Do I Love or Hate the CSPI? It’s a Little of Both, Actually

Posted By elissa on Dec 2, 2009 | 2 comments

As the title implies, I have some pretty mixed feelings about the Center for Science in the Public Interest. 

I love the organization for the way it exposes corporate bad behavior.  The CSPI’s recent press release about Nickelodeon is a case in point:

WASHINGTON—Despite its public statements and pledges to help combat childhood obesity, the overwhelming majority of foods marketed by the children’s media giant Nickelodeon are of poor nutritional quality, according to an analysis conducted by the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest.

…CSPI reviewed 28 hours of children’s television programming on Nickelodeon, during which 819 commercials and public service announcements were shown. Of the 185 food ads, 177 had nutrition information available, and 138, or 78 percent, of those were for foods of poor nutritional quality, including Apple Jacks, Cookie Crisp cereal, Airhead candy, artificial fruit-flavored snacks, and Chuck E. Cheese’s, where 89 percent of its menu items are nutritionally poor. Some of the healthier foods advertised included yogurts and pasta.

Similarly, 77 percent, or 24 of 31 food ads published in Nickelodeon magazine were for junk foods like SweetTarts, Gummy Bugs, Laffy Taffy, Yogos Bits, or Burger King meals. During the study period, three fast-food restaurants were running tie-ins with Viacom, Nickelodeon’s corporate parent: McDonald’s with The Spiderwick Chronicles, Subway with The Naked Brothers Band, and Chuck E. Cheese’s with Bee Movie.

I have to hand it to the CSPI: nobody does it better. Just looking at that list makes me kinda queasy… so much of the stuff marketed to kids is uniformly awful.  Nickelodeon deserves to have its corporate toes held to the fire.

So far so good… but the Nickelodeon example also neatly illustrates why I sometimes hate the CSPI.  They’re great when it comes to identifying problems, but not-so-great on the solution side of things. Basically, the organization’s response to every issue can be distilled down to “consumers are too stupid to breathe, so we need more laws to protect them.”  In this case, the CSPI would like its  Guidelines for Responsible Food Marketing to Children to be adopted and enforced.

And this is where the trouble begins… while many of the guidelines are (surprisingly) reasonable, this one sent my blood pressure soaring:

When marketing foods to children, companies should:

Support parents’ efforts to serve as the gatekeepers of sound nutrition for their children and not undermine parental authority. Marketers should not encourage children to nag their parents to buy low-nutrition foods.

Ummm… ‘scuse me?

This is ludicrous as, a) it’s unenforceable; and b) it presumes a parenting style similar to the one portrayed in this ad:

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nojWJ6-XmeQ]

Ultimately, more parents need to step up to the plate (no pun intended) and supervise their kids’ nutritional choices, but it’s not likely to happen until they pay better attention to their own.  I seriously doubt that most of ’em are grabbing their ankles so their kids’ won’t nag them.  They don’t need Federal laws to help them say “no” to whiny children.

Sheesh!

See what I mean?  It’s almost as if the CSPIers can’t help themselves.  As noted above, I love a lot of the work they do, but hate their tendency to advocate hyper-regulation as the solution to the problems they identify.  I respect their passion and commitment, but wish they’d respect consumers a bit more in return.