• by Joe Mandese  @mp_joemandese, March 3, 2004

Citing both the First Amendment, as well as a potentially constricting affect on children's television programming, Bob Liodice, president-CEO of the Association of National Advertisers Tuesday called on lawmakers to let common sense "prevail" during their review of the impact of food advertising on childhood obesity.

"Ad ands most certainly would curtail if not end children's broadcasting on free television and ad-supported cable," he warned during testimony the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Competition, Infrastructure, and Foreign Commerce of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, which convened a hearing on the issue Tuesday.

The hearing follows several noteworthy studies linking advertising by food marketers aimed at children as a significant contributing factor influencing poor diets and childhood obesity that has raised public pressure for laws or regulations that would restrict food advertising aimed at children. Coincidentally, food is expected to emerge as the top advertising category aimed at children this year in terms of dollar volume on TV.

As part of his appeal to let the ad industry's self-regulating policies stand, Liodice noted Madison Avenue's compliance with its own Children's Advertising Review Unit, as well as the industry's pro bono public service advertising efforts aimed at educating children on health and nutrition issues.

"Our self-regulatory system is an active cop on the beat," he said, adding, "working to see that all marketing aimed at children is appropriate."

Beyond the industry's own efforts, Liodice noted that a second "level of protection" already exists via the Federal Trade Commission, which regularly reviews advertising claims made to consumers of all ages. Recent research has suggested that consumers under the age of eight do not have the cognitive ability to discern the truthfulness of advertising claims.

In his final analysis, Liodice asked the legislators to resist new government restrictions or bands on advertising to children, because of their First Amendment implications, and because, "they simply won't solve the problem."