Holding Big Food Accountable for False Claims of Responsible Marketing to Children

Posted on December 19, 2013 by Corporations and Health Watch

Looking back at 2013, while the food movement made progress in certain areas (such as school food and GMO labeling), when it comes to exploitative food marketing to children meaningful change remains elusive. Let’s Move director and White House chef Sam Kass recently acknowledged the obvious when he said this issue was “really tough” given how much money is at stake for industry.

All we seem to hear from the major food corporations about marketing to children are self-serving promises and announcements of future changes. As public health lawyers, that got us wondering, who’s making sure even these minimal commitments are being kept? The question is worth exploring if we want to actually improve children’s diets—not just create positive PR buzz for Big Food. With reports of adults ever-deteriorating eating habits in 2013 coupled with appalling teen heart health, the health stakes are too high to just wait for the food industry to do the right thing.

Following on past years, 2013 brought a steady-stream of failed voluntary efforts to protect children’s health:

A study comparing children’s fast food ads to adult-aimed ads found that McDonald’s and Burger King crafted messages targeting children with a focus on toy premiums and entertainment tie-ins. Such practices were in obvious violation of the companies’ pledges to follow the Children’s Advertising Review Unit’s (CARU) marketing guidelines, and occurred despite numerous CARU enforcement actions.

Ninety-one percent of ads for sugary cereals viewed by children were found to violate CARU’s guideline not to exploit children’s imaginations or mislead children about the benefits of using a product by associating sugary cereals with adventure, emotional appeals, play and fun.

The former director of nutrition at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criticized the food industry’s nutrition criteria for foods marketed to children as “based…more on the current products marketed by its members than on a judgment about what was best for children.”

Meanwhile, major corporations continued to pre-empt public criticism and make additional self-regulatory pledges in potentially misleading ways:

In May, at McDonald’s annual shareholder meeting, CEO Don Thompson made numerous questionable statements, including that his company was “not marketing food to kids” and “not marketing in schools,” and that they “follow guidelines on responsible marketing to children.” Each of these claims is false and deceptive. Shouldn’t there be some legal accountability for such irresponsible statements at a meeting of shareholders?

In June, the industry-led “Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation” jumped the gun on announcing how food corporations had met their pledge to reduce the number of calories in the food supply by 1.5 trillion. But the official scientific evaluation wasn’t (and still isn’t) yet publicly available. What if the real results differ from the industry spin, who is held accountable and what are the consequences if any?

In September, McDonald’s signed a “memorandum of understanding” with the Clinton Foundation regarding how the fast food giant markets soda with Happy Meals, but as one of us (Simon) uncovered, the fine print didn’t actually match the press release spin. While McDonald’s pledged to fix that misstep, many questions remain regarding the legal and policy implications of such agreements. Moreover, McDonald’s revealed that soda still accounts for 57 percent of the beverages it sells to kids.

One bright spot for government oversight of industry self-regulation this year was energy drinks. Energy drink makers found themselves in a perfect storm of criticism and public health concern from the FDA, state and local regulators, and the U.S. Senate. Research into energy drink self-regulation found widespread violations of pledges to not market energy drinks as a mixer with alcohol or like sports drinks. In August, a Senate committee held tobacco-style hearings with energy drink companies, calling on them to stop marketing to children. Whether energy drink marketing will improve remains to be seen, but government hearings are vital to pulling the curtain back on corporate abuses of public trust.

Holding the food industry accountable for lying about its ethical business practices has legal precedent. For example, in the late 1990s athletic shoemaker Nike came under fire for its labor practices. The company countered with a public relations campaign and public promises to improve its business conduct. When an independent review found that Nike had not followed through, the company was sued under California law for false advertising, unfair business practices, and negligent misrepresentation. After numerous appeals, Nike eventually agreed to settle the case for $1.5 million.

So far, litigation has played a limited role in holding the food industry accountable over junk food marketing to children. However, court action is proving to be a promising tool to stop deceptive food marketing claims like “natural.” Also, food marketers have been taken to court for deceptive health claims on children’s products. Just earlier this month, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced a settlement with Abbott Laboratories over deceptive marketing of “Pediasure” products. In light of the mounting evidence of failed self-regulation of marketing to children, it also may be time to pursue Nike-style claims against the food industry for false pledges. If we are to truly hold Big Food accountable for promises about how it markets toward children, we need to use all the legal tools at our disposal.

Cara Wilking is senior staff attorney with the Public Health Advocacy Institute, Northeastern University School of Law.

How Trade Policy Gives Companies Tools to Delay Measures to Protect Public Health

Posted on December 19, 2013 by Corporations and Health Watch

Earlier this month, two members of the European Parliament hosted a debate in the Parliament on the 514 cases that corporations have brought against governments. Some of the examples presented were the international tobacco giant Philip Morris suing the governments of Uruguay and Australia for introducing plain cigarette packaging. This debate also considered current negotiations between the EU and the US, Thailand and India, as well as the recently agreed Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Canada. Presentations are available here.

The Selling of Attention Deficit Disorder

Posted on December 19, 2013 by Corporations and Health Watch

The New York Times reports that the number of children on medication for attention deficit disorder has soared to 3.5 million from 600,000 in 1990. The rise of AHDH diagnoses and prescriptions for stimulants has coincided with a remarkably successful two-decade campaign by pharmaceutical companies to publicize the syndrome and promote the pills to doctors, educators and parents.

Barrage of Political Campaign Spending Follows Shootings at Sandy Hook

Posted on December 11, 2013 by Corporations and Health Watch

Cross-posted from the Sunlight Foundation

Graphic: Bob Lannon and Amy Cesal/Sunlight Foundation)

Last December’s shooting massacre of 26 people in a Connecticut elementary school occurred six weeks after a national election and almost two years before most members of Congress would be facing voters. Nonetheless, groups on both sides of the gun argument still found plenty of ways to spend millions in 2013. All of the activity makes for a compelling case study on how “stealth” expenditures — the kind that are off the FEC’s radar screen — can affect politics and policy.

And it may be a sneak preview of coming attractions: As the calendar turns towards a congressional midterm year, major pro- and anti-gun control players are sitting on significant cash reserves, suggesting that 2014 will bring more of the traditional kind of spending — money given directly to candidates or spent to advocate for their election.

Here’s a look at the political landscape.

Gun control groups

Outgoing New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican-turned-political independent who made a fortune on Wall Street before entering politics, emerged as the single most significant financial force for the long out-spent gun control movement. Bloomberg exercised his considerable effort in three ways:

Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a non-profit founded by Bloomberg and other big city mayors in 2006, waged a national advertising campaign on behalf of gun control legislation. A review of ads captured by Political Ad Sleuth, the Sunlight tool that tracks media buys across the country, shows the group is active in 17 states, with its advertising peaking around a key Senate vote in April — one gun control forces lost, as the senators rejected more rigorous background checks for gun buyers. Advertisements also coincided with major debates over gun legislation in states such as Colorado, Nevada and New York. How much money the Mayors group is prepared to put into next year’s elections is unknown. As a 501(c)4 group under IRS regulations rather than as a political committee, the group does not register even a blip with the FEC. Nor is it required to disclose donors.
Independence USA, Bloomberg’s personal super PAC, overall spent more — some $3 million — on independent expenditures than any other super PAC at the federal level, according to Sunlight’s Follow the Unlimited Money tracker. Three quarters of the money — $2.2 million — went to eliminate Debbie Halvorson, a pro-gun, former one-term House member who was vying to win a special election in Illinois’ 2nd Congressional District. Halvorson lost the Democratic primary to Robin Kelly, the eventual winner of the election. Independence USA also spent more than $732,000 on ads to help Democrat Cory Booker, former mayor of Newark, N.J., win an October special election for Senate. In addition, Independence USA spent on state races — expenditures that are not reported to the FEC. Bloomberg’s PAC provided a total of $3.1 million in independent expenditures and direct contributions to help Democrat Terry McAuliffe, an outspoken proponent of stronger gun control, win the Virginia governor’s race, according to the Virginia Public Access Project.
Finally, Bloomberg also is known to open his own wallet. He personally gave $350,000 to unsuccessful efforts in Colorado to defend two state senators facing recall elections in September because they had supported a sweeping new gun control laws. The NRA made an issue out of Bloomberg’s contributions there, accusing him in ads of calling the shots for Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat.

Another powerful new voice in the gun control debate is former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, an Arizona Democrat whose promising political career was derailed when a would-be assassin shot her in the head in 2011. After a miraculous recovery, Giffords formed Americans for Responsible Solutions, a pro-gun control super PAC, along with her husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly. The group gave $170,000 to support McAuliffe in the Virginia governor’s race. Political Ad Sleuth shows the group making media buys in the Colorado recall races, as well as buys earlier in the year in Washington, presumably to air this issue ad captured by Sunlight’s Ad Hawk. In the weeks leading up to the debate over stronger background checks for gun buyers, the same ad also reportedly ran in several cities that are home to members of the congressional leadership. But, unlike Bloomberg, Giffords did not engage in federal races this year. She’s well-prepared for next year, however. Sunlight’s Real-Time FEC tracker showed that as of June 30, Americans for Responsible Solutions had the second largest cash reserves among political action committees filing June 30, the most recent campaign finance report available for the group.

The Brady Campaign Against Gun Violence, which began in the 1970s as Handgun Control Inc., operates a small federal PAC, which reported just $2,300 cash on hand in its most recent FEC report. While the group created several advertisements after the Newtown shootings, including this recent one launched in November, it did not appear to place any ad buys in large national TV markets.

The Violence Policy Center and Sandy Hook Promise, both of which have a lobbying presence in Washington, do not operate PACs.

Gun rights groups

At the federal level, the National Rifle Association’s PAC has historically put big money into independent expenditures, but spent relatively little in 2013 according to Sunlight’s Real-Time FEC tracker. Indeed, it looks like it is saving its pennies for the 2014 elections: It reported $11.2 million cash on hand in its most recent FEC filing, up from $2.6 million in January. Overall, it has parted with $1.4 million. It spent more than $14,300 on independent expenditures to support Republican Neil Riser, a Louisiana state senator, who lost in a runoff special election for a Louisiana House seat in November. Most of its direct campaign contributions, totaling about $220,000, were in chunks of $1,000 or less, according to data collected on Influence Explorer.

However, the NRA also got involved in state races: In the Virginia gubernatorial race, it spent $478,000 trying to help Ken Cuccinelli, the pro-gun rights Republican whom McAuliffe defeated. And it was also active in Colorado, where it contributed nearly $400,000 to the local NRA issue committee supporting the successful recall efforts for two state senators.

Like many organizations, the National Association for Gun Rights, which describes itself as a “no compromise gun group,” has both a 501(c)4 and a PAC. The PAC has just $48,000 cash on hand, as of its most recent FEC report, and has spent less than $24,000 this year, according to the Real-Time FEC tracker. However, the group was quite active in running ads targeting federal lawmakers on federal gun legislation in their home states, such as this ad, captured by Ad Hawk, aimed at Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and this one blasting Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pa. Ad Sleuth shows the group running ads in Arizona, Colorado, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

Other national gun rights groups did not appear to spend as much on campaigns and ads. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association representing the firearms industry, operates a relatively small federal PAC, reporting $197,000 cash on hand and disbursements of $44,000 in its most recent FEC report. However, in least one state that strengthened gun laws, Colorado, an individual gun company has stepped up its political profile. There, Magpul Industries, a firearms and accessories manufacturer, gave away 1,500 30-round Magpul magazines before the new state limit on magazines went into effect. The company also created a print ad riffing on the Berlin Airlift of the 1940s — though the “air drop” in this case was ammunition magazines, not food supplies.

Gun Owners of America spent about $52,000 and had $62,000 cash on hand according to its most recent report; Safari Club International reported disbursements of $155,600 and cash on hand of nearly $428,000.

Previous post in Sunlight Foundation series

Guns in America Lock, stock, cash and influence

Can Big Auto Build the Car of the Future?

Posted on December 11, 2013 by Corporations and Health Watch

In WIRED, Jason Fagone describes a car competition that led to new car model that achieved 207 mpg, using EPA standard test procedures. But, he argues, even “with new government targets looming … the automakers are still resisting radical change…They’re not rethinking the automobile from scratch, from the ground up, like the successful prize teams did. And with a few exceptions,…the automakers are also failing to make significant investments in bringing down the cost of advanced composite materials that are light, strong, and durable. One Nissan executive recently “quipped” to Green Car Reports that the company doesn’t want to make cars out of carbon fiber because it’s too durable: “We don’t need such a material,” the executive said. “That means we cannot sell a new car in 30 years.”

Diet Sodas’ Glass Is Half Empty

Posted on December 11, 2013 by Corporations and Health Watch

The Wall Street Journal reports that sales of low-cal carbonated drinks falling faster than other types. Coca-Cola Co. and rivals had hoped zero-calorie recipes would lift the $75 billion U.S. soda industry after Americans began scaling back on full-calorie soda in the late 1990s amid obesity concerns. For a while they helped: Diet soda’s share of consumption rose from 26% to 31% between 1990 and 2010. Now diet soda is the industry’s weightiest problem. Store sales of zero- and low-calorie soda plunged 6.8% in dollar terms in the 52 weeks through Nov. 23, while sales of regular sodas dropped 2.2%. As a category, diet soda has contracted more than regular soda for three straight years.

Spooky Business: Corporate Espionage Against Nonprofit Organizations

Posted on December 4, 2013 by Corporations and Health Watch

Cross posted from the Essential Information

Essential Information is a non-profit, tax-exempt organization that encourages citizens to become active and engaged in their communities. It provides provocative information to the public on important topics neglected by the mass media and policy makers. It recently released this report, the executive summary of which appears below. The full report is here.

“The problem is that you do things in the service of your country that are just not appropriate to do in the private sector.” — John Brennan, director of the Central Intelligence Agency

Executive Summary

This report is an effort to document something we know little about: corporate espionage against nonprofit organizations. The entire subject is veiled in secrecy. In recent years, there have been few serious journalistic efforts – and no serious government efforts — to come to terms with the reality of corporate spying against nonprofits.

Much of what we do know about this subject has been uncovered by accident. So the picture we have is fragmentary at best: just a few snapshots, taken mostly at random, arising from brilliant strokes of luck, giving a mere inkling of the full range of espionage activity against nonprofits.

There are, however, a few things we can say for certain.

The corporate capacity for espionage has skyrocketed in recent years. Most major companies now have a chief corporate security officer tasked with assessing and mitigating “threats” of all sorts – including from nonprofit organizations. And there is now a surfeit of private investigations firms willing and able to conduct sophisticated spying operations against nonprofits.

The use of former intelligence, military and law enforcement officers for corporate espionage appears to be commonplace. Especially prevalent is the use of former Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency and Secret Service agents, as well as current or former police officers, and other former military, intelligence and law enforcement officials. These current and former government employees, and current government contractors, do their spying against nonprofits with little regulation or oversight, and apparently with near impunity.

Many of the world’s largest corporations and their trade associations — including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Walmart, Monsanto, Bank of America, Dow Chemical, Kraft, Coca-Cola, Chevron, Burger King, McDonald’s, Shell, BP, BAE, Sasol, Brown & Williamson and E.ON — have been linked to espionage or planned espionage against nonprofit organizations, activists and whistleblowers.

Many different types of nonprofits have been targeted with espionage, including environmental, anti-war, public interest, consumer, food safety, pesticide reform, nursing home reform, gun control, social justice, animal rights and arms control groups.

Corporations have been linked to a wide variety of espionage tactics. The most prevalent tactic appears to be infiltration by posing a volunteer or journalist, to obtain information from a nonprofit. But corporations have been linked to many other human, physical and electronic espionage tactics against nonprofits. Many of these tactics are either highly unethical or illegal.

Corporations engage in espionage against nonprofits with near impunity. Typically, they suffer nothing more than minor adverse media coverage if their espionage is exposed. The lack of accountability may encourage other corporations to conduct espionage.

Corporate espionage against nonprofit organizations presents a threat to democracy and to individual privacy. Democracy cannot function without an effective civil society. But civil society and its nonprofit organizations depend crucially on their ability to keep some ideas, information, and conversations private.

Individual citizens and groups do not lose their right to privacy merely because they disagree with the activities or ideas of a corporation. The right to privacy dovetails with our First Amendment rights to speech, public debate, and full participation in the “marketplace of ideas.” It is especially unjust that corporations sabotage Americans’ fundamental rights through actions that are unethical or illegal.

Many things can be done to protect nonprofits from corporate espionage. Congress should investigate and hold hearings on corporate espionage against nonprofits. Congress and state legislatures should enact legislation to criminalize the theft of confidential, noneconomic information held by their critics. Law enforcement – especially the U.S. Department of Justice – should prioritize investigating and prosecuting corporate espionage against nonprofits.

[1] Eamon Javers, Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy. (New York: HarperCollins, 2010), p. xii. The quote is prior to Brennan’s appointment as director of the CIA.

New Soda Tax Makes Mexico a Leading Guardian of Public Health

Posted on December 4, 2013 by Corporations and Health Watch

In a Huffington Post commentary on Mexico’s new soda tax, Larry Cohen from the Prevention Institute calls the Mexican legislation “one big step towards slowing and reversing the epidemic of unnecessary and preventable disease.” In a New York Times op ed, Mark Bittman notes that the new taxes result from “an increasing awareness that Mexico’s accelerating public health crisis could hurt its economy, and that only prevention would make practical the universal, single-payer health care system instituted last year.”

FDA Analysis of Tobacco Graphic Warning Labels Found to be Flawed

Posted on December 4, 2013 by Corporations and Health Watch

Graphic warning labels (GWLs) on cigarette packages reduce smoking prevalence. A recent article in Tobacco Control found that that FDA’s approach to estimating the impact of GWLs on smoking rates is flawed. Using data from an analysis of the Canadian GWLs, the authors estimate that if the USA had adopted GWLs in 2012, the number of adult smokers in the USA would have decreased by 5.3–8.6 million in 2013.

Youth Exposure to Alcohol Advertising on Television — 25 Markets, United States, 2010

Posted on November 27, 2013 by Corporations and Health Watch

The following posting by CHW Contributing Writer David Jernigan and his colleagues appeared earlier this month in CDC’s MMWR. For full text and charts, click here.

11.27 — Credit: Center on Alcohol Marketing to Youth

Excessive alcohol consumption accounted for an estimated 4,700 deaths and 280,000 years of potential life lost among youths aged <21 years each year during 2001–2005 (1). Exposure to alcohol marketing increases the likelihood to varying degrees that youths will initiate drinking and drink at higher levels (2). By 2003, the alcohol industry voluntarily agreed not to advertise on television programs where >30% of the audience is reasonably expected to be aged <21 years. However, the National Research Council/Institute of Medicine (NRC/IOM) proposed in 2003 that “the industry standard should move toward a 15% threshold for television advertising” (3).

Because local media markets might have different age distributions, the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, evaluated the proportion of advertisements that appeared on television programs in 25 local television markets* and resulting youth exposure that exceeded the industry standard (i.e., >30% aged 2–20 years) or the proposed NRC/IOM standard (i.e., >15% aged 12–20 years). Among national television programs with alcohol advertising, placements were assessed for the 10 programs with the largest number of youth viewers within each of four program categories: network sports, network nonsports, cable sports, and cable nonsports (40 total). Of the 196,494 alcohol advertisements that aired on television programs with the largest number of youth viewers in these local markets, placement of 23.7% exceeded the industry threshold and 35.4% exceeded the NRC/IOM threshold.

These results indicate that the alcohol industry’s self-regulation of its advertising could be improved, and youth exposure to alcohol advertising could be further reduced by adopting and complying with the NRC/IOM standard. In addition, continued public health surveillance would allow for sustained assessment of youth exposure to alcohol advertising and inform future interventions.

Nielsen Station Index Local People Meter Market Survey† data for 2010 were used to assess exposure to alcohol advertisements placed on nationally telecast programs among a sample of households in 25 local media markets, as well as the demographic characteristics of program viewers aged ≥2 years in these markets (approximately 98.9% of all U.S. households have televisions) (4). In 2010, these 25 media markets were among the largest in the United States and accounted for 50.3% of the total U.S. population aged 12–20 years living in homes with televisions (5).

Advertising exposure was analyzed first using the current voluntary industry standard, which calls for no alcohol advertising during programs for which persons aged 2–20 years composed >30% of the expected audience. Exposure also was analyzed using the NRC/IOM proposed standard that called on industry to move toward a 15% threshold for television advertising using persons aged ≥12 years as the denominator.§ Alcohol use usually begins in early adolescence; federal surveys begin measuring youth drinking at age 12 years, and age 21 years is the minimum legal age for the purchase of alcohol in all 50 states. The local population was used as the denominator to account for differences in the age distribution of local media markets.

Among nationally televised programs with alcohol advertising, exposure to this advertising was evaluated for the 10 programs with the largest number of youth viewers in each of four program categories: cable sports, cable nonsports, broadcast network sports, and broadcast network nonsports (i.e., 40 programs in total) in each of the 25 television media markets. Nationally, these programs represented 29% of all youth exposure to alcohol advertising on broadcast network nonsports, 20% on broadcast network sports, 20% on cable sports, and 14% on cable nonsports. The total number of gross impressions,¶ an indicator used by the advertising industry to measure advertising exposure, was calculated by summing the placement-specific number of viewers of different ages across all advertising placements for a particular market. A total of 196,494 alcohol product advertisements aired on the 40 programs that were assessed across the 25 markets, or approximately 7,860 advertisements per market; however, not all advertisements appeared in all markets.

Of the 196,494 total alcohol advertisements, 46,493 (23.7%) were placed during programs for which >30% of the audience was aged 2–20 years (range: 31.5% in Houston, Texas, to 16.3% in Washington, DC); and 69,622 (35.4%) were placed during programs that exceeded the 15% threshold (range: 45.2% in Chicago, Illinois, to 25.9% in Portland, Oregon) (Table 1).** Of the 797,571,000 total alcohol advertising impressions among youths aged 12–20 years that resulted from these advertisements, 33.3% were from advertisements that were placed in programs exceeding the 30% threshold (range: 45.4% in Orlando-Daytona Beach-Melbourne, Florida, to 25.2% in Washington, DC); and 54.4% were from advertisements on programs that exceeded the 15% threshold (range: 65.3% in New York, New York, to 42.0% in Boston, Massachusetts) (Table 2).††

Reported by

David H. Jernigan, PhD, Johns Hopkins Univ, Baltimore, MD. Craig S. Ross, MBA, Joshua Ostroff, Virtual Media Resources, Natick, MA. Lela R. McKnight-Eily, PhD, Robert D. Brewer, MD, Div of Population Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC. Corresponding contributor: David H. Jernigan, djernigan@jhsph.edu, 410-502-4096.

References

CDC. Alcohol-related disease impact. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2012. Available at http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/dach_ardi/default/default.aspx.
Anderson P, de Bruijn A, Angus K, Gordon R, Hastings G. Impact of alcohol advertising and media exposure on adolescent alcohol use: a systematic review of longitudinal studies. Alcohol Alcohol 2009;44:229–43.
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. Reducing underage drinking: a collective responsibility. committee on developing a strategy to reduce and prevent underage drinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2004.
Nielsen. 2010 U.S. television universe estimates. New York, NY: Nielsen; 2009.
Nielsen. 2010 local market television universe estimates. New York, NY: Nielsen; 2009.
Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth. Youth exposure to alcohol advertising on television, 2001–2009. Baltimore, MD: Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth; 2010.
Siegel MB, Naimi TS, Cremeens JL, Nelson DE. Alcoholic beverage preferences and associated drinking patterns and risk behaviors among high school youth. Am J Prev Med 2011;40:419–26.
Evans J, Kelly R. Self-regulation in the alcohol industry: a review of industry efforts to avoid promoting alcohol to underage consumers. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission;1999.
Community Preventive Services Task Force. Preventing excessive alcohol consumption. The Guide to Community Preventive Services 2012; Atlanta, GA: Community Preventive Services Task Force; 2013. Available at http://www.thecommunityguide.org/alcohol/index.html .

* Television media markets studied included Atlanta, Georgia; Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Charlotte, North Carolina; Chicago, Illinois; Cleveland, Ohio; Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; Detroit, Michigan; Houston, Texas; Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida; Minneapolis, Minnesota; New York, New York; Orlando, Florida; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Phoenix, Arizona; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Portland, Oregon; Sacramento, California; San Francisco, California; Seattle, Washington; St. Louis, Missouri; Tampa, Florida; and Washington, DC. These 25 media markets represent 25 of the 26 largest television markets by population. Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina, the 25th largest market, was excluded because it did not have Nielsen Local People Meter data at of the time of this analysis.

† Introduced by Nielsen in 2002, Local People Meters measure viewing behavior and viewer demographics and have been phased into the largest television markets over the past decade. In comparison with traditional paper diary methods, or with earlier-generation channel-tuning meters supplemented by paper diaries to obtain demographic viewing estimates, Local People Meters are more precise and are now widely accepted by advertisers, television networks, and television stations as the standard for measuring local viewing in larger markets.

§ The rationale for 30% was to limit advertisements to media in which the legal-age adult audience (aged ≥21 years) was proportional to the legal-age adult population, at that time 70%. This standard has most recently been revised to 28.4% underage (71.6% legal age) based on 2010 census data. However, not all youths are at equal risk for drinking. For example, few youths ages 2–11 years engage in drinking behaviors, and the youngest age at which federal surveys begin measuring drinking behavior is 12 years. Thus, the 15% standard is based on the at-risk population of youths aged 12–20 years, which makes up approximately 15% of the U.S. population aged ≥12 years.

¶ An advertising impression occurs when one person sees an advertisement. If an advertisement is seen by five different people, that counts as five impressions. Gross impressions are the sum of impressions for any given advertising campaign, and include multiple exposures for some or all of the people who are exposed to that campaign.

** Table 1 shows the top and bottom five markets with youth audiences in excess of 30%. Portland was the low market on the 15% standard, but was not in the bottom five for the 30% standard, so it does not appear in the table.

†† Data for all 25 markets available at http://www.camy.org .