The Washing of the Brains

A brand-new study, published only last month, reveals the folk whose profession is to influence children to nag their parents until the grownups give up and buy Product B instead of Product A. We don’t want those to be our children; or ourselves to be those parents. And yet, entire battalions of silver-tongued orators are at work “shaping a whole generation’s unhealthy eating habits.” We’re talking about (alleged) food with high taste and low nutrition; with high convenience, and (usually) low cost.

The stuff is everywhere. Julia Olech writes,

Studies show children see about 13 food ads every day, while teens see 16. Only 1 out of 10 of these ads are for healthy foods like fruit and vegetables — the rest are all for junk food. These can come in the form of short ad segments slotted into breaks in favorite shows, but also as product placement marketing in movies, TV shows, music videos, and other forms of entertainment.

It has been shown that teens, after hearing pitches delivered by “influencers,” will actually eat 26% more junk food. On social media, a child or a teen might easily encounter more than a hundred junk food promotions in a single week. Multiplied by the number of weeks, that comes out to well over 5,000 doses of brainwashing per year.

Children and teens might be variously described as vulnerable, innocent, dumb, or, as the author says, not having “the cognitive skills needed to understand the intent of junk food adverts.” No matter how you slice it, the baloney is hip-deep and rising. The author gives many examples, and when it comes to YouTube? Don’t get her started!

According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, 90% of food promotions on YouTube are for types of junk food. Just a quick search on the platform reveals hundreds of videos of kids unboxing new Happy Meal toys, reviewing new Hershey’s chocolates, and receiving PR packages from big junk food brands.

And, no surprise here, adults are also vulnerable to having their lives negatively impacted by this advertising. After all, we were once children, and in most of our lives, no influence has arisen to counteract all the harmful propaganda injected into our heads in the name of entertainment. Olech writes,

According to Cancer Research UK, watching any food content makes children (and adults alike) feel hungry, pushing them to snack between mealtimes. It usually also impacts their food preferences, as marketing teams spend a lot of time and money making their products look delicious on screen.

To make sure the point gets made, Olech lists all the many and varied ill effects to which the marketing of junk food to kids can indirectly lead, including but not limited to:

[…] kidney diseases, Type 2 diabetes, fatty liver disease, malnutirtion, obesity, low self-esteem, heart attack, high blood pressure, stroke, bone issues, low immunity, concentration problems, depression and mood swings, eating disorders, poor brain development, tooth decay…

Of course, the beguiling shills and the corporations that pay them never set out with the intention of making every kid on the planet obese. They are just trying to raise a new generation of consumers, that’s all.

Just a short little digressive item to think about

One of the things that advertising sells is the credo that sports and junk food must go together, whether in person or while viewing electronically. Olech writes,

Another issue with junk food marketing in the US is the misinformation present in a lot of ads. Many companies use celebrity or athlete endorsements, perpetuating the idea that their products are healthier than they are. They also normalize consuming higher amounts of junk food while watching sports or TV, further contributing to the growing obesity pandemic.

Currently, a sports book website called FanDuel builds its commercials around the slogan, “Every night is a watch party!” which tidily encompasses seven evenings of three distinct potential addiction opportunities. You got the booze, you got the junk food, and you got the gambling. How did this racket slip past the War on Drugs?

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Junk Food Marketing Study: What Are Kids Being Fed?,” CyberGhostVPN.com, 02/13/24
Image by Francisco Orsorio/CC BY 2.0 DEED

Sometimes You Don’t Know What to Think

For anyone who wonders exactly how many pediatric patients were prescribed weight-loss drugs in 2023, the headline “Doctors Gave 4,000 Kids Weight-Loss Drugs In 2023” might seem to promise an answer, but similar to many headlines, it leaves out an essential fact. Are these 4,000 kids in the USA, the Northern Hemisphere, the membership of the World Health Organization, or what? (Presumably, it is inside the United States, and in reference to research published in January of this year.)

In the same article, journalist Julianna Frieman names Dr. Joan Han of the Mt. Sinai Health System as an endorser of the idea that “changing one’s lifestyle is often fruitless in fixing obesity due to the significant role of genetics.” Like so many other obesity-related topics, that one has large numbers of both supporters and detractors.

Dr. Han gives a rationale that is often heard from others of the same mindset, especially when they have additional reasons to favor bariatric surgery or a pharmaceutical solution:

It would make sense that sheer willpower is not necessarily going to fix excess weight gain.

Here’s the problem. It may be a Straw Man or it may be Begging the Question, but that statement involves a fallacious premise, namely, that there is only one other possible answer besides drugs or surgery, which would be the Sheer Willpower Cure. If that were the case, it would be reasonable to concede, “That’s right. The Sheer Willpower Cure does not seem to be effective.” But that is not the case at all. Exploring a program like BrainWeighve, for instance, reveals that it suggests and facilitates many additional choices besides Sheer Willpower.

Contemporary relevance

However, the reason for bringing it up now is that it relates to the general question of how and why the “trendy” GLP-1 drugs are prescribed. The reasons are many, and the attempts to make them stand are sometimes less than scholarly and far from impartial. But other times, one has to ask oneself, “What’s wrong with that?”

As an example of the genre, and the sometimes very positive reports, semaglutide is credited with the ability to reduce cardiovascular risks in a particular subgroup:

It is the first such approval from the Food and Drug Administration for a weight loss drug. The approval comes after a five-year study found Wegovy led to a 20% reduction in heart attacks, strokes, and cardiac arrest…

Granted, this is only in one patient demographic, “obese patients over the age of 45 who have heart disease,” but still…

Other suggestions

Only a couple of weeks ago, Dennis Thompson reported on the British initiative to encourage more movement among school-age children. The Active Movement program requires no fancy equipment, gym attire, or specialized environment. It encourages the kids to stand up when speaking, and walk around in the classroom more. Somehow, overall, it encourages 10% more participation in voluntary sports activities and an 8% reduction in the children’s waist-to-height ratio.

Not only that, but senior researcher Mike Loosemore is quoted as saying:

Our results show that reducing sedentary behaviors during school time can be an effective obesity-reduction strategy for primary school children who are overweight. What’s even more encouraging is that this method was effective regardless of the child’s socioeconomic status, age or gender. It is something that schools could introduce without needing to invest heavily in equipment or staff, and everyone will benefit.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Doctors Gave 4,000 Kids Weight-Loss Drugs In 2023,” DailyCaller.com, 02/21/24
Source: “United States of Ozempic: Where anti-obesity drugs are taking off,” Axios.com, 01/18/24
Source: “FDA approves weight-loss drug Wegovy for reducing cardiovascular risks,” Join1440.com, 03/09/24
Source: “One Way to Reduce Child Obesity: Get Kids Moving More in Class,” USNews.com, 02/27/24
Image by John K. Thorne/Public Domain

Tempest in a Very Large Teapot

The huge story of the past year has been the explosion in the use of a whole new genre of weight-loss drugs. Like any such gigantic, all-encompassing development, this one has brought innumerable minor stories in its wake. One such side-piece is the voluntary demotion of superstar Oprah Winfrey from her almost decade-long seat as a Weight Watchers board member. Rather than replace her, the board will reduce its membership to nine seats.

The talk-show star was elected to office in 2015 but will not be running again this May. She has owned a massive amount of WeightWatchers stock, the value of which has fluctuated over the years. Variety says, “Her initial investment for 6.4 million shares of the company totaled $43.2 million.” A few years later, all the new weight-loss drugs showed up on the market, and many investors took their dollars elsewhere. And then, last week, the announcement of her departure from the board caused the stock price to decrease by more than 20%.

According to Variety,

Winfrey owns about 1.1 million shares of WW International, representing a 1.43% stake in the company, according to data provider FactSet. At the current stock price, that’s worth less than $3.5 million.

These remaining shares and all future income from them are being donated to the National Museum of African American History and Culture. It is said that Winfrey will continue to work hand-in-hand with WeightWatchers in “elevating the conversation around recognizing obesity as a chronic condition, working to reduce stigma, and advocating for health equity.” The announcement was made in December via People magazine, “after coming to the realization that weight management does not hinge solely on a person’s self-control.”

Contradiction

In every report of this story, statements are made that do not clarify but confuse the issue. On one hand, it seems as if Winfrey’s personal decision, some months ago, to start taking a weight-loss drug is looked upon as treachery. It is said that in seeking and accepting a leadership position, she had undertaken to “not engage in any other weight loss or weight management business, program, products or services.”

So, were people angry because she started injecting herself with one of the new drugs? That would be understandable. But there is more information to assimilate:

Last year, Weight Watchers acquired Sequence, a subscription telehealth platform that offers, among other benefits, access to healthcare providers who can prescribe weight-loss drugs including Ozempic, for $106 million. (Users pay $99 a month, not including prescription costs.)

For NPR, Vanessa Romo wrote,

The move to embrace the drugs as part of its weight management program is a massive shift for the company’s behavior-based program. For 60 years, WeightWatchers coaches have told members that the path to a thinner, healthier version of themselves consisted of exercise, counting calories, points — and, perhaps most of all, willpower.

How can this seeming contradiction be reconciled? Romo says, “That reversal has left many current and former members struggling with their own weight feeling betrayed.” It would seem that, if such were the case, having a prominent authority like Winfrey tell them that drugs are okay would eliminate the conflict.

WeightWatchers announced that Winfrey’s decision not to run for the position “was not the result of any disagreement with the company on any matter relating to the company’s operations, policies or practices.” That seems clear enough, because the company is now in the business of hooking up customers with doctors who will prescribe, and sources that will supply the GLP-1 medications.

Yet somehow, there was perceived to be a conflict of interest if a WeightWatchers board member, and owner of a large amount of stock, happened to personally use a weight-loss drug. According to The New York Times,

Kelsey Merkel, a spokeswoman for Weight Watchers, said that Ms. Winfrey wanted to “advocate authentically” for the weight-loss measures she believed to be most effective, without anyone questioning her profit motive.

Meanwhile, it appears that what faithful members regret most is not the former drugless approach, but the fellowship and sense of community provided by live gatherings in real time. The entire huge Weight Watchers International organization started as a meeting of seven people in a housewife’s basement.

Says The New York Times, “Before the pandemic there were 3,300 in-person workshops throughout the United States.” The COVID crisis spurred “premium members” to pay close to $50 per month for “unlimited access to virtual meetings and other digital tools.”

Really feeling slighted are the so-called lifetime members, “who are rewarded with free access to premium-tier benefits if they stay within two pounds of their goal weight — but who must weigh in at an official workshop at least once a month.” Now, there are fewer than 1,000 local workshops, and even some of those are online.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Oprah Winfrey to Exit WeightWatchers Board After She Announced Use of Weight-Loss Drug,” Variety.com, 02/29/24
Source: “Oprah to Leave Weight Watchers Board,” NYTimes.com, 02/29/24
Source: “After nearly a decade, Oprah Winfrey is set to depart the board of WeightWatchers,” NPR.org, 03/01/24
Source: “When WeightWatchers Ended In-Person Meetings, They Held Their Own,” NYTimes.com, 02/02/24
Image by Mike Mozart/CC BY 2.0 DEED

Landmark — Junk Food Legally Defined

It is one thing to intuitively notice the correlation between increasing child obesity and the ever-mounting abundance of ultra-processed foods on supermarket shelves and in the kitchens of families. To show a cause-and-effect relationship is another thing entirely. It has of course become obvious, in a general way, that what a person consumes in the early years of life will have a great deal of impact on future health. Actionable proof, however, calls for the discipline of science.

To demonstrate the harm caused by ultra-processed foods (familiarly known as UPFs) requires ambitious, long-term projects like the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children. From 1998 through 2017, this study gathered information about more than 9,000 British kids, tracking them from age 7 up through age 24, recording their weight, waist circumference, fat mass index, and BMI.

The UPFs common in the subjects’ diets included “frozen pizza, soda, packaged bread, cakes, and pre-packaged meals.” The researchers arrived at stern conclusions regarding the need for policy revisions and stricter regulations.

There are facts that people know (or should know) intuitively, and accept as common sense. But for the information to be acceptable and actionable, it must be phrased in a prescribed academic manner and format. For instance, as study co-author Eszter Vamos, Ph.D., was quoted as saying,

One of the key things we uncover here is a dose-response relationship. This means that it’s not only the children who eat the most ultra-processed foods have the worst weight gain, but also the more they eat, the worse this gets.

In 2020, a European Childhood Obesity Group publication by authors from eight institutions recognized the concept of food addiction. They stated that reliance on ultra-processed foods for a child under two years old “can lead to one or more forms of malnutrition.” Before they even reach the status of toddlers, they can develop overweight and obesity in addition to micronutrient deficiencies:

A tendency of higher consumption of added sugar (refined sugar, honey, corn syrup) and UPF was found among children with overweight, diagnosed with food addiction.

Two months later, several Tufts University researchers published a report about UPF consumption and obesity in American kids. Their particular mission was to “estimate the potential impact of reducing UPF consumption on childhood obesity in the U.S.” In a randomized, controlled trial, they studied the records of 5804 children of ages ranging from 7 to 18 years. The non-UPF consumers reduced their caloric intake by 17%.

According to the report,

Working from this assumption, they “projected weight loss based on estimated weight reduction due to calorie reduction in children accounting for potential changes in energy expenditure and appetite.”

The document also discussed a United Kingdom initiative in 2006 to ban advertisements for specific food types, during children’s typical TV viewing hours. This was considered a major advance because, among other things, using a formula based on food product nutrient profiles, it introduced a legal definition of junk food.

The Conclusions section of the paper noted that…

Reducing current levels of UPF consumption among US children has the potential to reduce the childhood obesity rate in the US to a great extent, especially among adolescents.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children,” University of Bristol, undated
Source: “Ultra-Processed Food Consumption among the Paediatric Population: An Overview and Call to Action from the European Childhood Obesity Group,” Karger.com, 04/28/20
Source: “Ultra-Processed Food Consumption and Obesity Among US Children,” NIH.gov, 06/04/20
Image by Knowing Roger/Public Domain

Relating to the Classics

Our recent post referred to the tendency of some things to “go together,” almost as if their pairing was a law of Nature. One of those seemingly inevitable conjunctions links spectator sports and junk food. In 1908, the team of Jack Norworth and Albert Von Tilzer wrote the profoundly American song whose chorus goes like this:

Take me out to the ball game,
Take me out with the crowd;
Buy me some peanuts and Cracker Jack,
I don’t care if I ever get back.

One might think the synergy between sporting events and recreational eating could not go back much further, but one would be mistaken. For Popular Mechanics, Tim Newcomb described the landscape beneath a venerable landmark, and some of the ancient garbage found there:

A recent study of the drainage system at the Roman Colosseum shows that stadium-goers snacked on fruit, meat, veggies, and even pizza.

If the stadium had not already been officially one of the Seven Wonders of the World, the vast, intricate subterranean infrastructure would cinch the deal. A year-long study has identified (among other fascinating items) the detritus of sports fans answering the call of the munchies. Archaeological officer Federica Rinaldi told the reporter, “We have recovered traces of the remains of the meals that were eaten in the stands during the shows.” He also said,

[S]pectators snacked on a variety of meats, vegetables, and fruits… Archeologists found remnants of olives, figs, grapes, peaches, plums, walnuts, cherries, hazelnuts, and blackberries. They also believe that the meat was “cooked at the moment on improvised braziers…”

The only difference is, the Romans did not have “junk food” per se. In those days, no scientists devoted entire careers to making food more palatable but less nutritious. They worked with what the fields and orchards provided, and every item mentioned in that paragraph can be justified as making a positive nutritional contribution.

An eternal truth?

“Drug experts who now study food have learned that cravings destroy willpower,” writes investigative journalist and author Michael Moss in the Los Angeles Times. But is that inevitably true? After all, when Odysseus, who lived more than 1,000 years B.C.E., had himself tied to the ship’s mast in order to resist the deadly allure of the Sirens, he certainly acted on the principle that cravings destroy willpower.

Now, as the author relates, a substance is sold in pill form “that works a little like methadone for heroin addicts.” Gymnema sylvestreis is a woody vine from which compounds can be extracted that “keep the brain from getting overly excited for sugar by disabling the sweet receptors on the tongue… For an hour or so, brownies and doughnuts and Oreo cookies all taste like putty…”

Moss explains that we are helpless against our evolutionary drive to consume maximum calories to fuel our bodies:

We have sensors in the gut and possibly in the mouth that tell us how many calories we’re eating, and the more calories there are, the more excited the brain gets, which makes us vulnerable to the processed-food industry’s snacks…

Sugars and fats are individually quite compelling, but in combination, they grab hold of a part of the brain called the striatum, which is known to be connected with compulsive behavior. Moss writes,

In my research, I found that hyperprocessed, convenient food products can be as addictive as cigarettes, alcohol and drugs, if not more so, using the industry’s own definition.

So, the important thing is to figure out how to get ahead of the cravings, to forestall and neutralize and cancel them out, which is exactly what Odysseus did by ordering his crew to restrain him with ropes.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Take Me Out to the Ball Game,” Wikipedia.org, undated
Source: “Esplorazione del sistema fognario antico del Colosseo,” YouTube.com, undated
Source: “Here’s What Ancient Romans Ate While Watching Shows at the Colosseum,” PopularMechanics.com, 11/30/22
Source: “Op-Ed: Big Food wants us addicted to junk food. New brain science may break its grip,” LATimes.com, 06/06/21
Image by r.passman/CC BY-ND 2.0 DEED

Like a Horse and Carriage

The methodology involved in persuading children to pester their parents for certain brands of cereal and other food products has been described as aggressive, pervasive, ubiquitous, tiresome, underhanded, and plenty of other adjectives. Julia Olech, whose work we have quoted before, is the author who confronts the American public with such concepts as, “70% of three-year-olds recognize the McDonald’s symbol, but only half of them know their last name.”

Before that can even sink in, the author piles on additional interesting facts. Based on them, she makes several cogent, related points that suggest a certain line of deduction, loosely summarized here:

  • Children who are not thinking about food are less likely to eat.
  • Children who are consciously thinking about food are more likely to eat.
  • The probability is high that they will choose food unwisely.
  • Children who eat unwisely are more likely to become obese.
  • If we want children not to be obese, we should aim to have them eat less.
  • In the media that children consume and interact with the overwhelming majority of ads sell junk food.
  • And in the unlikely event that a particular ad is for a healthful food, advertising co-opts the person’s attention, and sets their mind on food, increasing the likelihood that they will eat unwisely and become obese.

Startling discrepancies

If we had a nickel for every nugget of misinformation presented in a food ad, they would reach from here to the moon. Though not technically a food, Coke has been notorious for telling fibs. The soft drink empire has set a record to which others can only hope to aspire, as explored in at least four Childhood Obesity News posts.

Dangerous liaisons

Advertising, especially when performed by popular athletes and entertainment figures, reinforces the idea that some things go together like “love and marriage, horse and carriage.” Americans have always known that part of a movie night is eating a bunch of junk food. If you are watching a spectator sport, you are expected to be feeding your face. Whether in the stadium or the living room, particular kinds of nutritionally deficient foods are just part of the deal.

It is in the best interest of Big Junk Food to normalize the consumption of crap on every possible occasion. The industry’s publicity machine is excellent at this, Olech notes, to the point where “many US junk food ads have been banned in countries like New Zealand, the UK, or Australia.” She goes on to say,

This continuous exposure to junk food ads is shaping children’s norms and expectations about what foods are acceptable to eat regularly.

Like, doughnuts for every breakfast, fries for every lunch — why not? All the manufacturer needs to do is find one recognizable celebrity, and voilà! Everybody gets a bonus!

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Junk Food Marketing Study: What Are Kids Being Fed?,” CyberGhostVPN.com, 02/13/24
Image by Holger/CC BY-SA 2.0 DEED

How Big Is 10 Billion?

Childhood Obesity News has cited these figures before, and they are definitely worthy of repetition:

More than 80% of food advertising in the country promotes fast food, sugary drinks, and unhealthy snacks…

Does that signify that four out of five food ads are for junk? Or does it mean that out of every hour of advertising, 48 minutes are peddling junk? Or out of every 100 food images shown, 80 of them depict junk? Well, guess what? However that percentage was calibrated, it is disgusting.

It’s still brainwashing, and journalist Julia Olech mentions the creepy racist/classist angle that makes it even worse:

[R]esearch suggests marketers often target families from poor socioeconomic backgrounds as well as Hispanic and Black communities. In 2021, Black children viewed up to 21% more food and beverage ads than their White peers, while food companies increased their budgets allocated for Spanish-speaking advertisements.

The equally big news on this topic is that every year, the United States food industry spends $10 billion on marketing. Just for grins, let’s plug that figure into a search engine and see where else it applies.

In 2023, American adults lost $10 billion to malicious fraudsters who run investment scams; imposter scams; online shopping scams; prize, sweepstakes and lottery scams; and business and job opportunity scams. Ten billion is how much the federal government contemplates ponying up in subsidies to jump-start American semiconductor manufacturing.

$10 billion is the amount that…

  • Microsoft decided to invest in OpenAI (generative artificial intelligence).
  • In 2021, the administration declared it would devote itself to expanding confidence in and access to COVID-19 vaccines.
  • Facebook stated it would spend, in 2021 alone, “on Facebook Reality Labs, its metaverse division developing AR and VR hardware, software, and content.”
  • In 2022, California’s Governor Newsom vowed to spend on switching to zero-emission vehicles and other measures to attain clean energy and rescue the climate.
  • Last year, was offered to the Walt Disney Co. for a package to include the ABC television network, and the cable networks FX and National Geographic.

Part of the text that goes with the illustration on this page says:

Until now, the biggest supermassive black holes — those roughly 10 billion times the mass of our sun — have been found at the cores of very large galaxies in regions of the universe packed with other large galaxies.

In other words, $10 billion is a serious number, a big-league, no-fooling, we-mean-business kind of a sum — especially when it is mentioned on a per annum basis; when the expenditure is encompassed within a single year. Olech adds,

To put that into perspective, the US government allocates a budget of around $1 billion to promote healthy lifestyles and prevent chronic diseases.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Junk Food Marketing Study: What Are Kids Being Fed?,” CyberGhostVPN.com, 02/13/24
Source: “As Nationwide Fraud Losses Top $10 Billion in 2023, FTC Steps Up Efforts to Protect the Public,” FTC.gov, 02/09/24
Source: “Intel in talks for more than $10 billion in Chips Act incentives,” CrainsCleveland.com, 02/20/24
Source: “Fact Sheet,” WhiteHouse.gov, 03/25/21
Source: “Microsoft to Invest $10 Billion in OpenAI, the Creator of ChatGPT,” NYTimes.com, 01/23/23
Source: “Facebook is spending at least $10 billion this year on its metaverse division,” TheVerge.com, 10/25/21
Source: “Governor Newsom Outlines Historic $10 Billion Zero-Emission Vehicle Package to Lead the World’s Transition to Clean Energy, Combat Climate Change,” GOV.CA.gov, 01/26/22
Source: “Media mogul Byron Allen offers Disney $10 billion for ABC, cable TV channels,” CBSNews.com, 09/15/23
Image by NASA Goddard Space Flight Center/CC BY 2.0 DEED

Bending Kids’ Minds

Just in time to complement this page’s series on the history of dubiously-intentioned, propaganda-styled advertising, journalist Julia Olech has published a highly detailed report on the state of the invidious art today.

It leads with what might be the most dramatic fact about age-related mortality:

Children and teens today are the first generation with a shorter life expectancy than their parents — largely down to serious health concerns linked to the overconsumption of junk food.

One of the many villains here is high fructose corn syrup. Europe is less enamored of the substance, but still a long way from being perfect. A total of 40% of Spanish children are overweight. Europe on average runs about 12.5% while the U.S. hovers around 20%. Everywhere, junk food is “unhealthy, highly processed, and nutritionally poor.”

The manufacturers don’t necessarily want to make all the young’uns fat. They want to make a hefty profit, and if a planet full of fat kids is the consequence, too bad. They are not scheming, conniving misers, but only leaders interested in “shaping the new generation of consumers,” which sounds more benign. The fast-food restaurant empire, for instance, willingly pays $5 billion per annum to attain maximum media-based influence over young minds.

With contests and material rewards, companies actively train (or perhaps “groom” is the word) children to be avid consumers. Knowing how to pitch throughout diverse markets is an art form. For live-streamed media, the timing of messages is crucial, but on-demand media is the advertiser’s dream. Kids of all ages are deluged with ads all day.

Olech explains the dynamic: With contests and material rewards, companies actively train (or perhaps “groom” is the word) children to be avid consumers. She writes,

[P]roduct placements can make a specific brand part of a story, which makes the products seem more attractive and prestigious… [C]hildren feel more inclined to copy whatever their favorite characters are doing…

The author dug up some facts that beggar belief. Check this out:

70% of three-year-olds recognize the McDonald’s symbol, but only half of them know their last name.

Apparently, YouTube is a hotbed of pernicious advertising. Nine out of 10 food ads are for junk. Well, they aren’t ads, exactly, because some effort has been made to curtail the overwhelming influence of advertising. The content now is mainly a weird hybrid of promotion and entertainment. Here is a meaty paragraph about the consequences of subjecting children to sales pitches, however cleverly disguised:

Studies show it very often creates untrue biases in developing minds, which they take with them into adulthood. These perceptions are often very difficult to change, forcing a specific outlook on certain parts of life. The proliferation of gaming ads is also worrying given the research showing the addictive nature of gaming and its impacts.

Then, the picture darkens, as Olech invokes the COVID pandemic, when many children had to stay home and do their learning online. Some food industry giants took advantage of the social dysfunction and placed their advertising on educational platforms for the captive audience of sitting ducks.

Objections were raised, because of the general distraction, and the planting of food images in the children’s minds, which could lead them to thinking about food and then to wanting food and then to eating food and becoming overweight. And privileged families can afford ad-blocking software, while destitute families cannot. The intrusion was stopped for the time being, but ideas this reprehensible always make a comeback.

Many more topics are addressed in Olech’s excellent piece, by the way, and it is recommended.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Junk Food Marketing Study: What Are Kids Being Fed?,” CyberGhostVPN.com, 02/13/24
Image by Lars Plougmann/CC BY-SA 2.0 DEED

Selling Crap to Kids, Part 12

In his New York Times piece, “Why Your New Year’s Diet Is Doomed,” Mark Bittman wrote,

The interactions among calorie intake, exercise, fat accumulation, insulin resistance and genetic background, along with other environmental factors that cause diet-related diseases (such as stress and generational poverty), are variable and complicated.

In other words, and not surprisingly, this problem is and always will be multi-factorial, and thus not amenable to any facile solution. Still, it is always possible that some factors weigh more heavily than others, and in this case, the factor known as ultra-processing was recognized as quite significant because, “Now, more than half of our total calories come from ultra-processed foods.”

What does that mean exactly? One apt definition was provided by the Brazilian scientist, Carlos Monteiro, who characterized such foods as containing ingredients that are “never or rarely used in kitchens.” But they are used in factories where, for example, the perceived necessity of a freakishly unnatural, extremely prolonged shelf life is also to blame.

We have seen that researchers easily obtain from children confessions about how they harass their parents, both at home and in public places, to obtain their substances of choice. Of course, these exertions are aided by the cunning strategy employed by grocery stores, of placing the products garnished with pictures of cartoon characters on the lower shelves where children can’t miss them.

We say it, you believe it

Such predatory practices set kids up to fail and obviously contribute to the obesity epidemic, and nobody seems able to do anything about them. Or rather, the people who are able are not willing; while those who are willing are not able.

Many individuals and groups lobbied for stricter rules that would require supermarkets to rearrange their shelves and keep sweets out of children’s sightlines. Even some politicians risked incurring the anger of their corporate overlords by demanding that foods with low nutritional value and high obesity potential be placed on higher shelves.

Unfortunately, studies from the Netherlands indicated that such cosmetic measures are pretty much doomed to futility:

[P]ositioning healthier snacks at the checkout counter, without removing less healthy snacks, did not result in the replacement of less healthy snack purchases with healthier alternatives. To discourage the purchase of less healthy snacks at supermarket checkouts, a total substitution of less healthy with healthier snacks is clearly the most effective.

Clearly, no business is going to hide its highly processed and fattening foods in the back room. Those products will remain out where the people who want them can easily find them. And just offering a healthful alternative next to the crappy stuff does not inspire people to choose the healthful alternative.

The only way to stop customers from buying worthless substances posing as food is to not even offer it for sale. In which case, most people will just go to a different store whose products are more to their liking.

How low can you go?

Over in the United Kingdom, there are some standards in place regarding what may be publicly said about food and drink, in places where young folks might hear. One year ago, researchers from the University of Chicago looked at a bunch of Instagram posts made by the “beautiful people” and applied those standards to what they saw:

They found 87 percent of celebrity accounts analyzed received an unhealthy overall food nutrition score, with 89.5 per cent receiving the same result for beverages.

These messages, in the main, were not obviously paid-for advertisements, but allegedly spontaneous and sincere remarks the famous folk just happened to make in the course of living their everyday lives. Many of those remarks did and do concern alcohol, which is nobody’s idea of a healthful influence (and which contributes to obesity both by containing calories and by corrupting people’s judgment about what they ought to be eating).

And in the food category, it comes as no surprise to learn that those observations tend overwhelmingly to concern snacks and sweets. Also, this type of message, which is perceived by fans as authentic and credible, draws more reactions or “engagement,” which in turn rewards the celebrities who regard attention as a form of payment.

Of course, some of them also make millions of dollars for a single post, but shhhh! We are supposed to pretend we don’t know that.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Why Your New Year’s Diet Is Doomed,” NYTimes.com, 01/09/21
Source: “Can Healthy Checkout Counters Improve Food Purchases? Two Real-Life Experiments in Dutch Supermarkets,” NIH.gov, 11/19/20
Source: “Are influencers making our children FAT?,” DailyMail.co.uk, 01/12/22
Source: “20 of Instagram’s Highest Paid Stars in 2024,” InfluencerMarketingHub.com, 01/30/24
Image by balu/CC BY 2.0 DEED

Selling Crap to Kids, Part 11

As the 20-teens decade progressed, conditions grew worse in the realm of celebrity endorsements. A study from New York University’s School of Medicine zeroed in on the sick relationship between the sports industry and the junk food industry.

Journalist Megan Sheets summarized it thusly:

More than three quarters of food products and half of beverages sponsored by the leagues most popular among American children are unhealthy… The findings revealed that 76 percent of food products are unhealthy and 52.4 percent of beverages are sugar sweetened across all of the sports-organization sponsored advertisements. Little League had the third-most unhealthy sponsorships.

Increasingly, individual athletes were blamed and shamed for making money from this unholy alliance. A study published in Pediatrics demonstrated that:

Social-media “influencers” can drive kids to consume unhealthy foods… But that clout disappears when it comes to their promoting healthy foods… [S]eeing influencers promote healthy snacks didn’t significantly move the needle on food intake.

The United Kingdom’s University of Cambridge published a study which indicated that setting a limit on the hours when TV ads directed at children could be shown, would make a “meaningful contribution” toward reducing childhood obesity. Dr. Oliver Mytton told the press,

Our analysis shows that introducing a 9 PM watershed on unhealthy TV food advertising can make a valuable contribution to protecting the future health of all children in the UK… However, children now consume media from a range of sources, and increasingly from online and on-demand services… [I]t is important l to ensure that this advertising doesn’t just move to the 9-10pm slot and to online services.

A noble ambition, but one doomed from its inception because obviously, the trend would only continue in one direction, toward 24 hours per day of entertainment financed by ads for everything awful.

The year 2021 began with a New York Times piece by Mark Bittman pessimistically titled “Why Your New Year’s Diet Is Doomed.” He placed the blame on “the Big Food marketers that sell you that junk” to the tune of $14 billion (with a B) spent on advertising per year, and then generously extended the shame to “politicians who enable them.” Why? Because government serves “the interests of agribusiness, food processors, marketers and retailers.”

In relation to this, Bittman helpfully pointed out that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention work with a budget of less than $1 billion per year to prevent disease and promote health. For the mathematically challenged, that means the promoters of disease and preventers of health were spending 14 times as much. It’s all about money, in more ways than one.

The primary determinant of the quality of diet is income, not ignorance, intelligence or will. With 12 percent of Americans going hungry, and millions of households with children uncertain that they’ll be able to feed their kids, the “choice” is often between eating processed food and not eating at all.

Sabrina Sanchez wrote those words in the middle of 2021, by which time COVID-19 had become a factor to be reckoned with. A 72-page report was published showing that “brands and platforms including McDonald’s, Unilever, Facebook and Twitch use technology-driven marketing tactics to sell high-sugar and high-sodium products to kids, leading to obesity.”

Jeffrey Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy, warned that manufacturers had built “arsenals of data profiling services” using artificial intelligence and machine learning. The purpose of these constructs was to predict the most effective way to advertise, and then to make sure that the predictions came true. Chester says,

In 2020, children between the ages of 6 to 8 years-old cited McDonald’s as their number-one favorite brand, followed by YouTube, Oreo and M&Ms, according to youth market researchers Smarty Pants. Minors ages 9 to17 years-old cited YouTube first, followed by Oreo, Hershey’s, Cheetos and Doritos among the top 10.

The issue was raised that such marketing machinations could be violating the 1998 Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998. Advocacy groups tried their best, but realistically, obtaining protection via child privacy legislation never stood a chance.

Your responses and feedback are welcome!

Source: “Sports leagues blamed for fueling childhood obesity as 76% of teams promote junk food and soda,” DailyMail.co.uk, 03/26/18
Source: “How social-media influencers are making your kids fat,” NYPost.com, 03/05/19
Source: “Television advertising limits can reduce childhood obesity, study concludes,” ScienceDaily.com, 10/13/20
Source: “Why Your New Year’s Diet Is Doomed,” NYTimes.com, 01/09/21
Source: “Fast food and soft drink advertising contributes to childhood obesity,” CampaignLive.com, 05/12/21
Image by Tony Alter/CC BY 2.0 DEED

FAQs and Media Requests: Click here…

Profiles: Kids Struggling with Weight

Profiles: Kids Struggling with Obesity top bottom

The Book

OVERWEIGHT: What Kids Say explores the obesity problem from the often-overlooked perspective of children struggling with being overweight.

About Dr. Robert A. Pretlow

Dr. Robert A. Pretlow is a pediatrician and childhood obesity specialist. He has been researching and spreading awareness on the childhood obesity epidemic in the US for more than a decade.
You can contact Dr. Pretlow at:

Presentations

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the American Society of Animal Science 2020 Conference
What’s Causing Obesity in Companion Animals and What Can We Do About It

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the World Obesity Federation 2019 Conference:
Food/Eating Addiction and the Displacement Mechanism

Dr. Pretlow’s Multi-Center Clinical Trial Kick-off Speech 2018:
Obesity: Tackling the Root Cause

Dr. Pretlow’s 2017 Workshop on
Treatment of Obesity Using the Addiction Model

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation for
TEC and UNC 2016

Dr. Pretlow’s invited presentation at the 2015 Obesity Summit in London, UK.

Dr. Pretlow’s invited keynote at the 2014 European Childhood Obesity Group Congress in Salzburg, Austria.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2013 European Congress on Obesity in Liverpool, UK.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2011 International Conference on Childhood Obesity in Lisbon, Portugal.

Dr. Pretlow’s presentation at the 2010 Uniting Against Childhood Obesity Conference in Houston, TX.

Food & Health Resources