[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
IMAGES KIDS SEE ON THE SCREEN
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND THE INTERNET
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 22, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-58
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-798 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
Chairman
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
BART GORDON, Tennessee
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BART STUPAK, Michigan
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
GENE GREEN, Texas
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
Vice Chairman
LOIS CAPPS, California
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
JANE HARMAN, California
TOM ALLEN, Maine
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
HILDA L. SOLIS, California
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
JAY INSLEE, Washington
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
JIM MATHESON, Utah
G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana
JOHN BARROW, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana JOE BARTON, Texas
Ranking Member
RALPH M. HALL, Texas
J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
FRED UPTON, Michigan
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
Mississippi
VITO FOSSELLA, New York
STEVE BUYER, Indiana
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
MARY BONO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
MIKE ROGERS, Michigan
SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina
JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
_________________________________________________________________
Professional Staff
Dennis B. Fitzgibbons, Chief of
Staff
Gregg A. Rothschild, Chief Counsel
Sharon E. Davis, Chief Clerk
Bud Albright, Minority Staff
Director
(ii)
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania FRED UPTON, Michigan
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JANE HARMAN, California J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois
CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
JAY INSLEE, Washington NATHAN DEAL, Georgia
BARON P. HILL, Indiana BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING,
BART GORDON, Tennessee Mississippi
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois VITO FOSELLA, New York
ANNA G. ESHOO, California GEORGE RADANOVICH, California
BART STUPAK, Michigan MARY BONO, California
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York GREG WALDEN, Oregon
GENE GREEN, Texas LEE TERRY, Nebraska
LOIS CAPPS, California MIKE FERGUSON, New Jersey
HILDA L. SOLIS, California JOE BARTON, Texas (ex officio)
JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement............... 1
Hon. Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, opening statement.................................. 3
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 4
Hon. Hilda L.Solis, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 6
Hon. Nathan Deal, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Georgia, opening statement..................................... 6
Hon. Jay Inslee, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Washington, opening statement.................................. 7
Witnesses
Hon. Dan Glickman, chairman and chief executive officer, Motion
Picture Association of America................................. 8
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Cheryl G. Healton, president and chief executive officer, the
American Legacy Foundation..................................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Donald L. Shifrin, M.D., chair, Committee on Communications,
American Academy of Pediatrics................................. 34
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Mary Sophos, senior vice president, chief government affairs
officer, Grocery Manufacturers /Food Products Association...... 40
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Patti Miller, vice president, Children Now....................... 47
Prepared statement........................................... 49
Kyle McSlarrow, president and chief executive officer, National
Cable & Telecommunications Association......................... 54
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Jon Rand, general manager, KAYU FOX 28, Spokane/Coeur D'Alene,
Spokane, WA.................................................... 70
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Adam D. Thierer, senior fellow, Progress & Freedom Foundation.... 86
Prepared statement........................................... 88
Submitted Material
``Hollywood Smoke-out, HSPH Takes on Tobacco on Screen'' Barry R.
Bloom, Harvard Public Health Review, Spring/Summer 2007,
submitted by Mr. Glickman...................................... 10
IMAGES KIDS SEE ON THE SCREEN
----------
FRIDAY, JUNE 23, 2007
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Telecommunications
and the Internet,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:12 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey
(chairman) presiding.
Present: Representatives Inslee, Harman, Capps, Solis,
Upton, Deal, Pickering, and Walden.
Staff present: Maureen Flood, Colin Crowell, Kyle Chapman,
Phil Murphy, Neil Fried, Courtney Reinhard, and Matthew
Johnson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Mr. Markey. Good morning, and we welcome you to the
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
Kids watch about 2 to 4 hours of TV every day, and one-
third to two-thirds of kids have TVs in their bedrooms. As for
the big screen, in 2004, children age 12 to 17 accounted for
almost 20 percent of all box office revenues. Given these
statistics, it is no surprise that parents are disturbed by
certain images children see on the screen, as these images can
influence kids' behavior in ways that harm their health. This
is something of a rerun for Congress. Back in 1996, Congress
enacted the v-chip legislation for which I was the prime House
sponsor. That law spurred the television industry to develop a
voluntary TV rating system in response to media violence. It
also required all TV sets manufactured after 2000 to include a
v-chip, allowing parents to block programs they deemed
inappropriate based upon the rating system. I believe big
mother and big father are better able to decide what is
appropriate for their kids to watch rather than big brother,
but we needed the law to ensure parents had the tools to
effectuate those choices.
There is good news and bad news about how this is working.
The good news is that for the parents who are aware of and use
these tools, the v-chip and the ratings system get high marks
and have been a success. The bad news is that far too many
parents still don't know about them or they don't know how to
use them. I urge the industry to look at ways to make the
technological tools parents already possess more useful and to
better advertise their availability. However, we must also
recognize that there is potentially harmful content on
children's television that parents today cannot use the v-chip
to block, such as advertisements. The high prevalence of ads
during children's programming for fast food, junk food, sugared
cereals and other foods wholly lacking in nutritional value is
deeply concerning, given that these ads have been found so
negatively to influence children's dietary choices.
Moreover, we must reflect on the fact that childhood
obesity rates have skyrocketed by more than 300 percent over
the past three decades, and the Surgeon General has
characterized obesity as the fastest-growing cause of disease
and death in the United States. Parents and families have an
undeniable responsibility to steer their children to healthy
choices, but it is hard for parents to compete with popular
kids TV characters pushing sugary cereal or Ronald McDonald
hocking Happy Meals. There is, after all, no means for parents
to block junk food ads. The v-chip only applies to programs,
not for the advertising on those programs. And there is a
terrible inconsistency in policies that require broadcasters to
air 3 hours a week of educationally nutritious programming for
kids and then to have this programming and other children's
shows surrounded by a barrage of junk food ads.
As the House sponsor of the Children's Television Act, I
believe that parents and children deserve better. And that act
already grants the FCC authority to address many of these
issues if the industry does not respond to this problem on its
own swiftly and concretely. I commend the Kellogg company for
voluntarily adopting nutrition standards for the foods it
markets to children. Kellogg's recent initiative demonstrates
that companies can market their products to children in a
socially responsible way. I urge other food and beverage
companies to commit at a minimum to the same restrictions that
Kellogg has assumed. I also urge the television industry to
develop its own robust set of commitments to refrain from
overwhelming kids with the sheer volume of junk food ads on
many children's shows today.
Parents also have expressed concerns about the proverbial
big screen, too, and the prevalence of smoking in the movies.
Roughly 80 percent of all smokers begin smoking before their
18th birthday. This suggests that if a child makes it to age 18
without smoking, there is a vastly reduced chance that she will
ever start. At the same time, the Institute of Medicine found
that the presence of smoking in a movie significantly
influences a child's decision to start. And statistics show
that smoking in the movies is pervasive; 65 percent of all
major movies produced in 2006 included smoking when only 20
percent of Americans smoke.
The Motion Picture Association of America recently
announced that smoking would be a new factor in a movie's
rating. This is a very welcomed development. So it is important
for us, and we are glad that Dan Glickman is here today to hear
how that is going to be implemented.
And at this point, because of the press of time, I am going
to stop my opening statement and turn and recognize the
gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps, if she would like to
make an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Chairman Markey. I thank you also
for holding this hearing.
I appreciate the witnesses who have come today. It is an
important discussion that will happen. As a public health
nurse, I know that the media plays an extremely important role
in the lives of children. You know it, too. Unfortunately,
sometimes images on the screen and in the page can exacerbate
the problems, as we are going to discuss today, of violence,
childhood obesity and teen smoking.
Recently, my colleague, Congresswoman Solis, and I led a
group of Members of Congress, we wrote a letter to the editors
of 11 women's magazines asking them to reject advertisements
for a new cigarette, Camel No. 9, that is aimed at young women.
Now what is the word Camel No. 9 reminds you of, especially if
it is accompanied by the words ``light and luscious''? So,
today, I know we will hear about the effects that smoking in
the movies has on young people. We must find a way to balance
artistic freedom with the need to prevent young people,
teenagers, from starting to smoke.
One of the other major issues of this hearing is childhood
obesity, one of the fastest-growing epidemics in our land
today, huge cost to lives and to society. Recent studies have
shown that more than 30 percent of children are either obese or
very overweight. And there are many reasons for this, of
course, including physical inactivity and demands on parents'
time. But the evidence also points to a role for unhealthy food
that is heavily advertised on television.
I want to commend, as my colleague has done, some of the
companies that have been leading the way on changing this.
Disney has restricted the use of its characters to nutritious
foods and incorporated messages about healthy living in much of
its popular programs. And as Mr. Markey just said, Kellogg
recently announced that it would restrict the advertising of
its products that didn't meet nutritional guidelines. I hope
there is a lot of positive reinforcement for this kind of
action, and I hope that other media and food companies will
join these companies to reform their advertising practices.
We also must address the issue of product placement and
integration even though these practices are illegal in
designated children's programing. At an earlier subcommittee
hearing, we saw clear product integration for Oreo cookies
during the show 7th Heaven, very popular among children.
Potential restrictions on advertising could be undermined by
similar practices. So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for
holding this hearing. And I look forward to speaking with our
witnesses.
Mr. Markey. The gentlelady's time has expired. To our
panelists, with the exception of former Congressman and Cabinet
Secretary Glickman, you should understand that we Members of
Congress, don't really control our time, which is why I think
Dan Glickman is happier with the job he has now. We have a roll
call on the floor. We have 5 minutes to make, Congresswoman
Capps and I. And then there will be a brief roll call after
that. So, in approximately 10 minutes, we will reconvene the
hearing. And at that point, Ranking Member Upton from Michigan
will return, and I will recognize him, and then we will go
right to the panel for your opening statements. So this
committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
Mr. Markey. The subcommittee will reassemble, and I will
now turn to recognize the gentleman from Michigan, the ranking
member of the subcommittee, Mr. Upton.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am sorry
that I was not here when the gavel fell. I was actually
outside, but when votes were called, I had to go to the floor,
and sadly, I am going to give my opening statement. I have an
amendment on the House floor, so we will do that; it is going
to allegedly pass by voice. And I will be immediately back in
my chair. But good morning.
Today's hearing is entitled, Images Kids See on the Screen,
and it seems that, as a society, we are much quicker to lay
blame for our ills rather than acknowledging our own foibles.
We have drifted away from personal responsibility. And as the
parent of two teenagers, I firmly believe that the primary
responsibility for the health and well-being of all of our kids
lies with the parents, not necessarily with the media. Kids get
fat from what they eat, not what they see. They stay fit by
what they do or, rather, do not do. Additional Government
regulation cannot cure childhood obesity or keep children from
smoking. Parents have a role there, too.
Television is unequivocally the most common source of
information available to children growing up in our country.
Children are not only being entertained, but they are also
being educated by TV. Nearly all children, 99 percent, live in
a home with a TV. Half have three or more TVs, and over one-
third have a television in their own bedroom. It is estimated
that children today watch 3 to 4 hours of TV every single day.
And in light of the growing amount of time that kids find
themselves in front of a TV, the issue of what they are
watching becomes increasingly important.
However, let's not forget who is ultimately responsible for
what kids watch and for how long. That is for parents. The
master of the clicker must be the adult, not the child, in the
household. In terms of children's programming, I would
particularly want to commend the Kellogg company and Kraft
foods for their leadership on voluntarily restricting marketing
practices to kids. Kellogg's and Kraft continue to be a leader
on so many fronts, and I am proud to represent a number of
their great employees in my district.
It should be noted that the industry as a whole is involved
in a large collaborative effort, the Children's Food and
Beverage Advertising Initiative. It is a voluntary program
funded in November 2006 by 10 food companies, representing over
two-thirds of the advertising devoted to kids. It is
administered and monitored by a Council of Better Business
Bureaus, which also oversees CARA, the self-regulatory
children's advertising program, for all children's advertising,
not just food. Kellogg's child nutrition and advertising
initiative is their pledge under this program. And I expect
that when all the pledges from the participating companies are
in later this summer, we will benefit greatly from viewing the
collective impact of the voluntary initiative as a whole.
The quest for solutions concerning kids programs has led
some down the wrong path. Some have mistakenly suggested that
choosing channels a la carte is a solution. That is wrong; a la
parents is the answer. For example, with their Control Your TV
and TV Boss, along with other technologies, the cable industry
has made great leaps in educating parents on the technology
available to block any content that they deem inappropriate.
Parents can block a whole channel or block by content ratings.
Chairman Markey's v-chip works the same way for broadcast TV.
That way, parents are empowered to decide what is best for
their family to view. Cable operators and programmers should be
commended for the work that they have done in that area. Our
broadcasters should be commended as well.
Since my bill increasing the fines that the FCC can levy
against broadcasters for indecency was signed into law, the
race to the bottom has ended. And there has been a reduction in
some of the stuff that was permeating the public airwaves.
Broadcasters across the country got the message, and they now
think twice about pushing that envelope. Violating the decency
standards is no longer merely viewed as the cost of doing
business. The law provides parents a little more comfort when
their kids turn on the TV or radio during the hours of 6 a.m.
until 10 p.m.
Now I don't understand why some folks think this is an
arena for regulation, particularly as the private sector
continues to make meaningful progress, not because they are
forced to but as a matter of good policy. The best remedy comes
from the industries that are self-regulating. Let's look at one
example. A leader in kids programming, Viacom's Nickelodeon has
licensed its characters for use on packages of fruits and
vegetables to encourage healthy eating habits since 2005.
Nickelodeon also licenses its characters for sports equipment
and has committed more than $30 million and 10 percent of its
air time to Let's Just Go Play Healthy Challenge, a multimedia
campaign that focuses on health and wellness messaging for
kids. The network also goes dark once a year for its Worldwide
Day of Play, putting a message on the screen suggesting that
kids go out and play. In addition, Nickelodeon continues to
play an active role in the media and childhood obesity task
force. The goal of that is to provide a forum for the public
and private sectors to examine the impact the media has on
childhood obesity rates and to collaborate on voluntary
recommendations to address the issue.
I look forward to hearing from our panel this morning,
especially my good friend and actually my former boss, Mary
Sophos, on this important topic. I appreciate them being here
to help us understand and examine the issues before us.
I will return after the amendment is adopted. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Markey. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Solis.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HILDA L. SOLIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Solis. Thank you, Chairman Markey and Ranking Member
Upton, for having this very important hearing this morning.
Today we have an opportunity to examine the effects of
media on one of the most important constituencies, our
children. As chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus task
force, I have long advocated for the health and well-being of
Latino children. Latino children are more likely to be obese
than any other group. In fact, recent statistics by the
National Council of La Raza show that 24 percent of Mexican-
American children are overweight. African-American children
also face problems. They represent 20 percent of children that
are overweight. And Anglo children represent 12 percent that
are overweight. Any problems we identify today or solutions we
may consider will have a disproportionate impact on the health
of minority children.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the
advertising that targets children and the ideas they might have
to lower rates of childhood obesity. I also look forward to
hearing from witnesses about ways to better educate parents and
consumers on the tools they already have to limit objectionable
content in their homes. We have often heard from FCC Chairman
Martin that the solution is a la carte cable programming. As
many on this committee know, a la carte presents serious issues
since it would increase costs for consumers and limit
programming by a per-channel instead of per-program basis. I
look forward to hearing from our witnesses today to help us
provide better information for our children and for our
parents. And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Markey. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Deal.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NATHAN DEAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA
Mr. Deal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our
witnesses for being here today. I have long been concerned
about the level of violence and sexual content which has come
to hold a prominent place in movies, commercials and television
programming. There are those who would argue that children are
not necessarily harmed by what they see on television. Such
arguments I think fail to pass the test of common sense. Common
sense tells us that when our media glorifies violence,
promiscuous sex and other forms of questionable behavior, as a
society, we are undermining the very principles that we seek to
uphold. If we care about the future of our children, then, as a
society, we should be taking the steps necessary to reform the
images that they see on television. Part of the problem, I
believe, is lack of consumer choice in television programming
and the underlying issue of retransmission consent which
prevents it. We have not given enough control to parents,
communities and local cable operators in order to protect and
support what comes into their homes and neighborhoods.
A perfect example of this is the fact that there are no
cable or satellite companies which allow their customers to
pick and pay for the programming they actually want to watch.
Rather, consumers are left with only a small range of packages
which often leaves them paying for hundreds of channels, the
vast majority of which they would never voluntarily pay for. I
have been told before by cable and satellite providers that
they would like to offer more choice to consumers but are
prohibited due to forced bundling and packaging practices. Due
to rapid media consolidation, we have a limited number of media
companies controlling the vast array of video programming. As a
result, they can force a take-it-or-leave-it approach for all
of their programming, the good and the bad, the uplifting and
the degrading. That, in my opinion, is why we have much of the
offensive programming on our TVs. Until we fix these broken and
outdated regulations which govern video programming, we will
always have a system with no free market which does not allow
parents to choose the programming they want to watch. We need a
system which is free-market based and allows for true choice. I
will end by emphasizing that I realize and don't believe that
this can be resolved by a forced mandatory Government-regulated
regime. That, in my opinion, is not the answer. I yield back.
Mr. Markey. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State,
Mr. Inslee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAY INSLEE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. We start out with some pretty
terrifying statistics. One in three of all children born in the
United States in the year 2000 will develop diabetes during
their lifetime. And having just lost my mom a few months ago to
the ravages of diabetes, I can tell you that is a very, very
stunning and threatening statistic. It really is a national
epidemic that we are going to experience if we don't turn
around our kids and their eating and activity behavior. And
maybe it is one of our principle challenges of the country. So
I am glad we are having this hearing today.
I will just talk about two issues. One is the bombardment
of our children of advertising for certain types of food, and
the other is our lack of physical activity of our children. I
just want to address them briefly. American children ages 2 to
7 see an average of 12 food ads a day or 4,400 ads a year. Kids
8 to 12 see an average of 21 food ads a day; they will see
7,600 ads a year for food. Fifty percent of all ad time on
children's shows are for food. The interesting thing about
those ads is the kind of food that those ads portray. They see
8.8 food ads per hour; 34 percent of those ads are for candy
and snacks; 28 percent are for cereal; 10 percent are for fast
food. And this is kind of interesting to me, 1 percent are for
fruit juices, and zero are for fruits and vegetables. And I
think that is interesting.
If you look at the book ``Omnivore's Dilemma,'' it is a
very interesting book about the food industry and what we eat
in this country. And it basically says processed foods are what
we sell because our industry, basically the only profit they
found is in processed foods, which are high in sugar and
concentrated fats. Somehow we have got to figure out how to get
real food. Our kids need real food. So I appreciate this group
is going to talk about that.
Second, on education, Representative Wamp and I and others
have introduced a Strengthening Physical Education Act of 2007,
with 19 cosponsors. It will require that our schools start
getting our kids involved in physical education, and we as
parents have a responsibility in that as well. There are two
parts of this equation, parents and activity, and the industry
and bombardment of kids with sugar, and I think all of us have
to get real serious about this diabetes epidemic. Thank you.
Mr. Markey. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am actually going to
wave an opening statement because I know we have votes--they
say as soon as 11:45--so I want to make sure we hear from our
witness panel, so I will wave.
Mr. Markey. That is great. And all time for opening
statements by the members has expired. We will now turn to our
panel. And it is an extremely distinguished panel indeed.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN GLICKMAN, CHAIRMAN AND CEO, MOTION
PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Mr. Glickman. Thank you very much, Chairman Markey and
members. It is a pleasure to be back home here in the House. I
served with many of you. I am delighted to be here.
The American film community has long been committed to
empowering parents by helping them make informed decisions
about what is appropriate for their kids. This is in fact the
core mission of the movie rating system which we jointly manage
with the National Association of Theater Owners; that is to
inform parents and, in doing so, to maintain, uphold creative
freedom and artistic freedom in this country.
It is no secret that the ratings system gets its share of
heat from all sides, and that is expected, even healthy, in our
society. Some people say, that movie should have been rated
this way and that movie should have been rated that way. And
the process is an art, not a science. But it should be noted
that the rating system continues to enjoy an overwhelming
approval among the folks for whom it was created, parents of
young children. To maintain the rating system as a useful and
relevant tool, we work hard to make sure it evolves alongside
modern parental concerns.
In recent years, if you have noticed, we have added more
detailed rating descriptions, so that gives specificity to
parents about why a movie is rated a certain way. We focused as
well on advertising and marketing materials in movies, both the
content and making sure our products are marketed to age-
appropriate audiences. We have added a stern warning to R-rated
films, making it clear that even in the presence of a parent or
guardian, some of these films are not suitable for young
children. And we have added new tools, such as red carpet
ratings, which delivers ratings on the Internet about current
films in an e-mail account to people all over the country.
As you know, we have recently made all smoking a factor in
the rating of films. In the past, we focused only on teen
smoking. Now our analysis also encompasses depictions that
glamorize smoking or films that feature pervasive smoking
outside of a mitigating historical, public health or other
context. That decision has been strongly supported by major
public health groups like the American Cancer Society, and we
work closely with the Harvard School of Public Health and Dean
Barry Bloom to proceed along with this. In fact, Mr. Chairman,
I have the latest dean's message from the Harvard School of
Public Health, which I would like to ask be part of the record,
which talks about their role with us in working on the program
as we have done it.
Mr. Markey. Without objection, it will be included in the
record.
[The material follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.054
Mr. Glickman. And I would add that many, many State
attorneys general have indicated strong support of what we have
done. In the real world, this change will translate in two
ways. First, films that glamorize smoking or feature pervasive
smoking may well receive a higher rating and/or a specific note
of caution to parents, such as, quote, glamorizes smoking.
The second and most likely the far-reaching impact is
greater self-restraint. Given this new higher bar set by the
ratings board, if the objective is a G, PG or PG-13 film, there
is likely to be even more careful consideration at the studio
and filmmaker level of any scenes of smoking. It is still a
creative decision on the part of the filmmaker, but the
knowledge is there that if there are certain types of smoking
described in the situation, it could affect the rating.
I would say that we spent a lot of time on thinking about
``thou shalt not'' in this debate. We talked about obesity and
smoking; both are very important. And as you know, ironically,
in my former position as the Secretary of Agriculture, I was
very much involved in issues like teen nutrition, dietary
guidelines, and it is just ironic that I find myself engaged in
a debate that I never expected to be in in this particular job.
But I do think, if you look at films overall, for example,
two films come to mind, ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' the film
about climate change, or whether it is the movie that is coming
out today, ``A Mighty Heart,'' a film about how a journalist
relates in the war on terrorism, the fact of the matter is,
this industry has a long and proud legacy of shining a
spotlight on issues of great importance and having an often
game-changing impact. In the area of public health, we have had
a partnership that began in the 1980s between our industry and
the medical community on drunk driving. Experts came in and
talked to everyone in the industry. What came out of it
voluntarily was the depictions of designated drivers and helped
bartenders call cabs because it became the norm on both film
and our society.
We have now joined at MPAA with the Entertainment Industry
Foundation, the Directors Guild of America and others in a
similar voluntary industry-led effort called ``Hollywood
Unfiltered.'' Again, the aim, like the designated driver aim--
this does not relate to ratings. This is more an operational
issue, but the aim is to raise awareness of the many voluntary
creative choices, in this case to help further reduce the
glamorization of smoking in film. And lest we dismiss these
efforts, it is worth noting that the drunk-driving campaign,
not based on censorship, has been credited with saving more
than 50,000 American lives. So I want to make sure that we make
the point here that ratings are not the sole solution of the
problem. But it gives parents the information that they need to
make choices for their kids. And the voluntary effort is one
that we think will ultimately have a bigger role.
Now in the area of obesity, which I just thought I would
mention today, this is an important precedent, and this is a
complex problem. I took this up as Agriculture Secretary. We
developed teen nutrition. We provided the 2000 dietary
guidelines. This is a tough issue because the idea of fresh
fruits and vegetables added to our diet, the idea of a more
balanced diet is one that is absolutely critical, as
Congressman Inslee talked about, in terms of--my blood sugar is
often a little bit at the upper level, and I understand this.
There is no panacea in all of this. What do we do? Do we ban
depictions of unhealthy foods? Who defines unhealthy? But we
each have to do our part, individuals, government, society at
large.
It has been mentioned about the Walt Disney company
introducing more healthful options, Nickelodeon, Universal
Studios. And the list goes on; that helps. Children's
programming and even the advertising are stepping up big time
to encourage a more healthy lifestyle. And it also helps when
we parents and grandparents set an example, look at our own
habits and think about our responsibilities as well. Government
edicts alone won't solve the problem. We have to work together,
which is what we are trying to do today. I think we can make
real progress on all of these issues. I think we can ask, what
are the messages we are sending to our kids? Can there be more
positive messages? Can we enlist the ingenuity of the creative
community to help address these broader societal challenges?
Can we do so in a manner that celebrates rather than inhibits
creative freedom? For our kids, for the public health and for
our democratic society, I hope the answer is yes. And I thank
you very much Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glickman follows:]
Statement of Hon. Dan Glickman
Good morning. Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Upton,
members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the Motion Picture
Association of America (MPAA) and its six member companies, I
thank you for the opportunity to address this important set of
topics relating to media and children.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 The Motion Picture Association of America is the voice and
advocate of the American motion picture, home video, and television
industries. Its members include: Buena Vista Pictures Distribution;
Paramount Pictures Corporation; Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc.;
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Universal City Studios LLP and
Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a parent and grandparent, I fully appreciate that the
prevalence of media and the rapid development of the technology
that delivers it are a challenge to parents. We must work
together to ensure that parents have the tools they need to
make sound, informed decisions on behalf of their children
because in the end, it is parents--not industry, not interest
groups, and not the government--that should make those
decisions.
Technology and the availability of media are not bad
things. In fact they are two of our country's great equalizers
and reflect the bedrock freedoms and opportunities for
advancement upon which the country was founded. Technology
enables a child in rural Kentucky to access online the same
research as a child in the wealthiest suburbs of Los Angeles or
New York or Washington.
For example Mr. Chairman, you are acutely aware of the
complexities and challenges of global warming, and you would
probably agree that nothing has done more to raise awareness to
that complex issue than the documentary film, ``An Inconvenient
Truth.'' This is just one example of how media, and movies in
particular, can educate and elevate socially important issues.
Our industry has provided tremendous leadership over the
last few decades to make sure movies are being viewed by
appropriate audiences by providing information to parents,
through the establishment of the movie ratings system. This
system is the gold standard of parental informational tools,
and parents consistently report that it is useful.
As the market and consumer expectations are constantly
evolving, our rating system is constantly being reevaluated to
make sure that it is keeping pace with that transformation. In
recent years we have introduced several refinements, adding
more detailed ratings descriptions, expanding ratings factors,
improving advertising and marketing regulations and
establishing new delivery systems for ratings information.
We all share the goal of shielding children from
inappropriate images. We must face this problem keeping in mind
that in our country, motion pictures and television programs
are forms of expression protected by the first amdendment and
that any governmental effort to regulate that speech must
comport with our proud Constitutional history. Efforts to
regulate speech that violate that basic principle, no matter
how well intentioned, do not protect a single child.
Rather than throwing up our collective hands and feeling
overwhelmed, we must continue working aggressively and
creatively to empower parents so they can take advantage of
what's good and set limits for what they do not want their
children to be exposed.
My industry has been a leader in providing parents with the
resources they need to make the right choices for their
families. I would like to highlight just a few of our efforts
for you here today.
For nearly 40 years, MPAA has led the way with a workable
voluntary ratings system that has stood the test of time and
continues to have widespread support among American parents.
Established in 1968, the Classification and Ratings
Administration (CARA) is the gold standard of parental
informational tools by which all others are measured. Using the
now familiar and easy-to-understand G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17
motion picture ratings, the ratings system provides parents
with guidance about a movie's content so that they can
determine what motion pictures are suitable for their children.
Parents make the decision, the ratings system provides them
with tools to do so.
According to annual outside surveys, parents have
consistently found it extremely useful in helping them make the
right decisions about their children's moviegoing. Last year's
survey, released on the 38th anniversary of the establishment
of CARA, showed that 80 percent of parents found the rating
system to be fairly to very useful in helping them make
decisions about what movies their children see.
The success of the ratings system lies in its
straightforward simplicity. It provides an overall familiar
framework while still allowing for adjustments as circumstances
warrant. We have worked extremely hard to make sure that in
addition to being easy to understand and use, the ratings are
accessible to parents in an increasingly busy and complicated
world.
Our ratings Web site www.filmratings.com is highly
trafficked by parents who visit it to look up the rating of a
motion picture and its rating reason. They can also access the
various descriptions of the ratings and see a list of the most
frequently asked questions about ratings.
All official movie sites must link directly to the film
ratings site and to www.parentalguide.org, a comprehensive
central site which provides parents with information about CARA
and each of the other ratings systems other industries have
developed. If a film has not yet been rated, the television and
online advertising for that film must note that and reference
the ratings Web site for up-to-date information.
To provide this information in the most convenient way,
MPAA last year launched a free email alert service called Red
Carpet Ratings which automatically sends parents ratings and
ratings reasons for the most recently released movies. Parents
can sign up for the service at the MPAA Web site at
www.mpaa.org or on the film rating Web site.
Aside from parents looking up the ratings of a film on one
of these Web sites or obtaining the ratings information by
other means, the most basic way we can provide that ratings
information as guidance is ensuring that the ratings
information and descriptors are provided in all of the
advertising and marketing material for a rated movie, no matter
in what medium, and that the movies are marketed to age
appropriate audiences.
Movie advertising, whether in print, on television, or
online is required to include rating information and
descriptors highlighting the reasons--such as violence--that
caused the film to receive its rating.
The FTC recognized the importance of these steps in its
recent report on marketing to children, noting that the
industry has made steady progress in disclosing ratings and
rating reasons clearly and prominently in advertising since
2000. Specifically, we have now included ratings reasons for
all films in newspaper ads, Web sites, and posters.
As part of the requirements to receive a film rating, all
advertising and publicity, including Internet sites, must be
submitted to the Advertising Administration for review and
approval prior to being released to the public. The Advertising
Administration reviews over 50,000 pieces of advertising a
year. Its comprehensive rules were just updated last year to
ensure the guidelines are keeping pace with new developments in
content distribution, and we plan to continue to update them as
needed.
Movie advertising shown on network and cable television can
only be placed during programming of compatible content and at
appropriate hours. In reviewing a television spot for approval,
the Advertising Administration will take into consideration
appropriate placement and audience demographics.
Similarly, movie trailers shown in theaters must be
compatible with the feature so that inappropriate content is
not advertised to younger viewers. For example, PG-rated
features must not be preceded by trailers advertising R- rated
films.
Online advertising, including Internet sites, banner ads
and video clips, must also be reviewed and approved.
Distribution of movies and movie advertising on the Internet
pose a whole host of new challenges as well as opportunities.
MPAA and its member companies continue to explore and implement
technological solutions to help block inappropriate movie
advertising from being accessed by younger Internet users, and
MPAA staff continually review sites for inappropriate content.
Failure to comply with any of the advertising guidelines
can result in significant penalties for distributors. This
includes the revocation or suspension of their movie's rating.
Non-MPAA member companies are not bound to have their films
rated; however, once they submit their film for a rating, they
are bound by our rules requiring review and approval of their
materials.
The ratings system is constantly evolving to meet the
changing needs of parents. Recently we have taken several steps
to make the system more user friendly and transparent for
families. First, we have made improvements to ensure parents
are informed about ``depictions of violence'' in our motion
pictures and marketing materials. The ``depictions of
violence'' category is one that can trigger a stricter rating.
To help parents better understand the severity of violence,
over time we have added additional descriptors to better
describe the type of violent content contained in a movie.
Second, we added an additional warning to parents that R-
rated movies are not appropriate for young children. Earlier
this year, responding to concerns from people who frequented R
rated movies to which parents were taking their children, MPAA
decided to add an additional warning to the definition of R-
rated movies: ``Generally, it is not appropriate for parents to
bring their young children with them to R-rated motion
pictures.''
Third, we are constantly looking at potential new factors
to determine what additional information the ratings system may
need to include. It was through this process that we recently
made the decision to add ``depictions of smoking'' as a ratings
factor.
Last month, MPAA announced that depictions of smoking will
be considered as a ratings factor. Depictions that glamorize
smoking or that feature pervasive smoking outside of an
historic or other mitigating context may receive a higher
rating or the inclusion of smoking may be included in the
rating descriptors for the movie such as ``glamorized smoking''
or ``pervasive smoking.''
In the past, illegal teen smoking had been considered as a
factor in the rating of films. We have now extended that
ratings factor to encompass adult depictions of smoking.
Smoking is a unique public health concern that we believe,
when depicted in a motion picture, warrants giving parents
additional information. Our change will do just that. Three
questions will have particular weight for our rating board when
considering smoking in a film and its effect on the rating:
One, is the smoking pervasive; tTwo, does the film glamorize
smoking; and three, is there an historic or other mitigating
context for the smoking?--
Beyond enhancing our ratings to account for smoking, we
have also joined with the Entertainment Industry Foundation and
the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers to work
on a project called Hollywood Unfiltered. This entertainment
industry-led initiative is dedicated to educate and raise
awareness within the industry of the public health consequences
of depicting smoking in movies and television.
Hollywood Unfiltered is a voluntary effort aimed at
educating members of the entertainment industry about how on-
screen smoking impacts young people, while encouraging the
industry to take action to reduce the glamorization of smoking
in their creative work.
Fortunately, the trend seems to be moving in the right
direction. Statistics show that there is a declining prevalence
of smoking in the movies in general. From July 2004 to July
2006, the percentage of films that included even a fleeting
glimpse of smoking dropped from 60 percent to 52 percent. Of
those films 75 percent received an R rating for other factors.
In other words, three out of every four films that contained
any smoking at all over the past few years are already rated R.
Finally, let me address the issue of childhood obesity and
food marketing, an issue with which I'm very familiar and about
which I care deeply from my work in the House and as Secretary
of Agriculture under President Clinton.
During my tenure at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we
revised and modernized the dietary nutrition guidelines and the
familiar food pyramid. This was no small feat. For the very
first time, the guidelines emphasized the importance of
exercise--and suggested that people moderate the amount of
sugar, fat, salt, alcohol and cholesterol they eat. And we made
significant progress with improvements in teen nutrition as
well.
As part of that initiative, we undertook a comprehensive
program to educate children about nutrition and healthful
eating habits. Through our Team Nutrition program, we reached
into elementary schools all across the country with educational
materials and instruction in clear, easy to understand, and
kid-friendly terms.
Also, I shepherded the organic food program into existence.
It had languished in the bureaucracy for years, and I undertook
to make it a reality, and today, for adults as well as
children, the program provides healthy alternative food
choices.
Given my background with these issues, I was heartened to
find that much progress has been made in this area in the media
industry.
MPAA member companies take their responsibility in the
marketing of their entertainment seriously and have engaged in
several recent efforts in the area of food marketing and
children.
At the end of last year, The Walt Disney Company introduced
new food guidelines aimed at giving parents and children
healthier eating options. The guidelines for licensed foods and
promotions aimed at children--which are based on The Dietary
Guidelines for Americans and developed in cooperation with two
top child health and wellness experts--will govern Disney's
business partnerships and activities in the U.S. on a going-
forward basis and will be adapted for international use over
the next several years.
Under the new policy, Disney will use its name and
characters only on kid-focused products that meet specific
guidelines, including limits on calories, fat, saturated fat
and sugar. In addition, Disney announced nutritionally-
beneficial changes in the meals served to children at all
Disney-operated restaurants in its Parks and Resorts and
unveiled a company-wide plan to eliminate trans fats from food
served at its Parks by the end of 2007 and from its licensed
and promotional products by the end of 2008.
Similarly, at the end of last year, Universal Studios theme
parks also cut transfats from use in the foods at its parks and
now offers healthier menus.
There have been great strides in children's programming
also. For instance, this year marks the fifth year of
Nickelodeon's award-winning, Let's Just Play Go Healthy
Challenge program, a multi-media campaign to which Nickelodeon
has committed more than $30 million and 10 percent of its
airtime. The campaign empowers kids to recapture the spirit and
benefits of active play. More than 70 PSAs on health and
wellness have aired featuring prominent figures such as former
President Bill Clinton, Gov. Mike Huckabee and Tiki Barber.
Throughout the summer, Nickelodeon will air the Let's Just
Play Go Healthy Challenge half hour television series that
follows four children as they take the healthy challenge to eat
better and exercise. In 2006, 6 million viewers tuned in to
follow the Challenge, and since the launch of the Let's Just
Play Go Healthy Challenge in 2006, 221,000 kids have registered
at Nick.com to make healthy choices.
In addition to programming, Nickelodeon has adopted an
approach to licensing characters to help encourage healthier
diets and lifestyle choices for children. SpongeBob, Dora the
Explorer and other popular characters are now licensed on a
wide variety of healthy food from broccoli, green beans, and
spinach to cherries, apples, pears, and grapes.
At the end of the day, the focus of our collective efforts
should be solely on the question of have we provided parents
with the information they need--whether that is the nutrition
and diet information of a product so that parents can decide
what their kids should eat or information about a movie's
content so that they can decide what their kids can watch.
Government should not and indeed cannot make those choices.
Only parents can.
In the recent FCC report on television violence that the
full Committee requested three years ago, Commissioner
Adelstein stated ``that parents are the first, last and best
line of defense against all forms of objectionable content''
before highlighting the extent to which DVDs, digital video
recorders and online offerings give parents more control than
ever.
As I am sure you will hear from Adam shortly, parents have
more technological tools at their disposal than ever before to
help filter what their children see and hear. The V-Chip is
already built into television sets to allow programming
blocking. Additional parental controls are often just one click
away on remote controls as every digital set top box includes
parental screening tools with password options. These parental
controls are far less restrictive methods of protecting
children from inappropriate content than government imposed
content controls.
Unfortunately, the FCC Report's findings both glossed over
the entertainment industry's recent efforts with respect to
parental controls and virtually ignored the serious
constitutional implications of government attempts to regulate
violent content on television.
That is why, after noting that ``the Report does not even
discuss the full menu of parental assistance tools that are
available to millions of families'' thereby resulting in
incomplete analysis and resulting in a skewed set of
recommendations to help parents, Commissioner Adelstein
admonished his colleagues for such dismissive treatment of the
fundamental constitutional issues involved. The depiction of
violence in entertainment ``is a protected constitutional right
under the First Amendment that we are recommending Congress to
curtail without any thoughtful legal analysis.''
The first amendment is clear. Government cannot regulate
speech without first finding a compelling government interest
and then narrowly tailoring a solution that furthers that
interest and is the least restrictive alternative. The
attempted government regulation of ``depictions of violence''
suggested by the FCC in its report fails to meet that
constitutional threshold. As you know, the FCC did not even
attempt to define ``inappropriate violence'' as it was asked to
do given the challenge of such a definition. I submit that such
a definition cannot be crafted in this context to meet
constitutional muster, and similar government mandated content
restrictions would certainly result in the same
unconstitutionality.
Instead of pursuing a government solution, Commissioner
Adelstein recommended that there be a close look at the
significant industry efforts on ratings awareness and parental
controls. We agree.
MPAA has already been actively working with groups like
Pause Parent Play and others to provide parents with the
information they need to make those decisions and with the
parental controls to then help them limit their children's
access to only what they have deemed appropriate.
In 2006, we partnered with the fellow entertainment
industry groups and the Consumer Electronics Association in
establishing TheTvBoss.org multi-million dollar ad campaign
which was created by media companies in partnership with the Ad
Council to raise awareness of V-chip technology which allows
parents to control television programming.
We have also worked closely with a number of private
entities like Pause Parent Play to streamline the provision of
ratings information and get it into the hands of parents. For
instance, with Pause Parent Play, the MPAA and its member
companies partnered with entities such as the YMCA, Girl Scouts
of America and Wal-Mart, among others, to sponsor a one-stop
Web site www.PauseParentPlay.org for ratings information about
all forms of media--movies, music, television and video games.
The aim of the site is to compile tools and information so
parents can make more informed choices about their kids'
entertainment.
Indeed, the key to all of the issues before this Committee
today is how to best empower parents to make the decisions as
to what their kids see. Only they can best judge what is and
what is not appropriate for their own children. And that is
what we hear time and time again from parents.
Parents are very clear with us in indicating that they--not
the industry and certainly not the government--should determine
what is appropriate for viewing by their kids. What they want
is information that is accurate and timely.
The movie ratings system is an evolving system, and we are
constantly evaluating what additional information should be
provided to make it even more useful. That is why we took the
steps we did with respect to smoking, and that is why we will
continue to look at potential additional improvements.
Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Upton, members of the
subcommittee, I appreciate the chance to discuss these issues
of importance to our industry, and I look forward to answering
any questions you may have regarding what I have just
discussed. Thank you.
----------
Mr. Markey. We thank you, Mr. Glickman, very much.
Now we are going to hear from Cheryl Healton, who is the
president and chief executive officer of the American Legacy
Foundation. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF CHERYL G. HEALTON, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, THE AMERICAN LEGACY FOUNDATION
Ms. Healton. Thank you. Good morning. I am Dr. Cheryl
Healton, president and CEO of the American Legacy Foundation,
the national public health foundation dedicated to building a
world where young people reject tobacco and anyone can quit. I
commend the subcommittee on holding this important hearing, and
I very much appreciate the invitation to testify.
The media images children and teenagers are exposed to
exert a powerful and too often negative impact on their health.
I will address the devastating impact that the pervasive images
of smoking in the media has on adolescent smoking and the steps
that must be taken to protect our children. I will start with a
short reel of images of smoking in recent PG-13 as well as
images of smoking in movie trailers that are aired on TV to
advertise films.
[Video shown.]
Ms. Healton. Tobacco is one of the most significant public
health challenges facing the United States. It is the largest
preventable cause of death, with over 400,000 Americans dying
every year from smoking, and fully 63 percent of all cancer
deaths are tobacco attributable. Most astounding is that this
is 100 percent preventable in theory. One of the most
pernicious aspects of the epidemic is that over 80 percent of
smokers start before their 18th birthday. The tobacco industry
has chillingly referred to teenagers as replacement smokers for
their customers who die or manage to quit. It is therefore
critically important to take action to prevent teens from
starting to smoke.
The Truth campaign, the only non-tobacco-industry-sponsored
national tobacco countermarketing campaign, does just this.
Edgy and hard-hitting, Truth communicates with teens in their
own voice about the toll of tobacco and the marketing practices
of the tobacco industry. Peer-reviewed research found, in the
first years, Truth was responsible for about 300,000 fewer
smokers in 2002 alone. But Truth cannot do it alone, even when
fully funded, which is no longer the case.
Due to declining resources, our media buys have been
drastically cut. At the same time, reports suggest that the
historic decade-long decline in youth smoking reduction has
begun to end, and youth smoking rates may be trending back up.
We truly face a national crisis. Research establishes that
smoking on screen recruits about 390,000 new smokers every
year, accounting for between one-third and one-half of all
adolescent smoking initiation.
In 2004, tobacco was depicted in three-fourths of youth-
rated movies and 90 percent of R-rated movies. Because teens
are less likely to see R-rated movies, about 60 percent of
youth exposure comes from youth-rated movies. Smoking is also
pervasive in TV. And many movie trailers, you just saw some,
that are shown on TV contain images of smoking, which is ironic
since most movies have only a few minutes of smoking, that they
seem to appear in so many televised movie trailers. The
foundation research found that, for a 1-year period, 14 percent
of these ads for movies included images of tobacco use and that
nearly all youth between age 12 and 17 years of age saw at
least one of these movie trailers, with 89 percent seeing at
least one of them three or more times.
What then should we do? One, get smoking out of the movies
and television shows that are produced for and marketed to
teens and children. And two, to the extent that smoking images
remain in these media, counteract their effects. Along with
other leading public health organizations, we support the
guidelines that limit smoking in movies. If put into practice,
this will significantly reduce the movies' influence on
adolescent smoking. I think the committee is familiar with
these principles:
Rate new smoking movies with an R. A recent nationally
representative sample of adult Americans found that 70 percent
of adults support the R rating.
Certifying no payoffs. There is a long and well-documented
history of paid tobacco placement in the movies. Steps that
have been taken to stop this through the master settlement
agreement and the FTC tobacco marketing expenditure report are
far from air tight. It is extremely important to continue to
shine a bright light on tobacco product placement which the
industry voluntarily agreed not to do under the settlement.
Require anti-smoking ads. Research shows that strong anti-
smoking advertisements shown immediately before a movie can
help counteract the impact of smoking images. We have worked
closely with the State AGs to make available without charge our
Truth ads to be included before movies, DVDs released and other
home-viewing formats. While I know they would be effective, our
declining budgets make it almost impossible for us to otherwise
show Truth ads before movies with smoking.
Stop identifying tobacco brands. Seventy-five percent of
teens smoke three most heavily used brands: Marlboro, Camel and
Newport. Given this, images of nonbranded smoking are already a
powerful influence on youth smoking initiation.
Finally, I recognize that after years of urging, the MPAA
has taken a hesitant step forward. We will watch very carefully
the result of this, and we end by finally, once again, thanking
the committee for taking up this topic.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Healton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.012
Mr. Markey. We thank you very much, Doctor.
Our next witness is Dr. Donald Shifrin. He is a
pediatrician and the chair of the Committee on Communications
of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Welcome, Doctor.
STATEMENT OF DONALD L. SHIFRIN, M.D., CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON
COMMUNICATIONS, AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS
Dr. Shifrin. Good morning, Chairman Markey. I want to thank
you for calling this hearing and for your years of leadership
on media's impact on children. I also thank the members of the
subcommittee for their time and attention today on what we
think is a critical issue.
I am Dr. Don Shifrin, representing the American Academy of
Pediatrics, at 60,000 pediatricians. And for the past 4 years,
I have served as the chair of the academy's Committee on
Communications; served as a member of the academy's National
Task Force on Obesity. I am a general pediatrician. I have been
seeing patients for 29 years. For more than 25 years, the
Academy of Pediatrics has been addressing the issue of media
and its positive and negative effect on the physical and mental
health and behavior of children and adolescents. With greater
access and time to influence young people's attitudes and
actions from infancy into adolescents, television, movies,
video games, music and the Internet have displaced parents and
teachers as children's primary role model, sources and filters
of information about their world and how they can choose to
behave in it. Children learn by observing and imitating. They
cannot help but be influenced by the media. Media are a
significant part of our lives and have much to teach. But some
media messages are negative and can be harmful to children.
Please note that the academy has covered the issue of
violence and tobacco for our written testimony. But for
purposes of time, I will focus my oral remarks today just on
advertising, the impact on childhood obesity.
It is now common knowledge by everyone that the prevalence
of overweight and obese children has increased at some
incredibly alarming rates in the United States. These children
are much more likely to be at risk for medical problems, such
as higher blood pressure, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular
and mental health issues.
Prevention is the hallmark of all pediatric care. The
present trends indicate that families, schools, communities,
policymakers, health care professionals, the food industry and
the media all influence what is now the most significant
ongoing chronic health threat to children. Therefore, everyone
has a critical role in working to reverse the trend of
increasingly obese children.
As a practicing pediatrician, I see parents and caregivers
every day who are searching for help for their overweight
children.
As I speak to you today for these 5 minutes with a
significant sense of urgency, I can assure you that these 5
minutes are statistically more time than many of my colleagues
have with families to discuss nutritional and activity
awareness, media time and literacy issues during a once or
every other year office visit. Contrast that time with the
amount of time children spend seeing 40,000 ads per year on
television alone. And according to the Kaiser Foundation, the
fact that one-third of children younger than 6 have televisions
in their bedroom, there is no question it is not a level
playing field for parents or pediatricians.
Leisure activity for children is increasingly sedentary,
with wide availability of entertainment including televisions
at home, in cars and on cell phones as well as videos and
computer games. According to national survey data, children who
watched 4 or more hours of television per day were
significantly heavier compared to those watching fewer than 2
hours.
Furthermore, having a television in the bedroom has been
reported to be a strong predictor of being overweight, even in
pre-school-aged children. In addition to not getting enough
exercise, children who consume media are being overwhelmed with
junk food advertising and marketing. They are seeing an
unhealthy disproportionate amount of advertising for products
that are high in fat, sugar and sodium and low in nutrition. In
the recent Kaiser Foundation report, ``Food For Thought,'' food
was the top product seen advertised by children.
Mr. Inslee did very kindly give the statistics of 34
percent of all food ads were for candy and snacks. Of the more
than 8,000 ads reviewed in the Kaiser study, none were for
fruits and vegetables; yet advertising healthy food has been
shown to increase wholesome eating in children as young as 3 to
6 years of age. Since 1999, the Academy has recommended no more
than 1 to 2 hours of screen time per day for children. And we
discourage any screen time for children under age 2 to
encourage more interactive activities with parents and
caregivers. But we recognize that educating families about
moderation, helpful choices, balance rather than restrictions,
portion size and physical activity many times are lost in the
tsunami of their children's media exposure to less healthful
foods. Children now grow up in demographic niches rather than
neighborhoods targeted at the earliest ages by advertising
wanting to brand them early and brand them often.
There are many risk factors that contribute to childhood
obesity and certainly many lines of defense, beginning with
parental responsibility, but that is not the only line of
defense. The following are some of the Academy's
recommendations:
The Academy of Pediatrics considers advertising directly to
young children to be inherently deceptive and exploits children
under the age of 8. Children younger than 8 cannot discriminate
between fantasy and reality, and as such, they are uniquely
vulnerable. Advertising and promotion of energy-dense,
nutrient-poor food products to children should be reduced and
restricted. The academy has called for a ban on junk food
advertising during programming that is viewed predominantly by
young children. The Government should limit commercial
advertising on children's programming to no more than 5 to 6
minutes per hour which would decrease by 50 percent the current
amount. And the Academy of Pediatrics supports and advocates
for social marketing intending to promote healthful food
choices and increased physical activity. The food and beverage
companies and media industry should develop and advertise
healthful food and eating choices, and the American Academy of
Pediatrics wants the Federal Government to fund research on the
impact of media on the ongoing health and behavior of children.
In conclusion, media permeates our lives, and therefore, it
deserves our collective action. Pediatricians will continue to
do their part. Policymakers need to keep protecting the public
interest in this arena. Parents need to understand the impact
of media on children's health and take responsibility for
finding--and that is difficult--and making informed choices
about what media their family consumes. The industry needs to
drastically reduce the number of junk food ads and rate
programs properly. And together we can make a difference in the
health and well-being of all children. And that is going to
benefit all of us. Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Shifrin follows:]
Statement of Donald L. Shifrin, M.D.
Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to testify
today before the Telecommunications and the Internet
Subcommittee at this hearing, Images Kids See on the Screen. My
name is Dr. Don Shifrin, and I am proud to represent the
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a non-profit professional
organization of 60,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric
medical sub-specialists, and pediatric surgical specialists
dedicated to the health, safety and well being of infants,
children, adolescents, and young adults. For the past 4 years,
I have served as chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics'
Committee on Communications, which has developed several AAP
policy statements on media, including advertising, media
violence, television, sexuality and media, and media education.
I also served on the AAP Task Force on Obesity. I am a general
pediatrician in Seattle, Washington, where I have been treating
newborns through young adults for 29 years. I also hold a
clinical professorship in pediatrics at the University of
Washington School of Medicine.
For more than 25 years, the American Academy of Pediatrics
has been addressing the issue of media and its positive and
negative impact on the health and behavior of children and
adolescents. With greater access and time to influence young
people's attitudes and actions from infancy into adolescence,
television, movies, video games, music, and the Internet have
displaced parents and teachers as children's primary role
models, sources, and filters of information about their world
and how they can choose to behave in it. Children learn by
observing and imitating--they cannot help but be influenced by
the media. Media are an important part of our lives and have
much to teach, but some media messages are negative and can be
harmful to children.
Children in this country drink from a seemingly
inexhaustible supply of media every day. What would we do if we
discovered that the water our children drink was full of things
toxic to their physical and mental health? There is a lot of
toxic programming and advertising that's flowing unimpeded into
homes, and it's impacting the health of our children. We want
media experiences for children to be positive as well as
limited. Just as we would limit certain foods in a child's diet
that may be unhealthy, we also need to limit their media diet
of messages.
It takes a village to raise a child, but our concern is
that the electronic village is supplanting parental values. The
AAP believes there is a role for parents, medical
professionals, the entertainment industry, food and beverage
industry, advertising industry, and yes, our government, in
addressing the impact of media on children.
AAP History on Impact of Media on Children
For its part, the American Academy of Pediatrics has been
directly involved in numerous voluntary, legislative, and
regulatory solutions. For example, we supported the Children's
TV Act of 1990 and the legislation creating the V-chip and
participated in the TV ratings negotiations--an AAP member
currently serves on the TV Oversight Monitoring Board. We
launched a Media Matters campaign 10 years ago to train
pediatricians about media issues and to educate parents and
children about how to make good media choices. We provide
materials for pediatricians to use during office visits to ask
families about media use. The AAP is an active member of the
Children's Media Policy Coalition, which recently reached an
agreement with the media industry over public interest
obligations for children's programming and advertising for
digital TV. The AAP also currently serves on the Joint Task
Force on Media and Childhood Obesity, initiated by Senators
Brownback and Harkin and FCC Chairman Martin, FCC Commissioner
Tate and FCC Commissioner Copps. This Task Force is several
weeks away from completing its work, and the Academy hopes the
groups involved can reach a final agreement that makes
substantive changes in the way food is advertised to children.
Advertising and Childhood Obesity
By now it is common knowledge that the prevalence of
overweight and obese children has increased at an alarming rate
in the United States, doubling in the past 20 years. Overweight
and obese children are much more likely to be at risk for such
medical problems as higher blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and
cardiovascular and mental health issues.
Prevention is the hallmark of all pediatric care. The
present trends indicate that families (traditional, single-
parents, divorced, and stepfamilies), schools, communities,
policy makers, health care professionals, the food industry,
and the media all influence what is now the most significant
ongoing chronic health threat to children. Therefore, all play
a critical role in working to reverse the trend of increasingly
obese children. Much like it has been stated that smoking is a
pediatric disease, the same could be said for obesity.
Pediatricians are committed to helping kids and families lead
healthy, active lives.
As a practicing pediatrician I see parents and caregivers
every day who are searching for help for their overweight
children. As I speak to you today for 5 minutes with a
significant sense of urgency, I can assure you that these 5
minutes are statistically more time than many of my colleagues
have with families to discuss nutritional and activity
awareness, media time, and literacy issues during an annual or
every other year health maintenance appointment. Contrast that
time with the amount of time children spend seeing 40,000 ads
per year on television alone, and according to the Kaiser
Family Foundation, the fact that 33 percent of children younger
than age 6 have a TV in their bedroom. It hardly seems like a
level playing field for parents or pediatricians.
Leisure activity for children is increasingly sedentary,
with wide availability of entertainment, including televisions
at home, in cars and on cell phones, as well as videos and
computer games. According to national survey data, children who
watched 4 or more hours of television per day were
significantly heavier compared to those watching fewer than 2
hours a day. Furthermore, having a TV in the bedroom has been
reported to be a strong predictor of being overweight, even in
preschool-aged children.
In addition to not getting enough exercise, children who
consume media are being overwhelmed with junk food advertising
and marketing. They are seeing an unhealthy, disproportionate
amount of advertising for products that are high in fat, sugar
and sodium, and low in nutrition. In a Kaiser Family Foundation
report released this year, Food for Thought, food is the top
product seen advertised by children. The study found that
``tweens ages 8-12 see the most food ads on TV, an average of
21 ads a day, or more than 7,600 a year. Teenagers see slightly
fewer ads, at 17 a day, for a total of more than 6,000 a year.
For a variety of reasons--because they watch less TV overall,
and more of their viewing is on networks that have limited or
no advertising, such as PBS and Disney--children ages 2-7 see
the least number of food ads, at 12 food ads a day, or 4,400 a
year.'' According to that same Kaiser report, 34 percent of all
food ads targeting children or teens are for candy and snacks,
28 percent are for cereal, and 10 percent are for fast foods.
Of the 8,854 food and beverage ads reviewed in the study, none
were for fruits or vegetables targeting children or teens. Yet,
advertising healthy foods has been shown to increase wholesome
eating in children as young as 3 to 6 years of age.
Since 1999, the AAP has recommended no more than 1-2 hours
of screen time per day for children, and we discourage any
screen time for children under age 2 to encourage more
interactive activities with parents and caregivers. We also
advise parents to take TV sets out of children's bedrooms. But
we recognize that educating families about moderation,
healthful choices, balance rather than restrictions, portion
size, and physical activity many times are lost in the tsunami
of their children's media exposure to less healthful foods. To
put it simply, advertising works. If it didn't, the industry
wouldn't spend billions of dollars persuading children and
their parents. Unfortunately, children do not grow up in
neighborhoods any more. They grow up defined by demographic
niches, targeted at the youngest ages by advertising wanting to
brand them early and brand them often.
Granted, there are many risk factors that contribute to
childhood obesity. And there are many lines of defense,
beginning with parental responsibility. But that is not the
only line of defense. According to the 2005 Institute of
Medicine report, ``Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat
or Opportunity?'' ``...food and beverage marketing influences
the preferences and purchase requests of children, influences
consumption at least in the short term, is a likely contributor
to less healthful diets, and may contribute to negative diet-
related health outcomes and risks among children and youth.''
It has been 43 years since the first Surgeon General's
report on smoking, and we are still dealing with its terrible
toll on our Nation's health. Our children and their children
cannot wait another 40 years for us to address the issue of
food advertising and marketing and its role in obesity.
Advances in technology will definitely exacerbate the
problem. Children's advertising protections will need to be
updated for digital TV, which, if all goes according to plan,
will be in place in 2009. Children watching a TV program will
be able to click an on-screen link and go to a Web site during
the program. Interactive games and promotions on digital TV
will have the ability to lure children away from regular
programming, encouraging them to spend a long time in an
environment that lacks clear separation between content and
advertising. Interactive technology also allows advertisers to
collect information about children's viewing habits and
preferences and target them much more specifically.
What should be done? The following are the Academy's
positions and recommendations on advertising and marketing
issues specifically as they relate to media and childhood
obesity:
AAP considers advertising directly to young
children to be inherently deceptive and exploits children under
the age of 8 years. Children younger than 8 cannot discriminate
between fantasy and reality, and as such they are uniquely
vulnerable.
Advertising and promotion of energy-dense,
nutrient-poor food products to children should be reduced and
restricted. The AAP has called for a ban on junk-food
advertising during programming that is viewed predominantly by
young children.
The government should limit commercial
advertising on children's programming to no more than 5 to 6
minutes per hour, which would decrease the current amount by 50
percent.
AAP supports and advocates for social marketing
intended to promote healthful food choices and increased
physical activity. The food and beverage companies and media
industry should develop and advertise healthful food and eating
choices.
The AAP wants more federally funded research on
the impact of media on the health and behaviors of children.
The government should prohibit interactive
advertising to children in digital TV. Information about
children and their viewing habits should not be collected
without affirmative parental consent.
Media Violence
America's young people are being exposed to increasing
amounts of media violence through television, movies, video
games, and popular music. The American Academy of Pediatrics
recognizes exposure to violence in the media as a significant
risk to the health of children and adolescents. Extensive
research evidence indicates that media violence can contribute
to aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence,
nightmares, and fear of being harmed. This ``fear factor'' has
also extended to television news reports of violence locally,
nationally, and internationally.
Although exposure to media violence is not the sole factor
contributing to aggression, antisocial attitudes, and violence
among children and teens, it is an important health risk factor
on which we, as pediatricians and as members of a compassionate
society, can intervene.
In its 2001 Media Violence policy statement, the AAP calls
for simplified, content-based media ratings to help parents
guide their children to make healthy media choices. Following
the release of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
media violence report, the AAP would like to open discussions
with the broadcast industry about improving the 10-year-old TV
ratings system. For example, the ratings are inconsistent
between networks. One network might apply a ``V'' for violence
to a program, and another network with a similar level of
violence in a program doesn't. The AAP has also long advocated
for content-based, not just age-based, ratings. Tell parents
what's in the program, and let them determine if they believe
it's appropriate for their children. The ``alphabet soup'' of
the TV ratings---V, S, D--are not understood by the public,
especially ``FV'' which denotes fantasy violence, but many
parents believe these letters stand for family viewing. A
majority of parents also are not even aware that E/I stands for
educational and informational children's programming. We would
recommend displaying the ratings more often during shows and
increase their visibility in on-air and print guides.
The AAP has promoted media literacy among children and
parents and conducted public education campaigns to help
parents understand all the ratings systems and to make them
aware of the tools available, like the v-chip, to control
content. We advise pediatricians to advocate for more child-
positive media, not censorship, and created a ``media history''
form for pediatricians to use in their offices with families.
Having such information can assist in reviewing and changing
media diets.
What else can be done? The AAP offered recommendations from
its Media Violence policy statement to the entertainment
industry, such as:
Avoid the glamorization of weapon carrying and
the normalization of violence as an acceptable means of
resolving conflict.
Eliminate the use of violence in a comic or
sexual context or in any other situation in which violence is
amusing or trivialized.
If violence is used, it should be used
thoughtfully as serious drama, always showing realistic pain
and suffering, and loss.
Video games should not use human or other living
targets or award points for killing, because this teaches
children to associate pleasure and success with their ability
to cause pain and suffering to others.
Tobacco
Tobacco manufacturers spend $30 million per day ($11.2
billion per year) on advertising and promotion. Exposure to
tobacco advertising may be a bigger risk factor than having
family members and peers who smoke and can undermine the effect
of strong parenting practices.
Preventing young people from starting to use tobacco is the
key to reducing the death and disease caused by tobacco use.
The AAP has joined with other public health groups, and 31
state attorneys general, through the Smoke Free Movies project
to urge moviemakers to change how smoking is portrayed in
films. Mainstream movies are one of the most important factors
in recruiting preteens and teens to begin smoking. Research
published in our scientific, peer-reviewed journal Pediatrics
just last month found that U.S. films deliver billions of
smoking impressions to 10-14 year olds, which is the age when
most kids are likely to experiment with cigarettes.
The U.S. film industry can cut adolescent exposure
substantially by extending the R-rating to tobacco imagery.
This voluntary step will not result in more films being rated
R. It will simply keep smoking out of future G, PG and PG-13
films, producing public health benefits at virtually no cost.
The Smoke Free Movies project has four goals:
Rate new smoking movies ``R''--any film that
shows or implies tobacco should be rated ``R.'' The only
exceptions should be when the presentation of tobacco clearly
and unambiguously reflects the dangers and consequences of
tobacco use or is necessary to represent the smoking of a real
historical figure.
Certify no pay-offs--declare in the credits that
nobody received anything of value in exchange for using or
displaying tobacco.
Require strong anti-smoking ads--to run before any
film with any tobacco presence, regardless of the rating.
Stop identifying tobacco brands in films.
These are four voluntary solutions that could and should be
adopted immediately by the Motion Picture Association of
America (MPAA) and their movie studios. Actions by them to date
have fallen short. The AAP looks forward to the MPAA joining
the effort to protect children and teens from becoming addicted
to the largest avoidable cause of death in the United States by
implementing evidence-based policies in rating movies.
The American Academy of Pediatrics also continues to urge
Congress to pass Federal legislation (S. 625/H.R. 1108) that
gives the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority to
regulate both current and new tobacco products and restrict
tobacco product marketing. It bans such tactics as cartoon
advertisements, free tobacco-themed merchandise that appeals to
children, and sponsorship of sports and entertainment events.
Finally, in its December 2006 Advertising policy statement,
the AAP calls on Congress to implement a ban on cigarette and
tobacco advertising in all media, including banners and logos
in sports arenas. We believe advertisements can be restricted
if there is a significant public health risk, particularly to
children.
I appreciate this opportunity to present testimony on
behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Media permeates
our lives, and therefore it deserves our collective action.
Pediatricians will continue to do their part. Policymakers need
to keep protecting the public interest in this arena. Parents
need to understand the impact of media on children's health and
take responsibility for making informed choices about what
media their family consumes. The industry should drastically
reduce the number of junk food ads children see, rate their
programs properly and standardize the ratings, offer more
responsible portrayals of violence, and increase the amount of
quality, educational programming for children. Together we can
make a difference in the health and well being of all children,
and that will benefit all of us.
----------
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Dr. Shifrin.
Our next witness is Mary Sophos, who is the senior vice
president and chief government affairs officer for the Grocery
Manufacturers/Food Products Association. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF MARY SOPHOS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CHIEF
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS OFFICER, GROCERY MANUFACTURERS/FOOD PRODUCTS
ASSOCIATION
Ms. Sophos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for the
opportunity to be here today.
Reducing childhood obesity and encouraging healthy
lifestyles for children and adults is an important cause that
the food industry has made one of its top priorities.
The Grocery Manufacturers/Food Products Association
represents the world's leading food, beverage and consumer
packaged goods companies. GMA and our member companies are
committed to helping Americans live healthier lives, and we
believe that balanced nutrition and active lifestyle and
healthy choices is the key for both children and adults.
The food industry recognizes that it can help by providing
a wider range of nutritious product choices and marketing those
choices in ways that promote healthy lifestyles. We are also
committed to supporting parents, schools, communities and
others whose participation is crucial if we are to have any
measurable success.
The most important contribution that the food and beverage
sector has made to help Americans improve their diets is the
development and introduction of thousands of new and
reformulated products. Companies are making meaningful
improvements across their product portfolios, introducing over
10,000 new or reformulated products with reduced calories,
reduced saturated and trans fats, reduced sodium and sugar,
over the past 5 years. Companies have enhanced products with
whole grains, fiber and micronutrients and have modified
package sizes to help consumers focus on serving size and
portion control, including new package sizes created for kids.
While the cumulative impact of these individual efforts is
already significant, we believe it will grow substantially.
So just how do people find 10,000 new and improved
products? Overwhelmingly, the information is carried by the
media represented here today. TV, radio and newspapers,
magazines and Web sites will carry messages about these healthy
and tasty choices to millions of consumers across the country.
GMA members strive to deliver messages that are ethical and
accurate. We take very seriously our obligation to advertise
responsibly and to take into account the special needs of
children. We have always had a strong voluntary self-regulation
system in this country, and the Council of Better Business
Bureaus has just made it better by its recent modernization and
strengthening of the cable guidelines.
Our members have been challenged to do even more with our
marketing, and they have responded. Chairman Majoras of the
Federal Trade Commission recently said, marketing can be part
of the solution. And we agree. Food and beverage advertisers,
accounting for over two-thirds of all TV advertising to
children under 12, have announced their commitment to devote
the majority of their messages to healthy choices and
lifestyles as part of a new children's food and beverage
advertising initiative which was launched last November under
the auspices of the Council of Better Business Bureaus. In
addition to shifting a mix of advertising messages to children
to encourage healthier choices and lifestyles, participating
companies commit to apply similar principles to interactive
games and to licensed characters. And also to not advertise
food or beverage products in elementary schools and not to
engage in product placement in editorial and entertainment
content.
Charter participants are Cadbury Schweppes USA, Campbell
Soup Company, the Coca-Cola Company, General Mills, Inc., the
Hershey Company, Kellogg Company, Kraft Food Inc., McDonald's,
PepsiCo, Inc. and Unilever. We all know that marketing will be
part of the solution, and our industry will not be the only one
involved.
Public health authorities and experts in the U.S. and
abroad have told us that success will depend on an
unprecedented partnership of stakeholders from all sectors of
society. We need to join forces, and we know from experience
that we can achieve great results, and we do. In the last 3
years, GMA members have contributed over $100 million for
nutrition and health-related activities and grants to
communities that represents over 30 percent of the total
charitable contributions. In particular, effective
communication of sound nutrition guidance and promotion of
healthy lifestyle is essential, and the U.S. Government plays a
pivotal role in setting national policy in this area. GMA has
undertaken a number of initiatives to augment Government's
efforts to reach consumers and to ensure, for example, that the
new U.S. dietary guidelines are relevant and useful tools in
consumers' everyday lives.
Let me conclude with this, there is simply too much at
stake for us to fail. The food and beverage industry has
responded to the challenge, and we remain committed. But we all
know that one industry can't win the battle alone. We can
introduce new products and choices to the public. We can
promote healthier lifestyles, and we can even remind folks that
eating is fun now and then. Advertising can help consumers
choose healthier lifestyles and healthier diets, but consumers,
parents, teens and children must make those decisions, and they
will need the support from every sector of society today. So
thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sophos follows:]
Testimony of Mary Sophos
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. Reducing
childhood obesity and encouraging healthy lifestyles for
children and adults is an important cause that the food
industry has made one of its top priorities.
The Grocery Manufacturers/Food Products Association is the
largest trade association representing the world's leading
food, beverage and consumer packaged goods companies. In the
wake of the Surgeon General's alert to the Nation about the
rising trends of obesity in this country--and indeed around the
world--in 2003 GMA's Board declared our goal of working to
``help arrest and reverse the growth of obesity around the
world. Achieving this goal will require multiple strategies,
the integrated efforts of many sectors, and long-term resolve.
We are committed to doing our part and will support others in
doing theirs.''
Experts in the U.S. and around the world agree that an
effective solution to the problem requires a comprehensive
approach to incorporating sound nutrition, increased physical
activity, consumer education and community support.
Collaborations and partnerships with stakeholders across the
spectrum of government, academia, the public health community,
the private sector, schools, non-profits, and parents are
critical if we are to succeed.
The food and beverage industry recognizes that it can
improve the situation by providing a wider range of nutritious
product choices and marketing these choices in ways that
promote healthy lifestyles. We also recognize and have focused
on the importance of achieving a balance of physical activity
and nutrition throughout life; the need for improved awareness
and understanding by the public of nutrition and of the concept
of energy balance; responsible advertising practices that take
into account the special needs of children; clear
communications across labeling, packaging, Web sites,
brochures; in-store communications to enable consumers to make
informed choices; and the need to work in partnership with
other stakeholders in all of these endeavors.
Product Innovation and Reformulation
The most important effort that the food industry has
undertaken to help Americans live healthier lifestyles is the
introduction of ten thousand new and reformulated products over
the past five years. Virtually all companies are enhancing
nutritional choices for consumers. Respondents to a 2006 GMA/
FPA health and wellness survey of its membership reported that
98 percent of companies are reformulating and introducing new
products. Individual companies are making meaningful nutrition
enhancements in their broad product portfolios with products
that offer reduced calories, reduced saturated and trans fat,
reduced sodium and sugar, and with added whole grains, fiber
and micronutrients. The overall impact these product changes
are having on the nation's food supply and on the increased
selection of healthier foods for consumers is impressive and
unprecedented.
Those product innovations can be broken down into the
following categories:
Development of products with low- or reduced-calorie
options. Those companies participating in the GMA/FPA health
and wellness survey reported that they had introduced more than
1,300 reduced-calorie products since 2002.
Development of products with low, reduced sugar and
carbohydrates. Those companies participating in the GMA/FPA
health and wellness survey reported that they had introduced
more than 1,200 products offering reduced sugar and
carbohydrates since 2002.
Reducing or eliminating saturated or trans fat. Those
companies participating in the GMA/FPA health and wellness
survey reported that since 2002 they had introduced more than
7,800 products and sizes with reduced saturated fat and trans
fat.
Reducing salt content. Those companies participating in
the GMA/FPA health and wellness survey reported that they had
reduced sodium in nearly 700 products since 2002.
Development of products fortified with specific minerals
and vitamins. Fortified vitamins and minerals can be found in
nearly 1,000 products introduced since 2002 by those companies
participating in the GMA/FPA health and wellness survey.
Increasing the range of portion sizes. Food and beverage
companies have been working to help consumers manage their food
intake. The GMA/FPA health and wellness survey found that half
of all respondents had changed multi-serve packaging or were in
the process of making changes, amounting to modifications of
more than 350 products and sizes. Sixty-one percent had changed
single-serve packaging or were in the process of making
changes, affecting more than 450 products and sizes. The
greatest focus has been on children, where 55 percent of
respondents indicated they had created sizes for kids or were
in the process of making changes to more than 400 products.
Finally, companies are also increasing the use of whole
grains and fiber and developing products with specific health
benefits.
Advertising, Marketing and Media
And how do people find 10,000 new and improved products?
Overwhelmingly, the information is carried by the media
represented here today--TV, radio, newspapers, magazines and
Web sites will carry messages about the healthy and tasty
choices to millions of consumers in homes across the country.
GMA/FPA members strive to deliver messages that are ethical and
accurate. The industry plays a central role as key communicator
of healthy lifestyles to Americans through marketing and
advertising, and our members take this responsibility very
seriously. And we have systems in place to make sure we
succeed. We have always had the best voluntary system of self-
regulation in the world, and the Council of Better Business
Bureaus has just made it better. GMA/FPA is a proud supporter
of Children's Advertising Review Unit and participated in the
recent modernization and strengthening of the CARU guidelines.
Our members have been challenged to do even more with our
marketing, and we are answering the call. Chairman Majoras of
the Federal Trade Commission recently said marketing can be
part of the solution, and we agree. Food and beverage
advertisers accounting for over two-thirds of all TV
advertising to children under 12 have announced their
commitment to devote the majority of their messages to healthy
choices and lifestyles. The Council of Better Business Bureaus
launched the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising
Initiative in November 2006-- a voluntary self-regulation
program designed to shift the mix of advertising messages to
children to encourage healthier dietary choices and healthy
lifestyles. Here is how CBBB describes the program:
Under the terms of the Initiative, participating companies
commit to:
Devote at least half their advertising directed
to children on television, radio, print and Internet to promote
healthier dietary choices and/or to messages that encourage
good nutrition or healthy lifestyles.
Limit products shown in interactive games to
healthier dietary choices, or incorporate healthy lifestyle
messages into the games.
Not advertise food or beverage products in
elementary schools.
Not engage in food and beverage product
placement in editorial and entertainment content.
Reduce the use of third-party licensed
characters in advertising that does not meet the Initiative's
product or messaging criteria.
Each participating company will submit to the CBBB a
commitment, tailored to the company's product portfolio, which
complies with the principles of the Initiative. Company
commitments that identify better-for-you dietary choices must
be consistent with established scientific and/or government
standards.
Charter participants are Cadbury Schweppes USA; Campbell
Soup Company; The Coca-Cola Company; General Mills, Inc.; The
Hershey Company; Kellogg Company; Kraft Foods Inc.; McDonald's;
PepsiCo, Inc. and Unilever. We expect to hear announcements of
their pledges very soon.
An essential element of effective self-regulation is a
strong monitoring and enforcement component, and the CBBB
Initiative contains several important monitoring and
enforcement provisions, all of which will be available to the
public and the FTC. Monitoring and enforcement will include:
Review of advertising materials, product
information, and media impression information (submitted on a
confidential basis) to confirm participant compliance. The
program will also respond to public inquiries relating to
compliance.
Develop procedures that provide for the
expulsion of a company that does not comply with its Pledge
after being given notice and an opportunity to bring its
conduct into compliance and notice of any expulsion to
regulatory authorities such as the Federal Trade Commission
under appropriate circumstances.
Publicly issued reports detailing its
activities, including any expulsions or notices of such to
regulatory authorities.
Periodic review of its procedures and the
overall impact of this initiative.
Organizations participating in this initiative have also
agreed to use the Ad Council's Coalition for Healthy Children's
messaging to fulfill their commitments to promote healthy
lifestyles among youth. The Coalition's messages have been
developed and extensively researched by the Ad Council and made
possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
The goal of the program is to provide Coalition members, which
include non-profit, government and corporate entities, with a
set of unified communications focused on key lifestyle
behaviors. The initial round of messages center around three
areas: Physical activity, portion control and energy balance.
In conjunction with the launch of the CBBB Children's Food
and Beverage Advertising Initiative last November, the CBBB
also announced a revision of the guidelines that the Children's
Advertising Review Unit applies to advertising directed to
kids. Again, in the words of CBBB,
The revised CARU Guidelines have been expanded to:
Provide new authorization for CARU to take
action on advertising targeted to children that is ``unfair,''
in addition to advertising that is misleading.
Specifically address ``blurring,'' or
advertising that obscures the line between editorial content
and advertising messages. A new provision, which applies across
all media, prohibits advertising that ``blurs the distinction
between advertising and program/editorial content in ways that
would be misleading to children.''
Specifically address the use of commercial
messages in interactive games, sometimes referred to as
advergaming. The revised Guidelines require that ``if an
advertiser integrates a commercial message into the content of
a game or activity, then the advertiser should make clear, in a
manner that will be easily understood by the targeted audience,
that it is an advertisement.''
Collaborations, Partnerships and Community Initiatives
We all know that marketing will only be a part of the
solution. And the food industry will be only one of the
important groups working for it. Every public health authority
that has spoken on the subject--CDC, the Surgeon General, HHS,
IOM, WHO--has told us that success will depend on an
unprecedented partnership of stakeholders from all sectors of
society. Quoting from the 2006 IOM Report Progress in
Preventing Childhood Obesity: How Do We Measure Up?,
``Addressing the childhood obesity epidemic is a collective
responsibility involving multiple stakeholders and different
sectors--including the Federal Government, state and local
governments, communities, schools, industry, media, and
families.'' We need to join forces, and GMA/FPA members know
from experience that we can achieve great results when we do.
We asked 50 GMA/FPA members what they were doing in the
area of health and wellness, and over three quarters of them
told us that they are conducting consumer health promotions in
local communities and partnering with public health
organizations. Nearly 90 percent of the companies surveyed
support national or local health and wellness initiatives. In
the last three years, GMA/FPA members have contributed over 100
million dollars for nutrition and health-related activities and
grants to communities representing over 30 percent of total
charitable contributions. Let me give you just a few examples:
GMA/FPA and individual companies have joined the
Ad Council's Coalition for Healthy Children: Combating
Childhood Obesity campaign
``Triple Play'' program. ``A $12 million joint
health and nutrition program held in partnership with Kraft,
Coca-Cola and the Boys & Girls Clubs of America.
General Mills sponsors the Champions for Healthy
Kids--A program that awards 50 grants of $10,000 each to
grassroots organizations each year to support innovative
efforts that teach and promote youth nutrition and fitness
habits. The program will celebrate its 5th anniversary this
year and has committed $8,000,000 over the past four years.
Kraft partners with the National Latino
Children's Institute in ``Salsa, Sabor y Salud,'' a healthy
lifestyle course for Latino families in the U.S.
Kellogg Company sponsors Earn Your Stripes--an
initiative that is designed to help kids build their
confidence, stay fit and at the same time have fun.
PepsiCo, Kellogg Company and General Mills are
corporate sponsors of the Partnership for Play Every Day, a
collaboration convened by the YMCA of the USA, National
Recreation and Park Association and National Association for
Sport and Physical Education. Its focus is to bring together
the public, private and non-profit sectors to advance policies,
programs and practices that ensure all children and youth
engage in at least 60 minutes of physical activity every day.
Dannon awarded to selected community
organizations the first ``Dannon Next Generation Nutrition
Grants'' which support improvement in children's nutrition
education.
Hershey sponsors the Hershey's Track and Field
Games, the longest-running youth fitness program of its kind in
North America. In 2007, Hershey will conduct a sustained
awareness-building campaign with the National Recreation and
Park Association to encourage increased youth participation in
the program's local and state-level events.
Together, the food and beverage industry in partnership
with our retail partners and MatchPoint Marketing have launched
an in-store promotion campaign ``Take a Peak into MyPyramid''
to provide information about MyPyramid and the 2005 Dietary
Guidelines to consumers in the grocery store aisles where
shoppers ultimately make their food choices. Take a Peak
represents the largest collective effort to date--including
education and sales promotion--by the food and beverage
industry to build an environment that supports Americans'
efforts to live healthier lifestyles. Through clear and simple
in-store point-of-purchase messaging, Take a Peak provides
easy-to-follow advice that shows consumers how small,
progressive changes in their product purchasing habits can
improve their diets and their health. The campaign displays the
tremendous efforts of the industry to change the food supply to
make it easier for Americans to eat a healthier diet.
The campaign has grown to 32 retailers in over 5,500 stores
in 30 states. Multiple Hispanic retailers are undertaking a
Spanish execution of Take a Peak. Retailers that have completed
executions are signing on for fall 2007 and January 2008. New
retailers are selecting more elements than early adopters based
on the positive response from consumers and continuing media
coverage. Preliminary sales data is extremely positive,
demonstrating that consumers are changing behavior.
Take a Peak will reach millions of Americans through
educational mailer coupon booklets, point of purchase messages
and materials, including aisle banners, informational kiosks,
floor graphics, wobblers, displays, shopping lists and other
means. The program will also increase consumer demand and sales
for the foods and beverages that the Federal Government
recommends consumers eat more of to get essential nutrients and
build a healthy diet.
Retailers can customize Take a Peak to meet the diverse
ethnic and cultural needs of their local shoppers, bringing it
further to life for shoppers.
Finally, we are exploring opportunities to link Take a Peak
to an ongoing collaboration between the Ad Council and USDA to
promote MyPyramid in specific communities that may be at higher
risk.
Let me spend a little more time telling you about another
particular partnership that I think has great promise. It
combines the two most basic elements of a healthy lifestyle--
nutrition and physical education.
In 2007, the American Council for Fitness and Nutrition
Foundation, which was founded by food and beverage
manufacturers to promote healthier lifestyles, will conduct a
pilot program in schools in the greater Kansas City-metro area
in partnership with PE4Life and the American Dietetic
Association Foundation. The school pilot will implement a cross
discipline ``energy balance'' approach that focuses both on
energy intake and energy expenditure. Physical education
teachers and nutrition ``coaches'' will work side by side in
the schools to implement strategies to get the students to be
more active and to eat a more balanced and nutritious diet. The
lessons learned from the pilot will allow us to create a
blueprint for student health and wellness that could be
replicated in schools across America. Support from a broad
cross-section of interests will be critical to achieving
effective scale for this project. In addition, the Kansas City
Public Television PBS will be documenting physical activity and
nutrition policies within schools this fall, and we hope that
it will help to spur even greater interest.
Food and beverage, advertising and media companies continue
to support the Ad Council's The Healthy Lifestyles PSA
campaign, which is a partnership between the Ad Council and the
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS). Since its
launch in March 2004, the program has garnered approximately
$270 million in donated media support. The campaign Web site
attracted an average of 190,000 visits per month during 2006
and holds visitors' interest for an average of 6\1/2\ minutes.
In addition, consumer tracking research data indicates the
beginnings of positive changes in attitudes and behaviors
around the campaign messages.
The Ad Council's Coalition for Healthy Children was
initiated in 2005 to complement and increase the impact of
their PSA efforts and has focused on developing consistent,
research-based messaging for marketers, media, government
agencies, non-profits, academics and the private sector. The
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation provided support for the Ad
Council's research and development of these health messages,
which will ultimately be disseminated to the public by
Coalition member organizations such as PepsiCo, General Mills,
Kraft Foods, Kellogg, Coca-Cola, SUBWAY, McDonald's, American
Heart Association, Girls Scouts of the USA, Shaping America's
Health, Nickelodeon, Cartoon Network and Univision
Communications.
GMA/FPA and our member companies have also been
collaborating with government to promote the new U.S. Dietary
Guidelines and MyPyramid consumer education platform with the
goal of making the Dietary Guidelines relevant to consumers'
everyday lives and to balance energy intake with energy
expenditure. Our efforts to help ensure that the updated
Dietary Guidelines and the Food Guide Pyramid were relevant to
all Americans has specifically included initiatives to overcome
potential barriers that may exist--specifically socioeconomic
and cultural factors--in understanding and using these tools.
On the same day the Federal Government released its new
Food Guide Pyramid, GMA/FPA announced a partnership with the
Weekly Reader Corporation to promote the new Food Guidance
System through a national education campaign reaching an
estimated 4 million teachers, students and their family
members. The campaign consisted of a teacher's guide; math,
nutrition and science activities; and a bilingual parent take-
home component in English and Spanish. More than 58,000 posters
were distributed to Weekly Reader teacher subscribers in fall
2005, coinciding with the start of the school year.
Industry funding has helped the Weekly Reader MyPyramid
curriculum reach underserved populations. A Spanish translation
of the curriculum, paired with the English-language materials,
has been distributed free of charge to schools with high-
Hispanic populations. Through a partnership with America's
Second Harvest--The Nation's Food Bank Network, the MyPyramid
curriculum has been distributed in 1,300 Kids Cafes, after-
school programs that serve free, hot, nutritious meals to
hungry children in a safe environment. Kids Cafes combine meals
with other activities, including nutrition education, cooking
and tutoring.
In 2006, GMA/FPA funded reprints of the Weekly Reader
materials for incoming 4th graders for the 2006-07 school year,
including targeted Spanish-language versions.
As part of our commitment to partnerships, GMA/FPA and five
member companies are also participating in the Joint Media Task
Force on Media and Childhood Obesity. GMA/FPA chose to
participate because we think that this kind of engagement
affords us a unique opportunity to build partnerships with an
important group of stakeholders and through greater
collaboration increase our chances of achieving the goal that
we all share--health and fitness for our kids and ourselves.
One of the most valuable aspects of this initiative has been
the chance to learn in greater detail about the tremendous
ongoing efforts of so many of the groups on the Task Force,
including the media groups, the advertising community, advocacy
groups and those in the public health community. Just one
example of a possible future collaboration identified in Task
Force discussions may be greater support for initiatives to
promote more time spent on family activities, including the
family dinner hour. There is growing evidence that the simple
matter of families eating together results in a whole host of
positive outcomes, including healthier nutrition habits.
As you in the Congress grapple with how best to address
this problem, we urge you to keep in mind the 2004 Institute of
Medicine report that identifies ten broad areas that all levels
of government, business and individual citizens must address to
reverse these alarming trends in childhood obesity. One of
those ten areas involves media and advertising, but the report
focused on many other essential elements and concluded that no
single measure can be expected to solve the problem. Multiple
strategies and the commitment of many stakeholders will be
necessary to address this important public health issue. We
believe that in the future among the things we can do working
together are the following:
Incorporate nutrition education and physical
activity in our nation's schools;
Continue to find additional ways to encourage
people to incorporate physical activity in their daily lives;
Educate the public on the connection between
calories consumed and calories burned and provide the tools for
individuals to understand and assess their caloric needs;
Raise consumer awareness of proper serving
sizes;
Encourage employers to promote employee
wellness; and
Address the needs of different population
groups.
There is too much at stake for us to fail; the food and
beverage industry has responded, and we remain committed to the
task. But we all know that one industry cannot win the battle
alone. We can introduce new products and choices to the public,
we can promote healthier lifestyles, and we can even remind
folks that eating is fun now and then. Advertising can help
consumers choose healthier lifestyles, but consumers--parents,
teens and children--must make those decisions. They will need
support from every part of society.
----------
Mr. Markey. Thank you very much.
And our next witness is Ms. Patti Miller, who is the vice
president and director of children and the media for Children
Now. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF PATTI MILLER, VICE PRESIDENT, CHILDREN NOW
Ms. Miller. Entertainment and media play a powerful and
ubiquitous role in the lives of our Nation's children. Children
spend more time with media than they spend doing anything else,
except for sleeping. They look for media in all its forms for
their role models, often imitating their favorite characters'
style of dress, attitudes and behaviors.
Yet much of what children see in the media can have a
serious negative impact on their physical health and well-
being. According to the Centers For Disease Control and
Prevention, tobacco use in movies is a major factor in teen
smoking. Hundreds of research studies show that children who
are exposed to violent programming face a higher risk of
suffering from harmful consequences, including a belief that it
is acceptable to behave aggressively and violently and
increased desensitization towards violence in real life, a
greater tendency for engaging in violent behavior later in
life, and a heightened fear of becoming a victim of violence.
Finally, the Institute of Medicine has found strong
compelling evidence that television advertising influences the
food and beverage preferences, purchase requests and
consumption habits of children. Children Now thanks Chairman
Markey and the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the
Internet for hosting this hearing today to address the role of
media in children's health. It could not come at a more crucial
time. We are facing a public health crisis. For the first time
in modern history, we have a generation of children whose life
expectancy may be lower than that of their parents because of
childhood obesity. The U.S. surgeon general has identified
overweight and obesity as the fastest-growing cause of disease
and death in America.
While there is a confluence of factors that contribute to
childhood obesity, advertising is one of those factors, and it
is a significant one. American companies are spending $15
billion a year advertising and marketing to children under the
age of 12, and that is twice the amount they spent just 10
years ago. Children are exposed to thousands of food ads every
year on television alone, the majority of which are for candy,
snacks, cereal and fast foods. In addition, a recent Kaiser
Family Foundation study found that 85 percent of the top food
brands targeting kids TV also used branded Web sites to market
to kids, using a range of strategies including advergames,
viral marketing sweepstakes, promotions, memberships and online
TV ads.
So why does this matter? Research shows that young
children are uniquely vulnerable to commercial persuasion.
Children under the age of 8 do not recognize the persuasive
intent of ads, and they tend to accept them as accurate and
unbiased. In fact, research shows that 30-second commercials
influence food preferences in children as young as 2 years old.
Congress and the FCC have recognized children's
vulnerability and have placed limits on the amount of
advertising during children's shows and established rules about
how children's TV characters can be used to pitch products to
them. But that is simply not enough to protect children from a
food advertising environment that is currently skewed toward
promoting unhealthy, nonnutritious food to the Nation's youth.
In December 2005, the Institute of Medicine released a report
that concluded, ``Food and beverage practices geared to
children are out of balance with healthful diets and contribute
to an environment that puts children's health at risk.''
Children Now believes that in order to address the role of
advertising and marketing in the childhood obesity epidemic, we
must focus on and ensure the implementation of two Institute of
Medicine recommendations. The industry must, one, shift the
balance of advertising and marketing targeted to kids to foods
and beverages that are substantially lower in calories, fat,
salts, and added sugars and higher in nutrient content. This
should be across media platforms. Two, use licensed characters
only to promote food and beverages that support healthful diets
for children and youth. Licensed characters should not be used
to sell food and beverages that are high in fat, calories,
salt, added sugars, and low in nutrient content.
Children Now is currently working with the media industry,
food and beverage companies, advertising associations, and
advocacy and public health organizations on the Task Force on
Media and Childhood Obesity at the request of Senator
Brownback, Senator Harkin, and the FCC. The task force is
currently engaged in discussions and working recommendations
with a final report scheduled for release this summer. It is
our hope the task force will achieve meaningful solutions to
address the advertising and marketing of unhealthy foods to
kids. However, if the task force is unable to address these
issues sufficiently, we believe that Congress needs to
intervene on behalf of the Nation's children. We must work
towards tangible, real solutions to improve the media
environment for our Nation's kids, and we must act now. Our
children's health depends on it.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Miller follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.017
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Ms. Miller, very much.
Our next witness is Kyle McSlarrow. He is the president
and chief executive officer of the National Cable and
Telecommunications Association.
We welcome you back before the committee, and whenever you
are ready, please begin.
STATEMENT OF KYLE McSLARROW, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL CABLE
& TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION
Mr. McSlarrow. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, distinguished
members of the subcommittee. And thank you for having me here
to testify on this set of important issues.
I think the starting place for us, Mr. Chairman, is that we
don't believe that society, acting principally through you as
policymakers and parents should be forced to choose between
protecting the first amendment and protecting children. Now,
that means a lot of people have to step up and act responsibly
in order to achieve that goal, and our industry is very much at
the forefront of that.
If you think about the set of issues that sort of swirl
around violence and decency, profanity, family programming,
general audience viewing, the cable industry, I would assert,
has done more than any other industry to ensure that
households, parents, families have more family-friendly viewing
than any other industry. You look at cable networks like Disney
Channel, Nickelodeon, Sprout, PBS, other networks that are
devoted specifically to children, you have got Hallmark and
other channels that are devoted to family viewing, the list is
actually so long that I would use the remaining few minutes of
my time. The point is there is a plethora of choices in this
model with cable programming that is providing exactly the kind
of programming that everybody says that they want.
We also are attempting to provide tools to ensure that for
the other sets of programming where there is clearly going to
be content that is unsuitable for children, that parents have
the ability to control and shape how that content is viewed in
the home. Now, I am not going to argue that those tools are
perfect, but they are pretty good.
Now, obviously, as you said at the outset, Mr. Chairman,
you are the author of the v-chip legislation. Every cable
household actually has that option. It is not just broadcast
households. But in addition to that, cable and satellite
companies have developed increasingly sophisticated parental
controls. So these are controls that in today's world,
particularly with digital set-top boxes, you can control so
that you can block by time, by channel, by program, clearly by
age rating, by content descriptors that are at the bottom of
the rating. So language, dialog, and violence and so forth, you
can block. If a program is not rated, there is actually an
ability now to block that. And you can hide titles and some of
the information that themselves may be unsuitable for children
from being even shown on a program guide.
So all of these tools are available today, and in most
households, certainly any household that has bought a TV since
the year 2000 that has a v-chip in it, and certainly in those
households which are digital cable households, you have all
these tools. We still have a large customer base that is
analog. They have some of those tools. They are not perfect.
But increasingly, all of those people will be in a digital
household.
So with the family viewing that we do have, the tools that
we provided to help parents control other programming that may
be unsuitable, we are left with a couple of policy decisions.
One is are parents even using those tools? Do they know about
them? And are we making them as easy as we can for them?
I think there is a lively debate about whether or not
parents actually understand and are deciding affirmatively to
use parental controls or rejecting them. But I don't think it
much matters from our point of view in terms of acting
responsibly. The industry for over a decade has stepped up to
engage a partnership at its origins with the national PTA to
engage in media literacy not just surrounding television, it is
broader than that, but it specifically included literacy to try
to educate parents about the choices that they have in front of
them.
More recently the cable industry has engaged in a massive
public service announcement campaign. Many members of this
committee actually participated in PSAs, and we thank you for
that, trying to get the message out about the v-chip and
parental controls. And then more recently even than that, the
entire media industry, so organizations like NAB and MPAA, the
satellite industry, cable industry, got together to do the TV
Boss campaign. And we are roughly in the middle of that
campaign now, which is another $300 million media campaign to
tell parents about the tools they have, to drive them to Web
sites and to other sites that have information so they can use
them.
I can't report today that every parent is using the v-chip
or parental controls. I can report that most of the data that
we are seeing shows some modest improvement, a lot more
awareness, and we are willing to keep working this problem.
And really I would end where I started, Mr. Chairman, which
is if we are trying to avoid putting people to the test of the
first amendment, certainly we want to make sure that we are
protecting children, our industry very much wants to work with
you and this entire subcommittee on how we can make what is a
pretty good system, but not a perfect system, better.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McSlarrow follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.031
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. McSlarrow.
And our next witness is Jon Rand. He is the general
manager of several local television stations in Washington
State and in Idaho. Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF JON RAND, GENERAL MANAGER, KAYU FOX 28, SPOKANE/
COEUR D'ALENE, SPOKANE, WA
Mr. Rand. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Markey, Ranking
Member Upton. My name is John Rand, and I am the general
manager of three Fox affiliate stations, serving all of eastern
Washington and northern Idaho, broadcasting out of Spokane. I
am here today to testify on behalf of the National Association
of Broadcasters about the issue of childhood obesity and the
efforts my stations have taken to fight this battle.
Education is key to combating obesity challenges facing our
children and families. Therefore, our stations have chosen to
play a part in reversing this trend. The result of that
commitment is a campaign called Healthy Choices = Healthy
Families. The genesis for this campaign becomes evident when
you consider the facts. According to the Centers for Disease
Control, the prevalence of overweight children ages 6 to 11 has
more than doubled in the past 20 years. The rate among
adolescents ages 12 to 19 has more than tripled.
Just as frightening are the health risks associated with
obesity in children. For example, overweight children and
adolescents are more likely to have high blood pressure, high
cholesterol, and type 2 diabetes.
The goal of our Healthy Choices = Healthy Families campaign
is to utilize the power of television and the Internet to make
a difference in the health of our children. This campaign,
which began in January 2007, is a three-pronged effort. First,
we have trademarked and branded the Healthy Choices = Healthy
Families logo and created public service announcements aimed at
children and their parents. To date we have created 16
different PSAs that we are showing at all times of the day and
every day of the week.
To give you a flavor of what we are doing, I would like to
share with the committee one of the PSAs that we have produced.
[Videotape played.]
Mr. Rand. The second prong of the campaign involves
utilizing our news broadcasts to inform our viewers about the
threats from childhood obesity.
Lastly, we have launched a Healthy Choices = Healthy
Families Web site, filled with resources that families can use
to find expert knowledge and helpful tips about nutrition,
exercise and childhood obesity. This site directs visitors to
information provided by health professionals about childhood
obesity, including how overweight is defined, the prevalence of
children who are overweight, the factors associated with being
overweight, and the related health consequences. In fact, we
have partnered with Sacred Heart Children's Hospital in
Spokane. And I have attached a letter to my testimony from the
hospital indicating that because of the PSAs, viewers are
utilizing the Web site to ask for help and information. This is
a campaign to which we are dedicated for the long term. We plan
to keep the information fresh and continually add new research
to educate our viewers.
While I agree that we need to view the issue of childhood
obesity as a serious national dilemma, I do not believe that
regulation of children's advertising is the best way to solve
this problem. I fear that regulation of that kind of
advertising may diminish the availability and quality of
children's programming. The harder it is to find advertising
for children's programming, the harder it is to convince the
creative community to produce high-quality programming.
At my Spokane station over the last few years advertising
in children's programming has dwindled. In the late 1990s, we
had just over a million dollars in children's advertising on
our station. In 2007, we had $2,415 in children's advertising.
The main reason for this dramatic change is that much of
children's programming, and consequently the advertising, has
migrated to cable networks where there are niche channels
geared specifically to children.
There are many factors that contribute to childhood
obesity. Computers, video games and television all contribute
to a child's inactive lifestyle. But the solution to this
problem is found well beyond what kids see on broadcast
television. Children must be encouraged to exercise. Parents
must take the responsibility for providing their children
healthy foods, and schools should serve nutritious meals and
reinstate physical education.
As a broadcaster, I take my responsibility to my local
community seriously. It is because of this responsibility that
we have undertaken this Healthy Choices = Healthy Families
campaign against childhood obesity.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me here today, and I
welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rand follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.045
Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Rand, very much.
Our final witness is Mr. Adam Thierer. He is a senior
fellow and director of the Center for Digital Media Freedom at
the Progress and Freedom Foundation.
STATEMENT OF ADAM D. THIERER, SENIOR FELLOW, PROGRESS & FREEDOM
FOUNDATION
Mr. Thierer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, for inviting me here today to testify on this issue.
My name is Adam Thierer, and I am a senior fellow with the
Progress and Freedom Foundation, a think tank here in
Washington, DC. This hearing is particularly timely for me
because just this week the Progress and Freedom Foundation has
released this new special report I have spent the last 2 years
compiling, entitled ``Parental Controls and Online Child
Protection: A Survey of Tools and Methods.'' The booklet
provides a broad survey of everything that is on the market
that can help parents better manage media content today,
whether it be on broadcast television, cable or satellite TV,
music devices, mobile phones, video game consoles, the
Internet, or even social networking Web sites.
Incidentally, the booklet can be downloaded free of charge
on the PFF.org Web site, and I plan on making frequent updates
to the publication as new information comes to my attention.
As I note in my book, we live in an always on, interactive
multimedia world. Parents need to be prepared to deal with
media on multiple platforms, screens and devices. While this
can be a formidable challenge, luckily there has never been a
time when parents have had more tools and methods at their
disposal to help them determine and enforce what is acceptable
in their homes and in the lives of their children. And that
conclusion is equally applicable to all major media platforms
or all the screens our children might view.
In the past, the off button was the only technical control
at parents' disposal. Today, by contrast, parents like me have
myriad tools and methods to restrict or tailor media content to
their own household tastes or values. I could spend all my time
here today discussing merely those restrictive tools that could
help parents block or curtail media. Those tools include, of
course, the v-chip and television ratings, cable and satellite
set-top box screening tools, DVD blocking controls, cell phone
blocking tools, video game console controls and ratings,
Internet filtering and monitoring tools, instant message
monitoring tools, operating system controls, Web browser
controls, search engine safe tools, and media management time
devices, so on and so on. These devices are all extensively
discussed in my book, along with many other tools. But while
those restrictive tools are very important, they are only part
of the parental control story today.
Enabling or tailoring tools are what makes today's parental
control market so exciting. By enabling or tailoring tools, I
mean any tool or method that a parent might use to enable their
families to see, hear or consume content they would regard as
more appropriate, ethical or enriching. For example, for
televised media, VCRs, DVD players, and personal video
recorders have emerged as important parental control devices.
These technologies give parents the ability to accumulate
libraries of preferred programming for their children and then
determine exactly where and when it will be viewed. Pay-per-
view options also help parents better tailor viewing choices.
And don't forget about the huge and growing market for
educational DVDs, videotapes, and computer software.
Speaking of computers and the Internet, parents can now
tailor their children's on-line activities in many similar
ways. In my new book I document dozens of kid-friendly search
engines or Internet portals that are essentially on-line walled
gardens, filled with prescreened content and safe chat areas.
And even in the world of mobile media, new wireless handsets
and services offer parents the ability to not only monitor the
content their child might try to access, but also establish
preapproved calling lists and tailor the communications
experience for even very young kids.
But it is also vital we not overlook the importance of
informal household media rules in this discussion. Oftentimes
debates about inappropriate content get so caught up with
disputes about technical controls, ratings, or even regulation,
that we forget that parents often view these things merely as
backup plans. In my book I identify four categories of
household media rules that surveys show almost all parents use
in some combination to control their children's media
consumptions. This four-part taxonomy I have created is first
``where'' rules; second, ``where and how much'' rules; third,
``under what condition'' rules; and fourth, ``what'' rules.
I don't have time to run through all the possible examples,
but certainly most of us are familiar with widely used
household rules like no watching TV or playing games until your
homework is done or you can't watch that movie until you
complete your chores. Such household rules can be actually far
more effective in controlling children's media habits than
technical controls. But debates about parental controls and
media policy often treat them as an afterthought if they are
discussed at all. It is time we start thinking and talking
about them.
Finally, let us not forget that the ultimate parental
control tool is the power of the purse. In most cases, when
kids want to consume a certain type of media, or even consume
something they see advertised in the media, they need money to
do so. Televisions, movies, video games, cell phones, computers
and so on do not just drop into our kids' laps from a high-tech
heaven. When our kids want those things, they have to come to
us and ask for them. And that includes the things that are
advertised on those platforms. And although at times it may be
difficult for us to say no, we always have the power to do so.
That is the ultimate way to control the images our kids see on
the screen.
Thank you again.
Mr. Markey. Thank you very much, Mr. Thierer.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thierer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 42798.050
Mr. Markey. Five minutes on the button. You and Ms. Miller
actually win the award for closest to the time that we asked
you to hit.
The Chair will now recognize himself for a round of
questions. I will say to you, Ms. Miller, that I am prepared to
ask the Federal Communications Commission to initiate a
rulemaking under the Children's Television Act, which I am the
author of, on the issues of advertising on children's
television so that it is not inconsistent with the goals of the
1990 Children's Television Act, which is to have educational
and informational programming for 3 hours per week on every
television station in America.
So I just wanted to let you know that it is something that
I am putting people on notice that I am really willing to
pursue. And I think it is something that is very important that
we ensure that that be a safe haven for kids and for parents,
that they know that those programs are there.
Let me ask you, if I can, Mr. Glickman--and, again, I want
to commend you and the MPAA for including smoking as a rating
factor in the movies. It is an important step. Now, two of our
witnesses have proposed additional steps, which include banning
tobacco brand imagery in movies and certifying that no one
working on a movie took payments or other consideration from
tobacco companies. And Ms. Healton mentioned running
antismoking public service commercials, announcements, before
the movie began as kind of a countermessage to children
watching those movies. They seem like good ideas. It seems like
that would help to mitigate this problem. Can you comment upon
those ideas?
Mr. Glickman. Yes. First of all, I think John Fithian is
here from the National Association of Theatre Owners, but the
theatre owners have run I don't know how many, many, many tens
of thousands of spots in theatres. Many of you have seen them.
And so those spots have run and have had great impact, and we
certainly support that particular effort on their part.
Mr. Markey. Have the MPAA members been asked to implement
these types of recommendations?
Mr. Glickman. Well, let us put it this way: we work with
NATO in terms of on those particular spots. I just was talking
here with Mrs. Healton about other things that we may talk
about doing in the future. But individual companies may make
those decisions. But I would say this: now recognizing that
about 900 movies a year go through our ratings system, about
300 of those are our member companies and 600 of them are
independent producers and a lot of other people. And to the
best of my knowledge, none of our companies are responsible for
containing paid product placement of tobacco products in our
motion pictures.
Although we are not a party to the master settlement
agreement, that is of course the tobacco companies themselves,
we believe that is very, very important. And so what we do as a
trade association, what my personal view on this is, we have
got to continue to work with our companies in all possible ways
to try to minimize the amount of smoking in movies and in the
country as a whole. Both my parents died of lung cancer, both
were smokers, so I have a personal interest in seeing this done
but doing it in a way that does not abridge the normal creative
freedom process.
Mr. Markey. I understand that. And my father died from lung
cancer as well. And unfortunately, as Mrs. Healton said, it is
the most preventable of all diseases. Is it possible--and my
father was ticked, too, when he was dying from it. He was
really angry.
Could you put the antismoking PSAs in the DVDs when they
are released as well?
Mr. Glickman. That would be a decision that each company
would make on their own. There has been some discussion about,
I think, one company, not one of our member companies, has
determined to do that. But there are a lot of options that we
are going to continue to explore both in terms of marketing
options as well as ratings options as well.
Mr. Markey. Could you survey the companies that you
represent and report back to the subcommittee on which of them
are willing to and which are not willing to put PSAs in their
DVDs so we can identify----
Mr. Glickman. What we would do is, in addition to that, I
think it would be useful to have representatives of the
companies come and talk to you all about the various programs
that they are proposing in these areas. So we will certainly
provide you the information that you requested and try to do
more than that.
Mr. Markey. OK. And just on the issue of banning tobacco
imagery in movies, could you just comment on that as well?
Mr. Glickman. Again, our member companies do not in their
content, to the best of my knowledge, do not contain paid
product placement of tobacco products in our pictures. But I
cannot speak for every picture done by every film producer in
the country who are not part of the MPAA organization.
Mr. Markey. What I would like to do is just make a request
from the subcommittee that you do a survey of the companies
that you represent in terms of their positions on these issues,
on banning tobacco brand images, on certifying that no one is
working and receiving payments. And is the NATO representative
here?
Mr. Glickman. He is.
Mr. Markey. Yes. What I would like to do, I know you are
not testifying here today, but I would like to ask you as well,
if I can just informally here, if you would give your
organization's position to the subcommittee on running PSAs
before any movie that has tobacco in it. It would be very
helpful for us to understand. That is the National Association
of Theatre Owners, by the way. That is not the North American
Treaty Alliance, protecting the world from nuclear threats,
although many of the movies that they show----
Mr. Glickman. Mr. Chairman, although sometimes they act
like it. But John and I are very good friends as well. May I
just make one point, too, is that in the depiction of smoking
in movies, and while Mrs. Healton and I may have some
disagreement about how to measure those things--there is an
awful lot of negative depiction of smoking in movies. For
example, the film ``Good Night, Good Luck.'' I have got the
movie ``Constantine'' where the character played by Keanu
Reaves just about dies when he lights up a cigarette; in the
movie ``Stranger than Fiction'' a similar type of situation. So
we want to point out that qualitatively there are lots of ways
that movies can be portrayed--smoking can be portrayed in not
positive ways. And that is our goal is to try to encourage more
of that as well.
Mr. Markey. Ms. Healton, would you just like to make a
brief comment here on what you have heard?
Ms. Healton. I would just simply say that the research
suggests very strongly that any form of smoking, unless it is
entirely unambiguous with regard to health effects, definitely
has a negative impact. It is not just whether it is a bad guy
with the cigarette. In fact, bad guy can be even more
attractive considering the personality profile of kids who
start smoking at a young age.
The other point is Legacy Foundation is paying for a very
substantial proportion of the placement of Truth PSAs in film.
And, in fact, most States that choose to use their PSA dollars
or other money to advertise there frequently use our ads, which
we provide gratis.
Mr. Markey. I thank you. And the subcommittee is going to
be paying a lot of attention to this issue over the next 2
years. And so we will be working with NATO and all of the
organizations that are represented here today as well.
Ms. Healton. I am sorry, I did want to add one point. I
respect the statement made by Mr. Glickman with regard to his
own companies, but I think it is important for the committee to
understand that those companies distribute films that are made
by independent collections of people who put them together. And
the request for the certification would cover not only the
companies themselves, but everyone else along the line, whether
internationally or domestically. And the fact of the matter is
that there is such pervasive smoking that frankly it is very
hard to believe there isn't money changing hands. If there
isn't, it is just totally confusing about how there could be so
much brand placement occurring and no money changing hands
anywhere.
Mr. Glickman. Just I have great respect for Mrs. Healton,
but a lot of her allegations are not based on facts whatsoever.
It is hard to believe, she says. The truth of the matter is
that our companies are committed that there be no product
placement and stand by that and are committed to try to reduce
the amount of smoking in movies. And that is why we changed the
ratings system to allow the new factor to be put in.
Mr. Markey. And I appreciate that. And, again, it would
help us if we could have in writing some sense of what
individual companies are doing as well.
Mr. Glickman. Sure.
Mr. Markey. What happens oftentimes is each part of all of
these industries in the entertainment area have annual awards
shows and give out awards for all the good things. But who
claims credit for all the bad things? They don't have that
awards ceremony. And that is what we are trying to be able to
get at; have the people who really don't want to testify here.
Rooting out who they are could help the committee if in writing
you tell us who wants to, which companies will do it, and which
will not sign on, because that will help us to focus in on that
problem.
Let me turn and recognize the gentleman from Georgia Mr.
Deal.
Mr. Deal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let us take a family that has two small children, and they
get their television programming, Mr. McSlarrow, through one of
your cable providers. Is that cable provider allowed to offer
that family who might say to them, I don't even want television
programming coming through my cable system that is rated TV PG
and below, is that cable operator allowed to offer that family
such a package? And if not, why not?
Mr. McSlarrow. If you were restricted to PG and G, I don't
think you could. And the reason would be that even for those
cable operators who are offering family tiers, so the cable
networks that would be part of the family tier would most
likely be G-rated, maybe some PG, they also by law have to
offer broadcast stations must carry and retransmission consent
alike. And while most of those are not going to be MA,
certainly not before 10 o'clock, there is some point during the
day that you would have TV14 a lot. So, no, you couldn't.
Mr. Deal. I mentioned in my opening statement that
retransmission consent appears to me to be one of the
impediments in allowing a cable operator to offer more family-
friendly packaging in their cable service area. Is
retransmission consent an issue, and how does it impact the
packaging and the bundling that comes with cable presentations?
Mr. McSlarrow. I think at least in this context the issue,
I would say, is actually broader than retransmission consent.
It is the broadcast carriage regime. So it is both must carry
and retrans. And it really impacts the bundling of packages in
two ways. Number 1, by law any station that is a must carry
broadcast station has to be carried on that cable operator's
system. Don't have a choice about it. And then number two, all
those stations, the must carry stations and the retransmission
consent stations, by law must be part of a package offered to a
cable subscriber. It's called the must buy tier. You have to
have all the broadcast stations before you can even think about
adding any of the cable networks.
So in a sense, with those two rules, you have a forced
bundle. And I happen to like the bundles. I am not saying it is
a bad thing, but I am just saying it is not a choice that the
consumer has.
Mr. Deal. And that is something that only Congress can
change since it is legislatively mandated.
Mr. McSlarrow. Correct.
Mr. Deal. Mr. Rand, since you are here representing the
National Association of Broadcasters, we all have heard, and it
has been alluded to by several here today, about the public's
opinion through polling about there being too much violence,
too much profanity, et cetera, on television programming. Would
you elaborate on what steps that the broadcast industry is
taking in this regard, and what limitations, if any, are you
faced with in that area of being able to be more proactive on
these issues?
Mr. Rand. Well, along with Mr. McSlarrow's organization, we
certainly have been very supportive, both on a network level as
well as local broadcasters, of the measures that are available
to families to limit different images coming into their homes
through a v-chip, through identifying by ratings, and also
through the TV Boss campaign.
I am often asked if we have the ability to block
programming that comes from the network, if we choose to look
at it and say that it is not appropriate for local viewing in
our estimation. Our stations in Spokane and in Yakima/Tri-
Cities were among the first Fox affiliates last fall to say no
to the Fox Television Network on the O.J. Simpson special. And
it ultimately led, through the efforts of that group of people
who said no to begin with, to them canceling it and canceling
the book associated with it. So there is that level of control
and ability to say no.
Mr. Deal. Could I ask a follow-up on that particular issue?
That was courageous, in my opinion, on your part to do that.
But is that the norm in the industry, or is it only those who
have shown that kind of courage that have been able to deal
with broadcast networks in that regard? And what, if anything,
is being done or can be done to give you that autonomy?
And let me just follow up before you answer my question. As
a former prosecutor and as one who prosecuted some of the first
pornography cases in my part of the world, one of the tests
always was whether or not something had met a community
standard. It was always one of the elements of determining
that. I have always viewed, in a rather simplistic fashion,
that a local cable operator, or in your case a local
broadcaster, in some form or fashion serves as the determiner
of a community conscience about some of these issues. I have
run over my time.
Mr. Markey. Yes.
Mr. Deal. I guess I will have to come back later. But I
thank you both from the cable operator and the broadcaster.
Mr. Markey. The gentleman is over by a minute, but I ask
unanimous consent that the witness be allowed to answer the
question.
Mr. Deal. Can you respond to that?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rand. Will you repeat the question?
Mr. Deal. In simple terms, what degree of autonomy are
individual broadcast stations being able to have in terms of
what is coming to them from the big broadcasters?
Mr. Rand. Well, it is difficult to speak on behalf of the
whole industry, but in the last couple years, as the profanity
issue grew to be of more and more interest, you saw a number of
ABC affiliates choosing to preempt ``Saving Private Ryan'' as
it was going to run as it was made to begin with. And you saw a
lot of stations that chose to preempt that program for that
reason. And the network was faced with putting up with that. So
there is that ability to do that.
Mr. Markey. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California Mrs.
Capps.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you to each of our panelists for your
presentations. I want to talk about or ask about obesity. Ms.
Sophos, as you know, the Council of Better Business Bureaus has
established a voluntary initiative among 11 companies that
represent two-thirds of food advertising targeted at children.
These companies have committed that half of their advertising
will promote healthy lifestyles, a laudable commitment. I am
pleased that the industry is recognizing this as a problem.
Here is my question. When advertising is integrated with
healthy messages, how healthy is the resulting impact on
children? For example, and this is not a stretch, when an
advertisement features someone eating french fries and then
riding a bike, what is the child going to learn from that, and
how does that really satisfy the healthy lifestyle goal?
Ms. Sophos. I can't speak to that specific example. We
haven't looked at----
Mrs. Capps. Just as an example.
Ms. Sophos. But I think what the overall purpose of the
CBBB program is is to take very seriously the requests that
have been made of the industry by the IOM and by FTC Chairman
Majoras to shift the mix of products that are advertised to
children, to shift the balance into healthier products and to
also communicate healthy lifestyle messages. So I think the
industry is very keenly focused on both those aspects. And I
think as the pledges that the companies are making become
public later this summer, that we will have an ability to
assess just how much they have been able to sort of meet
expectations on that point, because I think they are very much
focused on both aspects of making and marketing better for you
foods. So I think that we are going to have to try and get a
sense of what the impact has been overall once the pledges are
out and once we see them actually play out in the
advertisements.
Mrs. Capps. Two other of the panel are eager to respond.
Dr. Shifrin, and then I will turn to you, Ms. Miller. But I
wanted to just--the topic is mixed messages. What does this do
to a young child? This is your area of expertise.
Dr. Shifrin. When you watch children's commercials,
children's commercials talk about the fun of the food. You
rarely see children eating the food on the commercials, if you
look at children's commercials with a contextual eye. So
children are enamored because the food is fun. You look at the
music, you look at the quick cuts.
So what we would like from the industry, the American
Academy of Pediatrics would like to use the most bright minds
in the marketing industry and say, let us create these
commercials. Let us do focus groups. Let us look at what is
going to work. Let us not try things and then wait again down
the road to see that perhaps they are not working.
So I think it is up to the industry to say if we are
devoting a huge amount of our budget to this process and
project, let us do it right. They have the brightest minds in
the industry. They have changed children's purchasing and
preferences for years. Let us let them do the work. We will
work with them.
Mrs. Capps. That is good. I will give my own 2 cents'
worth. Ms. Miller, you raised your hand. And being from
California, I am very familiar and a big fan of the work of
Children Now and your yearly scorecard on children in
California. This must be one of the topics you have examined as
well.
Ms. Miller. Yes, it is one of the topics. We are examining
not only media but across other issues, kids' health and
education. And just a quick note on shifting the balance. What
public health advocates and children's advocates need to see is
an actual reduction in junk food advertising to kids. When we
talk about shifting the mix, it is actually seeing less
unhealthy food ads. So what we are concerned about with the
healthy lifestyle messages is the idea of a child riding a
skateboard in a skateboard park and then eating a bowl of sugar
cereal to us isn't getting to that issue.
So what we are really hopeful, and when we see some of
these pledges, that we actually see reduction in some of these
unhealthy food ads in terms of trying to shift that mix so it
is more of an equal playing field for kids in terms of healthy
versus unhealthy images.
Mrs. Capps. Ms. Sophos, you are nodding. And here is a
question for you. Wouldn't industry-funded public service
announcements separate from your advertisements be more
effective than integrating healthy messages? Is that something
the industry might consider bringing to the table at the FCC
Task Force on Childhood Obesity?
Ms. Sophos. We believe there is a role for both integrating
the messages and also for PSAs. Our industry is joined with a
lot of the media groups and advertising communities supporting
work that is being done by the Ad Council now. And whether it
is PSAs or companies using the messages that have been
developed by the Ad Council and the Department of Health and
Human Services in communicating through labeling and other
ways, we do think carrying those messages as part of broader
social marketing campaigns can be very helpful.
Mrs. Capps. Thank you all.
Mr. Markey. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Mr. Upton from Michigan.
Mr. Upton. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I regret that
I wasn't here for the opening statements. I did read them. But
I have good news. When Ms. Harman and I walked back into the
room, in fact, our amendment did pass on the House floor,
saving the taxpayers millions of dollars in energy costs. So it
was good news.
Just a couple things. We are going to have votes on the
House floor, so I may not use my whole 5 minutes, so I can let
other Members ask some questions before we adjourn.
Ms. Sophos, just in follow-up to Mrs. Capps's question, do
you think that it is wise then, yes or no, for the FCC to move
forward in terms of their Task Force on Media and Childhood
Obesity report? Do you think that is a wise thing, or should
they be waiting until they hear more from you all? It is not
supposed to be a softball question, but as my former boss I
have to be careful.
Ms. Sophos. I understand.
We have been participating in the Joint Task Force as well,
along with a number of our member companies. And I think it has
been a useful dialog that we have had. I think the one thing
that has been clear throughout this is that everyone in the
room is very, very interested in making a difference, in trying
to push the envelope and do something. I think that there are a
lot of things that the task force can recommend, and I am
hopeful that we can find some consensus around a lot of things.
So I think that that process should move forward.
We have been trying to talk a good deal about the pledge
program, about the initiative that is under way through the
CBBB, because we think a lot of the issues that are currently
being discussed on the task force are actually being
implemented through that program. And we think that there is a
nice dovetailing of effort there.
Mr. Upton. Great. And, Mr. McSlarrow and Mr. Thierer, as I
have watched my two kids grow up, and now they are both teens,
and we have cable, as you know, we watch a lot of different
programming. From when my son used to beat me up, beat me up in
terms of getting up earlier than I on Saturday mornings to race
down to turn on the TV, and now it is all I can do with school
out to get him up before noon now that he is 15, but, as we
watch and think about how a la carte--we think about so many
different programs that are truly geared for kids that they
enjoy and they learn from, Nickelodeon, Discovery Kids, Disney
Channel is terrific, Planet Earth is a great one, particularly
when you have HD, can those types of programs, those types of
channels survive in an a la carte world? What is your thoughts?
Mr. McSlarrow. Many of them could not.
Mr. Upton. They never would have started.
Mr. McSlarrow. In most cases, no. A la carte really has the
honor of being one of the truly awful policy ideas floating
around Washington. Every study that has been done on it has
shown it will be more expensive for consumers, and they will
have less choice. You just put your finger on an obvious
downside, which is the very family programming you want will be
at risk. And then there is another one, which is if you were in
an a la carte world, and each network had to punch through in
the marketing haze in order to survive, they are more likely to
produce edgier content, so you would go exactly the opposite
direction that people say they want.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Thierer?
Mr. Thierer. Yes. I sincerely hope those educational
enriching options for children don't disappear. And in my book
on Parental Controls & Online Child Protection, on page 38 I
list two dozen educational and enriching options for children,
only two or three of which existed when I was a child. And I
hope they wouldn't disappear, but I think they probably would
under a la carte regulation.
But beyond that, I just want to say that the great things
about these educational options is not only that they are there
today, but that they are always there for me, because, through
either the cable provider in my area or the telco provider,
Verizon, I can record all of these on the integrated PVRs and
the boxes in my home, tailor them to when I want my kids to
watch them. And my two kids, who are under the age of 6, they
don't see any advertising because either I record certain
programs that don't have any, like on the Noggin Network, which
is my personal family favorite, or I actually sit there--and I
hate to say this with my media friends on the panel--I zap
through those commercials. And that is the reality. That is
tailoring, that is empowering parents to provide those sorts of
choices to their family.
So I hope these media programs can get funded as I fast-
forward through the ads. That is another problem to discuss,
but the reality is that is the way we have empowered parents in
our new media environment.
Mr. Upton. Dr. Shifrin, last word here with my time.
Dr. Shifrin. Speaking from a truly pediatric standpoint, it
is doubtful that any child in America doesn't see advertising.
When we have parents that say--and I see these parents every
day--I don't have TV in my house, the children are going
elsewhere, they are going to malls, they are going to sporting
arenas. So they are seeing advertising, no question.
Mr. Upton. I think my time has expired.
Mr. Markey. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California Ms.
Solis.
Ms. Solis. Thank you. And I want to thank the witnesses for
some very courageous statements, I guess, that are being made
here about what we need to do here for our children to prevent
further chronic diseases.
I am concerned about tobacco use, and I want to direct my
question to Mrs. Healton regarding any movement that you see
occurring on the rise amongst young teen Latinas, and if there
is any kind of advertising that is being projected to them to
somehow attract them or to become smokers, because I have seen
some evidence that the number has gone up. But maybe you could
enlighten me a little better.
Ms. Healton. Essentially in the most recent year for which
we have data, 12th-grade smoking has continued to decline, and
both 8th- and 10th-grade smoking has stalled. So that is a bad
sign. And it is something to be very concerned about, because
it is the first stall since 1997.
Really tobacco advertising in general targets every
possible subgroup imaginable. It may use different
methodologies depending upon the population prevalence of the
ethnic group or gender group in the region. But clearly, I will
take an example, this most recent brand, Camel No. 9, that was
referred to earlier today, this brand with its menthol teal and
its shocking pink wrapper, is clearly a brand meant to appeal
to young teens and meant to draw in new smokers.
The growth in smoking among Latinos, Latinos have
relatively lower rates, Latino girls have relatively lower
rates of smoking. But the picture in South America is
extraordinary. In Santiago, Chile, for example, over 65 percent
of girls smoke. So because the rates are low, one way of
looking at it is they are more aggressively a target of tobacco
industry marketing, because there is a growth curve there. And
you could argue there is some theoretical cap above which the
smoking rate can't go, so the low rate is a marketing
opportunity.
Ms. Solis. And for Dr. Shifrin, I wanted to ask you
quickly, in your research have you taken a look at advertising
with respect to Spanish-language television and how that
affects this whole issue of obesity and targeting some
vulnerable populations?
Dr. Shifrin. Well, quickly, the American Academy of
Pediatrics puts out a number of Spanish-language products and
publications. Certainly Healthy Kids in Espanol is one. We
don't have any research at this point about that. But it is an
ongoing area that we are interested in.
Ms. Solis. Is that something we might want to entertain?
Dr. Shifrin. Oh, absolutely.
Ms. Solis. Testing that?
Dr. Shifrin. Absolutely. Because there is a big difference
in how it is viewed.
Ms. Solis. Absolutely.
Ms. Sophos.
Ms. Sophos. Yes. I just wanted to add that one of the
things that GMA has done is to fund a person at the Children's
Advertising Review Unit specifically to address the Hispanic
market. Advertising monitoring is something we did on a
voluntary basis. And also when the USDA came out with its
newest dietary guidelines, GMA partnered with the Weekly Reader
to distribute the MyPyramid educational curriculum into the
schools in both English and Spanish as a way to try and reach
specific audiences that may be at higher risk.
Ms. Solis. Good.
I wanted to just mention to Mr. Thierer that one of the
issues that we face in the Hispanic community, and sometimes
just low-income community, is access to the Internet. And so a
lot of the tools that you talked about, and the vehicles, there
is no way of people knowing in some sections of my district
where they just don't have the availability and economically it
is not feasible. How would you recommend we get the message out
to those communities and in multicultural communities?
Mr. Thierer. You look at what some of the industries are
doing, for example video games, distributing brochures and
pamphlets and other materials in Spanish, and making sure that
it is not just on the Internet, but also in stores and
elsewhere where families might want to take a look at these
things.
Clearly more education and awareness efforts are necessary.
If I could recommend one thing the Government should do more of
in this area, it would be building awareness about all these
wonderful tools. When we wanted to build awareness about the
dangers of forest fires, we had Smokey Bear. When it is
littering, it is Hoot the Owl. Where is that equivalent effort
when it comes to building awareness and doing it for many
different ethnic groups, many different languages and so on?
That is an important part.
Ms. Solis. It is amazing Thomas the Train seems to be able
to captivate all kids from all backgrounds. So I know it can be
done.
I am sorry, Ms. Miller, you wanted to comment?
Ms. Miller. I just wanted to add one of the big concerns we
have is that many of the tools we are talking about here are
just out of the economic reach of a lot of families in this
country, such as, you know, DVRs, for example. And so that is
why I think it is so important that we give parents accurate
content-based descriptors so they can make informed choices,
that there is public education, and the ratings are accurate.
Ms. Solis. Thank you.
Mr. Markey. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington State
Mr. Inslee.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you. Obviously something is going on. I
am told compared to 20 years ago children drink two times more
soda than milk, and 20 years ago they drank two times more milk
than soda. Advertising works. Our kids are being deluged by an
avalanche of corn fructose syrup that is the basis for all of
these processed foods. And I guess I heard some discussion
about how to limit the number of messages of these high-
caloric-density, high-corn-fructose foods that that are
bombarding our kids. And I appreciated Mr. Rand's suggestion to
have some PSAs like the one he showed us, but these kids are
seeing 7,600 of these ads a year. And I am just concerned that
these PSAs are going to be like having an umbrella during the
London blitz given the number of the ads that these kids are
being hit with.
So I guess maybe I can ask Ms. Miller and Ms. Sophos to
elaborate on what restrictions there may be on these high-
density foods. Now, here is just an idea. Maybe there ought to
be some limitation per manufacturer of how many high-density-
calorie-per-gram ads you can bombard these kids with,
particularly for ads that are targeted for the kids under 8. I
am interested in Ms. Miller's idea that advertising to kids
under 8 might be an unlawful trade practice in itself, because
these kids have no rational freedom of thought, if you will. So
I just wonder if you could each give us maybe, Ms. Miller and
Ms. Sophos, what could we do to limit the number of these hits
on these kids for this high-density food?
Ms. Miller. It is unfair to advertise to kids under the age
of 8. They have no cognitive ability to discern that someone is
trying to sell them something. I think what we want to see is a
shifting the balance to more healthy foods being advertised to
kids. I would suggest that we start shifting the balance within
a 2-year time period, a 25 percent reduction in the next year
of foods that are higher in fats, salts, added sugars, and
lower in nutrient content, with a goal of at least getting to
balance in the next 2 years.
To your point about public service announcements, according
to the Kaiser study, children ages 2 to 7 see one PSA on
fitness or nutrition every 2 to 3 days. So there is not an
equal playing field here. And so I think we just have to start
really shifting the balance of those unhealthy food ads. And I
would say we have to get to a level playing field, so when kids
are actually seeing these ads, they are seeing an equal number,
at least, of healthy food choices. And as we have seen right
now, the fact that no fruits and vegetables are being
advertised is pretty frightening.
So actually I would say there has to be a point, a
percentage reduction within a certain time period to say that
we are actually moving the needle on this issue.
Mr. Inslee. Ms. Sophos.
Ms. Sophos. Well, first I want to say that all of our
members take very seriously their responsibility to advertise
in a way that is sensitive to children no matter what the age.
And there is the FTC and CARU also to help make sure this
advertising is ethical and responsible.
But to your point about reducing or shifting the balance, I
think that is exactly the commitment that the companies who
have been part of the Children's Food and Beverage Initiative
have made and that their efforts are going to be unfolding over
the next several weeks and months and years. And I think we
should take a look. I think through part of that program is an
element where the CBBB is required to monitor compliance and
issue a report on impact. So I think we are going to have
available the data to show what progress we were able to make.
But I think the goal is, in fact, fairly widely accepted that
we need to shift the balance.
Mr. Inslee. Could we get to numerical targets that would be
legally enforceable? The reason I say this is you represent a
great industry with great people that care for the kids. No one
wants to hurt our kids. But cumulatively, the impact of this is
what we are concerned about. So the question is could we get to
numerical requirements?
Ms. Sophos. I think one of the things we have seen is that
all the experts, IOM and others, say, look, we need to do this
through a voluntary basis, because, in fact, that is probably
the quickest way to get there. The commitment and the
initiative is that a minimum of 50 percent of the ads that are
directed to children by these companies representing two-thirds
of all advertising will be for healthier foods and delivering
healthy messages. So we do have numerical goals in there, and
my guess is that when the pledges come up, that those goals
will be exceeded in many cases.
Mr. Markey. I apologize to you, but there are only 6
minutes left to vote on the House floor, and in order to give
Ms. Harman only 4 minutes to ask questions, we have to----
Ms. Harman. I thank my colleague, and I thank the chairman,
and I think we have to also walk, so let's do this in two. I am
late because I had an amendment on the floor with Mr. Upton.
But I had to show up first to tell our former colleague Mr.
Glickman how fond we are of him, and how fond we were of Jack
Valenti, and how important the MPAA remains in this issue of
trying to figure out what violent content there is in movies
and what responsible people should do about it.
Having said that, I just want to make a couple of points.
First, at least to me, government censorship is a blunt and
dangerous instrument. I believe that regulating violent content
on the airwaves is a slippery slope and that censorship has no
place in a society that values the free exchange of ideas,
speech, and expression.
Having said that, I believe in good parenting. Now, how
many of you are parents? How many in the audience are parents?
Right. And some of us up here are grandparents. Right. So, I
think all of you should do a better job than I did as a parent
in using the tools that are out there wisely to be sure that
your kids don't eat the wrong stuff and don't watch the wrong
stuff. And I think that parents who take that responsibility
must take that responsibility and can do it well.
And finally, on this issue of an a la carte option, I did
want to weigh in here, it may be an easy tool for techno-lazy
parents like I was, but the problem with it is that it also may
take away the diversity in programming that people like me, and
I think most people, have come to value.
So let us pick the right tools. Let us exercise our
responsibilities as parents. And again, my apologies for
missing what I am sure was excellent testimony.
I thank the chairman for yielding. Two minutes and two
seconds to go make it.
Mr. Markey. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Glickman, you had a few words you wanted to add. I saw
your hand was up.
Mr. Glickman. I was going to say to Mr. Inslee, under the
Clinton administration and it has been continued under the Bush
administration, there has been some funding to try to increase
the quality of food in the National School Lunch Program,
School Breakfast Program. Those programs need significant
additional funds, particularly fresh fruits and vegetables. It
would really train kids. And you know, it is an area we haven't
discussed today, but it is part of this mix.
Mr. Markey. I thank the gentleman. Look, here is the bottom
line: the first amendment is precious, but the children of our
country are just as precious. And we need a healthier balance
in our country. We have to make sure that these children are
not bombarded with messages from commercial America that is, in
fact, to the detriment of the children of our country. And most
of these parents aren't in a position--they are both working;
they are out of the house; they need help. Parents are heroes,
but they need the help that makes it possible for them to
protect their children. And so, again, I just want to make
clear that while these kids have all of these unhealthy choices
that are being presented to them in the media on an ongoing
basis, that if there is not a proper response from industry,
that I am prepared to press the Federal Communications
Commission to put on the books the rules that will protect the
children of our country from these unhealthy messages. The FCC
has the authority under the Children's Television Act to do
that, and I just hope that the industry responds, that they do,
in fact, protect the children of our country. We have to put
the tools in the hands of the parents to be able to do it. But
that also includes the work of the Federal Communications
Commission to fulfill the mandate of the law, that the
children's programming of our country is nutritious for
children, both intellectually but also their diet as well.
I can't thank the panel enough. This was a great, great day
for us. And I apologize to you for the chaos that is going on
out on the House floor, drawing away the Members. But with
that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]