Attack of the Killer Oreos?

Not long before the presidential election, the Wall Street Journal editorial page warned its readers about what it called the attack of the killer Oreos. You have to admit it's a pretty sensational image -- of an Oreo silently stalking its prey, leaping upon an unsuspecting consumer. In fact, this is exactly the kind of image Journal editorialists wanted people to think about when voting in November. "One of the things at stake in this election," the Journal reminded us, "is who will run agencies like the FCC, which have enormous discretionary power." And an Obama administration, we were warned, will interfere with companies' abilities to market their products to us, and our children.

If the current economic crisis has taught us anything, it is that unfettered markets are not the godsend that libertarians would have us believe. Our current economic mess is due, in no small part, to deregulation gone wild.

It is no surprise that the Wall Street Journal opposes the idea of regulating advertisement of junk food to kids. So even as companies find more ways to saturate our brains with images of their products -- paying TV shows to incorporate their products into plot lines for example -- free market evangelists remain unconcerned. As our children become increasingly obese with each passing year, these people can't understand why some of us would like to protect our children from things like junk food advertising.

Behind the Journal's view is a belief that humans are immune to any negative consequences of advertising:

Viewers already understand exactly what's going on when a TV character flaunts a name brand," they opined, "and that awareness is the best defense against whatever 'manipulation' is going on."

In making this statement, Journal editorialists are flaunting their ignorance of human nature. As a physician, I have spent my clinical time caring for patients -- smokers, overeaters, under-exercisers -- who have been harmed by many of the products that these kind of libertarians would want us to free from regulation. As a behavioral scientist, I have studied how easy it can be to unconsciously influence people's behavior. As the father of 8 and 10 year-old boys, I have yearned for a government that is willing to step in, when necessary, to protect my kids from the harmfulness of our excessive consumerism.

We live in a market-oriented economy. But a sensible society will recognize when the market needs to be reigned in.

Peter Ubel is Professor of Medicine at the University of Michigan and author of Free Market Madness: Why Economics is at Odds with Human Nature--and Why it Matters (Harvard Business Press, January 2009). To learn more, visit http://www.peterubel.com/

Comments

[willclower]

I understand regulation of cigarette ads to children, because nicotene is addictive and tobacco is lethal ... a terrible combination that mystifies anyone who asks, "and WHY is a lethal addictive carcinogen on the market at all?"

But having AN Oreo is not awful. Having several sleeves of them every day is. And this is the difference between the two cases. One is "quantitative" and the other is "qualitative".

The cigarette case is Qualitative. In other words, there is something uniquely bad about them. Junk foods are only Quantitatively bad. In other words, it's not deadly in itself, until you eat so much of them that they become that way. They become bad with greater quantity.

Because of this, we need to exercise restraint when trying to police what our kids watch, because eating too much chocolate is BAD for you. But a little is very heart healthy. Eggs are healthy for us, until we eat a dozen-egg omelet. Same with cheese, same with butter, same with carb-laden "white foods".

As parents, this is where we need to talk to our kids about food choices. As a society, this is where we need to talk to parents about talking to their kids.

In this case, we need to focus on responsibility, not abstenence.

[RightWingMarine]

yearn for a govt to step in to protect your kids from advertisements? Where are the parents in this? Why can't parents decide what their kids will and will not watch and help them understand the ads? I'm not interested in having the govt try and be a parent to my child, that's my job. When has the govt ever taken on a task and managed it sucessfuly? And you suggest giving direct influence over our children to that monstrosity?

[propitiousmoment]

Because the ads are ubiquitous, while parents are bound by the constraints of being in only one place at one time. You can't control everything your kid sees in the course of a day, and if it's harmful - which it is - there needs to be thoughtful regulation.