Regulating sugary food advertising and dietary supplements in America

New Laws

Law and the market place

Three changes to American consumer law

Three changes to American consumer law

Regulating advertising on television for sugary snacks and beverages

At present, because of First Amendment concerns, marketers are free to advertise sugary, non-nutritive foods during programming that is primarily intended for children. However, there has already been substantial regulation of advertising to all consumers and not just for the nation's most vulnerable population: cigarette advertisements are no longer permitted on television, for example, whether they are intended for adolescents (like the infamous Joe Camel ads) or adults. "The FTC said a study due out next year will help it determine whether media companies took its recommendations about expanding self-regulations to cover all forms of ads and promotions and the extent to which they had limited their use of character licensing to healthier foods and beverages"(Eggerton 2010).

Substantial evidence already exists that children find it difficult to differentiate between advertising and entertainment programming, and that their food choices are influenced when they see foods promoted by cartoon characters. One recent study of children ages 4 to 6 which presented sample foods that were identical "down to the clear packaging, except that one of the packages had a sticker of Shrek, Dora the Explorer, or Scooby Doo on it. Between 50% and 55% of the children said that the food with the sticker on it tasted better than the same food in the plain package" (Klein 2010). Self-regulation seems dubious given that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has already had to take action because marketers make inaccurate, sweeping health claims about their foods. In the United Kingdom, "a ban on adverts for junk food during television programs aimed at children under 16" was enacted in 2008 (Ban, 2008, BBC). The U.S., given that it faces a child obesity epidemic even more catastrophic than that of the UK, should enact a similar ban.

Law 3: Picture-based warnings on cigarettes

Unfortunately, much like calorie counts on the back of food products, consumers have shown themselves to be all-too-apt to ignore written information the back of packages, even if the information can save their lives. To remedy the tendency of consumers to ignore written information, many nations (including Canada) have begun to require cigarette companies to use photographs that illustrate the dangers of smoking, to more vividly underline the dangers of the deadly habit. "Canada was the first jurisdiction to require full-color graphic warnings on cigarette packages…Since December 20, 2000, cigarettes sold in Canada must display warnings which take up 50% of the principal display space" (Canada warnings, 2001, Picture-based cigarette warnings). Given the costs to society in the form of increased health care expenses and second-hand smoke, as well as the costs to the individual, the United States should require cigarette companies to do the same. After all, the labels are factual in terms of the diseases they depict. The pictures make flashing a carton of cigarettes less 'cool' and also could deter more children from trying cigarettes, because of the graphic nature of the photographs.