• by Karlene Lukovitz  @KLmarketdaily, September 30, 2011

An Obama administration letter to House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) has given the food industry cause to believe that the administration is softening its stance on proposed, voluntary nutritional guidelines for marketing food and beverages to children 17 and under.

The letter, from the top officials of the Federal Trade Commission, Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and Human Services, stated that the Interagency Working Group (IWG) that issued the draft guidelines proposal on April 28 "is carefully considering" the public comments since received and "anticipates making significant changes to both the marketing and nutrition principles as it develops final recommendations as required by Congress."

The letter also references the food industry's new voluntary, self-regulatory nutrition standards, announced in July by the Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI), and states that this effort "complements the goals of the IWG, and we intend to take this significant development into account, as well as other stakeholder comments, when developing our final recommendations."

As originally reported by The Hill, the letter was in response to a letter from Upton and HEC subcommittee members charging that the IWG had failed to follow Congress's instructions by issuing its proposed guidelines without first conducting a study.

"The Nutrition Principles, produced without the benefit of the study that was to inform IWG's recommendations, are little better than a shot in the dark," wrote Upton. "Significantly, the IWG offers no scientific support for the notion that restricting advertising will actually help reduce childhood obesity. In its most recent study, the Institute of Medicine found that 'current evidence is not sufficient' to demonstrate a casual relationship between television advertising and obesity... The real causes of childhood obesity have more to do with inadequate physical activity and excess calorie consumption than with the advertising and packaging of food."

Citing the IWG's acknowledgement that "a large percentage of food products currently in the marketplace" would not comply with the proposed nutrition guidelines, Upton reiterated the food industry's contentions that implementation of IWG's proposal "would have an enormous, immediate impact, and the IWG has no idea whether it is actually possible to make foods that would qualify, much less to make them enjoyable to eat."

Upton also cited opponents' contentions that the IWG's definition of marketing goes far beyond addressing food advertising to children, and would effectively "ban" advertising of noncomplying foods on television "even when adults are known to make up the vast majority (70-80%) of viewers," as well as require changes in packaging, in-store promotions and other marketing.

Calling the proposed guidelines "voluntary" ignores that "in the real world, there will be many forces at work driving compliance, particularly for brand-conscious companies that try to be responsible," Upton wrote.

The letter asked that the IWG withdraw its proposal, conduct a study and make recommendations to Congress based on "sound science," as well as an evaluation of the benefits and costs of the different approaches that Congress could take. It also asked that the agencies that make up the IWG answer a series of questions about the evidence behind its proposals, its assessment of economic impacts, various practical implementation considerations and other matters.

In their letter to Upton, the federal agency officials noted that the IWG "conducted a thorough review of nutrition science and policy, food marketing activities to children, and various industry and government models for the nutritional quality of foods marketed to children."

The latest developments immediately triggered responses from groups on both sides of the issue.

In a letter to President Obama, 75 physicians, psychologists, nutritionists and marketing experts from universities around the country urged the President to ensure that the IWG completes its work and finalizes the guidelines.

Their letter termed the CFBAI's nutrition standards a "gambit to fend off the government's proposed voluntary standards," and charged that the industry's standards are "weak" and would allow for continued marketing of "junk foods" to children.

It also stated that CFBAI's efforts to date have resulted in only "modest" reductions in unhealthy food marketing to children." In 2009, "with the industry's self-regulatory program in effect, 86% of food ads seen by children featured products high in saturated fat, sugar or sodium, down from 94% in 2003 (before self-regulation)," the letter stressed.

In a separate statement, Margo G. Wootan, nutrition director at the nonprofit nutrition watchdog organization Center for Science in the Public Interest, maintained that "denying the science on food marketing and childhood obesity is like denying the science on global warming or evolution, and the Administration should not retreat in the face of the baseless arguments of food-industry lobbyists. If marketing to children isn't effective, why does the industry spend $2 billion a year on it?"

The food industry's Sensible Food Policy Coalition issued a statement saying that IWG's acknowledgement that there need to be substantial changes in its proposed nutrition standards is a "major admission," and that it's also "significant" that IWG recognizes that the food/beverage industry, through CFBAI, has "made significant progress."

However, SFPC added that "the fact remains that Chairman Upton's questions -- and the questions of 149 other Senators and Congressmen -- remain unanswered by the IWG. It is premature to speculate on the IWG's final report without this critical information."

Dan Jaffe, EVP of government relations for the Association of National Advertisers and a spokesperson for SFPC, similarly commented to The Hill that the coalition will need to see the specific modifications proposed by IWG before it can either endorse or reject them.

CSPI's Wootan, meanwhile, said that IWG's proposal is based on "science and what's best for kids," while the food industry's standards are "best for industry."

"This is Washington, I expect the final marketing guidelines will be somewhere in the middle," Wootan added.