WASHINGTON, DC -- Representative Edward J. Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, led an oversight hearing today about the impact images on television and in the movies have on young children, specifically related to the issues of obesity, violence and smoking.

“Kids watch about two to four hours of TV every day and one- to two-thirds of kids have TVs in their bedrooms. As for the big screen, in 2004, children ages 12-17 accounted for almost 20% of all box office revenues. Given these statistics, it is no surprise that parents are disturbed by certain images children see on the screen, as these images can influence kids’ behavior in ways that harm their health,” said Rep. Markey during his opening statement. “I believe “Big Mother” and “Big Father” are better able to decide what is appropriate for their kids to watch, rather than “Big Brother” – but we needed the law to ensure parents had the tools to effectuate these choices.”

A week after the Kellogg Company voluntarily imposed restrictions on their advertisement of junk foods to children and the same week as a Kaiser Foundation survey found that a majority of parents are “very” concerned that their children are exposed to too much inappropriate content in the media, representatives from the movie and television industry and child advocates appeared before Rep. Markey’s subcommittee.

“As the House sponsor of the Children’s Television Act, I believe parents and children deserve better. And that Act already grants the FCC authority to address many of these issues if the industry does not respond to this problem on its own, swiftly and concretely,” Rep. Markey added during his opening statement.

Rep. Markey’s full opening statement follows:

Good Morning. Kids watch about 2 to 4 hours of TV every day and one- to two-thirds of kids have TVs in their bedrooms. As for the big screen, in 2004, children ages 12-17 accounted for almost 20% of all box office revenues. Given these statistics, it is no surprise that parents are disturbed by certain images children see on the screen, as these images can influence kids’ behavior in ways that harm their health.

This is something of a re-run for Congress. Back in 1996, Congress enacted the V-Chip legislation, for which I was the prime House sponsor. That law spurred the television industry to develop a voluntary TV ratings system in response to media violence. It also required all TV sets manufactured after 2000 to include a V-Chip, allowing parents to block programs they deemed inappropriate based upon the ratings system. I believe “Big Mother” and “Big Father” are better able to decide what is appropriate for their kids to watch, rather than “Big Brother” – but we needed the law to ensure parents had the tools to effectuate these choices.

There is good news and bad news about how this is working. The good news is that for the parents who are aware of, and use, these tools, the V-chip and the TV ratings get high marks and have been a success. The bad news is that far too many parents still don’t know about them or they don’t know how to use them. I urge industry to look at ways to make the technological tools parents already possess more useful and to better advertise their availability.

However, we must also recognize that there is potentially harmful content on children’s television that parents today cannot use the V-Chip to block, such as advertisements. The high prevalence of ads during children’s programming for fast food, junk food, sugared cereals, and other foods wholly lacking in nutritional value is deeply concerning given that these ads have been found to negatively influence children’s dietary choices. Moreover, we must reflect on the fact that childhood obesity rates have skyrocketed by more than 300 percent over the past three decades, and the Surgeon General has characterized obesity as “the fastest growing cause of disease and death in America.”

Parents and families have an undeniable responsibility to steer their children to healthy choices. But it is hard for parents to compete with popular kids TV characters pushing sugary cereal or Ronald McDonald hawking happy meals. There is, after all, no means for parents to “block” junk food ads – the V-chip only applies to programs, not advertising. And there is a terrible inconsistency in policies that require broadcasters to air 3 hours a week of educationally nutritious programming for kids and then have this programming and other children’s shows surrounded by a barrage of junk food ads.

As the House sponsor of the Children’s Television Act, I believe parents and children deserve better. And that Act already grants the FCC authority to address many of these issues if the industry does not respond to this problem on its own, swiftly and concretely.

I commend The Kellogg Company for voluntarily adopting nutrition standards for the foods it markets to children. Kellogg’s recent initiative demonstrates that companies can market their products to children in a socially responsible way. I urge other food and beverage companies to commit, at a minimum, to the same restrictions that Kellogg has assumed. I also urge the television industry to develop its own robust set of commitments to refrain from overwhelming kids with the sheer volume of junk food ads on many children’s shows today.

Parents also have expressed concerns about the proverbial “big screen” too, and the prevalence of smoking in the movies. Roughly 80% of all smokers began smoking before their 18th birthday. This suggests that if a child makes it to age 18 without smoking, there is a vastly reduced chance she will ever start. At the same time, the Institute of Medicine found that the presence of smoking in a movie significantly influences a child’s decision to start. And statistics show that smoking in the movies is pervasive: 65% of all major movies produced in 2006 included smoking when only 20% of Americans smoke.

The Motion Picture Association of America recently announced that smoking would be a new factor in a movie’s rating. This is a welcome development. Yet it is unclear how this policy will be implemented. For instance, will depictions of smoking automatically get an “R,” or will that rating only be given to a movie with a certain level or type of smoking? I am also interested in other proposals, including placing anti-smoking public service announcements in theaters and on DVDs; certifying that no one involved in the production received anything of value for using or displaying tobacco in the film; and eliminating tobacco brand imagery from movies. I look forward to hearing how the movie industry responds to these suggestions.

I want to thank our witnesses for attending this morning and look forward to their testimony.