Thank you very, very much. [cheers and applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] boycotts that are underway, were joined by kate taylor, she is a retail reporter and at business insider. Guest thanks for talking with me. Host tell us more about the origin of this grab your wallet boycott. Guest Shannon Coulter basically started this hashtag before the election was over in october. And since the election is finished, it picked up a lot more steam that i thought i had prior tohashtag used the election completing. It really picked up steam with a lot of people discussing it and discussing different brands they are going to boycott. Nordstroms, the ceo sent out a companywide email earlier this week discussing the boycott and why nordstrom was not making the decision to stop selling the market trumps line. Line. Nka trumps after the election, people who do not support donald trump continue to discuss boycotting not just Donald Trumps businesses, but businesses that do any business at all with the trump family. How big docted we expect this boycott to be . Its amazon, nordstrom, belk, how big of an impact do you think this will have . To say. Ts really hard at this point, it seems that for every person who has said theyre going to boycott a business that sells trump family items, ive seen another person saying i support donald trump and i support the trump family. Im going to buy from the business. I think a bigger thing is people making their voices heard on this issue. If it starts to hurt the perception of a company, i think thats going to be a more likely than actual loss of sales to hurt their sales. Or people say will keep shopping a nordstrom to refuse to buy any of our contract items ivanka has saidms, nordstrom if a certain item is unpopular, they will be fortunate drop that line for financial reasons. Host tell us about the counter protest for people who support donald trump and are protesting companies who supported Hillary Clinton or were critical of the as pepsi,aign, such macys, and dell. Guest that is something i find especially interesting. A couple of retailers on both of the lists. Amazon. Com, both people who support trump and people who are protesting trump are saying they should boycott amazon. Com trumps items,ll but leadership has been critical of donald trump in the past. In a lot of ways, through actual sales, these things cancel each other out. But as the caller before he said, people have the right to kind of vote with their wallets, even once the election is over. Host talk a little about the starbucks protest. Its not a boycott, but people are voicing their support for the president elect on their coffee cups. That one is especially interesting. I have seen a lot of people say they are protesting starbucks. The ceo has kind of repeatedly supported Hillary Clinton and thatery progressive values he discusses very openly. Its not quite a protest its the idea of both normalizing the presidency of donald trump, normalizing the right altld right movements, and seeing how bartows reese does istas will react. Its silly to protest starbucks by giving starbucks your money, but its showing support of trump and trying to make the barista uncomfortable, not to withdraw economic support of starbucks. Host the world in which i [indiscernible] in the sense that if something went wrong, it would be really. Atastrophic it is more complex. Therefore, on the longterm, no more dangerous because there are means of the disposal of more people. It could lead to complications. Kissinger was the guest on the Bbc Parliament program hosted by john major. It airs tonight at 8 00 p. M. Astern on cspan los angeles in october. I salute the effort around the issues and i think there are some amazing works that will come of this. Is it possible to put my slides up . My hat goes off to senator harkin who has been an incredible hero for the decades of work in Public Service and its been a pleasure for me to interact in that context and i very much look forward to hearing your comments later on tonight. It is important that we get the food right. Policies affect us and in innumerable ways and theres all sorts of pieces of data that suggests this but i like to show one thing from an article that came out with look and see how food is implicated in this particular list. You can see in almost every case it is a major player. It is because in many parts of the world people are using inefficient stoves to prepare their food leaving enough of respiratory illness. So, it can be an important player so theres a lot of good work to be done. Instead of talking about any, how can we take the work that we do as professionals and scholars and creat created a maximum impd that begins with asking the question how good are we at creating change. We are putting out a lot of effort and a lot of papers and research reports, publications, books and the like. But how much change is that leading to and could be tightened up so we are creating maximum change in the effort. Hence, most produced knowledge that serves to society and we hope the society actually gets served. But its kind of a mysterious process whether that occurs or not and there are things that determine whether it is create a social and policy change and a purpose to think about that. Over the years, when i think about my own work, ive had periods of frustration of not creating the difference of the work i was doing but it was what is happening in a lot of the fields that we produce scholarship and empirical studies and it could be reviews or legal scholarship that its a group of likeminded people in the professional world. Sometimes the audience can be small but it feels good because we reinforce each other and invite each o of us to meetings like this and do things like that that make it feel like it is making a difference but the question is does it really. The people are into position to do something with the information and this leads to sometimes the scholarship in the policy and the metaphor i use to describe this if you are running a relay race, you only qualify to win a race if you successfully pass the baton from one to another but as it gets dropped, then you are disqualified and there is no way that you can win that race. So when we do the work we are hoping the baton in our hands this knowledge and we hope that somebody out there picks it up and does something with it and we successfully complete the race. We are not trained to reinforce not as much gets done as it could. We typically attribute to the percipient au pair. Lets just create an example and think about the academic and Scholarly Research for a moment and say that we were setting out to make it relevant to the world as possible. Of course we wouldnt do that if we would be incredibly slow and it would take more time to get it done. It would be communicated to ourselves and not to the outside world and it would be unresponsive to the policy out there and it would be only programmatic rather than strategic and it would be right with conflicts of interest and that is very true. While we can move quickly our work tends to move pretty slowly so can we change this and so here is how weve been thinking about the problem. The way we think about it is Research Needs tthisresearch neo the change agents so we begin with the question who are the people or institutions in the position to do something about the problem we hear about, how can we create a feedback loop with those individuals that form an opportunity to base the research. The courts become an important player and hopefully most of you understand this better than i do the Public Opinion can be shifted through and they are important players in the industry of course this is only a partial list. Over the years ive had incredibly powerful and important career changes made by talking with people like senator harkin there out there and know how the policies are in the forefront of making the policy change. And they very often give us ideas of information gaps that we can help so. Then the feedback can occur in a constructive way. The process we think about is identifying the change agents, interacting with them it helps to define the questions we do, then creating the research and having an Effective Communications opportunity that goes back to the change agents and this can create a Virtuous Cycle of feedback that involves all the relevant parties. If any of you are interested, weve written about this on the paper that we call strategic science and i would be happy to send that if anyone is interested. Lets talk about this at work in the childrens Food Marketing. We should be interested in marketing Breakfast Cereals to children. Jennifer, marlene and others at the center spent a number of years working on the marketing of food to children. The first focused on was on the marketing of Breakfast Cereals and you can go to the website and pull down these reports that have been done. The first purpose was to find out how much is being marketed. In creating the list of serials ranked from the worst of the top of the list of the best at the bottom and the worst would be the ones with the most sugar or salt etc. You get the picture. Next to that it gives you the best dozen by the nutrition score and look to see how much marketing is being done on television, through internet and other websites it comes to exactly zero. It is setting out to make them overweight or unhealthy but if they did have that they are doing a pretty good job. The hypothesis about how they market to children when they do have told your products in the portfolio when we were going to release this we were hoping that they would generate a lot of ability so people would understand whats going to children but we try to predict what the industries it wasnt too hard because we were at professional meetings where they are sometimes present ansometime was an interesting paper that came out a return data chief nutrition officers at kelloggs and general mills. They dont often collaborate. They are at each others necks but in this case they did collaborate around this paper and heres what the paper said. You can have the healthiest food in the world but if it sits in the bowl at breakfast and the kids dont eat it is not going to help. Children like the taste of ready to eareadytoeat which is a euphemism for high sugar. Eating breakfast is a good thi thing. Serial can be a helpful way of delivering nutrients that the third part is the children wont eat it unles unless there is a f sugar. That is a testable hypothesis. Its plausible. Maybe its true, maybe its not so in order to have a scientific basis for the industry defends it by Jennifer Harris and Marlene Schwartz the study was undertaken to give access by randomized designs of a low sugar version or high sugar version so cornflakes versus frosted flakes and the children could eat as much as they chose to come in use as much milk, add sugar if they want and put fruit on if they wanted. The study found with a low sugar version children had about what youd like to see a child have for breakfast and they put fruit on it to sweeten it up so they got a boost from the fruit that they have an unhealthy profile when they ate the high sugar version of the serial so the results ultimately were published in a good medical journal but the results became helpful so when the newspapers were the media folks would find out about the result and call the people of the Cereal Companies and say why are you marketing your worst foods to kids they would say breakfast is good and kids wont eat i it or doesnt have a lot of sugar it was a randomized study that showed in fact that was not true so why are they marketing least Healthy Foods because they wont overconsume the ones with sugar so that helped undermine and became a very important strategic study. Nobody in the scientific world is that the study should be done. It wasnt part of what question are rated it was strictly from the to. Several months after the study was published. It was by about 25 . There is no way that we can take credit for this so im not suggesting cause and effect because a lot of organizations have been working on this issue. To whatever extent we played a role itherole in this it was tha mechanism like this. The press generated a loss for the companies that helped the Public Opinion so we could do a lot of studies and never get to this outcome. 2009 the Food Industry got together a century and created nutrition standards. They could be awarded the smart choice is labeled but because the industry made up its own standards they were selfserving and very lax. When this came out it was an interesting case study of how social change could occur. Several things happened. The New York Times found out the smart choices Product Program was occurring and decided to write an article that was quite critical. He found out about the smart choices because he was interacting at the center and decided to go after the smart choices feeling that it was a deceptive and misleading program. Weve been doing all that see Real Research and so we were able to inform him about this and then he launched the official investigation. The New York Times wrote a followup article that indicated that the attorney general was going after the choices and others were likely to follow suit. He issued the letters that went to request information from the companies and also from a professional Organization Called the society of nutrition which had taken a large area to administer the program so im assuming that it would be seen rather than the Food Industry players so in a short pier caught time in a scant six week period, the article came out and launched an investigation. There was an fda action done by the commissioner through a phone call this. It was pulled after six weeks being launched. The change agent we could have published 500 studies showing the smart choices were bad or misleading or deceptive or whatever you want to say that it never would have created this outcome, so it was to connection of the feedback loop that turned out to be hopeful. I would like to give you one more example and then i will finish up. Its interesting to think about whether this template of identifying change agents can apply to the food and wall and are there particular issues where the legal scholarship can follow this model and who are the change agents and can they be brokered in a way that affects the nature and a feedback loop for the change agents and one issue this might be relevant as the impact it has on the brain. In its natural form, humans can live in harmony with this particular plant but when it gets processed into cocaine or hyper processed into crack cocaine, humans can no longer live in harmony with it because it hijacks the brain. Now could you say when you take a product like this, nobody ever uses corn in its natural form as far as i know but you process it into this and then what happens or when you take water and process it into this what happens these are interesting questions if food is proven to be addictive, think of the locality of marketing to children and could this help provide a basis for restricting our marketing god where we are right now. We are doing a second edition of this and its looking at the legal theory that might be applied in this area so this would be just one example where the legal scholarship might get mixed up in the interesting issue. Will be the litigatin it be theg attorneys because all of a sudden there might be culpability by the Food Industry for the marketing pitch during marketing to children. The reason i havent filled in the boxes is because im not an attorney and this is not my area of expertise but it would be great if you could fill in and then we could take it and run with it and create social chan change. Congratulations again happy to be involved. Thank you for having me. Thank you for that excellent and interesting presentation. We will turn to the first prong of the slide that you showed and we need a Panel Focused on science to discuss the marketing from the Public Health and cognitive perspective i would like to introduce the moderator who was an academic fellow at the program. We are fortunate today to be joined by the leading scholars on the marketing to children. We are happy to introduce the three panelists in the order they will be speaking we have doctor Marlene Schwartz who comes from the center and will be speaking first and we are joined also by the Berkeley Media studies group and coming all the way from liverpool. Im delighted to be here. Kelly was the founder and we were at Yale University and then two years ago moved to the university of connecticut. People have been concerned about this since it began but definitely, the connection between the Food Marketing and the recent Childhood Obesity increasing reached the breaking point when the report from the institute of medicine came out that caused the marketing opportunity. What this did is pulled out the research at the time and said this is what we know, Food Marketing works, it affects the preferences and request to purchase certain brands and increases the short term food consumption. There were several calls and one of which was for the Food Industry to take some action and address the problem. One of the things we were concerned about is whether it affected the consumption of the particular brand of food because one of the defenses of the industry was we are not trying to get people to eat more food, we just want them to choose our brand instead of our competitors. One of the theories is exposure wasnt