Marketing to Children

References: Eat Drink Politics (2013) The Dark Side of Marketing Healthy Food to Children. Available at: http://www.eatdrinkpolitics.com/2013/06/17/the-dark-side-of-marketing-healthy-food-to-children/ (Accessed: 25th June 2015).

So, we know that children's snacks are being marketed to appear healthier than they are, but this article looks at a completely different outlook on the whole thing. Whether a food is actually healthy or completely unhealthy is actually irrelevant, the real issue is marketing all together. 

food companies have started using popular media characters to market “healthy” foods to children. These products include fruits and vegetables, as well as processed food. So we now have Campbell’s Disney Princess “Healthy Kids” soup, Kellogg’s Scooby-Doo! cereal (with less sugar), and others.

For as long as I can remember, companies have been using marketing techniques to attract children into consuming their products. Television advertisements, posters, packaging, even free toys. Mcdonalds are a huge example of this as they cover all bases by giving away free toys with their happy meals and printing characters onto their boxes. Kids then want a mcdonalds so they can collect the latest toy, rather than choosing them for the taste of the food. Even breakfast cereal are guilty of it, one advertisement that I remember from my childhood was a TV ad for Sugar Puffs which made it appear like each sugar puff had a zip on it, and I believed that they did! Children have huge imaginations and are very gullible, they believe a lot of the things they see and so it is unfair to use techniques like this to get children to consume certain products.

Researchers and advocates for children’s health agree that advertising junk food to children is effective. One 30-second commercial can influence the food preferences of children as young as age two. For young children, branding even trumps taste. Preschool children report that junk food in McDonald’s packaging taste better than food in plain wrapping—even if it’s the same food. Similar studies show the same results for food packaging featuring media characters.

Research demonstrates that marketing any product to children under age 12 is inherently deceptive. Unlike adults, young children do not have the cognitive capacity to fully understand the purpose of advertising. Very young children cannot even distinguish between a TV program and a commercial. Until the age of about eight, they don’t really understand the concept of selling and they tend to believe what they see.

Moreover, only 40 percent of 11 and 12 year olds have a full understanding of persuasive intent—that every aspect of advertising is designed to convince them to do things they might not do otherwise. This makes children especially vulnerable to deception by hyperbole, puffery, and other common advertising techniques.

Even marketing healthy foods in an attempt to get children to eat healthier is wrong. It is actually causing harm as children need to develop a healthy relationship to food and by adding characters or giving away free toys undermines that effort. 

While the food industry claims it has a First Amendment right to advertise to children, the law says otherwise. Free speech is not a blank check; it has limits. Current federal law actually prohibits unfair or deceptive advertising. Similarly, false or misleading advertising is not allowed under most state consumer protection statutes.

Marketing to children does not get First Amendment protection because it is inherently misleading. If a young child cannot even understand the purpose of an ad, then marketing anything to that child is both unfair and deceptive. The nutritional content of the product being marketed is irrelevant.

It is actually against the law to advertise to children and be deceitful in this way. Many would argue that because it's parents who actually purchase the products, that they aren't technically doing anything wrong. There is no doubt about the fact that the advertisements for children's foods are mostly blatantly aimed at the children and not the parents. 

The food industry is happy to play along with these techniques when it comes to advertising healthy foods, without realising that they are causing damage whether it is healthy or junk food. There is no doubt about the fact that children are influenced a huge amount by the branding techniques used by companies, but is it really doing as much harm as this article makes out? After all, when these children grow up and become young adults, they don't still believe in all these myths they've had drilled into them in their younger years. 

Parents can influence children just as much as advertisements can. I remember my mum always telling me that if I ate the crusts on my bread that my hair would go curly, and it made me eat my crusts without fail! Is this such a bad thing? Does this mean that telling children these things to encourage them to eat certain foods is as bad as advertising to them?

'Fruit Bowl' - Children's fruit snack

Following on from my previous post, one of the fruit snacks mentioned was 'fruit bowl'. This particular brand has recently had advertisements on the TV which stood out to me and annoyed me quite a bit when I first saw them.

Here is one of the advertisements:



There are many reasons why the advertisement frustrates me, the first being that the brand is named 'fruit bowl' which implies that it is a healthy fruit snack. The second is the song that repeats 'Get your hand in the fruit bowl, get stuck in'. Without looking at the advertisement and just listening to the song, you expect to look at the advertisement and see hands reaching into a bowl full of fresh fruit but instead, you see hands reaching into what looks like a sweet packet and pulling out items which look like sugary sweets! The way in which it is marketed makes it attractive to children with the use of audio and visual and parents alike as the parents think it is a healthy alternative to those unhealthy Maoam or Haribo sweets. 

This is becoming a huge problem which needs to be addressed by companies. Parents all over the world are hearing about the rise in childhood obesity and slating companies that sell sugary sweets, putting them at blame. The truth in the matter is that those companies selling sugary sweets and marketing them as sugary sweets are doing nothing wrong, they are telling everyone up front that they have no nutritional value, but are very tasty! The real culprits are those who market their products as healthy and are claiming them to be 1 of your 5 a day when in reality they are far worse than those terrible sugary sweets that parents are banning their children from eating.

Fruit Bowl. (2015) Get your hand in the fruit bowl![Advertisement]. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6CLejAIT5g (Accessed: 25 June 2015).

Misleading Children's Snacks

References: Telegraph Media Group Limited. (2015) 'Healthy' children's fruit snacks contain more sugar than Haribo sweets - Telegraph. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/11637571/Healthy-childrens-fruit-snacks-contain-more-sugar-than-Haribo-sweets.html (Accessed: 25th June 2015).

Yoghurt, real fruit, 1 of your 5 a day. All phrases used to describe children's fruit snacks 'ideal for lunch boxes'. Parents choosing these items would think it was a healthy, nutritious alternative to the fruit flavoured, sugar filled sweets that children are drawn to. Little do they know from the packaging and marketing of these products, they are filled with even more sugar than Haribo sweets!

An article I came across on the Telegraph website talks about how 'Action on Sugar' has discovered that many apparently healthy fruit snacks contain at least 4tsp of sugar! 

More than three quarters of the products examined by health charity Action on Sugar exceeded the 47g per 100g of sugar found in Haribo Starmix. 

Packs of raisins and strawberry pieces coated in yoghurt can contain the equivalent of more than four teaspoonfuls of sugar, the study found. 

Some of the packaging claimed the fruit was "one of your five" portions of fruit and vegetables a day, which Action on Sugar said was "misleading". 

The majority of people would assume that raisins and strawberry pieces coated in yoghurt would be healthy, after all, those items on their own wouldn't be seen as unhealthy, sugary snacks.

Frootz Apple 100 per cent Fruit Drops has 62.7g of sugar per 100g and The Fruit Factory Strawberry & Yoghurt Fruit Bars contain 58g of sugar per 100g. 

"Whole, unprocessed fruit is healthier than processed fruit snacks and fruit juice drinks, as it contains vitamins, minerals, water and fibre, and does not cause the devastating tooth decay we see in young children today." 

In total, 94 products were surveyed from UK retailers including Tesco, Waitrose and Asda, with several products saying they were "suitable for lunchboxes". 

But school food standards do not currently allow these snacks to be offered to children, as they are categorised as confectionery. 

Around 34 per cent of girls and 33 per cent of boys aged 11 to 15 are currently overweight or obese, according to the survey. 

When parents are choosing packed lunch items for their children and they see claims such as '100% fruit' or 'packed with real fruit goodness', they don't expect the product to be laced with added sugars and additives. Although most people should know that fresh fruit is clearly the better choice over any processed food, pre-packaged fruit snacks are much more convenient and they know that children are more likely to eat something in a colourful packet with fun characters on the front than they are a real apple, for example. A lot of parents struggle to get their children to eat fresh fruit and vegetables and so they see these products as a great alternative. The products should be labelled clearly so as not to mislead consumers.

Comparison of 'healthy choice' foods

References: Online Food Shopping - ASDA Grocery (2015) Available at: http://groceries.asda.com (Accessed: 2nd June 2015).

First of all, I would like to look at Hartley's raspberry 'sugar-free' jelly. The packaging claims that the jelly is sugar free, fat free, natural colours and less than 10 calories per portion. The overall packaging uses a couple of heart shapes within the design, along with a green colour which signifies that the food is good for you, with the heart being a code for good health and the green colour being known for being a healthy option (green veg, colour used for low fat, sugar, calories etc on nutritional info). 

In order for a food to claim it is sugar-free, it must contain no more than 0.5g of sugars per 100g or 100ml. The nutritional information for this product claims that it contains <0.5g of sugars per 100g as prepared.

In order for a food the claim it is fat-free, it must contain no more than 0.5g of far per 100g or 100ml. The nutritional information for this product claims that it contains <0.5g of fat per 100g as prepared.

So, overall, this product is true to the guidelines and is correct to state that it is low fat and sugar free. The thing that could fool people is the fact that it says less than 10 calories per portion but you have to read very carefully to see that there are in fact 4 portions in the package. In this case, there are very little calories in the food anyway and the whole package would only be around 36 calories in total but this is a trick which is used a lot on foods and if the food was as high in calories as Bachelors Super Noodles, for example, the calorie consumption would be much higher than the consumer would have first guessed. 

The next food I would like to look at is Lurpak Lighter. This food claims it is 'lighter' and also reduced fat.

For a product to claim it is 'light' or 'reduced fat' it has to contain at least 30% less fat than another product similar, so normal Lurpak Spreadable, for example. This product contains 57g of fat per 100g, whereas regular Lurpak contains 78g of fat per 100g. This makes the 'light' version around 25% less fat which tells us that there are clearly ways around the rules and regulations and that they mustn't be set in stone i.e some acceptions must be allowed for certain nutrient types. 

Labelling & Nutrition for Food Packaging

Following on from my last post about Food Packaging Regulations, I wanted to look into the guidelines for nutrition and health claims on foods. I found a link on the gov.uk website which lead me to the European Union register of nutrition and health claims on foods. This website lists all terms in which foods are allowed to claim that it is 'low fat' or 'sugar-free' for example. I wanted to focus on this in particular because I'm noticing more and more foods claiming to be healthy and a lot now have several versions of the same food with 'low salt' or 'lighter' versions. I want to find some examples of these foods and compare them to the guidelines to check if they are all they are made out to be and I would also like to check if foods that are advertised as being better for us are actually true to form or whether they are just reduced in size and therefore just appear to be better when in fact they are exactly the same.

References: Europa - Food Safety - Labelling & Nutrition - European Union of nutrition and health claims made on food - Nutrition Claims (2013) Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/claims/community_register/nutrition_claims_en.htm (Accessed: 2nd June 2015).

Below I have listed what I believe to be the most common claims on food packaging and what the regulations are for them to be able to make said claims. 

LOW FAT

A claim that a food is low in fat, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product contains no more than 3 g of fat per 100 g for solids or 1,5 g of fat per 100 ml for liquids (1,8 g of fat per 100 ml for semi-skimmed milk).

FAT-FREE

A claim that a food is fat-free, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product contains no more than 0,5 g of fat per 100 g or 100 ml. However, claims expressed as ‘X % fat-free’ shall be prohibited.

LOW SATURATED FAT

A claim that a food is low in saturated fat, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made if the sum of saturated fatty acids and trans-fatty acids in the product does not exceed 1,5 g per 100 g for solids or 0,75 g/100 ml for liquids and in either case the sum of saturated fatty acids and trans-fatty acids must not provide more than 10 % of energy.

SUGARS-FREE

A claim that a food is sugars-free, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product contains no more than 0,5 g of sugars per 100 g or 100 ml.

WITH NO ADDED SUGARS

A claim stating that sugars have not been added to a food, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product does not contain any added mono- or disaccharides or any other food used for its sweetening properties. If sugars are naturally present in the food, the following indication should also appear on the label: ‘CONTAINS NATURALLY OCCURRING SUGARS’.

LOW SODIUM/SALT

A claim that a food is low in sodium/salt, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, may only be made where the product contains no more than 0,12 g of sodium, or the equivalent value for salt, per 100 g or per 100 ml. For waters, other than natural mineral waters falling within the scope of Directive 80/777/EEC, this value should not exceed 2 mg of sodium per 100 ml.

LIGHT/LITE

A claim stating that a product is ‘light’ or ‘lite’, and any claim likely to have the same meaning for the consumer, shall follow the same conditions as those set for the term ‘reduced’; the claim shall also be accompanied by an indication of the characteristic(s) which make(s) the food ‘light’ or ‘lite’.

I would like to follow up from this post with some examples of foods which make these claims to see if they make the claims correctly.