Members of Parents for Ethical Marketing will receive the July/August newsletter in their inboxes today, including an article on what to do when kids nag you to buy them something.

Join to receive upcoming issues and action alerts.

And take a look at the newsletter archive:

Even though I tried to disguise it, I still sound like I was up at five a.m. for my interview for The Guardian’s Tech Weekly Podcast. In the Virtual Worlds Special, host Aleks Krotoski, characterizing Corporate Babysitter as a “watchdog blog,” asked me what I thought about the explosion of virtual worlds for kids. The segment begins around 12:30.

Before the interview, I asked PEM members to share their thoughts. Most of the parents I heard from acknowledged some benefits of virtual worlds (like practicing problem-solving and working through real-like situations) but do not allow unmoderated or unlimited access. They expressed concerns about embedded advertising (or product placement), privacy, and online safety.

Thanks to those parents who responded to me and to those who recommeded Club Penguin. We ventured in and have been pleased with it so far. As I’ve said, I’d much rather pay for access than to use an advertising supported site.

My main concern about virtual worlds is when a corporation uses one in order to hook kids into brand loyalty at an early age.

I also question the VWs that take advantage of a child’s emotional attachments. I can’t be the only parent who had to deal with a child’s shock — and then panic — when she found out she would never see her precious virtual Webkinz again unless she gave them some more money. What real-life value does that teach?

Join PEM by becoming a fan at the brand-new Facebook page or follow me on Twitter.

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.

(more…)

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.