Watch Your Mouth: Candy O’Clock

Did daylight savings time change at the behest of the candy lobby?

When American kids prowl the streets next week in search of tiny Tootsie Rolls, baby Baby Ruths, and other child-sized, brand-name treats, they’ll probably set off before the sun sets. Trick-or-treaters can venture out in daylight hours thanks to the work of Congress, which extended Daylight Saving Time four years ago in part to mediate the dangers of night-time trick-or-treating. The move inspired its own urban legend: This was a concerted effort by food marketing lobbyists to reshape time, and stick more candies into kids’ hands.

Deliberately making “clock time" out of sync with “sun time” used to be the stuff of social and scientific satire. In 1784, Benjamin Franklin wrote that burning candles all night would afford Paris a great “savings.” By the 20th century, though, the United States took the issue seriously, enacting temporary changes during World Wars I and II in an effort to save precious resources. Capitalists took notice. The petroleum industry lobbied to reintroduce the shift permanently, but farmers opposed the measure: They wanted neither to lose an hour of early morning light nor mess up their herd’s regular milking times. Petroleum won. Daylight Savings Time took effect in 1966 as part of the Uniform Time Act. It was six months long.

By the mid-1980s, six months wasn’t long enough. A Washington tax lobbyist named James Benfield began a campaign to extend Daylight Saving Time. His “hobby lobby” drew support from the National Association of Convenience Stores, the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, and the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association. Shifting daylight one hour later means more light in the late spring and early fall for after-school and after-work leisure activities, and that means more time for gassing up, driving to the ballpark, and hitting the driving range. Paper-plates manufacturers, lighter-fluid makers, plant nurseries, and service stations anticipated a $4 billion windfall from the extended daylight hours.

More daylight also means more time to chow down. Hardee’s Restaurants estimated that it would record an additional $7.1 million in sales, betting its customers were more likely to eat breakfast in the dark than partake in a darkened drive-thru dinner. And Americans would cook more barbecues and snack up at 7-Elevens if they could see that there were really no scary predators lurking in the dark. “The money in food sales is real,” says Michael Downing, the author of Spring Forward: The Annual Madness of Daylight Saving Time. “Daylight saving really does change our behavior.”

Candy’s role in the time change is less clear. The National Confectioners Association reportedly handed out candy-filled pumpkins to Congress members in 1986. But when legislators moved the clocks ahead three weeks in 1987, they did not bow to the candy lobby’s efforts, and long evenings extended only to the last Sunday in October.

By 2000, though, the rural-urban demographic had switched: That year, more people lived on golf courses than on farms. Fewer and fewer Americans toiled at milking machines or collected eggs for market in the dark. So when Congress settled on another time change in 2005—again under the guise of energy savings—few opposed the expansion of Daylight Saving Time to eight months. This time, Halloween fell squarely within the extended daylight hours.

Candy lobbyists claimed to have nothing to do with it. “We’re not even sure it would be good for our industry,” Lawrence T. Graham, the head of the National Confectioners Association, told The New York Times. Halloween accounts for about 8 percent of annual candy sales—$2.3 billion of the $29.4 billion, association spokesperson Susan Whiteside says. But as Graham told the Toronto Star, “The two most important things for us are day of the week and the weather, and neither one of those we can change.”

So Halloween candy may be only chump change in the drive for what should probably be renamed Daylight Spending Time. After all, we’re not using that time to sleep an extra hour; we are doing what the proponents intended—driving around, buying stuff after work. “It’s not a conspiracy. It’s been a very successful lobbying effort to eke some more money out for a very particular industry,” Downing says. “Does it save energy? No. Does it serve the national interest? Well, that’s a tossup. What’s the national interest?”

You decide: Trick or treat?

Photo courtesy of Natalie Conn

via Honor Africans / Twitter

The problem with American Sign Language (ASL) is that over 500,000 people in the U.S. use it, but the country has over 330 million people.

So for those with hearing loss, the chances of coming into contact with someone who uses the language are rare. Especially outside of the deaf community.

Keep Reading Show less

Looking back, the year 1995 seems like such an innocent time. America was in the midst of its longest streak of peace and prosperity. September 11, 2001 was six years away, and the internet didn't seem like much more than a passing fad.

Twenty-four years ago, 18 million U.S. homes had modem-equipped computers, 7 million more than the year before. Most logged in through America Online where they got their email or communicated with random strangers in chat rooms.

According to a Pew Research study that year, only 32% of those who go online say they would miss it "a lot" if no longer available.

Imagine what those poll numbers would look like if the question was asked today.

RELATED: Bill and Melinda Gates had a surprising answer when asked about a 70 percent tax on the wealthiest Americans

"Few see online activities as essential to them, and no single online feature, with the exception of E-Mail, is used with any regularity," the Pew article said. "Consumers have yet to begin purchasing goods and services online, and there is little indication that online news features are changing traditional news consumption patterns."

"Late Night" host David Letterman had Microsoft founder and, at that time the richest man in the world, on his show for an interview in '95 to discuss the "the big new thing."

During the interview Letterman chided Gates about the usefulness of the new technology, comparing it to radio and tape recorders.

Gates seems excited by the internet because it will soon allow people to listen to a baseball game on their computer. To which Letterman smugly replies, "Does radio ring a bell?" to laughter from the crowd.

But Gates presses Letterman saying that the new technology allows you to listen to the game "whenever you want," to which Letterman responds, "Do tape recorders ring a bell?"

Gates then tells Letterman he can keep up with the latest in his favorite hobbies such as cigar smoking or race cars through the internet. Letterman shuts him down saying that he reads about his interests in magazines.

RELATED: Bill Gates has five books he thinks you should read this summer.

The discussion ends with the two laughing over meeting like-minded people in "troubled loner chat room on the internet."

The clip brings to mind a 1994 segment on "The Today Show" where host Bryant Gumbel and Katie Couric have a similar discussion.

"What is internet anyway?" an exasperated Gumball asks. "What do you write to it like mail?"

"It's a computer billboard but it's nationwide and it's several universities all joined together and it's getting bigger and bigger all the time," a producer explains from off-stage.

Photo by Li-An Lim on Unsplash

The future generations will have to live on this Earth for years to come, and, not surprisingly, they're very concerned about the fate of our planet. We've seen a rise in youth activists, such as Greta Thunberg, who are raising awareness for climate change. A recent survey indicates that those efforts are working, as more and more Americans (especially young Americans) feel concerned about climate change.

A new CBS News poll found that 70% of Americans between 18 and 29 feel climate change is a crisis or a serious problem, while 58% of Americans over the age of 65 share those beliefs. Additionally, younger generations are more likely to feel like it's their personal responsibility to address climate change, as well as think that transitioning to 100% renewable energy is viable. Overall, 25% of Americans feel that climate change is a "crisis," and 35% feel it is a "serious problem." 10% of Americans said they think climate change is a minor problem, and 16% of Americans feel it is not a problem that worries them.

The poll found that concern for the environment isn't a partisan issue – or at least when it comes to younger generations. Two-thirds of Republicans under the age of 45 feel that addressing climate change is their duty, sentiments shared by only 38% of Republicans over the age of 45.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet