Today I have the privilege of joining a panel presentation for a group of Walden University doctoral students. Walden is the oldest accredited online university and the academic offices are located right here in Minneapolis. The students, staff, and faculty are meeting on the U of M campus for their summer residency.

If you came to the session today and you’d like more information about Parents for Ethical Marketing, you can read this post or explore the website. If you’d like to stay in touch, sign up for our monthly newsletter and action alerts.

Here are the posts that I discussed today:

Children’s hospital naming rights go to . . . Abercrombie & Fitch?
BuzzFeed
A thousands words (Hooters toddler t-shirt)
Little girls gone wild (Review of The Lolita Effect at Salon.com)
Target Corporation assumes feminism is dead; dismisses bloggers
Target tells a blogger to go away (New York Times)
Quick Hit: Let P&G Know What You Think of Their Website for Girls (Shapely Prose)
Call for action: Site for adolescent teens promotes eating disorders (The F-Word)
Beinggirl.com promotes eating-disordered behavior, isn’t so safe or credible

If you’d like to learn more about blogging, social media, and nonprofits, be sure to check out Beth’s Blog: How Nonprofits Can Use Social Media.

Questions? Ask in the comments or drop me a note at lisa (at) parentsforethicalmarketing (dot) org.

A commenter over at the Strib editorial on the Red Bull Illume Exhibit says that someone (a biker?) took a sledge hammer to one of the cubes — can anyone confirm?

Guest blogger Katie Rojas-Jahn is the program assistant for the Food and Health program at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and for the Healthy Legacy Coalition.

With so many products available to consumers today, how do we know that what we’re buying is safe? Most of us assume that products have been tested by someone, somewhere along the way, to make sure they won’t cause us harm.

Unfortunately, that’s not the case for many of the consumer products on the shelf today. 

The reason is that most chemicals used in consumer goods don’t have to be tested for their safety and the federal government is often unwilling or unable to take action to prevent harm before it happens.

The 2008 legislative session provided an important opportunity to address product safety at the Minnesota Legislature. More than two-thirds of the legislature supported a bill that would have made homes across the state a little bit safer.

But as it turns out, eliminating toxic chemicals from consumer products was not a high priority on the list for Governor Tim Pawlenty, who, despite strong bi-partisan support, vetoed the bill once it reached his desk.

The Public Health Omnibus bill (SF651) contained two provisions important to protecting children’s health. The bill would have phased out phthalates, a hormone-disrupting chemical contained in PVC plastic and countless other children’s products: rubber duckies, vinyl bibs, teething rings, and more. The second provision would have eliminated a toxic flame retardant, known as “deca,” from home electronics, mattresses, and textiles.

Both of these chemicals can be harmful to health, especially to children.

Phthalates are known hormone disrupters and have been linked to adverse health effects, including reproductive problems, the early onset of puberty in girls, and disruption to the male reproductive tract.

Deca is a developmental neurotoxin that is chemically similar to another group of harmful chemicals banned in the 1970s: PCBs. Exposure to deca in low doses has been linked to brain, liver and thyroid damage as well as hormone disruption.

Who would have thought that phasing out chemicals that can cause adverse effects would be such a challenge? Representatives from the American Chemistry Council, the Toy Industry Association, and the Bromine Science and Environmental Forum — all representing large chemical and manufacturing companies — were a continuous presence at hearings for the Minnesota bill to make sure that it was.

In fact, the opposition lobby was so strong that the bill’s phthalates phase-out originally included the chemical bisphenol-A (BPA), another hormone disruptor found in baby bottles and sippy cups.  Despite overwhelming public support, BPA was later stricken from the bill in hopes of making it more palatable for the Governor Pawlenty.

The chemical industry took on the same tactics as the tobacco companies did in the 1990s: they created a sense of “manufactured uncertainty” around the science. In other words, they made their own science, didn’t have it reviewed by other scientists, and guess what? Their science shows no health effects from exposure to these chemicals.

Read the rest of this entry »

Target, and Lauredhel’s Toy-Catalogue Annex of the Bechdel Test:

I finally got around to reading the bumper Target Toy Sale catalogue.

And it’s just as pinkly sickening as you’d expect.

Taking a Stand on Ronald McDonald at Preschool:

Dear Director,

My son will not be attending school next Monday because of the scheduled visit of Ronald McDonald. 

Which?:  Food companies ‘bamboozle’ children with marketing for junk food:

We’re not against treats and we’re not against marketing, but we are against irresponsible company practices and hollow company commitments.

Next week: watch for an appearance by Parents for Ethical Marketing on a podcast produced by The Guardian.

From MomsRising.org:

Right now, a House/Senate Conference Committee is meeting to finalize the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act (CPSC) Act which will strengthen our nation’s protections against toxic toys.  We have a critical window in the next two weeks to add the Feinstein Amendment to the CPSC, restricting the use of six toxic phthalates in children’s toys. . . . 

Our concerns are justified: Hundreds of independent, peer-reviewed scientific studies that have been generated since the 1970s link phthalate exposure to serious health effects including reduced testosterone levels, lowered sperm counts, early puberty in girls, and genital defects in baby boys. . . .  

The Feinstein Senate amendment would prohibit the manufacture, sale and distribution of children’s products that contain phthalates and protect laws enacted by the states to more strictly regulate phthalates in toys and other product categories.  The European Union and 14 other countries have already passed similar phthalate bans as have California, Washington and Vermont. . . .

The opposition to the phthalate ban is manufacturing doubt – just like the tobacco industry did 30 years ago — around science that has been firmly established by independent scientists who don’t have a financial stake in the outcome of their studies.  What’s more, it’s not the toy industry or retailers that are lobbying the hardest against this important children’s health measure:  It’s Exxon Mobil – one of the world’s largest producers of DINP – the primary plasticizer used to make soft plastic kids toys. And it’s trade association – the American Chemistry Council.  Exxon made $40 billion in profits last year – more than any other U.S. company. 

You’d think that Exxon would step up and do what is right, but again, they do need to improve on their recent $40 billion profit. Every single voice helps. Please take a moment today to express your support for the Feinstein Amendment.

by Tiffany, Nature Moms Blog

Childhood obesity is at an all time high and kids are killing each other over the newest technical gadget or fashion craze. Are these the after effects of too much commercialism? TV is encouraging a sedentary lifestyle that is seeing our kids developing habits that foster obesity.

Not only are TV programs monopolizing our children’s attention and imagination (or what’s left of it) but the commercials are too. Even if a child eventually loses interest in a program he’s watching the commercials keep him glued with boisterous messages and music promoting products and an image of what is hip or cool today.

Commercialism is everywhere making it very hard for parents to control. Visit your nearest theater and you are bombarded by commercials for the first 20 minutes of the show. Large companies “buy” placement in the movies and television shows to make their products look cool. I suspect cigarette companies do this. Commercialism is also in our schools and in “sponsored” educational materials sometimes given to our kids. I recently read about one school system that had McDonald’s coupons on the report cards. But what if you don’t want your children to accept blindly that these institutions and products are beneficial to us? How do we keep these values from infiltrating our households?

While this may seem monumental parents can play a significant and role in keeping commercialism at bay for their kids. Here are some ideas:

Teach by example. If you resist consumerism you will be able to teach with conviction to your kids the merits of resisting consumerism.

Sew your kids clothing and teach them to sew as well. This eliminates the logos and brands issues associated with store bought clothes and it teaches kids a valuable craft. Kids might also find they have a talent for designing. At 16 years old I remember making myself a vintage gown from a 1940s war era pattern. It is gorgeous and people raved over it…there was nothing like it available at stores and I LOVED that. Don’t sew? Take classes…at your local fabric store….its never too late. Your kids could also take classes.

Try turning off the TV for a week. Then try 2 weeks. Then have a discussion about the merits of having a TV when quality news and entertainment can be obtained elsewhere. I follow and unschooling philosophy as far as TV and movies go. I don’t have restrictions or limits but yet we don’t watch that much TV…the key is to provide alternatives that are vastly more fun and entertaining. Try this TV Free Family site for ideas.

Expose kids to other media – like art/surrealist films, art exhibits, public lectures on topics that might interest them. We are BIG on art in my house. We have all the supplies I could need for just about any project. This week my oldest painted a half dozen beautiful landscapes, he made several 3-D pictures, a Mardi Gras style mask for me, and a Pinata for his Dad for father’s day. All I did was supply him with the means. I have had to cover his bedroom floor in cheap scrap carpets because the paint gets EVERYWHERE!

Read the rest of this entry »

And no, I didn’t do it. As much as I love culture jamming, I won’t participate until the kids are grown and out of the house.

The big Red Bull photography exhibit is being set up on the historical Stone Arch Bridge in Minneapolis and will open tomorrow night, July 10, at 8 p.m.

Red Bull Illume began as a quest to find the 50 best raw moments in action and adventure sports. Photography experts and esteemed photo editors from around the world served as contest judges and hand-selected 50 images from the 7,200 submissions received from photographers in over 90 countries worldwide. These astonishing images now comprise the Red Bull Illume Exhibit Tour, which honors the men and women behind the lens who have braved the planet’s harshest terrain in order to capture athletic grit and triumph. (via)

Sounds great, except that the Red Bull representative at the information booth told me that seven of the photos featured “Red Bull athletes.”  I had asked because I thought it was quite a coincidence that one of the athletes I happened to see in a photo was wearing a Red Bull cap.

Translation: There isn’t enough room for a bikes and pedestrians.
Hang on to your kids. Seriously.

I’m no fan of corporate advertising in public parks. You have to wonder who approves these projects. On June 13, Chris Stellar reported:

. . . [F]inding anyone in Minnesota with knowledge of the Red Bull Illume exhibit turned out to be more challenging than a Rubik’s cube: “Red Bull Cube” didn’t mean anything to the first dozen or so locals contacted for this article. Partly, it’s a jurisdictional problem. . . . Minneapolis city government regulates backlit signs, issues permits for events in most public rights-of-way and has an arts commission and a series of summer arts events called Minneapolis Mosaic. Then there’s the semi-autonomous Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board, which oversees use of the Stone Arch Bridge, and that appears to be where Red Bull’s arrangement to install “Illume” resides, although the staffer involved wasn’t available for comment.

Park and Rec Board Commissioner Annie Young, however, said on June 14:

I do not know a thing about this action happening (or why) on the Stone Arch Bridge.

Another commissioner, Scott Vreeland, indicates that the Park and Rec Board had approved the project, and for good reason:

. . . [Red Bull exhibit is] a revenue producing art event that will provide revenue to keep the Matthews Park ice rink open next year. . . . I have been told by hundreds of people in Seward that we absolutely need to keep the Matthews ice rink in the Seward neighborhood open next year. Where do you think the money comes from to do that?

I assumed the money comes from the budget, but I guess I was wrong.

A suspicious Minneapolis cyclist makes too many trips across the
public Stone Arch Bridge and is seen here being questioned by
security: “So, you’re just going to keep riding over thie bridge all day?”

I asked the crew setting up the exhibit where the electricity to light up the cubes would come from. A crew member told me that they thought they were connecting to their own generator, but that a “park board guy” had stopped by and was wondering if they could plug into the existing light poles.

Again, I’d assume the cost of the electricity would come from the Red Bull budget, and not from the Minneapolis city budget, but as indicated, I’ve been wrong before.

Red Bull has a history of unorthodox marketing techniques, as chronicled by New York Times Magazine columnist and blogger Rob Walker in Buying In: The Secret Dialogue Between What We Buy and Who We Are:

As Red Bull gained momentum [in the United States], marketing experts jumped on the bandwagon and tried to explain its strategy. . . . [Mark Gobe, author of Emotional Branding] identified a key to Red Bull’s success in its association with exotic and risky physical feats. “Extreme sports deliver on that need to, to . . . vibrate, in a way. Red Bull is one of the first products I’ve seen that delivers on that energy.”

. . . [Al and Laura Ries wrote] “Red Bull became a powerful brand because it is perceived as a drink that improves performance especially during times of increased stress or strain, which some people take to mean sexual performance. . . .”

Others held up Red Bull as an example of a brilliant “stealth” brand, built by “brand evangelists” who stoked a “grassroots” marketing wave — “building an image for next to nothing” . . . .

. . . [However] Red Bull was spending real money. Within a few years of its first appearance in the United States — and right around the time Red Bull was first coming to the attention of marketing watchers who would praise its supposedly low-cost image-building strategy — Brandweek reported that the company was spending $100 million a year for its American “stealth” efforts. [A company spokesperson said] “the perception that these events don’t cost much to produce is good for us. . . . We don’t want to be seen as having lots of money to spend.”

Hopefully they’ve spent enough in Minneapolis so that we can keep our little Matthews Park ice rink open this winter. We all want our kids to have a good place to practice so they may one day fulfill their dreams of becoming professional corporate brand ambassadors.