Food and beverage companies are committing to self-regulate what they market to kids. This will alter their advertising strategies, but will it make a difference in the end?

As part of a larger initiative by the government and private industry to curb childhood obesity, 11 major food and beverage companies -- including PepsiCo Inc., The Hershey Company and Mars, Inc. -- made a public announcement on July 18 that will dramatically alter how they market their products to children.

The companies, which represent more than two-thirds of children's food and beverage TV advertising expenditures, pledged during a joint forum hosted by the FTC and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to either eliminate all advertising to kids under 12 or to advertise only "better for you" products in programs directed at this demographic.

Specifically, when not advertising "better for you" products, they pledged to eliminate the use of third-party licensed characters in ads, product placements in programming and advergaming.

According to Dan Jaffe, ANA executive vice president of government relations, this is the largest self-regulatory step ever taken in regard to food advertising, with the food companies actually topping the pledges they made late last year to devote 50 percent of advertising to healthier products.

"These extraordinary, volunteer efforts demonstrate the marketing industry's willingness to take strong, comprehensible actions to address consumer and government concerns about childhood obesity in America," said Jaffe.

Commendable, for sure, but not completely voluntary.

According to published reports, FTC Chairman Deborah Platt Majoras and HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt challenged the advertising industry in 2005 to review and strengthen industry self-regulation in light of the growing concern about childhood obesity in our nation.

And that's not all. Earlier this year, consumer groups filed a $2 billion lawsuit accusing Kellogg and Nickelodeon of engaging in unfair and deceptive "marketing and sale of food of poor nutritional quality" to children under 8 years old.

In response to these actions, as well as potential legislation proposed by a task force led by Senators Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), the food and beverage companies have agreed to have their activities monitored by the Council of Better Business Bureaus.

Critics, report AG Weekly, say that the self-regulated pledges don't go far enough and that advertising guidelines without an industry-wide standard or method of enforcement won't do much good.

"We shouldn't be counting on the food industry to safeguard public health," Susan Linn, a Harvard professor and co-founder of the Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood, told AG Weekly. "Corporations are bound by law to increase shareholder profits, not to promote the well being of children."

A recent Nielsen BuzzMetrics study entitled "Restricting Advertising to Children" supports Linn's sentiment. Buzz around the issue follows a similar pattern to that of the NYC trans fats ban (December 2006) in that there's debate over the role of personal and corporate responsibility in advertising to children.

According to the report: "As with many 'choice' issues, a sizeable contingent of consumers places the responsibility for healthy living on individuals (in this case, parents), and does not believe restrictions are an appropriate or effective remedy. Most, however, believe food companies have at least partial accountability for kids' health."

As a mother of a six-year-old who must stave off requests for sugary snacks daily, I appreciate the effort by these advertisers to take that responsibility. But as a consumer, I'm skeptical of the effectiveness.

Next: Are these advertisers as committed to protecting kids as they claim?