1 Meagan Lloyd MPS 563 11.10.

11 Final Paper Food and Beverage Marketing to Children and the Role of Government Introduction In the past two decades, obesity has more than doubled in children aged 6 to 11 and more than tripled in adolescents aged 12 to 191. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 17% (or 12.5 million) of children and adolescents aged 2-19 years are obese.2 Many variables are involved in creating and perpetuating the current upward childhood obesity trend. Numerous studies conclude that food and beverage marketing to children is a cause of childhood obesity3. Currently, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) targets food marketing to children a cause of rising obesity trends. After targeting this issue, Congress instructed the FTC, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the (CDC), and the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to create an Interagency Working Group of federal nutrition, health, and marketing experts to develop recommendations for the nutritional quality of food marketed to children and adolescents, ages 2 to 17.4 The working groups recommendations are a topic of controversy between food manufacturers, advertising agencies, human interest groups, and parents.5 Some of the largest food corporations, such as Pepsi, Coca-Cola, and Kraft, have already persuaded the

1 2

(Li & Hooker, 2010) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011) 3 (Darwin, 2009; Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Food Marketing and the Diets of Children and Youth., McGinnis, Gootman, & Kraak, 2006; Kelly, 2005; Wilde, 2009) 4 (Federal Trade Commission, 2011) 5 (Cohen, 2011; Reuters, 2011)

2 FTC to lower its age restriction of marketing to children 11 and under.6 The original recommendations targeted children 17 and under. Although recommendations from the working group are well-researched and have the potential to curb rising childhood obesity rates, the FTC does not have the regulatory power it once did regarding advertising.7 For this reason, it can be concluded that the Commissions limited regulatory authority is a main factor for food agencys current unrestricted reign over advertising to children.8 Many public interest groups and government agencies, including the FTC, claim the food industrys advertisements to children promote unfair and deceptive practices by encouraging children to consume unhealthy foods.9 At one time, the FTC monitored and brought claims against companies it believed were involved in unfair and deceptive practices, but due to a stripping of powers in the late 1970s, the FTC no longer has the authority to do so.10 Through an examination of current policies, policy history, proposed recommendations, and the governments authority regarding food marketing to children, this paper will evaluate the best option and its feasibility. Public Concern As obesity rates continue rising, the public is becoming aware and concerned of contributing factors such as marketing unhealthy food and beverage products to children.11 Additionally, science has long-since linked the potential dangers of food and beverage

6 7

(Bartz, 2011) (Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, 2011) 8 (Pomeranz, 2011) 9 (Cohen, 2011; Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Food Marketing and the Diets of Children and Youth., et al., 2006; Pomeranz, 2011; Reuters, 2011) 10 (Pomeranz, 2011, p. 528) 11 (Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Food Marketing and the Diets of Children and Youth., et al., 2006, p. 21)

3 advertising to childhood obesity.12 Consumer and privacy groups, and parents and public health officials are advocating and creating media attention for policy changes that restrict or eliminate junk food marketing to children.13 Congress, the Obama administration, and the FTC are taking steps to strengthen regulations.14 The current self-regulated marketing guidelines are inefficient at discouraging unhealthy marketing to children, and in most cases, blatantly ignored. Under industry self-regulation, child-targeted marketing has become so ubiquitous and sophisticated that it presents a challenge to parental influence over childrens food choices, particularly when companies frequently work with huge budgets and employ child psychologists to exploit childrens developmental vulnerabilities.15 Food companies and their prospective marketing agencies are profit driven, and marketing to children boosts profits.16 In 2006, the food industry spent more than $1.6 billion marketing high-calorie, low-nutrient foods to children through television, the internet, social media, video games, movies, sports and music events, in-store displays and packaging, and even schools.17 As technology advances, opportunities for marketing increase. Children begin recognizing advertised brands and demonstrate preference for them.18 According to nutritionist and food policy expert Marion Nestle, even very young children can identify stores that sell desired items, distinguish one product from another, and understand sales messages, the goals of

12 13

(Pomeranz, 2011, p. 521) (Cohen, 2011; Reuters, 2011) 14 (Pomeranz, 2011, p. 526) 15 (Linn & Novosat, 2008, p. 136) 16 (Nestle, 2007, p. 179) 17 (Federal Trade Commission, 2008) 18 (Nestle, 2007, p. 177)

4 retailers, and the purpose of money.19 The marketing works. Food and beverage lifetime brand loyalty is well documented and marketers shamelessly take full advantage of moldable young minds.20 Numerous marketing campaigns by top food companies are aimed directly at children. Soft drink companies name 8-12 year olds as their target audience, McDonalds targets their advertising and website at 8-13 year olds, and in January 2000, Quaker Oats ran a 5-month, $15 million advertising campaign for heavily sugared Capn Crunch cereal to children.21 Additionally, studies show that children influence spending on food more than any other nonfood spending categories.22 Of the various spending categories, one-third of childrens direct purchases are for sweets, snacks, and beverages [] Of the top 10 items that children ages 812 years report they can select without parental permission, the leading four are food or beverage categories: candy or snacks, soft drinks, fast food from quick serve restaurants, and breakfast cereals (Chaplin, 1999). Similarly, food or beveragesparticularly candy, sweetened soft drinks, and salty snacksrepresent the top items that teens ages 1317 years buy with their own money.23 Public interest groups and some government authorities stress that the enormity of the food industrys reach to children through marketing requires government regulation over what is acceptable to advertise to children. Advocates cite numerous studies linking junk food marketing

19 20

(Nestle, 2007, p. 177) (Nestle, 2007, pp. 177-178) 21 (Nestle, 2007, p. 178) 22 (Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Food Marketing and the Diets of Children and Youth., et al., 2006, p. 22) 23 (Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Food Marketing and the Diets of Children and Youth., et al., 2006, p. 22)

5 to children to increased rates of obesity and hypothesize elimination of junk food advertising will correlate with reduced obesity rates.24

Current Policy As mentioned above, industry standards for advertising food and beverages to children have been and continue to be self-regulated. Since the 1970s, the FTC has regulated unfair or deceptive advertising practices upheld by the FTC Act (15 U.S.C.S. 45). In the past, their authority was much greater. At one time, the FTC had the authority to charge companies with violations of the FTC Act through unfair or deceptive advertisements. The Supreme Court, in Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Company et al., 380 U.S. 374, upheld the FTCs authority to present charges against violations of the FTC Act.25 However, in the late 1970s, the FTC stretched their authority too far in its attempt to change regulations on childrens advertising and received considerable backlash from the food industry.26 As a result of the restriction placed on the FTC, today it is easier to regulate advertising targeted at adults than advertising targeted at children.27 According to the Yale Rudd Center, In 1978, the FTC published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the regulation of children's advertising on television [KidVid]. There were three alternative actions: 1) Ban TV advertisements to children 6 and under; 2) Ban TV advertisements for the most cavity-promoting foods to children 12 and under; and 3) Require TV advertisements for

24 25

(Cohen, 2011; Darwin, 2009; Federal Trade Commission, 2008; Story & French, 2004) ("Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. et al.," 1965) 26 (Federal Trade Commission, 2011) 27 (Linn & Novosat, 2008, p. 135)

6 sugared products directed at older children to include nutritional or health disclosures. Extensive hearings took place but no changes were made and under heavy pressure from the food industry, Congress later stripped the FTC of some powers and in so doing specifically prohibited the agency from regulating childrens advertising.28 The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) also has some regulation over television advertising. The Childrens Television Act of 199029 limited the amount of advertising allowable during childrens program. The act also authorizes the FCC to review and evaluate the advertising duration limitations, and to modify them in accordance with the public interest based on demonstrated need.30 The FTC, however, determines regulation of what is acceptable and fair marketing to children. In 1984, the FCC rescinded all restrictions on the amount of commercial content in favor of a self-regulatory policy that remains in effect today; it maintained that the advertising industry could better establish appropriate commercial levels.31 The advertising industry funded organization, Childrens Advertising Review Unit (CARU), influences and encourages selfregulatory guidelines.32 The FTCs loss of power and the FCCs rescinding of previous commercial restrictions created the industrys current self-regulation and the rise of CARU, resulting in the policies in place today. Today, the FTC continues to propose childrens advertising guidelines in an attempt to regulate unfair and deceptive practices, but it has no authority to implement such practices. Its recommendations are only guides for Congress deliberate.33 Its newest proposal, Preliminary

28 29

(Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity, 2011) Pub. L. No. 101-437, 101(2), 303a note, 104 Stat. 996 (codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. 303a (2006)). 30 (White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity Report to the President, 2010, p. 31) 31 (Linn & Novosat, 2008, p. 135) 32 (Linn & Novosat, 2008) 33 (Federal Trade Commission, 2011)

7 Proposed Nutrition Principles to Guide Industry Self-Regulatory Efforts, aims to persuade the advertising industry to only market foods that provide meaningful contribution to a healthful diet34 and have 1 g or less of saturated fat, zero trans fat, less than 13 g of added sugar, and no more than 210 mg of sodium per serving.35 Examples include fruits, vegetables, extra lean meats and products made with whole grains.36 Due to the previously mentioned stripping of powers, the FTC does not have the authority to regulate unfair marketing to children.37 Currently, the FTC only has regulatory authority to issue individual violation orders.38 While regulating unfair and deceptive practices on a case-by-case basis is good and necessary, it does not address the current overwhelming food marketing environment that encourages children to adopt unhealthy food related beliefs and Behaviors.39 Additionally, the Commission is only able to recommend rules addressing unfair and deceptive marketing from food and beverage companies to children, not create them.40 Proposed Regulation A look into other countrys policies offers insight into a solution. The United Kingdom (UK) has higher rates of childhood obesity than the United States (US).41 After evaluating scientific research from several countries, UK government officials ruled to ban all advertising of high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) foods to children.42 According to the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP), UKs version of our FTC, [a]dvertisements must avoid anything likely to condone or encourage poor nutritional habits or an unhealthy lifestyle, especially in

34 35

(Federal Trade Commission, 2011) (Federal Trade Commission, 2011) 36 (Federal Trade Commission, 2011) 37 (Pomeranz, 2011, p. 521) 38 (Pomeranz, 2011, p. 521) 39 (Pomeranz, 2011, pp. 524-525) 40 (Pomeranz, 2011, p. 522) 41 (Darwin, 2009, p. 319) 42 (Darwin, 2009; OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS [OFCOM], 2007)

8 children.43 Additionally, celebrities must not promote HFSS foods to pre-school and primary school children and [a]dvertisements must not encourage children to eat more than they otherwise would.44 The UK and US are similar in many regards including rising childhood obesity trends and advertising.45 The UKs ban on advertising HFSS foods to children demonstrates that a similar ban in the US is possible and potentially a step towards lowering childhood obesity. It should be noted that no formal analysis has been done on the effectiveness of lowering childhood obesity in the UK after the ban on HFSS foods. Ofcoms final review, however, showed that children saw around 37% less HFSS advertising, 46 which they felt proved their goal of reducing HFSS advertising successful. They also conclude that while advertisements are still made using celebrities, they appeal mainly to adults and the market has shifted to more advertisements of non-HFSS foods.47 Restricting advertisements to children in the US involves many factors. First, how is childrens advertising defined? Many children do not restrict their television watching to childrens shows. Many television shows are regarded as general audience and family programming.48 Children are also exposed to many other forms of advertising that targets broad audiences such as billboards, print and Internet ads as well as point-of-purchase displays.49 Second, restricting advertisements may violate First Amendment rights. Advertising and marketing are generally considered commercial speech protected by the First Amendment50

43 44

(BCAP, 2010, p. 64) (BCAP, 2010, p. 68) 45 (Darwin, 2009) 46 (OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS [OFCOM], 2010) 47 (OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS [OFCOM], 2010) 48 (White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity Report to the President, 2010, p. 31) 49 (White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity Report to the President, 2010, p. 31) 50 (Pomeranz, 2011, p. 548)

9 For the government to restrict commercial speech it must apply the Central Hudson test.51 The Central Hudson test determines whether a product or advertisement is unlawful or deceptive. The test arose from the landmark case Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 that provided a four step analysis for commercial speech.52 The four steps must determine whether: (1) the expression is protected by the First Amendment, meaning that it must relate to a lawful activity and not be false, deceptive, or misleading; (2) the government asserted a substantial interest to be achieved by restricting commercial speech; (3) the regulation directly advances this interest; and (4) the restriction is not more extensive than necessary to serve this interest.53 Lastly, regulation of what celebrities endorse is a new topic. Limiting licensing of celebrities and popular characters by media organization to items that are considered healthy is a challenge to enforce. Certain movie and cartoon characters may appeal to children as well as adults. Prohibiting a celebrity endorsement will most likely have to be reviewed on a case-bycase basis to determine its constitutionality; therefore, including celebrity endorsements in the advertising ban is unlikely to succeed. Feasibility For a ban on unhealthy food and beverage marketing to children to be successful, regulations must extend to all forms of advertising, including those currently unregulated by the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI) such as in-store advertising and

51 52

(Wilde, 2009, p. 158) ("Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York," 1980) 53 ("Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York," 1980; Pomeranz, 2011, pp. 548-549)

10 product packaging.54 Considering the food industrys negative reaction to the FTCs proposed regulations, a total advertising ban is unlikely. As mentioned above, food industry giants already persuaded the FTC to lower its advertising age restriction from children age 17 to 11 through their political clout and deep lobbying pockets.55 If the food industry has the power to change a suggestion for a regulation, the likelihood of their ability to change proposed regulations in their favor is great. An advertising ban must also prove constitutional by not violating the Frist Amendment and can do so by passing the four-step Central Hudson test. To fulfill the first prong, it must be determined whether the speech is protected by the First Amendment. Though limited case law exists detailing this doctrine, the Court has confirmed that deceptive and misleading commercial speech is not constitutionally protected and thus can be freely regulated. 56 Therefore, by proving speech or advertisements are misleading or deceptive, the government has the authority to ban them.57 In this case, proving speech is misleading or deceptive can be enough evidence to issue a ban.58 If this type of speech is protected by the First Amendment, the other three prongs may be used to determine the constitutionality of the proposed restriction.59 The second prong requires that government interest be served by the restriction.60 The government has interest in promoting healthy children. Advertisements of unhealthy foods to children have been proven by research to encourage unhealthy food choices and promote obesity, in effect making them harmful to

54 55

(White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity Report to the President, 2010) (Bartz, 2011) 56 (Pomeranz, 2011, p. 549) 57 (Pomeranz, 2011, p. 549) 58 (Pomeranz, 2011, p. 549) 59 (Darwin, 2009, p. 344) 60 (Darwin, 2009, p. 345)

11 children.61 For these reasons the court should conclude that advertising unhealthy foods to children is against their interest.62 The third prong requires that the restriction directly advance that government interest.63 By reducing childrens exposure to unhealthy foods through advertisements, children are less likely to demand unhealthy products, therefore advancing government interest.64 Lastly, the final prong requires that the restrictions are not more than necessarily extensive to serve government interest.65 By restricting only advertisements directed at children and not the entire public, the advertising ban provides only the extent necessary to advance government interest. In the argument for time limitations for advertising during childrens programming in the Childrens Television Act of 2009, the House claimed constitutionality because it is narrowly focused and specifically limited in application to childrens programs.66 Regulation banning unhealthy food items to children is likely to pass the Central Hudson test because of its narrow target and proof that advertisements of unhealthy foods to children are misleading, and therefore, not protected by the First Amendment. When compared with Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, a case that did not pass the third and fourth steps of the Central Hudson test because its regulations were too broad, it can be predicted that regulations banning unhealthy food advertisements to children uphold constitutionality.67 In Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, the Attorney General of Massachusetts sought to further regulate the advertising of tobacco products in an effort to shield children from

61 62

(Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Food Marketing and the Diets of Children and Youth., et al., 2006) (Darwin, 2009, p. 345) 63 (Darwin, 2009, p. 344) 64 (Darwin, 2009, p. 345) 65 (Darwin, 2009, p. 344) 66 H.R. REP. No. 101-385, at 10 (1989), as reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1605, 1614 67 ("Lorillard Tobacco Company, et al. v. Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al.; Altadis U.S.A. Inc., etc., et al. v. Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al.," 2001)

12 encouragement to use them.68 The court rejected the regulation based on failure of the fourth prong of the Central Hudson test. The ruling stated the Attorney General was unable to prove the advertising regulations in question were not more extensive than necessary to advance the state's interest in preventing underage tobacco use.69 Lastly, to follow the UK example, celebrity endorsements of unhealthy foods must also be prohibited in the regulation. The FTC currently regulates celebrity endorsements, but only marginally. FTC Guides now hold celebrities liable under the FTC Act for statements they make in an endorsement, the revised Guides reflect Commission case law and clearly state that both advertisers and endorsers may be liable for false or unsubstantiated claims made in an endorsement or for failure to disclose material connections between the advertiser and endorsers.70 The FTC does not, however, regulate what celebrities endorse. Cartoons were banned in advertising in once instance as a result of the 1998 Multistate Tobacco Settlement (MSA), but only partially. The MSA prohibits cartoon tobacco advertising, but the definition of cartoon limits the ban's scope. For example, although Joe Camel cartoons are banned, drawings of a camel are permitted unless they exaggerate or attribute human or superhuman qualities to the camel. Moreover, the no cartoon rule does not ban the use of the Marlboro Man or other human characters. The MSA also grandfathers existing cigarette logos.71 It is possible, if the rule making capabilities of the FTC were reinstated, it could include celebrities in new regulation, prohibiting them from endorsing unhealthy foods to children. The FTC, however, would not be able to prohibit cartoon and fictional characters from marketing to
68 69

(Darwin, 2009, p. 346) ("Lorillard Tobacco Company, et al. v. Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al.; Altadis U.S.A. Inc., etc., et al. v. Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al.," 2001) 70 (Federal Trade Commission, 2009) 71 (Daynard, et al., 2001, p. 1969)

13 children under these same assumptions, as the FTC does not regard cartoon and fictional characters as celebrities. It is possible to restrict the use of cartoon characters for marketing to children, but only during childrens television programming. Ads during such programming are prime targets for regulation because the marketing is both directed at children, intended to reach them, and does reach them. Regulations that specifically reach these ads should satisfy the final inquiry of the Central Hudson test.72 Additionally, the FTC could extend their regulation to include advertising clearly intended for children but shown during family programming to restrict additional deceitful commercials.73 Advertisements for unhealthy foods may still be shown, but only if they do not specifically target children. For example, if Kelloggs were to advertise Frosted Flakes cereal during family programming, the restriction would ban the use of cartoon character Tony the Tiger so the ad does not target children. Kelloggs would still be able to advertise this product to the entire family audience.74 Conclusion The rise in childhood obesity has occurred alongside an unparalleled increase of food marketing to children. Food companies and CARU claim self-regulation is a feasible solution, but obesity rates continue rising indicating their methods have failed. Numerous studies have shown the current self-regulation of food and beverage marketing to children has had no effect on reducing childhood obesity.75 It is time for the government to step in and end the selfregulation era. It is not possible for food companies and the advertising industry to regulate

72 73

(Pomeranz, 2010, p. 109) (Pomeranz, 2010, p. 109) 74 (Pomeranz, 2010, p. 109) 75 (Pomeranz, 2011, p. 522)

14 marketing to children when they have a conflict of interest. The food and advertising industries are concerned with producing profits more than they are with contributing to childrens health. If they were to focus on profits from healthy choices, there would be far more healthy food and beverage options available for children and advertisements to promote them. Numerous studies link childhood obesity with advertising. Marketing budgets for energydense, low nutrient food are in the billions of dollars. In the past decade, food and beverage advertising to children increased at a higher rate than advertising to the general market.76 Children today are far more susceptible to marketing due to technological advances. They no longer only see advertisements directed towards them on TV; they are on billboards, in-store displays, in video games, on the internet, and at school.77 The US has less regulation over advertising to children than most other industrialized democratic nations, as well as one of the highest occurrences of childhood obesity.78 Many factors contribute to childhood obesity and banning unhealthy food marketing to children is unlikely to solve the problem; however, any attempt at fixing one of the many targets is a step in the right direction. For self-regulation to end, Congress must reinstate the FTCs rule-making and regulatory authorities. Since 1938, the FTC has been the governments agency to prohibit unfair and deceptive acts or practices.79 It is the agency whose history and resources make it the perfect commission to regulate unfair and deceptive advertisements aimed at children as it once did. The FTC, if authorized with its original powers, should ban advertising to children on the basis of deception.

76 77

(Darwin, 2009, p. 342) (Linn & Novosat, 2008) 78 (Linn & Novosat, 2008, p. 147) 79 (Federal Trade Commission, 2010)

15 Children are often too naive to understand advertising and advertisers specifically target their easily influenced, young minds.80 Children do not have the ability to differentiate between puffery and fact and cannot understand that what they are receiving is commercial speech intended to persuade them.81 The numerous correlations between advertising and childhood obesity can no longer be ignored. Many arguments against an advertising ban have been suggested such as, infringement on First Amendment rights, advertisements have little correlation to childrens health, and loss of revenue to childrens programming, have been disproved in this paper, and other reports.82 One function of the government is to protect the vulnerable from profit seekers.83 The Supreme Court confirmed that childrens vulnerability and their inability to make informed choices permit the government to regulate speech directed at them.84 To better the health and lives of children as well as protect them, the US should follow other industrialized nations steps and ban advertising of energy-dense, low-nutrient food to children through a reinstatement of powers to the FTC.

80 81

(Nestle, 2007, p. 177) (Pomeranz, 2010, p. 109) 82 (Darwin, 2009, pp. 349-350) 83 (Pomeranz, 2010, p. 109) 84 (Pomeranz, 2010, p. 109)

16 Reference List Bartz, D. (2011). U.S. food lobby fighting hard to defend kid ads, Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/07/us-advertising-childrenidUSTRE7A66OA20111107 BCAP Code: Food, food supplements and associated health or nutrition claims (2010). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2011). Obesity rates among all children in the United States (Data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) Retrieved November 5, 2011, from http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/childhood/data.html Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, (1980). Cohen, L. (2011). We're Not Buying It: Stop Junk Food Marketing to Kids, Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry/junk-food-kids_b_996731.html Darwin, D. (2009). Advertising Obesity: Can the U.S. Follow the Lead of the UK in Limiting Television Marketing of Unhealthy Foods to Children? [Article]. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 42(1), 317-350. Daynard, R. A., Parmet, W., Kelder, G., & Davidson, P. (2001). Implications for tobacco control of the multistate tobacco settlement. Am J Public Health, 91(12), 1967-1971. Federal Trade Commission. (2008). FTC Report Sheds New Light on Food Marketing to Children and Adolescents Retrieved November 5, 2011, from http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/07/foodmkting.shtm Federal Trade Commission. (2009). FTC Publishes Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials Changes Affect Testimonial Advertisements, Bloggers, Celebrity Endorsements. Federal Trade Commission. (2010, June 17). About the Federal Trade Commission Retrieved Novmeber 6, 2011, from http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/about.shtm Federal Trade Commission. (2011). Interagency Working Group Seeks Input on Proposed Voluntary Principles for Marketing Food to Children. Retrieved from http://ftc.gov/opa/2011/04/foodmarket.shtm. Federal Trade Commission v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. et al., 380 374 (U.S. 1965). Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Food Marketing and the Diets of Children and Youth., McGinnis, J. M., Gootman, J. A., & Kraak, V. I. (2006). Food marketing to children and youth : threat or opportunity? Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Kelly, B. (2005). To quell obesity, who should regulate food marketing to children?, Editorial, Globalization & Health, pp. 1-3. Retrieved from http://library.depaul.edu/CheckURL.aspx?address=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.asp x?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=28743560&site=ehost-live&scope=site Li, J., & Hooker, N. H. (2010). Childhood Obesity and Schools: Evidence From the National Survey of Children's Health. [Article]. Journal of School Health, 80(2), 96-103. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2009.00471.x Linn, S., & Novosat, C. L. (2008). Calories for Sale: Food Marketing to Children in the TwentyFirst Century. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 615(1), 133-155. doi: 10.1177/000271620730848

17 Lorillard Tobacco Company, et al. v. Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al.; Altadis U.S.A. Inc., etc., et al. v. Thomas F. Reilly, Attorney General of Massachusetts, et al., 533 U.S. 525, (2001). Nestle, M. (2007). Food Politics. Berkley: University of California Press. OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS [OFCOM]. (2007). Television Advertising of Food and Drink Products to Children Final statement London. OFFICE OF COMMUNICATIONS [OFCOM]. (2010). HFSS advertising restrictions- Final review. Pomeranz, J. L. (2010). Television Food Marketing to Children Revisited: The Federal Trade Commission Has the Constitutional and Statutory Authority to Regulate. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, Spring 2010, 98-116. Pomeranz, J. L. (2011). Federal Trade Commission's Authority to Regulate Marketing to Children: Deceptive vs. Unfair Rulemaking. Health Matrix, 21, 521-553. Reuters. (2011). Consumer groups say junk food ads mislead teens, Reuters. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/19/us-pepsico-advertisingidUSTRE79I7O520111019 Story, M., & French, S. (2004). Food Advertising and Marketing Directed at Children and Adolescents in the US. [Article]. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition & Physical Activity, 1, 3-17. White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity Report to the President. (2010). Solving the Problem of Childhood Obesity Within a Generation (pp. 120). Wilde, P. (2009). Self-regulation and the response to concerns about food and beverage marketing to children in the United States. [Review]. Nutrition Reviews, 67(3), 155-166. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.2009.00183.x Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity. (2011). Current Regulation of Advertising Retrieved November 5, 2011, from http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/what_we_do.aspx?id=25