This past week, the rumor mill was churning concerning the issue of marketing junk food (or unhealthy foods) directly to children. An interagency document between the FTC, FDA, CDC and USDA revealed new proposed nutritional standards for food marketed to children 17 and under. In essence, foods that did not reach a certain nutritional criteria, or exceeded certain fat, sugar, and salt quotas, would be relegated to the commercial outlands and could not be marketed to children.

Here is a brief rundown of some of the proposed standards (to see the full report, you could download the PDF here):
Foods marketed to children must provide a meaningful contribution to a healthful diet.

Option A:
Food must contain at least 50% by weight of one or more of the following: fruit; vegetable; whole grain; fat-free or low-fat milk or yogurt; fish; extra lean meat or poultry; eggs; nuts and seeds; or beans.

Option B:
Food must contain one or more of the following per RACC:
0.5 cups fruit or fruit juice
0.6 cups vegetables or vegetable juice
0.75 oz. equivalent of 100% whole grain
0.75 cups milk or yogurt; 1 oz. natural cheese; 1.5 oz.
processed cheese
1.4 oz. meat equivalent of fish or extra lean meat or
poultry
0.3 cups cooked dry beans
0.7 oz. nuts or seeds
1 egg or egg equivalent

Basically, any products openly and blatantly marketed to children will, under these new regulations, would have to meet both a stringent food standard, which essentially means that would have to contain real and relatively nutritious food, and a general nutrition standard, which defines how much garbage a product can acceptably contain.

Now the authenticity and veracity of this leaked proposal are somewhat in question, but what is indisputable is the contemporary movement to make both junk food producers and government regulating bodies more accountable for their actions (or inactions in this case). There was a recent backlash against McDonald’s and their longstanding and hugely successful Happy Meal campaign (Santa Clara county in California recently banned all Happy Meals) and various parent groups around the country have successfully lobbied to remove all soft drinks and junk food from schools and playgrounds. But as we have seen with all manner of marketing, children are psychologically susceptible to targeted marketing, and by allowing companies to trot out the ADHD tiger on a skateboard to peddle highly addictive salty snacks (over and over again) it undermines the development of good health and good health habits. Sure, parents are ultimately responsible for what their children do and do not eat, but remember, parents don’t have cute cartoon characters advocating their more conservative and nutritious agendas. It becomes a battle of who has the most flash and bling, and most often the parents (and ultimately their children) who lose out to the undeniable appeal of sensationalism.

What is your feeling? Should the government answer to parents and critics concerns by making these proposed standards real, or should parents just step up their anti-junk food campaign and take care of their own without government interference? Would standards like this even work, or would junk food always have sway over our children? Where do you position yourself in the battle of the hearts and minds (and stomachs) of your children?

Personally, I am for anything that will help. I think parents need to step up but I also want to see government regulations & standards tightened in certain areas. I think we need to do everything possible to turn this obesity crisis around! Preventative steps is the first line of defense!

Again, I have to remind you all of my 2010 Team Sarcoma Initiative post. The full week is: July 17-25, 2010. The Facebook event can be joined HERE! Thank you!

Thx to Patrick for posting about it & Raechelle for joining the FB event!

I will mention this every day thru the Sarcoma Initiative week so please hang with me. It is just my way of helping fight the cause. Ya never know who may read it & want to help or pass my link on to another person who can help OR who is in need of support due to this cancer.