Publishings Digital Youth

Today, the FTC announced plans to review the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) rules. CDD and allies successfully campaigned to have the law's rules expanded in 2012, to ensure that the privacy of children 12 and under was better protected in today's "Big Data" driven cross-device environment. But it's too late for the FTC to make modest changes to how it implements the 1998 law. The commission has failed to effectively enforce the law for years--both Republicans and Democrats are at fault here. For example, the commission has long known that Google was deliberately ignoring COPPA, in order to build its YouTube service as the leading child-directed site. But it did nothing. Under a bill proposed by Sens. Edward J. Markey and Josh Hawley, the FTC would be required to proactively ensure that children's data is better protected, and that there are serious safeguards when marketing to them. It's time for the FTC to come out in support of that bill.

"The Trump FCC just gave some of the country’s most powerful media companies a huge taxpayer-funded gift. By weakening a key safeguard requiring companies such as Comcast/NBC, News Corp./Fox, Disney/ABC, and Sinclair to air on their broadcast TV stations a few hours of educational programming for children, the FCC has placed the interests of the already rich and powerful over the needs of children and families. "Now these giant media companies get a huge public taxpayer hand-out in terms of free access to the airwaves (spectrum), as well as guaranteed access to cable TV systems, without any serious public-interest obligations. The FCC has given the TV industry a huge benefit, without getting anything in return. "Congress must step in and enact a new law that requires TV stations, cable systems and streaming video providers to offer a wide range of quality content for children. Such programming should be free—and not behind paywalls. In the meantime, today’s decision by the FCC will be remembered as one in which the commission's three GOP members embodied the worst qualities of Dickens’ Ebenezer Scrooge." statement of Jeff Chester, executive director, Center for Digital Democracy. CDD’s predecessor group Center for Media Education led the campaign in the early the 1990’s that led to the Children’s Television Act rules that were weakened today. It did the report in the early 1990’s that revealed TV stations claimed that shows like The Jetsons and The Flintstones were allegedly educational: https://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/30/us/broadcasters-to-satisfy-law-define-cartoons-as-education.html?searchResultPosition=13 (link is external)

Around the world citizens (link is external) and governments (link is external) are putting efforts toward limiting the marketing of unhealthy foods to children in order to address the growing obesity (link is external) epidemic worldwide. In the US, Congress and the Federal Trade Commission rely on weak self-regulatory industry standards, but under Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the government of Canada wishes to see restrictions placed on the marketing of food and beverages to children. This was a goal written directly into the Health Minister's mandate letter (link is external) signed by Trudeau in October 2017. As a result, Health Canada, the department of the Canadian government with responsibility for national public health, is considering new regulations that would impose broader restrictions on food advertising that is targeted at those under 17. It could cover everything from TV, online and print advertising to product labelling, in-store displays and even end some sponsorships for sports teams. Health Canada's consultations (link is external) on how it should approach restricting advertising of "unhealthy food and beverages" to kids began in June of 2017 and concluded in early August last year. Although a few contributors opposed any attempt to restrict marketing to children, the summary report (link is external) states that "Overall, the proposed approach and supporting evidence for restricting marketing of unhealthy food and beverages to children were well received." The authors of the report point out that the "issue of age was not an area of inquiry," but most contributors supported the idea of including children between 13 and 17 years of age. Aiming to define "unhealthy foods," the consultation proposed to focus on restricting certain nutrients of concern (sodium, sugars, and saturated fats), and most commentators supported setting the stricter threshold option (of 5% ) for the proposed restrictions, which were based on a percentage of daily values (% DV). Commentators strongly preferred that option over the weaker proposal (15% DV). Using the percentage of daily values to define which foods are "healthy" or "unhealthy" relies on the already existing mandatory food labelling for most relevant foods. In addition to the proposal to restrict certain nutrients of concern, the proposed restrictions to the marketing of non-sugar sweeteners to children was also positively received. For the consultation, Health Canada looked at the Quebec ban (link is external) on advertising to children, which has been in place since 1980, and covers any advertising, not just food-related advertising. In that province, companies cannot market unhealthy food to children under 13 years old. Quebec has the lowest obesity rate (link is external) in Canada among children aged six to 11 and the highest rate of fruit and vegetable consumption. The Stop Marketing to Kids Coalition (link is external) (M2K Coalition), which includes the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Childhood Obesity Foundation, the Canadian Cancer Society, Diabetes Canada, Dietitians of Canada, and the Quebec Coalition on Weight-Related Problems, supports the so-called Ottawa Principles (link is external). These evidence-based, expert-informed and collaboratively arrived principles call on governments to restrict the commercial marketing of all food and beverages to children and youth age 16 years and younger. Restrictions would include all forms of marketing with the exception of non-commercial marketing for public education. The M2K Coalition has taken this stance because of the complexities associated with defining healthy versus unhealthy food. The ad industry in Canada has some self-regulatory restrictions in place under the Canadian Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (link is external). That program, in which many major food companies are participants, sets out nutrition criteria for products that can be advertised in environments where kids under 12 make up 35 percent or more of the audience. The Association of Canadian Advertisers has criticized Health Canada's proposal as "significantly overbroad," calling it an "outright ban on most food and beverage marketing in Canada." The Canadian advertising initiative has tightened its criteria over time and is now monitoring online advertising more closely. 2016 was the first full year in which participating companies that advertise to kids had to ensure their products met new, tighter limits (link is external) on calories, sugar, sodium and saturated and trans fats. However, in 2017, a study (link is external) from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada called into question how effective this effort has been. It looked at the most popular websites visited by children and teens, and found ads for products high in sugar, salt or fat. During the time that the Canadian government began to explore the right approach to restricting the marketing of unhealthy foods to children, Senator Nancy Greene-Raine introduced a private members bill in the Senate in the fall of 2016, seeking to amend the Food and Drugs Act to prohibit the marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages to children (Bill S-228). This would put the activities of Health Canada on a legal basis. The Senator amended the bill to reflect the federal government’s proposed approach on raising the age limit to age 16 and under and kept the focus on “unhealthy” food and beverages. Bill S-228, The Child Health Protection Act (link is external), unanimously passed the Senate in September 2017. Two amendments to the bill were introduced during the first hour of debate in the House of Commons in December 2017, which included a reduction in the age of protection to under 13 (from 17) years, and the introduction of a 5-year post-legislation review period. The rationale for the change in the age amendment was to make the bill more likely to withstand a court challenge, given that the Quebec legislation restricting marketing to children under 13 years withstood a legal challenge in the case of Irwin Toy v Quebec (1989). In this case, the Supreme Court of Canada allowed limits on commercial advertising to children under 13 as constitutionally valid. The Court confirmed that "...advertising directed at young children is per se manipulative." (link is external) And so, while the Court found that the restrictions violated the freedom of expression under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a majority of the Court considered this violation to be a justifiable limitation necessary to protect children. For now, the bill is working its way through Parliament. Hopefully, the food industry will not further water down the requirements of the bill. If all goes well, our neighbor to the north will have a law in place by September 2018 that will advance public health and put children's health above the profits of the food industry. --- See attached infographic.