Children and Attractive Food Packaging.

References: NetDoctor (2014) Health News - Kids pick healthy food with attractive packaging. Available at: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/interactive/news/kids-pick-healthy-food-with-attractive-packaging-id801792201-t116.html (Accessed: 10th July 2015).

I found an article which talks about a study on children and food packaging. The study found that when children are faced with 3 identical foods, all in different packaging, they are most likely to choose the food which has the most attractive packaging. This means that you could place a happy meal in a plain brown box and a bag of fruit in a box which featured their favourite cartoon characters and they would be much more likely to opt for the fruit! 

The children were asked to choose between three identical yoghurt, fruit and cereal snacks - but the only thing that differed was the packaging designs. The first packaging design was plain, the second displayed additional health information, and the third packaging design displayed cartoon characters and an attractive product name.

To determine the participants' motivation to choose a particular snack, the researchers used a device that measured hand grip strength. This allowed them to discover the strength with which the children squeezed their hand in order to receive their desired muesli snack.

It was found that the participants' motivation was greatest for the snack with the cartoon character packaging design. The plain packaging and the packaging detailing health information were less favoured by the children.

Mathilde Kersting, lead researcher of the study, said: 'Attractively designed food packaging can tempt children to pick unhealthy foods.

'However, marketing effects of this type can also be used to promote healthy food products to children.'

In my previous posts, I found how some people disagree with marketing to children completely. However, finding this article has certainly changed my view and made me think about how if all healthy food was packaged in a way which attracted children to choose them, we would have a lot more healthy children with less diet-related health conditions. Maybe there should just be restrictions on unhealthy food being marketed to children? 

Alternatively, what if all food was in plain packaging (like the cigarette packaging uproar not so long back) and nobody was allowed to express any use of colour, image or enticing text. This way everybody would be equal and children would choose food based on their taste rather than what is on the box. I don't think that's the way forward, however, I think that every food and brand is different and should have a right to have their own identity, just without using unrelated gimmicks to grab the attention of kids (One example of this which keeps grabbing my attention is the McVities advertisements and their use of cute, baby animals).

The Myth of Choice: How Junk-Food Marketers Target Children

Here is another video I have come across that I find relevant. Anna is a parent herself and she covers some really good points here on how companies aren't just selling unhealthy foods, but pretty much forcing them upon children.

Parents can only do so much to protect their children from unhealthy foods. They say no when their children asks for junk food, they turn off the TV when the foods are being advertised, the point is that no matter what they do there is always other methods used by companies to ensure that their food is placed in the mind of every child across the world. Some people have started to make a change, some schools have taken any branded products away, some shops have taken away any foods with characters on them. Anna isn't against junk food all together, she is just against the forcefulness of the marketing. She thinks that the products should still be sold, just not be sneakily placed everywhere you look. She thinks that natural foods should be available to everyone over fast food restaurants so that the convenient thing is to eat the healthy choice.

I have to say that I agree completely with the points raised in this video. I feel as though the cheapest and most convenient foods out there are the most unhealthy! Lately, I have been trying to make a conscious effort to eat far less processed foods and have an all round healthier day-to-day diet and I have noticed how much more money it's costing me to do so! My nearest supermarket is 10+ miles away which means I have to spend money to drive to get there, using cooked meat as an example, the processed versions are far cheaper than the real thing! This is the case in many food types and fruit and vegetables which need to be eaten fairly quickly work out more expensive than sugary snacks which last for months at a time. There definitely needs to be a change, if healthier foods were the cheaper and more convenient option then I'm sure most people would choose them over the unhealthy counterparts.

We're Not Buying It: Junk Food

Here is a video which outlines some of the problems we face with the marketing of unhealthy foods to children. It explains how the companies put money before the wellbeing of children and how they are battling against the people who are trying to clamp down on advertising unhealthy foods to children.

Food Marketing to Children in the UK

With childhood obesity and diet-related illnesses on the rise, I wanted to know what it is that is making children sway this way. I found an interesting article from Which? that looks into the marketing of unhealthy foods to children and discusses the need for action. I find this subject particularly interesting as I have a life-long health condition which could actually be caused by my poor diet throughout my childhood. It's genuinely horrible to think that children's diets are suffering and they could be gaining serious life-long medical conditions because big companies want to make more money by targeting those too young to know any better.

Over 30 per cent of boys and 28 per cent of girls are already obese or overweight (Craig and Mindell, 84 vol 21 no 2 􏰀 education review 2008), and forecasts suggest this will rise dramatically. By 2050 70 per cent of girls and 55 per cent of boys will be overweight or obese, while the overall annual cost of this crisis to our economy will exceed £45 billion (McPherson et al, 2007). The incidence of diet-related diseases such as cancer, heart disease, stroke and type 2 diabetes will continue to rise dramatically. 

I find these figures absolutely shocking. A dramatic change is definitely needed, children are spending more time glued to technology and eating junk food than they are outside exercising and having fun. I'm not suggesting that parenting is 100% to blame, but i'm seeing more and more parents throwing their kids in front of the television or an iPad/mobile phone to keep them quiet and occupied. By doing this, the children become dependant on these things—just like we do—and can't go without them. Whilst they are watching the television or playing on games, they are seeing advertisements blatantly aimed at children advertising unhealthy foods. If a child was outside playing in the garden or with their friends/family playing physical games, they wouldn't see any of these advertisements! 

As the article states, a range of initiatives need to be addressed in order to start solving this problem. A more responsible approach to food marketing, which shifts the balance from less healthy to healthier promotions, is essential and without it other efforts, such as better quality school meals and clear nutrition labelling, will be undermined.

Ofcom, the government communications regulator, has introduced rules for TV advertisements but Which? research has repeatedly shown that they are too limited. Other forms of marketing have either been ignored or are poorly covered by patchy self regulation and company policies. 

The rules in place do not cover all bases which means there are huge gaps in the system. Children are still being exposed to marketing because the rules state that if the proportion of children under 16 watching a programme is at least 20 per cent higher than the proportion of children in the general UK population, the restrictions apply. So, even if a huge number of children are watching a show, the restrictions do not apply if there’s also a large number of adults watching (common for family programmes and soap operas like Coronation Street and Ant and Dec’s Saturday Night Takeaway).  



There are many techniques that are used to target children, here are a few:

• 􏰁  Catchy characters
  Licensed characters (such as Kung Fu Panda, SpongeBob SquarePants and Scooby-Doo!) were still being used on food packaging to promote predominantly less healthy foods to children. Company-owned characters continue to be used to promote less healthy foods to children, such as Kellogg’s Tony the Tiger, who promotes Frosties which have over a third sugar per 100 grams and Nesquik’s Quicky the Bunny who features on all of Nesquik’s less healthy products.
  
• 􏰁  TV tactics
  During the two week period we examined we found that 16 of the top 20 commercial programmes watched by the highest numbers of children were not covered by the Ofcom restrictions. In previous analysis periods we have found that as many as 19 of top 20 programmes watched by children were not covered by the restrictions and that children were exposed to adverts for a wide range of less healthy foods.
  􏰁  Celebrity sell
  A number of food companies link their brands with celebrities who appeal to young people. For example, we found popular footballer Wayne Rooney promoting Coca Cola and Pepsi, the latter as part of its six “Pepsi Football Stars” (including David Beckham) to promote the brand, including the original Pepsi, which contains over 13 spoons of sugar per 500ml. The ongoing use of such promotional tactics comes despite a previous Which? survey finding that 77 per cent of parents think celebrities should take more responsibility for the food they promote to children.
  􏰁  Gimmicky giveaways
  We found Coca Cola’s Dr. Pepper giving away free ringtones (“20 to collect”) if the code from the pack was texted in or entered online. Kellogg’s high sugar cereal packets featured various promotional offers, some combined with competitions including vouchers for free entry to a zoo. We found tie-ins linked to cinema and DVD releases continuing at Burger King and McDonald’s with free toy promotions in children’s meals.
  􏰁  Games
  Puzzles, pictures and cut-out games are marketing devices that still regularly appear on sugary children’s breakfast cereals and other food products.
  􏰁  Wayward websites
  The internet is increasingly seen by advertisers as a key means of promoting less healthy foods to children. We found a reduction in some company-sponsored website content aimed at young people but several companies, such as Mars and PepsiCo, had developed more sophisticated brand sites. These were often tied in with wider promotions and linked up with popular sites such as YouTube, Facebook, MySpace and Bebo. A recent Ofcom report found that nearly half (49 per cent) of children have a profile on a social networking site.
  􏰁  Mobile marketing
  Marketers have increasingly sought to use text marketing as a means of reaching young people directly, in a format and language they relate to. We found mobile phones being used for promotions, especially by soft drink manufacturers. A code taken from a pack is texted to collect points or to enter a competition. Some companies also encourage texting to receive a free ring tone (such as Kellogg’s zookeeper competition used on high sugar cereals) and Dr Pepper’s “What’s the worst that could happen?” promotion. 

Which? wants to see the healthy choice become the easy choice for UK consumers. As Lyndsay from Nuneaton told Which?, “Why can't companies selling healthy food use the same type of marketing techniques as those selling crisps?”. 

It is worth noting that you rarely ever see advertisements for actual healthy foods aimed towards children. It seems as though the only healthy foods that are advertised are aimed at adult women wanting to keep the weight off and feel great. Why can't they do the same for children? Shouldn't children be brought up to know the effects bad food has on them and make a decision to eat a food because it's going to give them a much longer and healthier life compared to the unhealthy counterpart? As a child, whenever I was told that a food would benefit me in some way—for example carrots making me see in the dark—I always took note and made an effort to eat it, even though most of them weren't exactly true. Surely by advertising healthy foods the way they do with unhealthy foods would definitely encourage children to live a much healthier lifestyle.

The article does mention some success stories, such as weetabix and KFC. Although weetabix's child targeted cereal are high in sugar, they come out as a healthier option overall. KFC have improved their tactics by putting an end to giving away free children's toys in their kids meals. Nickelodeon have also made a step forward by agreeing to only allow their characters to be used on healthy foods.

We just need many more companies to make a step towards improvement.

References: Corbett, C, & Walker, C (2009), 'Catchy cartoons, wayward websites and mobile marketing - food marketing to children in a global world', Education Review, 21, 2, pp. 84-92, Education Source, EBSCOhost, viewed 8 July 2015.