Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FTC Defends Proposed Child-Food Marketing Rules Critics Say Could Kill 'Tony the Tiger'
CNSNews ^

Posted on 07/02/2011 9:26:20 AM PDT by Sub-Driver

FTC Defends Proposed Child-Food Marketing Rules Critics Say Could Kill 'Tony the Tiger' Friday, July 01, 2011 By Fred Lucas

(CNSNews.com) – The Federal Trade Commission is defending its proposals to change food and beverage marketing to children ages 2-17, which industry and legal critics say would lead to the end of iconic commercial characters such Tony the Tiger and Toucan Sam and create free speech issues.

The proposed “voluntary” guidelines for marketing food resulted from the Interagency Working Group made up of representatives of the FTC, the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The report was opened for comment in April, and public comment closes on July 14.

The report is merely a report to Congress and is not an enforceable regulation, said David Vladeck, director of the bureau of consumer protection for the FTC, in a FTC blog post Friday.

“But we’ve heard amped up stories claiming to know what this project is ‘really’ about and suggesting that the agencies are trying to ban almost all food marketing to kids and punish food companies that don’t adhere strictly to the principles,” Vladeck said. “Frankly, these folks might want to switch to decaf.”

Vladeck stressed that the guidelines would not violate the First Amendment, as critics charged.

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: cereals; children; food; foodnazis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 07/02/2011 9:26:24 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

More government parenting?


2 posted on 07/02/2011 9:28:29 AM PDT by SkyDancer (You know they invented wheelbarrows to teach FAA inspectors to walk on their hind legs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Because they are leftists and work for Obama I can see why people would assume they are doing that.


3 posted on 07/02/2011 9:29:55 AM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Tony the Tiger has done more for this country than any politician or bureaucrat has done.


4 posted on 07/02/2011 9:31:18 AM PDT by donhunt (I am sick and tired of those bastards insulting and lying to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
The group’s report says that by the year 2016, “all food products within the categories most heavily marketed directly to children should meet two basic nutrition principles. Such foods should be formulated to: (A) make a meaningful contribution to a healthful diet; and (B) minimize the content of nutrients that could have a negative impact on health and weight.”

No food can make a "meaningful contribution to a healthful diet" if kids don't want to eat it.

5 posted on 07/02/2011 9:33:17 AM PDT by freespirited (Stupid people are ruining America. --Herman Cain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Just Grrreat!


6 posted on 07/02/2011 9:38:55 AM PDT by mikrofon (Cereal Killers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Is there any proof whatsoever that marketing foods *some* people don’t think kids should eat in any way contributes to obesity or other health problems?

Even if there were, is it really anyone’s business outside of the family how and what those kids eat?

The myriad ways in which liberals are trying to control lives are astounding. Did the dictators of the Soviet Union take this much interest in running the day to day lives of their subjects?


7 posted on 07/02/2011 9:45:40 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

At the rate we’re going there will soon be a “government bureaucrat” in each aisle handing out “approved” literature and directing us to the “government recommended” health foods.


8 posted on 07/02/2011 9:46:29 AM PDT by radioone (How Can an Obscure Guy Who Did Diddly Squat in the Senate Become President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Just change Tony`s little neckerchief from red to pink, then Kelloggs can say getting rid of him would be a hate crime. Make Toucan Sam an angry lesbian bird in a committed relationship with the Swiss Miss chick. Problem solved.


9 posted on 07/02/2011 9:49:16 AM PDT by Darkwolf377 (``Stupidity is also a gift of God, but one mustn't misuse it``-Pope John Paul II)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mikrofon

How many more jobs will this increase in the regulatory environment destroy?


10 posted on 07/02/2011 9:57:06 AM PDT by Judith Anne ( Holy Mary, Mother of God, please pray for us sinners now, and at the hour of our death.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
After many years of interpreting the First Amendment and deciding whether or not something was commercial speech, or religious speech, or private speech, or religious speech, or "foreign" speech ~ I think I know the answer ~ YUP, it violates the First Amendment. However, the courts have always provided an exception for "commercial speech". It can be regulated, but only regarding truthfulness. Everybody else can lie through their teeth because it's protected "opinion". Assertions of performance about a product, service or other commercial element can and are regulated under that doctrine.

Justice Thomas and I seem to be the only two people in the country who think it's BS ~ the market place quickly tosses out those who lie too much about their products, and politicians get to lie all the time.

So, what we have currently is a situation where Tony The Tiger can be regulated regarding what he says about cereal, and if it's truthful, that's OK. This proposal, though, is not about truthful statements concerning products ~ it's about the nature of the product itself, and the regulators want us to believe that it is BAD and UNHEALTHFUL and DANGEROUS ~

Current law doesn't allow you to regulate truthful speech just because the item being advertised is bad for you. After all, some things are OK for most people, but not all.

The FTC, et al (all the usual running dog lackeys) will need to go to Congress to get enabling legislation for this (not likely), and even if they had it they'd have to run it by the Supreme Court. It's not likely the Supreme Court is going to be able to change current law. The Leftwingtards would fear change; the Republicans will stand by protecting the rights of commercial enterprise to advertise, and Judge Thomas would vote to remove ALL speech restrictions.

That'd leave the vote 8 to 1.

11 posted on 07/02/2011 10:04:44 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne

In Communism all brands are Generic and there is no advertising needed.


12 posted on 07/02/2011 10:07:03 AM PDT by screaminsunshine (Socialism...Easier said than done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: freespirited
I'll guarantee that not a single member of that "group" has or even knows someone with Celiac/Wheat Gluten Intolerance, or Lactose Intolerance.

If they want foods heavily marketed to children (bread, cereal, twinkies) to make a meaningful contribution to a healthful diet and minimize content that could have a negative impact, they'll need to prohibit the marketing of bread, cereal and other grain products containing wheat, barley or rye, AND anything with dairy or dairy byproduct! That would include, BTW, MILK.

It's an insane ambition not practicable in the United States today, or in the future.

This sort of nonsense makes me doubt the educational credentials of the people who inhabit such "groups".

13 posted on 07/02/2011 10:11:11 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Vladeck stressed that the guidelines would not violate the First Amendment, as critics charged.

Translation: The US Constitution is an archaic anachronism that we can disregard at will.

14 posted on 07/02/2011 10:20:35 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." - Bertrand de Jouvenel des Ursins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: donhunt

***Tony the Tiger has done more for this country than any politician or bureaucrat has done.***

Yep! And I used to get good gas milage with a tiger in my tank!


15 posted on 07/02/2011 10:24:42 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Click my name. See my home page, if you dare! NEW PHOTOS!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

A tracking number of 00243 has been assigned on: 7/2/2011 1:13:12 PM. Please print this page for your records. (GMT offset: 240) ~ go to https://ftcpublic.commentworks.com/ftc/foodmarketedtochildreniwg/Default.aspx to post your comment. If I’m only #243, you can be #244, 245, etc. FREEP THIS PROPOSAL


16 posted on 07/02/2011 10:30:15 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Democrats are schizophrenic about the authority issue. They always accuse conservatives of being authoritarian, but no conservative supports the endless list of government mandates and prohibitions advocated by liberals. Here in Seattle, for example, you need the city government’s permission to cut down a tree on your own property.


17 posted on 07/02/2011 11:43:50 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver

Don’t “F” with the Tiger. If anybody does, America will really hate them.


18 posted on 07/02/2011 12:19:05 PM PDT by Lockbar (March toward the sound of the guns.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sub-Driver
Liberals are really anti-fun.

Anything that brings a chuckle, a laugh, a smile or quiet contentment is something that they try to wipe out.

The only thing like like are sneers and bitter mockery of things they could never create. They have even sucked all the fun out of sex. Yes, they want you to mindlessly hump everything you can but there is no fun in it.

What a joyless bunch!

19 posted on 07/02/2011 12:29:34 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Non plaudite. Modo pecuniam jacite)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SkyDancer

In loco nanniensis.

The folks in government want more than anything to take charge of everything in order to make over the nation in their own image; it’s a form of regressed perpetual adolescence.


20 posted on 07/02/2011 12:31:53 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson