Public Citizen also is launching an online petition calling on the three major formula makers – Abbott (maker of Similac), Mead Johnson (maker of Enfamil) and Nestle (maker of Gerber) – to stop marketing their products in healthcare facilities.

Hospital promotion of infant formula in discharge bags contravenes the consensus by all major healthcare provider organizations that exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months after a child is born is best for the health of both babies and mothers. Research convincingly shows that mothers who received infant formula samples are less likely to breastfeed exclusively and are more likely to breastfeed for shorter durations. Hospitals that distribute formula samples are in violation of a 1981 World Health Organization (WHO) code that prohibits healthcare facilities from marketing infant formula.

Yet, at least two-thirds of hospitals in the U.S. distribute samples of infant formula, even if mothers have indicated that they plan to breastfeed. Succumbing to infant formula companies’ marketing techniques is costly, both in terms of money spent on formula and the health of mothers and children. Formula feeding costs between $800 and $2,800 per year. Additionally, the formula samples usually are brand-name products, which cost up to 66 percent more than store brands. Families typically continue to use the same expensive brand they receive in samples.

“Hospitals and doctors’ offices shouldn’t be used as marketing vehicles for any product, period,” Public Citizen President Robert Weissman said. “They certainly shouldn’t be pushing products that harm the health and well-being of babies and new moms.”

Added Elizabeth Ben-Ishai, campaign coordinator for Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert project, “When hospitals distribute formula samples, they are engaging in marketing for major pharmaceutical and food companies. Many hospitals are actively trying to promote breastfeeding in their obstetrics units. But by continuing to allow marketing of infant formula in their facilities, they are undermining their own efforts.”

Children that are not breastfed have more medical problems, including severe lower respiratory tract infections, obesity, diabetes, childhood leukemia and more. Women who do not breastfeed have higher rates of diabetes, breast and ovarian cancer, post-partum depression and bladder infections.

“Health care providers weaken their own credibility by allowing themselves to be used as marketing conduits and readily distributing infant formula samples,” said Jeanne Blankenship, chair of the United States Breastfeeding Committee. “This simple action gives the appearance that they sanction and encourage formula use for all mothers.”

U.S. Surgeon General Regina Benjamin, acknowledging that breastfeeding is one of the most highly effective preventive health measures for mothers and babies, in 2011 issued a Call to Action to Support Breastfeeding. Among other actions, Benjamin highlighted the need to “ensure that the marketing of infant formula is conducted in a way that minimizes its negative impacts on exclusive breastfeeding.” She called for holding marketers of infant formula accountable to the WHO code and ensuring that health care clinicians do not market formula by providing venues for its advertisement or distributing samples.

Many hospitals across the country have stopped distributing formula samples. A 2009 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 34.2 percent of hospitals nationwide have stopped the practice, and in November 2011, Rhode Island became the first state in which all hospitals with maternity wards stopped distributing formula samples to new mothers. A recent study noted that in states with higher numbers of hospitals eliminating the distribution of formula samples, there are higher rates of breastfeeding.

To read Public Citizen’s letter, view a complete list of hospitals that have received the letter and learn more about the organization’s campaign to stop infant formula marketing in healthcare facilities, visit http://citizen.org/infant-formula. The petition is available at http://action.citizen.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=10062.

###
Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit http://www.citizen.org.

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Ms. Vanderveen,

Commercial Alert is a project of Public Citizen, a consumer protection organization based in Washington, D.C., with more than 250,000 members and supporters. We aim to keep commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting higher values of family, community, environmental integrity and democracy.

We understand that Poway Unified School District is considering allowing commercial advertising on school sites, buses, and the sale of student and parent email addresses to advertisers. We write to urge the Board not to move forward with these plans. We understand that the financial pressures your school district currently faces make you eager to identify non-traditional sources of funding. We know your primary concern is to avoid shortchanging students as a result of budget cuts. However, subjecting children to even greater amounts of advertising, while violating families’ privacy, is the wrong response. It will raise little revenue while undermining Poway’s educational and child development mission. Educational institutions should promote civic virtue and the public good, not commercial values.

As you know, childhood and adolescence are crucial periods for young pupils to develop their identities. Corporations exploit these developmental challenges, and convey through sophisticated marketing strategies that children should build their identities and judge their peers based on what they have, rather than on who they are. In the process, children end up with a damaged sense of self, superficial worldview, and a diminished sense of social responsibility. There is no need to overstate the case; certainly, many children navigate the world of hyper-marketing successfully. But it is nonetheless a negative influence – one that schools, of all places, should not be promoting. Children are already surrounded by near-constant advertising that promotes consumerism and commercial values. But the ubiquity of advertising is not a reason for allowing corporate naming rights and in-school advertising to persist – it is a reason why children need a sanctuary from a world where everything seems to be for sale.

Some advocates of in-school and school bus advertising believe that setting appropriate guidelines for these practices can curb potential harms. But more often than not, these guidelines offer virtually no protection to students. Corporations that sell harmful products to children will be among those most interested in targeting them by pursuing advertising opportunities. In school districts across the country that permit advertising, district guidelines have not prevented companies selling fast food, soda, and other unhealthful products from purchasing advertisements that target students.

But it is not only the presence of corporations selling unhealthy or morally questionable products in schools that raises concerns. Corporate advertisers advance values inconsonant with those schools stand for. Education should empower students to think critically and independently. Students should be encouraged to form their own beliefs, to question established ideas, and to develop intellectual curiosity. Marketing and advertising contravene these goals. Commercialism teaches students that everything – and everyone – has a price. Indeed, a recent report (Pomerado News, 5/9/2012) indicates that the district is considering selling advertising not only on its properties but on the clothing of the workers who drive its buses. In-school advertising and marketing schemes convey market rather than civic values and impede the ability of schools to function as open spaces where ideas are freely exchanged and the next generation of public-minded, conscientious, and virtuous students can grow.

Weighted against the real harms of school commercialism, the financial benefits of such schemes are minuscule. A news report indicates that the Poway United School Foundation estimates that corporate sponsorship and advertising could generate $350,000 in revenue. If the district were able to generate this much money, it would amount to only 0.15 percent of the district’s annual revenues. However, this estimate is likely far too generous. School advertising programs rarely bring in significant funds, and the small revenues often barely offset the administrative cost and burden of putting them in place. Our recent report, School Commercialism: High Costs, Low Revenues, shows that in some of the largest districts in the country, school advertising schemes generate less than 0.05 percent of the districts’ annual budgets.

We urge you not to move forward with plans to to sell advertising on Poway’s properties, including buses, and to sell student and parent email addresses to corporations. We look forward to your response, and would be pleased to discuss these matters with you further.

Sincerely,

Robert Weissman
President
Public Citizen

Elizabeth Ben-Ishai
Campaign Coordinator
Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert

The text of the letter to city of Miami Mayor Regalado follows. The letter was sent to the city of Miami’s mayor and commissioners. A variation of the letter was sent to the county of Miami-Dade’s mayor and commissioners, calling on them to enforce the sign code.

Dear Mayor Regalado,

Commercial Alert is a project of Public Citizen, a consumer protection organization based in Washington, D.C., with more than 250,000 members and supporters. We aim to keep commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting higher values of family, community, environmental integrity, and democracy.

We understand that city of Miami is considering an ordinance (File #12-00240) that would allow LED digital billboards to be installed on three city-owned buildings. We are writing to strongly urge you not to move forward with this plan, which would further commercialize public spaces in Miami, detracting from the city’s natural beauty and subjecting residents and visitors to even greater amounts of advertising than they are already subjected to elsewhere. Moreover, according to a memo recently issued by the Miami-Dade County Attorney, these plans appear to violate the Miami-Dade county sign code, which the city seems to have already disregarded by allowing many other LED billboards to be installed. We call on the city of Miami to comply with the county laws, and to spare citizens from further commercial encroachment on their public spaces.

City-owned properties belong to the public. They should not be for sale to the highest bidder. They should not be exploited by private corporations seeking to profit. By allowing these venues to be used for commercial advertising, the city commercializes and essentially privatizes public spaces, funded by the taxpayers in order to serve as sites of community and as welcoming venues for visitors – not as signposts for the over-commercialization of our society. Publicly-owned entities should serve to promote civic rather than commercial values.

With the city’s proposal, residents and visitors will be subjected to unavoidable sales pitches that obstruct their view of the area’s natural beauty. Billboards are a form of advertising that people are unable to choose to avoid, unlike ads on television or the internet, for example.
Outdoor advertising of the kind that has proliferated in Miami is not just objectionable in principle. Rather, the content of the advertising that has already been allowed and that will likely be permitted on the proposed billboards should also be cause for concern. Alcohol advertising, advertising for unhealthful foods, and ads for sexualized or violent media already appear on billboards, and will appear in even greater numbers should this ordinance pass. That the city is considering placing billboards on the Miami Children’s Museum is especially disturbing. Is it asking too much for the city not to plaster commercial ads on the side of a building meant to educate and entertain children?

Many cities across the country face budgetary challenges. But outdoor advertising ventures are a poor solution to tight budget conditions. These billboards will likely bring in only a fraction of a percent of the total budget of the city. The outdoor advertising companies that place the advertisements and the advertisers themselves will profit most from these billboards, while citizens will be most harmed. Moreover, the profits made from buildings owned by the community will likely not be invested in the community itself, since the advertising companies and advertisers are often not local businesses.

We call on you to reject the proposed ordinance that would allow LED digital billboards to be affixed to publicly-owned buildings in Miami. We also strongly urge you to reverse previous decisions to allow such billboards to proliferate throughout the city.

Sincerely,

Robert Weissman
President
Public Citizen

Elizabeth Ben-Ishai
Campaign Coordinator
Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Councilmember Englander,

Commercial Alert is a project of Public Citizen, a consumer protection organization based in Washington, D.C., with more than 250,000 members and supporters. We aim to keep commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting higher values of family, community, environmental integrity, and democracy.

Councilmember Richard Alarcón has introduced a motion (Council File 11-1429) directing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance prohibiting alcohol advertising on city owned and controlled property. We write to strongly urge you to support this motion.
While we believe public-owned spaces ought not to be used for commercial advertising of any kind, we are particularly concerned about the use of such spaces for the marketing of products that are harmful to community members, especially young people. Alcohol is an example of such a product. The public is already inundated with alcohol advertising on television, radio, the Internet, and outdoor advertising. This advertising endlessly promotes the idea that alcohol consumption has only positive outcomes, disregarding the serious health and economic harms that result from alcohol abuse. By allowing alcohol advertising on public properties, the city is implicitly endorsing the image of alcohol consumption these advertisements promote.

Children suffer the most harm due to alcohol advertising. In general, children, including teenagers, are more vulnerable to advertising than adults. Advertisers are cognizant of this vulnerability, exploiting it to turn youth into lifelong customers. Research shows that children who see more alcohol advertising are more likely to engage in underage drinking, endangering public health and safety. For this reason, healthcare provider organizations including the American Association of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association, as well as the Surgeon General of the United States, have called for reductions or bans on alcohol advertising that reaches youth. Furthermore, The L.A. County Department of Public Health recommends “reducing alcohol advertising in public spaces and in areas commonly seen by minors,” as a way to help discourage underage drinking.

According to L.A. County Department of Public Health, the county is currently plagued by over $10.8 billion in alcohol-related harm every year. Alcohol Justice reports that more than 2.3 million underage youth drink alcohol each year in California. Underage drinking costs the state $7.3 billion annually. When the social and human losses created by alcohol abuse are combined with these economic effects, the importance of this motion is clear.

Momentum already exists in the fight to protect the community from the effects of alcohol advertising. Currently the Los Angeles MTA does not allow alcohol advertising on its buses, trains and other transit facilities. Last summer, the city approved a 10-year contract that prohibits alcohol ads on more than 6000 bus benches. Building on these successes by passing a motion to completely ban alcohol advertisements on city-owned and controlled property would be a significant step forward. By supporting this motion, you have the opportunity to make a difference in the health and safety of Angelinos. Research on the potential effects of alcohol advertising bans shows that they can lead to a reduction in alcohol-related deaths as well as reduced underage consumption of alcohol.

We join with the Coalition to Ban Alcohol Ads on Public Property in L.A. to increase existing momentum in the fight to protect the community from the effects of alcohol advertising. We strongly urge you to support a city wide prohibition of alcohol advertising on city property.

Sincerely,

Robert Weissman
President
Public Citizen

Elizabeth Ben-Ishai
Campaign Coordinator
Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Mr. Slaninka,

Commercial Alert is a project of Public Citizen, a consumer protection organization based in Washington, D.C., with more than 250,000 members and supporters. We aim to keep commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting higher values of family, community, environmental integrity and democracy.

We understand that Phoenixville Area School District is considering selling commercial advertising on school properties as a means of generating revenue for the District. Reports also indicate that the District is considering soft drink sponsorship and the sale of exclusive pouring rights. We write to urge the Board not to move forward with these plans. We understand that the financial pressures your school district currently faces make you eager to identify non-traditional sources of funding. We know your primary concern is to avoid shortchanging students as a result of budget cuts. However, subjecting children to even greater amounts of advertising and marketing is the wrong response. It will raise little revenue while undermining Phoenixville educational and child development mission. Educational institutions should promote civic virtue and the public good, not commercial values.

As you know, childhood and adolescence are crucial periods for young pupils to develop their identities. Corporations exploit these developmental challenges, and convey through sophisticated marketing strategies that children should build their identities and judge their peers based on what they have, rather than on who they are. In the process, children end up with a damaged sense of self, superficial worldview, and a diminished sense of social responsibility. There is no need to overstate the case; certainly, many children navigate the world of hyper-marketing successfully. But it is nonetheless a negative influence – one that schools, of all places, should not be promoting. Children are already surrounded by near-constant advertising that promotes consumerism and commercial values. But the ubiquity of advertising is not a reason for allowing in-school advertising to persist – it is a reason why children need a sanctuary from a world where everything seems to be for sale.

Corporations that sell harmful products to children will be among those most interested in targeting them by pursuing advertising opportunities. In school districts across the country that permit advertising, district guidelines have not prevented companies selling fast food, soda, and other unhealthful products from purchasing advertisements that target students. We are particularly concerned about Phoenixville’s consideration of a plan to seek out soft drink sponsorships. As you know, childhood obesity is a massive public health crisis in the United States today, with sugary drinks significantly contributing to the problem. Allowing for such sponsorship arrangements amounts to explicitly encouraging even greater consumption of these beverages.

But it is not only the presence of corporations selling unhealthy or morally questionable products in schools that raises concerns. Corporate advertisers advance values inconsonant with those schools stand for. Education should empower students to think critically and independently. Students should be encouraged to form their own beliefs, to question established ideas, and to develop intellectual curiosity. Marketing and advertising contravene these goals. Commercialism teaches students that everything has a price. In-school advertising and marketing schemes convey market rather than civic values and impede the ability of schools to function as open spaces where ideas are freely exchanged and the next generation of public-minded, conscientious, and virtuous students can grow.

Weighted against the real harms of school commercialism, the financial benefits of such schemes are minuscule. School advertising programs rarely bring in significant funds, and the small revenues often barely offset the administrative cost and burden of putting them in place. Our recent report, School Commercialism: High Costs, Low Revenues, shows that in some of the largest districts in the country, school advertising schemes generate less than 0.05 percent of the districts’ annual budgets.

We urge you not to allow increased commercial advertising or sponsorships on Phoenixville Area School District properties. We look forward to your response, and would be pleased to discuss this matters with you further.

Sincerely,

Robert Weissman
President
Public Citizen

Elizabeth Ben-Ishai
Campaign Coordinator
Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Ms. Ashley,

Commercial Alert is a project of Public Citizen, a consumer protection organization based in Washington, D.C., with more than 250,000 members and supporters. We aim to keep commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting higher values of family, community, environmental integrity and democracy.

We understand that Irving Independent School District has partnered with Education Funding Partners to sell advertising on school sites. We write to urge the Board not to move forward with these plans. We understand that the financial pressures your school district currently faces make you eager to identify non-traditional sources of funding. We know your primary concern is to avoid shortchanging students as a result of budget cuts. However, subjecting children to even greater amounts of advertising is the wrong response. It will raise little revenue while undermining IISD’s educational and child development mission. Educational institutions
should promote civic virtue and the public good, not commercial values.

As you know, childhood and adolescence are crucial periods for young pupils to develop their identities. Corporations exploit these developmental challenges, and convey through sophisticated marketing strategies that children should build their identities and judge their peers based on what they have, rather than on who they are. In the process, children end up with a damaged sense of self, superficial worldview, and a diminished sense of social responsibility. There is no need to overstate the case; certainly, many children navigate the world of hyper-marketing successfully. But it is nonetheless a negative influence – one that schools, of all places, should not be promoting. Children are already surrounded by near-constant advertising that promotes consumerism and commercial values. But the ubiquity of advertising is not a reason for allowing in-school advertising to persist – it is a reason why children need a sanctuary from a world where everything seems to be for sale.

Some advocates of in-school advertising believe that setting appropriate guidelines for these practices can curb potential harms. A recent news report suggests that IISD will not accept advertising for cigarettes or alcohol (CBS/DFW, 3/28). But these minimal guidelines offer virtually no protection to students. Corporations that sell many other harmful products to children will be among those most interested in targeting them by pursuing advertising opportunities. In school districts across the country that permit advertising, district guidelines have not prevented companies selling fast food, soda, and other unhealthful products from purchasing advertisements that target students.

But it is not only the presence of corporations selling unhealthy or morally questionable products in schools that raises concerns. Corporate advertisers advance values inconsonant with those schools stand for. Education should empower students to think critically and independently. Students should be encouraged to form their own beliefs, to question established ideas, and to develop intellectual curiosity. Marketing and advertising contravene these goals. Commercialism teaches students that everything has a price. In-school advertising and marketing schemes convey market rather than civic values and impede the ability of schools to function as open spaces where ideas are freely exchanged and the next generation of public-minded, conscientious, and virtuous students can grow.

Weighted against the real harms of school commercialism, the financial benefits of such schemes are minuscule. Reports indicate the district aspires to raise between 500,000 and 1 million dollars from advertising. This amounts to between 0.2 and 0.4 percent of the annual budget – and amount far from sufficient to address the massive budget cuts the district faces. Moreover, this estimate is likely far too generous. School advertising programs rarely bring in significant funds, and the small revenues often barely offset the administrative cost and burden of putting them in place. Our recent report, School Commercialism: High Costs, Low Revenues, shows that in some of the largest districts in the country, school advertising schemes generate less than 0.05 percent of the districts’ annual budgets. Moreover, a private company stands to profit from this potentially harmful program: in other districts, EFP takes at least a 20 percent cut of advertising revenue.

We urge you not to move forward with plans to partner with EFP and to reject all proposals to sell advertising on IISD properties. We look forward to your response, and would be pleased to discuss this matters with you further.

Sincerely,

Robert Weissman
President
Public Citizen

Elizabeth Ben-Ishai
Campaign Coordinator
Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Mr. Lambeth,

Commercial Alert is a project of Public Citizen, a consumer protection organization based in Washington, D.C., with more than 250,000 members and supporters. We aim to keep commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting higher values of family, community, environmental integrity and democracy.

We understand that Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools is considering hiring Education Funding Partners to sell advertising on school sites and naming rights to school assets. We write to urge the Board not to move forward with these plans. We understand that the financial pressures your school district currently faces make you eager to identify non-traditional sources of funding. We know your primary concern is to avoid shortchanging students as a result of budget cuts. However, subjecting children to even greater amounts of advertising is the wrong response. It will raise little revenue while undermining Winston-Salem/Forsyth’s educational and child development mission. Educational institutions should promote civic virtue and the public good, not commercial values.

As you know, childhood and adolescence are crucial periods for young pupils to develop their identities. Corporations exploit these developmental challenges, and convey through sophisticated marketing strategies that children should build their identities and judge their peers based on what they have, rather than on who they are. In the process, children end up with a damaged sense of self, superficial worldview, and a diminished sense of social responsibility. There is no need to overstate the case; certainly, many children navigate the world of hyper-marketing successfully. But it is nonetheless a negative influence – one that schools, of all places, should not be promoting. Children are already surrounded by near-constant advertising that promotes consumerism and commercial values. But the ubiquity of advertising is not a reason for allowing corporate naming rights and in-school advertising to persist – it is a reason why children need a sanctuary from a world where everything seems to be for sale.
Some advocates of granting corporate naming rights and in-school advertising believe that setting appropriate guidelines for these practices can curb potential harms. But more often than not, these guidelines offer virtually no protection to students. Corporations that sell harmful products to children will be among those most interested in targeting them by pursuing advertising opportunities. In school districts across the country that permit advertising, district guidelines have not prevented companies selling fast food, soda, and other unhealthful products from purchasing advertisements that target students.

But it is not only the presence of corporations selling unhealthy or morally questionable products in schools that raises concerns. Corporate advertisers advance values inconsonant with those schools stand for. Education should empower students to think critically and independently. Students should be encouraged to form their own beliefs, to question established ideas, and to develop intellectual curiosity. Marketing and advertising contravene these goals. Commercialism teaches students that everything has a price. In-school advertising and marketing schemes convey market rather than civic values and impede the ability of schools to function as open spaces where ideas are freely exchanged and the next generation of public-minded, conscientious, and virtuous students can grow.

Weighted against the real harms of school commercialism, the financial benefits of such schemes are minuscule. Reports indicate that Education Funding Partners (EFP), the company Winston-Salem/Forsyth is considering partnering with, estimates raising five to ten dollars per student for the district (Winston-Salem Journal, 3/18). This amounts to at most 0.1 percent of the annual budget. However, this estimate is likely far too generous. School advertising programs rarely bring in significant funds, and the small revenues often barely offset the administrative cost and burden of putting them in place. Our recent report, “School Commercialism: High Costs, Low Revenues,"* shows that in some of the largest districts in the country, school advertising schemes generate less than 0.05 percent of the districts’ annual budgets. In Winston-Salem/Forsyth, as in many districts across the country, a private company stands to profit from this potentially harmful program: EFP will take over 20 percent of advertising revenue.

We urge you not to move forward with plans to partner with EFP and to reject all proposals to sell advertising on Winston-Salem/Forsyth Schools’ properties and to sell naming rights to school assets. We look forward to your response, and would be pleased to discuss these matters with you further.

Sincerely,

Robert Weissman
President
Public Citizen

Elizabeth Ben-Ishai
Campaign Coordinator
Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert

*Read Commercial Alert’s recent report, “School Commercialism: High Costs, Low Revenues,” here

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Mr. Claypool,

Commercial Alert is a project of Public Citizen, a consumer protection organization based in Washington, D.C., with more than 225,000 members and supporters. We aim to keep commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting higher values of family, community, environmental integrity, and democracy.

According to recent news reports, the CTA is seeking corporate sponsors to purchase naming rights to CTA assets. The CTA has also recently dropped a long standing ban on alcohol advertising on public transit. We write to strongly urge you reconsider these decisions, which further expand the reach of commercialism on public transit. These decisions put the city and the Transit Authority on a path that undermines the integrity of the city’s public transportation system and harms its citizens. While we recognize the financial imperatives that motivate you to seek alternative revenue sources, we believe this approach is wrongheaded.

Names we attach to public sites and services should reflect geography and history, and honor civic virtue – they should not be vehicles for crass commercialism. Should your plans move forward, citizens will soon be forced to pronounce the name of corporations in order to describe such assets as the CTA Holiday Train, New Year’s Eve Penny Rides, Free Rides for Chicago public school students on the first day of school, Bus Tracker, and Train Tracker. With each utterance of whatever corporation chooses to pay for this privilege, transit-takers are compelled to promote the brands of products and services. Which corporations will co-opt citizens into their advertising schemes? Will it be ones that contribute to marketing-related diseases like obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and smoking related illnesses? Or will transit riders travel to stations named for corporate felons, big business cheats, or major polluters? Ultimately, the sale of naming rights enables companies to skim off the positive publicity of deep and long-term public investment. As such, it erodes the public’s support for the public investment that is the only major funding source for public transit.

Not only does this plan compromise the public nature of transit services in Chicago, it is also unlikely to alleviate the financial strain the CTA is currently facing. In other cities, transit naming rights schemes have not yielded significant revenues. In Philadelphia, the recent deal between Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority and AT&T will yield $3 million over five years – a small amount as compared to the system’s budget. In New York, a twenty year deal to rename a Metro Transit Authority station after Barclay’s will yield only $200,000 per year. Moreover, private corporations stand to benefit from any revenues the Transit Authority is able raise; consulting firms in the aforementioned examples have taken significant cuts of sales revenues, as they will in Chicago.

We are particularly concerned about the effects on youth of the CTA’s sale of naming rights and alcohol advertising. One of the assets included in your naming rights plan is the program offering free rides to Chicago public school students on the first day of school. This is a perfect opportunity for a corporation interested in marketing directly to children to step in. In the midst of crucial years of personal development and lacking the capacity to clearly identify when they are being advertised to, children are highly vulnerable to marketers intent on pushing unhealthy or inappropriate products on them as they get “taken for a ride” to school.

The CTA has designated boundaries for its planned alcohol advertising in order to ensure that such advertising does not appear in stations where student riders exceed 7.5 percent of total ridership. But such a percentage threshold is irrelevant. What matters is that CTA will be exposing thousands and thousands of children to more alcohol advertising. Moreover, ads will also appear on trains, circulating throughout the system. Children will undoubtedly be exposed to alcohol ads under this policy – and the effects of such ads are well documented. Children who see more alcohol advertising are more likely to engage in underage drinking, endangering public health and safety.

Americans already face a deluge of advertising everywhere they go. We urge you to protect citizens from having to face still more advertising from the corporations who will purchase naming rights to CTA assets and peddle alcoholic beverages. We ask that you shield citizens from confronting the names of products and brands that are not only a nuisance and drain on our culture, but often injurious to our health. Not everything should be for sale. Please help us to stop the spread of commercialism into more of our public spaces.

Sincerely,

Robert Weissman
President
Public Citizen

Elizabeth Ben-Ishai
Campaign Coordinator
Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Senator,

Commercial Alert is a project of Public Citizen, a consumer protection organization based in Washington, D.C., with more than 250,000 members and supporters. We aim to keep commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting higher values of family, community, environmental integrity and democracy.

We understand that Senate Bill 1295 has recently been introduced into the California Senate. SB 1295 would allow California school districts to sell commercial advertising on school buses. We write to urge you to vote against this Bill, and to advise your colleagues in the Senate to do the same. We understand that the financial pressures California schools currently face make you eager to identify non-traditional sources of funding. We know your primary concern is to avoid shortchanging students as a result of budget cuts. However, subjecting children and the community to even greater amounts of advertising is the wrong response. It will raise little revenue while undermining the educational and child development mission of California schools. Educational institutions should promote civic virtue and the public good, not commercial values.

Childhood and adolescence are crucial periods for young pupils to develop their identities. Corporations exploit these developmental challenges, and convey through sophisticated marketing strategies that children should build their identities and judge their peers based on what they have, rather than on who they are. Children are already surrounded by near-constant advertising that promotes consumerism and commercial values. But the ubiquity of advertising is not a reason for allowing school bus advertising – it is a reason why children need a sanctuary from a world where everything seems to be for sale. Education should empower students to think critically and independently. Students should be encouraged to form their own beliefs, to question established ideas, and to develop intellectual curiosity. Marketing and advertising contravene these goals. Advertising on school buses conveys market rather than civic values and impedes the ability of the education system to function as an open space where ideas are freely exchanged and the next generation of public-minded, conscientious students can grow.

SB 1295 includes no provisions regarding the advertising that will be permitted on school buses. This leaves open the possibility for advertising that is inappropriate or harmful to children, including junk foods and sexualized or violent media. Corporations that sell harmful products to children will be among those most interested in targeting them by pursuing advertising opportunities. Even if the state or individual districts were to adopt guidelines for “appropriate” advertising, such guidelines will likely fail to provide sufficient protection. In states across the country that permit bus advertising, guidelines have not prevented companies selling fast food, soda, and other unhealthful products from purchasing ads that target students. By permitting advertising on school buses, the school system is endorsing the products and services advertised.

This Bill has potentially damaging consequences for both the safety of children and the economic health of school districts. The National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services opposes advertising on school buses on the grounds that they may distract both bus drivers and other drivers on the road, endangering students. In addition to safety concerns, any restrictions school districts or the State attempt to place regarding what types of advertising it will permit open them up to potentially costly First Amendment challenges.

Weighted against the harms of school commercialism, the financial benefits of school bus advertising are minuscule. School districts that permit bus advertising generate revenues that are a drop in the bucket when compared to their total budgets. In 2011, the Houston Independent School District, which has 203,000 students and a budget of $1.58 billion, generated only $12,250 from bus advertising. These revenues amount to a tiny fraction of one percent of the Houston district’s total budget. Also in Texas, Cypress Fairbanks Independent School District generated $68,987 from bus advertising in 2010-2011, a figure which amounts to 0.01 percent of the district’s total budget. In Colorado Springs, bus advertising brings in $40,000 to the 27,000 students in the School District – 0.01 percent of the District’s total budget of $300,000. As our attached report, School Commercialism: High Costs, Low Revenues, demonstrates, advertising in schools simply does not generate the revenues its advocates hope for. Given the relatively insignificant revenues that bus advertising is likely to bring to the state’s school, the risks are certainly not worth it for California’s families.

We urge you to vote against SB1295, which would allow school districts in California to sell advertising on school buses. We look forward to your response, and would be pleased to discuss these matters with you further.

Sincerely,

Robert Weissman
President
Public Citizen

Elizabeth Ben-Ishai
Campaign Coordinator
Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert

The text of the letter follows:

Dear Ms. Bartlett,

Commercial Alert is a project of Public Citizen, a consumer protection organization based in Washington, D.C., with more than 250,000 members and supporters. We aim to keep commercial culture within its proper sphere, and to prevent it from exploiting children and subverting higher values of family, community, environmental integrity, and democracy.

We understand that the Parkland Board of School Directors has recently approved a measure that allows for advertising on the interior of school buses. We write to urge the board to reconsider this policy and to end any plans to allow commercial advertising within schools or on school buses. We understand that the financial pressures your school district currently faces make you eager to identify non-traditional sources of funding. We know your primary concern is to avoid shortchanging students as a result of budget cuts. However, subjecting children to even greater amounts of advertising is the wrong response. It will raise little revenue while undermining Parkland School District’s educational and child development mission. Educational institutions should promote civic virtue and the public good, not commercial values.

As you know, childhood and adolescence are crucial periods for young pupils to develop their identities. Corporations exploit these developmental challenges, and convey through sophisticated marketing strategies that children should build their identities and judge their peers based on what they have, rather than on who they are. In the process, children end up with a damaged sense of self, superficial worldview, and a diminished sense of social responsibility. There is no need to overstate the case; certainly, many children navigate the world of hyper-marketing successfully. But it is nonetheless a negative influence – one that schools, of all places, should not be promoting. Children are already surrounded by near-constant advertising that promotes consumerism and commercial values. But the ubiquity of advertising is not a reason for allowing in-school advertising to persist – it is a reason why children need a sanctuary from a world where everything seems to be for sale.

Some advocates of commercial advertising in schools believe that setting appropriate guidelines can curb potential harms. The Parkland Board has adopted such guidelines, prohibiting advertising that promotes alcohol, drugs, and violence or that advocates on behalf of religious or political causes. Yet, even such guidelines cannot ensure that students will be protected. Corporations that sell harmful products to children will be among those most interested in targeting them by pursuing advertising opportunities. In school districts across the country that permit advertising, district guidelines have not prevented companies selling fast food, soda, and other unhealthful products from purchasing advertisements that target students. Moreover, efforts to restrict the types of advertising allowed in buses may open the district up to costly First Amendment challenges.
But it is not only the presence of corporations selling unhealthy or morally questionable products on schools buses that raises concerns. Corporate advertisers advance values inconsonant with those schools stand for. Education should empower students to think critically and independently. Students should be encouraged to form their own beliefs, to question established ideas, and to develop intellectual curiosity. Marketing and advertising contravene these goals. Commercialism teaches students that everything has a price. In-school advertising and marketing schemes convey market rather than civic values and impede the ability of schools to function as open spaces where ideas are freely exchanged and the next generation of public-minded, conscientious, and virtuous students can grow.

Weighted against the real harms of school commercialism, the financial benefits of such a scheme are minuscule. In Parkland, interior bus advertising is expected to generate $150,000 per year. Based on our knowledge of other districts’ experiences, this figure is overly optimistic. But even if it is correct, it will amount to less than 0.1 percent of Parkland’s annual budget. Revenue raised from this initiative will be a drop in the bucket when compared to the district’s budget shortfall. School advertising programs rarely bring in significant funds, and the small revenues often barely offset the administrative cost and burden of putting them in place. Our recent report, School Commercialism: High Costs, Low Revenues, shows that in some of the largest districts in the country, school advertising schemes generate less than 0.05 percent of the districts’ annual budgets. In Parkland, as in many districts across the country, a private company stands to profit from this potentially harmful program: Factory Advertising will take a quarter of ad revenues.

Advertising inside of school buses is one of the most insidious of school advertising schemes: children are directly targeted by marketers, in among the most captive of environments We urge you to reconsider your decision to allow this program to move. We look forward to your response, and would be pleased to discuss these matters with you further.

Sincerely,

Robert Weissman
President
Public Citizen

Elizabeth Ben-Ishai
Campaign Coordinator
Public Citizen’s Commercial Alert