Baby Einstein in SOTU–WTF?

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Ok, so what was up with Bush pimping the woman who founded Baby Einstein? What was her great moment or heroism or contribution to the country? Maybe Baby Einstein is an OK product or maybe, like some charge, it is a harmful scam, but I just don’t see how it rates the SOTU gallery of heroes treatment. Consider:

“Citing a lack of evidence that screen media is beneficial for babies and growing concern that it may be harmful, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) filed a complaint today with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby, two of the leading producers of videos for infants and toddlers, for false and deceptive advertising. The complaint charges that these companies are violating Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by marketing their videos as educational for babies. CCFC is asking the FTC to prohibit Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby from making claims about the educational and developmental benefits of their videos and require that advertisements, packaging and websites for all baby videos prominently display the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) recommendation of no screen time for children under two. “

Rest of press release after the jump. More on the complaints against Baby Einstein here.

May 1, 2006
Contact: Josh Golin (617.278.4172); jgolin@jbcc.harvard.edu

For Immediate Release

CCFC Files FTC Complaint Against Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby;
Parents Deserve Honest Information About Baby Videos

Citing a lack of evidence that screen media is beneficial for babies and growing concern that it may be harmful, the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood (CCFC) filed a complaint today with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) against Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby, two of the leading producers of videos for infants and toddlers, for false and deceptive advertising. The complaint charges that these companies are violating Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act by marketing their videos as educational for babies. CCFC is asking the FTC to prohibit Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby from making claims about the educational and developmental benefits of their videos and require that advertisements, packaging and websites for all baby videos prominently display the American Academy of Pediatrics’ (AAP) recommendation of no screen time for children under two.

“These companies are exploiting parents’ natural tendency to want what’s best for their children and their deceptive marketing may be putting babies at risk.” said Dr. Alvin F. Poussaint of the Judge Baker Children’s Center and Harvard Medical School. Research suggests that television viewing for babies is negatively associated with cognitive development, regular sleep patterns, and time spent interacting with parents and engaged in creative play.

CCFC’s complaint charges that the videos’ packaging, websites, advertisements, and even the names “Baby Einstein” and “Brainy Baby” are likely to mislead parents into believing that they are beneficial to babies’ development. For instance, on its website, Baby Einstein claims its Baby Wordsworth video – designed for babies as young as one year — “will foster the development of your toddler’s speech and language skills.” Similarly, Brainy Baby’s claims on its website that its “brain stimulating” Peek-A-Boo video “helps nurture such important skills as object permanence, communication skills, cause and effect, language development and many others.”

“The industry, when pressed, acknowledges they have no proof these products do what they say they do,” said pediatrician Dr. Dimitri Christakis, a researcher at Children’s Hospital and Regional Medical Center in Seattle and the senior author of “A Teacher in the Living Room,” a study on educational media for babies, toddlers and preschoolers released in 2005 by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. “Their unfounded claims undermine the research-based advice that families in my practice deserve.”

“Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby clearly violate the consumer protection laws. The Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits companies from making false claims or claims they cannot substantiate.” said Jennifer Prime of the Institute for Public Representation at Georgetown University Law Center, which is representing CCFC in its complaint.

There are clear signs that the marketing of baby videos is effective. To date, sales of videos for babies for children under two are estimated at more than $1 billion. Last year, Disney’s Baby Einstein alone took in about $200 million. By contrast, only 6% of parents are aware of the AAP’s recommendation of no screen time – regardless of content – for children under two.

“Parents need honest information They have a right to know that baby videos aren’t really educational and may even be detrimental to their babies’ development,” said Dr. Susan Linn, CCFC’s co-founder and author of Consuming Kids. “Just because the marketing and media industries want to lure babies and toddlers to screens doesn’t mean that Baby Einstein and Brainy Baby can mislead parents about the benefits of their products.”

The complete complaint and supporting documentation can be found at http://www.commercialfreechildhood.org/babyvideos/ftccomplaint.htm

The Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood is a national coalition of health care professionals, educators, advocacy groups and concerned parents who counter the harmful effects of marketing to children through action, advocacy, education, research, and collaboration among organizations and individuals who care about children. CCFC supports the rights of children to grow up – and the rights of parents to raise them – without being undermined by rampant commercialism. For more information, please visit: www.commercialfreechildhood.org

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate