think that is a very good solution. 

Mr. PITTS. Ms. Johnson, please respond. 

Ms. JOHNSON. Yes. I do think that the guidelines, in particular 

how they have put them out at this point, should be withdrawn. 

I think that they need to focus on conducting a study, as they were 

told to do. And, also, as they are putting this together, make sure 

they address the confusion that they have added to instead of 

helped to clarify on the nutrition front. 

Mr. PITTS. All right. Mr. Baughman, has your company conducted any type of economic analysis for implementing the IWG 

recommendations? What type of impact would this have on your 

company’s ability to hire new workers or retain current ones? Can 

you talk about the economic impact of these recommendations on 

your company and others? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. We have not done a study on the economic impact. What I can say is that following the nutrition criteria and the 

guidelines would mean that we would not be able to promote these 

346 

foods to children. None of our soups—even our low-sodium soups 

would fail to comply because of—you know, you need a little bit of 

something to make things, you know, something you want to eat. 

And also with soups, of course, because there is a great deal of 

water in a soup, it doesn’t comply with the positive food group requirements. 

But I think the misconception often is that food companies can 

control what people eat. In fact, we don’t control what people eat. 

They control what we can sell to them, and we have to be very conscious of that. And certainly the criteria that have been set out 

here in their proposal are ones that would make it impossible for 

us to comply. 

Mr. PITTS. Mr. Jaffe, what is the most serious problem with the 

IWG proposal, in your opinion? 

Mr. JAFFE. Well, at least—we represent marketers. The most serious problem from the marketing side is that, as it specifically 

states, it makes it impossible, if people are going to accede to the 

command of the IWG, that a large percentage of food products currently in the marketplace would not meet the principles and not be 

able to be advertised. 

And we heard earlier in the hearing that the numbers that were 

being used for the economic analysis were too high. What was ignored is the fact that this would not just impact kids, but they 

have now expanded the number to those under 18 and then said 

that if there is 20 percent of the marketplace that includes those 

between 12 and 17, or 30 percent of the marketplace between 2 and 

11, that that would mean that the advertisers would be treated as 

if they were directed just to kids. 

So this sweeps in an enormous amount of adult programming as 

well. We estimate that more than 1,700 programs on broadcast and 

cable would be affected. 

We can’t understand how anybody can claim that this is not 

going to have very, very significant economic impacts if most of the 

foods that are advertised in this country are suddenly verboten for 

anybody under 17, and in many programs with a substantial adult 

audience, as much as 80 percent of the audience adult, not be allowed to be advertised and still meet these criteria. So we think 

that this is a very radical proposal. We don’t think that that is 

hype. We just think that is the fact. 

Mr. PITTS. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

The time has expired. Recognize the ranking member for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have my own questions that I wanted to ask, but I did want 

to give one of the three other panelists—Dr. Wootan, Kunkel, or 

Irons—an opportunity to respond to Mr. Pitts’s question, if you 

want to, you know, whether or not the working group recommendations should be thrown out. I don’t want all three of you, because 

I have my own questions. Would any of you like to respond to that? 

Mr. KUNKEL. My response is going to be stronger than likely my 

colleagues. 

My response is that I wouldn’t withdraw the IWG guidelines. I 

would table them. And I would table them while the Congress considers the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine. And that 

347 

is, if the industry could not move significantly to reduce marketing 

of unhealthy food products to children in the short term, that this 

Congress should regulate to accomplish that. And it has been 5 

years, and we haven’t seen any significant improvement. 

What we have seen—and I will agree with Ms. Kolish. She said 

there has been steady improvement. There has. We are inching to 

success. But we can’t afford to wait 30 years to get there. 

Mr. PALLONE. OK. Let me go back to Mr. Baughman. I am always happy to see somebody from a New Jersey corporation testify. 

So thanks for being here. 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. PALLONE. I was glad to hear from your testimony that Campbell Soup agrees with Congress, the IWG, and the IOM that addresses the prevalence of childhood obesity, that that should be a 

national priority. And we recognize that childhood obesity is simply 

a problem that we can’t ignore. But, you know, I think you have 

to have partnerships with the private sector and that we have to 

find realistic and workable guidelines for food marketing to children. So I wanted to say I think we all agree that the IWG proposal needs some reshaping, but I still believe it is an important 

step towards this kind of partnership, if you will. 

You are clearly opposed to any type of Federal guidelines and 

suggest the proposal be eliminated altogether. So how do you instead propose that the food industry work with the Federal Government to address childhood obesity? What would you have us do? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. I do think that discussion and dialogue are important in any major public issue, and certainly I think we as 

Campbell are always interested in sitting down with anyone to talk 

about those kinds of issues. We have in fact, as I believe you know, 

have been working with obesity experts locally in our home city of 

Camden in tackling hunger and obesity, and there we are working 

with a great number of NGOs and so forth to tackle this issue. 

Mr. PALLONE. Let me ask you about the sodium, because I know 

you mentioned the sodium levels, and I know that CPSI also spoke 

about their concern with the sodium level requirements. Instead of 

the IWG, how would you propose addressing sodium levels in food 

products marketed to kids? Let’s just talk about that. How would 

you propose to do it? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. I would propose taking the approach we have 

taken as one of the members of CFBAI, which is to look at specific 

product categories and looking at what sort of sodium or salt is required in a particular product category to meet consumer expectations in terms of texture—obviously, there is food safety issues but, 

very importantly, taste and not have a one-size-fits-all standard. 

You may know that, for instance, a soup does require a lot more 

sodium to taste good than a yogurt. It is a savory product. If you 

mix up chicken meat and water with some carrots and celery and 

so forth, you do need some salt in order to make that a good food. 

And our concern is that by applying one standard for sodium across 

the board that we are under the delusion that every food that we 

eat has to have the same exact profile. 

We should be eating a variety of foods, and each of those foods 

has its unique contributions in terms of food groups and positive 

nutrients, as well as the nutrients to limit. That is putting the enVerDate Aug 31 2005 15:28 Jun 06, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00355 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-09~1\112-94~1 WAYNE
348 

tire diet together with a mixture of foods that compose a healthy 

diet. 

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make clear that 

I fully expect that the IWG is going to take these comments into 

account when finalizing their guidelines. It is my hope that we can 

work in tandem to address this. I mean, it is a national epidemic, 

and it has to be addressed. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. BONO MACK [presiding]. I thank the gentleman and note 

that I am Madam, not Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PALLONE. I didn’t see you came back, Mary. I apologize. I 

certainly didn’t want to think that I saw you instead of Joe there. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank you. And thank you for your time. I 

will recognize myself for 5 minutes for questioning. 

I just want to start with an observation to all of you, and that 

is often in the political debate here you are either the pessimists 

or the optimists. We have been told this is the health of our children versus jobs and our struggling economy. If you are an optimist, the glass is half full. If you are a pessimist, it is half empty. 

Our job is to design the perfect glass, and I just don’t think we 

have done it yet. I really don’t. I am not hearing from all of the 

witnesses today that we have got it perfect. 

Dr. Kunkel, you mentioned that we should regulate the Institute 

of Medicine and that you think we should get out there and regulate. I will just point out that today or yesterday there was a study 

released, not relative to this point but still in the health care debate. It was a study released by the Archives of Internal Medicine 

that now says multivitamins for women causes a decreased life 

span. That is a brand new study. 

So you regulate yet in an area that changes, and data changes 

so quickly. What was healthy today might not be healthy tomorrow. I mean, we created hydrogenated oils because butter was 

unhealthy suddenly. And so I don’t think we are there yet. 

And, Dr. Wootan, you said that Congress wants to kill the working group. No, we don’t. But we want common sense. We want to 

know that the FDA and the FTC and the working group are actually collaborating, working together, so that we are not constantly 

reinventing the problems and the unintended consequences that 

are created out of this mess. 

So, Dr. Irons, to you, though, as the economist and to the father, 

the crux of the matter here is the jobs. And have you really analyzed the jobs? You know, we are talking about the advertising industry, we are talking about the food industry, and we are talking 

about content. Each of you critics have pretty much taken a lot of 

shots at the content providers. Can you talk about the hundreds of 

thousands of jobs that are created? 

You know, certainly what I care about is southern California, but 

it will impact those people, those jobs, the seamstresses, the grips, 

all the people who work in that industry. And I don’t know how 

many of you are actually focused on those people who are trying 

put food on the table for their children. So if you can speak briefly 

to that, that would be great. 

Mr. IRONS. Yes, I am very concerned about those people, too. Let 

me just kind of throw out an example. 

349 

If you look at the advertising industry, they employ about a half 

a million people, plus or minus, in any given year. The food and 

beverage industry is about a million and a half people per year. I 

think a good case study is the impact of the CFBAI regulations— 

not regulations, but guidelines. If you look at employment in those 

industries from 2005, before the initiative, to 2008, after the initiative was started, you find that for the economy as a whole employment grew by about 2.3 percent. For the advertising industry, it 

grew by faster than that, by 3.5 percent. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. And this is the frustration that somebody like 

I have with the fact that the agencies don’t talk to one another. 

You just cited years that are even long before the digital explosion 

being what it is now. Content providers are struggling in an everyday world to provide content because it is all moving to the digital 

world, and it is out there for free. So you are looking at studies 

that are 6 years old, 7 years old, about the way it used to be. I 

mean, so for us to say, wait a minute, you don’t have it right yet, 

is it that hard to recognize that we need to talk about today and 

tomorrow and going forward and what it means for jobs, not what 

it meant 6 years ago? 

Mr. IRONS. I think that is right. But the way we assess the impact in the future is to look at past experiences with these kinds 

of guidelines, and it looks as though there has been no major impact in the past. So like I said in my testimony, my view is that 

there is a shift within the industry and that, if not a reduction in 

advertising, it will be a shift in the kinds of products that are advertised, with at least the possibility that there could be a surge. 

So, you know, I do want to recognize it is important to assess the 

consequences. Absolutely. But from my perspective I don’t see in 

the data, I don’t see in the studies any major impact this would 

have on jobs. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. But then again I think that those of us say 

that we just don’t yet see a major impact on the childhood obesity 

rate by what we are trying to do here. And I think it is very reasonable to say when, Dr. Kunkel, you said table it, I was excited, 

thinking, oh, you did mean let’s talk about this a little bit further 

and figure out how to do something that is good for the economy 

and good for our children, design that perfect glass. 

Mr. Baughman, how have your soups changed over all the years? 

And when would everybody—when would you say the obesity epidemic really started? And have your soups changed over those 

years? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Well, that is a complex question. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. You have 10 seconds. You are lucky. 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. Yes. While I think I am well informed on obesity, saying when the obesity epidemic began, you know, I believe 

that it began, you know, a couple of decades ago. But our soups 

have not really become more caloric. The difference in our soups 

has been really in thinking of those condensed soups that everyone 

is especially familiar with. The major change there has been having about a thousand milligrams of sodium per serving not that 

many years ago and gradual decreases in sodium over that time. 

350 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Just briefly, and I am sorry because your time 

is up, and I would just like to end with one point. By sodium, it 

would be good—you also do mean MSG, right? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. I am sorry? 

Mrs. BONO MACK. MSG is really what you mean by sodium? 

Mr. BAUGHMAN. No, sodium, I mean salt. I mean sodium bicarbonate in a baked product, other sodium-containing compounds. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. My time has expired. So thank you very much. 

And the Chair is happy to recognize Dr. Burgess for 5 minutes 

for questioning. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, and I appreciate the opportunity. I appreciate you all staying with us for so long. 

Mr. Jaffe, let me just ask you a couple of things. Now, in your 

testimony, of course we are told these are voluntary guidelines, 

compliance is voluntary. But you actually imply in your testimony 

that there may be more to the voluntary than meets the eye, the 

ability during the research of the working group to actually subpoena information and to get specific information from marketers. 

Do I understand your testimony correctly in that regard? 

Mr. JAFFE. You are absolutely correct. 

And, by the way, the focus cannot be just on the Federal Trade 

Commission. The White House did a report on obesity. And in the 

course of that report they said if the industry does not carry out 

adequate self-regulation that the Federal Communications Commission should step in and limit the amount of children’s advertising. 

And, also, as you are, I am sure, aware, for a broadcast licensing 

you have to operate in the public interest. If you have four agencies 

who are supposedly the experts both on marketing and on health 

in this country, all come together and make a proposal to the Congress saying that all of this type of advertising is unhealthy for our 

children, do you not think that we are going to start seeing that 

when people come up for their licenses, if they are continuing to 

run those types of ads, that they would be under challenge? 

There is a great deal of more compulsion here than has been expressed in this hearing, and this is not just our view. As I said, 

Martin Redish, who is one of the top constitutional experts in this 

country, has said so. 

Mr. BURGESS. Let me just ask you a question about that. Was 

there in fact intimidation involved in questioning the industry? 

Mr. JAFFE. Well, all I can say is that, you know, the fact that 

the industry has been as exercised as this I think gives you a clear 

sense that they did not think that this was something people could 

just ignore or walk away. 

Mr. BURGESS. We saw this during the health care debates. The 

phrase that was frequently used with the administration was you 

are either at the table or on the menu. Since this is a food hearing, 

that is an appropriate analogy. But was that same principle at 

work here with this working group? 

Mr. JAFFE. Well, certainly we felt that if this went forward that 

the Congress would now be on record as saying that the vast majority of all of the advertising that all of these companies—the restaurant industry, the beverage industry, the food industry—was 

doing was inappropriate and unhealthy for children. That is what 

351 

these four agencies were claiming. And that clearly was going to 

put all sorts of different pressures on us, whether they came from 

government, whether it came from stockholders, whether it came 

from consumer groups. And to act as if there wasn’t any pressure 

I think is very unreasonable to expect. I think the fact that 150 

Congress and Senate representatives have spoken out against this 

report suggests that they think this is more than something that 

is a mere voluntary proposal. 

Mr. BURGESS. Let me ask you something. Because Mr. Pompeo, 

who is not here with us, asked a question of the previous panel, 

what is going on in other countries? I mean, are there other countries that actually restrict this type of advertising? And what has 

their experience been? Are any of you aware of countries that restrict this type of advertising? 

Mr. JAFFE. I can at least start that answer, and I am sure there 

are others here who could build on it. Sweden has basically banned 

all children’s advertising across the board, not just for food advertising. 

Mr. BURGESS. Over what period of time now has that occurred? 

Mr. JAFFE. Certainly a decade, but I think it is more than that 

now. 

Mr. BURGESS. Are they able to point to any difference in rates 

of childhood obesity? 

Mr. JAFFE. Their obesity rates are worse than a number of other 

European countries that have no restrictions. Same case for Quebec. 

Mr. BURGESS. What are those advertising minutes—what are 

they filled with? Do they advertise BB guns? What are they advertising during those minutes that are no longer sold to—— 

Mr. JAFFE. I think I have to defer to others on that. All I can 

say is they certainly are not advertising food, beverage, restaurant 

products during that time frame. And yet the obesity rates have 

not gone down. 

And that was—Quebec is another place which has tried to do the 

same thing. They do not have better obesity rates than the rest of 

the Canadian commonwealth. So it is just not provable. 

And if you go look at the IOM report itself, despite the fact that 

people would want to dismiss it, they say that they couldn’t find 

causation. And in fact for 12 to 17-year-olds, it was the opposite, 

that they found a negative association between advertising and the 

consumption patterns for those groups. 

Mr. BURGESS. I thank you for that. 

And, Dr. Kunkel, I will just share with you that sometimes I do 

share in your frustration. And if I ran the world, things could be 

better. But we do live in a free society. If I had my way, I would 

ban tobacco and alcohol as well as high fructose corn syrup. But 

we do live in a free society. 

And honestly, Dr. Irons, it puts the responsibility of parents in 

a free society are even higher than if the government exerts complete control, complete regulatory control. 

It would be great if we lived in a perfect world, but we don’t. And 

we all know that those things that are severely regulated we don’t 

always get the desired behavior that we want. So before we give 

352 

up more of our freedom to something, perhaps we ought to evaluate 

the risks and benefits what the trade-off is. 

And I will just offer that as an observation. You are both free to 

respond to that. 

Mr. KUNKEL. I respect your point of view, but what—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Ironically, I am way on the left to you, but, to me, 

I am way on the right. So it is a difference in perspective. 

Mr. KUNKEL. I appreciate your point. But what we are trying to 

suggest is that there isn’t a level playing field here, that the industry is investing nearly $2 billion annually to try to influence children’s eating patterns. And it is working, and the foods that they 

promote are contributing to childhood obesity. So therefore—— 

Mrs. BONO MACK. The gentleman’s time has expired. I am sorry, 

but we have other people waiting to ask the panel some questions. 

So the gentleman’s time has expired, and the gentlelady from 

Tennessee is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I have got a series of eight questions. They are basically yes or 

no, and then someone may want to give a quick response. But let’s 

work through these. 

Before I do, Mr. Jaffe, I just want to say to you that last week 

my colleagues on the Congressional International Anti-Piracy Caucus sent you a letter regarding advertising placed on pirate Web 

sites, and I wanted to highlight your comment. You told C–NET 

Daily that the issue is of very, very high importance. It is of high 

importance to us and to many of the musicians and songwriters 

and individuals that we represent that don’t get paid if there is advertising on Web sites. 

All right. Now to my questions. 

OK, this first one is a yes or no for all of you. Just raise your 

hand. OK, yes or no, do you think the IWG guidelines can be accurately described as a new regulation? No? Raise your hand if you 

say no. 

OK. So that is three of you. Four of you. So we have got four 

noes. 

How many you say, yes, they are new regulations? One. And we 

have two that can’t make up their mind. OK. So there is one yes. 

If no—let me tell you what I think about new regulations. When 

I look at something to see if it is a new regulation, I say, is it going 

to cost businesses money? Is it going to have an impact on jobs? 

Have we looked at the cost of the new guidelines? So those are 

things that go into regulation. 

So if you said no, why would this—how is this not going to cost 

money or cost jobs or be an expense to businesses to implement? 

Anybody have 15 seconds to offer on that? 

Ms. KOLISH. Ms. Blackburn, I said no, but when I said no, I 

didn’t think it was regulation. I did think it had the feel and impact of back-door regulation, which is equally troublesome. And I 

am really gratified that they have noticed that we have taken a 

significant step in our new criteria and will take it into account in 

their report to Congress. I think that is very important. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. And, you know, the FTC—we got a letter 

from USDA, HHS, and FTC describing these rules as, quote, unquote, nonregulatory recommendations. That is always of concern. 

353 

OK. Question number two. We see that these are voluntary, supposedly. But how many of you think that these could end up being 

government standards or being used as the basis of NGO attacks? 

Could form the basis for shareholder actions? Could be used to initiate private litigation? How many of you fear that these regulations—— 

OK, so we have got four of you that think it could form that kind 

of basis. Anyone want to comment? 

Ms. WOOTAN. I mean, that is where a lot of different questions 

certainly will encourage companies to follow those standards. But 

you can’t sue a company for not following a voluntary suggestion. 

You can only sue—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. That was not the question. 

Ms. WOOTAN (continuing). For breaking the law. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. That wasn’t the question. 

Number three. To see if this is needed or not, do you think this 

is duplicative of the FCC guidelines for marketing to children? 

Anyone see this as a duplication of efforts? 

No? OK. 

All right, number four. Do you find it alarming that food currently sold through the WIC program, which is designed by USDA 

experts to provide a healthy diet for young children, could no 

longer be marketed under your proposal? Does that cause you concern? Any hands? 

Ms. WOOTAN. The WIC standards—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. We have got four. 

Ms. WOOTAN. I like the stronger WIC standards that they proposed. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. Question number five then. Do you think 

that IWG guidelines raise any free speech concerns and have you 

determined the likely impact on advertising revenues? 

So how many of you think that it would cause free speech concerns? May I see your hands? 

So we have got four that are there. 

And do you think it is going to have an impact on advertising 

revenues? 

We have got two. 

OK. How many think these guidelines will actually do something 

to reduce obesity? 

We have got two. 

OK. How many support or sponsor exercise programs in your 

companies or your organizations? 

We have got three that believe in exercise, which is a big part 

of reducing childhood obesity. 

OK. How many favor regulating Web sites, mobile devices, or 

point of purchase access to children? Would you go in and regulate 

what is on a Web site, what is on a mobile device like a mobile TV? 

Would you regulate access at point of purchase, like when a child 

is in the grocery store with their parents? How many of you would 

extend your guidelines, your marketing guidelines to that? 

Ms. WOOTAN. These aren’t regulations. They are suggestions. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And we know where regulations get their genesis. 

Thank you all so much. I yield back. 

354 

Mrs. BONO MACK. Thank the gentlelady, and the Chair is 

pleased to recognize Dr. Cassidy for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Thank you all. 

This is kind of a confusing hearing for me, because there is really 

a kind of disagreement on questions of fact. I mean, the gentleman 

from FTC said, Mr. Vladeck, said he could not think of a single 

time when principles have led to litigation or to rules, and here we 

have folks putting their hand on a Bible raising them and saying, 

heck, this is our existential anxiety that this is what it will lead 

to. 

So, Mr. Jaffe, just to pick you, if Mr. Vladeck were here, if I were 

channeling Mr. Vladeck right to you and you had a chance to reply 

to him saying there has never been an example and he gave the 

example of principles regarding violence in video games and et 

cetera, what would you say? I mean, he says there is never an example. But for you it is an anxiety. 

Mr. JAFFE. Well, that is clearly wrong. There is the Bantam Book 

case where the Supreme Court clearly acted before there had been 

any overt regulation. And I would then quote to him Professor Sullivan, who was, as I mentioned earlier, a former dean of the Stanford law school, who is a chair at the school still, and it said, Professor Sullivan further notes that government action undertaken 

with the purpose and predictable effect of curbing truthful speech 

is de facto regulation. 

Mr. CASSIDY. But they would reply that this is not to curb 

speech. It is just going to be like me telling my son, boy, when you 

are out on the tennis court don’t behave in a certain way, and he 

goes out and behaves as he wishes. You follow what I am saying? 

Mr. JAFFE. But what she says is, even where the mode of censorship is informal and even where the acceptance of the speech restrictive conditions is nominally voluntary, the Supreme Court has 

long held that such efforts are unconstitutional. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Dr. Kunkel, what would you say to that man? Or 

Dr. Irons or anybody who would disagree with Mr. Jaffe. 

Ms. WOOTAN. There is a letter from 38 very esteemed legal scholars that have a very different opinion than the industry’s hired attorneys. 

Mr. CASSIDY. This guy is from Stanford. The person who they 

quoted is at Stanford. 

Ms. WOOTAN. And ours are from Yale and Harvard and all over 

the globe. 

Mr. CASSIDY. But what I am saying is, in a sense, you deprecate 

him by saying he is hired. But I mean theoretically—— 

Ms. WOOTAN. He has two. We have 40. I don’t know. I don’t 

think it is—it is not the common opinion. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I have limited time. I don’t mean to interrupt. I 

apologize. 

So I am looking here, Institute of Medicine—because you quoted 

him. I am thinking IOM, and they have a thing here using litigation to change policies and practices regarding childhood obesity— 

and so I have to admit I am in a sense thinking, wow—litigation 

can raise public awareness of an issue, result in disclosure of important documents. And it goes through strategies, advantages, disadvantages of litigation. That would seem to support, though, what 

355 

these folks are saying, that there are actually people out there who 

think how can I use a lawsuit to push the envelope? You see what 

I am saying? 

Mr. KUNKEL. The litigation that is being referenced, the litigation that they are talking about is existing legal standards, for example, misleading information. So there are organizations and 

there are government agencies that have litigated against the food 

marketing industry when they claim that their products are 

healthy by putting, let’s say, a Smart Choice check on it, when in 

fact it has significant evidence that the product contains elements 

that make it unhealthy. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So I have something which is a high fiber sugarcoated something. 

Mr. KUNKEL. How much? Sugar coated can be a thin veneer. It 

can be loaded and loaded. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So I think what we just agreed upon is there is a 

level of subjectivity here. Now, high fiber may be what sends you 

to the restroom after eating breakfast—— 

Mr. KUNKEL. The subjectivity is where do you drawn the line? 

Mr. CASSIDY. Yes. 

Mr. KUNKEL. No one would disagree that excess amounts of 

sugar is healthy—I am sorry, is not. 

Mr. CASSIDY. But they may disagree as to what is excess. 

Mr. KUNKEL. Yes. Where to draw the line. 

Mr. CASSIDY. So you could say it is healthy based upon fiber content but then get dinged because of sugar? 

Mr. KUNKEL. We know many foods are so far over the line in the 

unhealthy side of the equation that they are contributing to childhood obesity. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Let me stop you right there. I have got your point. 

Ms. Kolish, I will throw it to you, but this is a different question. 

I mean, there are articles in the medical literature that our children will have a shorter life span than we because of obesity. If not 

this remedy for obesity, what? 

Ms. KOLISH. I think self-regulation—advertising self-regulation 

alone is not going to cure the obesity problem. We need the joint 

efforts of everyone. But self-regulation is doing an outstanding job 

of reducing sugars, fats—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. But is it reducing childhood obesity? 

Ms. KOLISH. It is a multifaceted problem, and I don’t think you 

can take that factor alone and say it by itself is reducing obesity 

or causing obesity. So I can’t answer that. I don’t think anyone 

could. 

Mr. CASSIDY. I am out of time. I wish we were sitting around 

drinking Diet Coke discussing this further. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. BONO MACK. I thank the good doctor. I am not sure about 

Diet Coke being healthy for you. 

So I would like to begin wrapping up and to thank all of our witnesses today and to assure you that, again, I am happy to work 

with you. I know our subcommittee, until we get this right, to continue visiting it. 

356 

I would like to thank the Health Subcommittee, their staff, for 

their hard work with today, as well as the subcommittee and members of the CMT Subcommittee. 

So I will remind Members they have 10 business days to submit 

questions for the record. I ask the witnesses to please respond 

promptly to those questions. Members should submit those questions by the close of business on October 26. 

And the subcommittees are now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:50 p.m., the subcommittees were adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

357 


77930.277
358 


77930.278
359 


77930.279
360 


77930.280
361 


77930.281
362 


77930.282
363 


77930.283
364 


77930.284
365 


77930.285
366 


77930.286
367 


77930.287
368 


77930.288
369 


77930.289
370 


77930.290
371 


77930.291
372 


77930.292
373 


77930.293
374 


77930.294
375 


77930.295
376 


77930.296
377 


77930.297
378 


77930.298
379 


77930.299
380 


77930.300
381 

Æ 


77930.301