As more and more children grow obese eating fatty foods saturated with sugar, consumer advocates battling to curb marketing by food companies are threatening to use their big guns: lawsuits and bad press.

And it appears to be working.

Although no lawsuits have been filed, the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) is talking with Kellogg and representatives for soft drink companies -- including Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo Inc. -- about the way they sell products to children, CSPI lawyer Stephen Gardner said.

"Unfortunately, many food companies maximize their profits by pitching junk foods to kids," Richard Daynard, a law professor at Northeastern University in Boston, said via e-mail while abroad.

"Selling sugared soft drinks in schools is a good example. Asking them nicely to stop hasn't worked. Only the threat of litigation, which threatens their benign public image and their bottom line, really gets their attention."

Daynard is also a long-time critic of tobacco companies and their marketing practices.

In the past three decades, obesity has tripled among American children ages 6 to 11, according to data from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is pushing to improve nutrition in school lunches.

Daynard, who is working with CSPI to ban soft-drink vending machines from schools, cited the surge in childhood obesity and soaring rates of diabetes as the reason for his push.

A spokesman for the American Beverage Association, which is representing the soft drink companies in the talks with CSPI, said his association "would talk to any group," adding the industry already has a sound policy on selling sodas in schools.

CSPI has threatened to sue Kellogg and Viacom Inc. if they do not stop advertising food high in sugar and fat on the Nickelodeon children's television channel during certain hours.

A spokeswoman for Kellogg would not comment on the talks or the threat of litigation.

But one product-liability attorney said the response from food companies so far is really more about their aversion to bad publicity than any fear of legal action.

"The threat of a lawsuit is really not that meaningful and I don't think those consumer groups would have standing to bring those actions," said Susan Dwyer, a defense-side product liability partner with the New York firm of Herrick, Feinstein LLP. "The pressure they can exert on the manufacturer is through negative media coverage."

CSPI's Gardner said it would be "disingenuous" to think his group does not consider public reaction when threatening to bring lawsuits, but added: "These are all good cases that we should win and the law is on our side."

Gardner characterized the talks with the soft drink makers as "positive" and said he would know in a couple of weeks whether or not litigation was needed.

Media-savvy CSPI -- best known for exposing the amount of fat in fast food -- also earlier this month notified PepsiCo's Frito-Lay snack food division and Kellogg and Viacom that they face legal action unless certain conditions are met.

In the case of Frito-Lay, CSPI and others want the company to print health warning labels on products containing the olestra fat substitute, which may cause diarrhea and cramping.

The CSPI has already logged a victory -- a settlement with Pinnacle Foods Inc., the parent of the Aunt Jemima brands.

Under threat of legal action, Aunt Jemima promised to change labels to make it clearer that blueberries in its waffles were imitation, made from ingredients such as maltic acid, soy protein concentrate and salt.

© 2006 Reuters

###