Home › Business › Business
U.S. obesity ads called too soft
Critics say new TV spots are 'namby-pamby'
Carlos Osorio / AP The public service ads sidestep what some call the real problem: high-calorie foods.
ATLANTA — Drunks swimming in gin, smokers in body bags and dopers living with their parents deep into adulthood. Those are among the public service ads shown in the past.
But the government's new batch of obesity spots declines even to show a fat person, let alone wag a finger for gluttony or sloth.
No one is advocating public service announcements that ridicule fat people; experts say such spots would do more harm than good.
But critics complain that the three new spots premiering this month are a wimpy attack on the costly and deadly explosion of obesity in America.
"It's so namby-pamby I think people will shrug it off," said Michael Jacobson of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington-based advocacy organization.
The three new spots are the latest in a series created by the Ad Council and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which try to tackle the nation's obesity problem with ads that encourage healthy snacking and taking the stairs.
Creators of the "Small Steps" campaign, funded by the government at more than $1.5 million a year, cite survey data for 467 adults that show those who saw the ads did more walking and adopted other healthy habits than those who didn't see the ads.
But critics say such a survey is hardly proof of success, and the nation's fat problem is clearly getting worse — more than one in three U.S. children is overweight or obese, and two in three adults are.
"I think Small Steps' is a euphemism for small vision," said Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University's Center for Eating and Weight Disorders.
The "Small Steps" campaign began in 2004. It was created for free by McCann Erickson New York, the ad agency that created the MasterCard "Priceless" campaign. Six TV spots have aired so far, all professionally produced and humorous, highlighting tips to healthier living.
This month, three more spots joined the rotation, along with a multimedia campaign focusing on exercise. The new anti-obesity TV spots show trim or slightly pudgy people noticing blobs of fat on a hotel room floor or in a theater. They comment that someone must have lost it by eating healthy snacks.
Overweight and overwhelmed
The spots' creators say they learned in focus groups that many people are intimidated — hopeless, even — about the sustained changes needed to slim down.
"So many people, when they think about losing weight, see it as a Sisyphean task — I have to lose weight but I can't fit it into my busy schedule,' " said Peggy Conlon, president of the Ad Council.
The ads offer easily achievable tips that empower people to make positive changes, she added.
The ads targeting smoking aren't as tame. A recent one by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene shows smokers' decayed and tumored bodies.
Young viewers pay more attention to ads that evoke feelings of personal loss, sadness, anger, disgust or fear, according to an analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Kids also tend to remember such ads longer.
That drama is lacking in the obesity spots — for example, none have offered a surgeon's view of fat, or dramatized a death from Type 2 diabetes, or shown a person complaining about how a fat neighbor's medical bills are costing taxpayers.
In the past, the vegan advocacy group, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, has taken a somewhat confrontational approach.
Highlighting the problem
In 2005, the group put out a spot in which doctors yank a pizza and jumbo-sized soda away from an intently eating fat boy and toss him an apple. They put out another in which the same doctors haul away fatty foods from a restaurant called Chubby's.
The group has no data on whether the ads are working, but the government ads "don't address the obesity problem in a vivid enough way to get people's attention," said Patrick Sullivan, the group's communications director.
That raises a second complaint with the government's campaign: It sidesteps what some feel are the real causes of the obesity epidemic, the abundance of cheap and large portions of sugary and high-calorie foods.
"The U.S. government doesn't have the guts to go after junk-food producers," Jacobson said.
Tied in with the "Small Steps" campaign, the Ad Council and federal Health Department are part of the Coalition for Healthy Children, whose members include Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, the Hershey Co. and the National Confectioners Association. Critics say the partnership suggests a conflict of interest that might dissuade efforts to discourage soft drinks or candy bars.
Food and soda companies did not alter what was said in spots, said Ellyn Fisher, an Ad Council spokeswoman. The content was shaped by advertising research, which concluded the spots were humorous and motivating, she said.
On the Net:
Small Steps campaign: www.smallstep.gov
Center for Science in the Public Interest: www.cspinet.org
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine:
www.pcrm.org/news/psas/tv.html






Posted by AnnieMcPhee on March 13, 2008 at 5:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Fascinating. So you don't allow comments that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability...but you DO allow your articles to disparage people on the basis of their weight. You even go so far as to allow them to characterize all fat people as slothful gluttons. Wow.
You know, there are so many things *wrong* with this article that I don't even know where to begin, and to be quite honest I don't have time right now as I'm on break at my job. Where I work 60 hours or so a week many times. Because I'm, you know, so slothful and gluttonous.
If you're looking for some really nasty ads akin to the smoking ones but aimed at fat people, try the ones they put out in England - one shows a fat man with sticks of butter strapped around his belly to look like a suicide bomber and is captioned "Obesity is Suicide." Another shows a fat man hung from a noose of sausages (looking every bit dead and blue) with the same caption. A third shows a fat girl lying on the floor with a pill bottle and M&Ms spilled all over from it. Same caption. You know who put out those ads? Bariatric surgeons. You know, the ones who are killing people and causing mass malnutrition so bad that they have to build entire hospital wings to house the disasters they create? Yeah, those. Try those ads. They are more what you seem to be looking for.
Disgusting.
Posted by ArnoldZiffel on March 13, 2008 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I'm glad to see that this issue is getting a greater focus. My company has taken a positive approach already by eliminating the food machines and implementing voluntary exercise periods during the workday. Its been welcomed and gets a large majority of co-workers participating. I didn't realize just how bad the situation was until I recently visited Disneyland after not having been there for at least 10 years. I was astounded to see the crowd of obese park patrons in numbers that shocked me. I was also surprised to find out that "It's A Small World" is currently being refurbished to accomodate the overall increase in weight of the general public. If that's not an indicator of obesity crisis, I don't know what is.
Posted by AnnieMcPhee on March 24, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, good to see fat *finally* being focused on. Like it hasn't been the focus of a billions-of-dollars industry for dozens of years. Like pharmaceutical companies don't make billions, along with weight-watchers, like there aren't campaigns focused constantly on fat people, like the US hasn't literally "declared war on obesity." Like people aren't denied emigration status to entire *countries* because of fat (New Zealand) and like children in the US and Scotland aren't being removed from their parents if they're fat. And bariatric surgeons are there to kill you for 10 or 30 grand if the fat doesn't. Uh-huh, fat people haven't ever been targeted before. Guess you must be thin or you'd know it's focused on.
Great idea getting rid of all the food machines - hope you don't have any hypoglycemics or diabetics who might occasionally need something instantly so they don't go into shock. If they forget to bring something they may be in trouble eh? I also wonder how "voluntary" the exercise periods are and how much fat people are shamed if they choose not to participate.
I wonder when we'll STOP being the focus of hatred by companies and governments and start being accepted as human beings. That sure would be a switch.
Posted by ArnoldZiffel on April 7, 2008 at 8:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, I think if someone is a hypoglycemic, they will be responsible enough to bring whatever they need for themselves rather than rely on their employer to provide snacks which, by the way, typically are composed of rather unhealthy ingrediants anyway. As of last week, the entire company participates in the daily exercise break, an event everyone seems to look forward to. I'm not sure where you're from, but it may be a west coast thing. I'm surprised at your anger.
(Requires free registration.)
Comments on this site are to be used for the discussion and/or debate of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Comments should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We don't allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete comments and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.