Saturday Morning Children's Television.

References: Batada, A. Dock, M. Wootan, M. Story, M. (2008) 'Nine out of 10 Food Advertisements Shown During Saturday Morning Children's Television Programming Are for Foods High in Fat, Sodium, or Added Sugars, or Low in Nutrients.', Journal of the american dietetic association, Vol 108, Issue 4, Pages 673-678.


A 2005 review by the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies concluded that food marketing influences children’s food preferences, consumption, and health. Given the powerful influence of marketing on children’s diets, this cross-sectional study examined the types of foods, the nutritional quality of those foods, and the marketing techniques and messages used in food advertising during Saturday morning children’s television programming.

During 27.5 hours of programming in May 2005, 49% of advertisements shown were for food (281 food advertisements out of 572 total advertisements). The most commonly advertised food categories were ready-to-eat breakfast cereal and cereal bars (27% of all food advertisements), restaurants (19% of food advertisements), and snack foods (18% of food advertisements). Ninety-one percent of food advertisements were for foods or beverages high in fat, sodium, or added sugars or were low in nutrients. Cartoon characters were used in 74% of food advertisements, and toy or other giveaways were used in 26% of food advertisements. About half of food advertisements contained health/nutrition or physical activity messages and 86% of food advertisements contained emotional appeals.

The majority of foods advertised to children on Saturday morning television programs exceeds recommended levels of fat, added sugars, or sodium, or are low in nutrients, and as such, are out of balance with the foods recommended in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Most advertised foods are high in added sugars (59% of food advertisements), total fat (19%), sodium (18%), and/or saturated and trans fats (17%). Moreover, few advertised foods are those that children should eat more often.

We found wide discrepancies between what health experts recommend children eat and what marketing promotes as desirable to eat. Although parents can model and encourage healthful eating, companies have large advertising budgets, market research, cartoon characters, and sophisticated marketing techniques to influence children’s food choices and preferences. However, recently a number of companies have been making changes to their policies for marketing to children. One approach by food and entertainment companies is the application of nutrition standards to determine which foods it will market to children. For example, Kraft and PepsiCo have developed nutrition standards for their respective Sensible Solutions and Smart Spot labels. Those company standards are similar to those used in this study. Kraft, General Mills, Kellogg, and the Disney Company restrict certain children’s marketing to only those products that meet their nutrition standards. (Kraft, Kellogg, and General Mills also abstain from advertising to children younger than age 6 years.) Health advocates have been encouraging all food companies, restaurants, entertainment companies, and others that market food to children to adopt strong nutrition standards and apply them to all food marketing to children, including on television, on the Internet, in schools, and on packaging.

Another interesting finding of this study is that many Saturday-morning children’s television advertisements include health messages alongside foods that are high in fat, sugars, or sodium, or low in nutrients. Though almost all of the food advertisements were for foods high in fat, sugars, or sodium, or low in nutrients, 42% of the advertisements had a health/nutrition message. For example, an advertisement for Airhead Fruit Spinners fruit-flavored snacks (Perfetti Van Melle, Milano, Italy) contained the message, “with real fruit flavor and vitamin C charged crystals.” Forty-seven percent of food advertisements had a physical activity message, such as an advertisement depicting children wakeboarding after eating Cheetos (PepsiCo Inc, Purchase, NY). A recent study found that food advertisements depict children engaged in physical activity significantly more frequently than other advertisements aimed at children (30). Although several food companies and trade organizations have launched programs to promote more healthful lifestyles (6), when coupled with foods of poor nutritional quality, health/nutrition and physical activity messages are likely to be misleading and perhaps do more to promote unhealthful eating than to promote health.

Food and nutrition professionals and others concerned about child nutrition and health can advocate, both personally and within their professional capacities, for more responsible food marketing to children. With clients, food and nutrition professionals can reinforce the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendation that families limit children’s screen time (including television, movies, and Internet) to no more than 2 hours each day. In addition, to achieve a more healthful balance of food messages to children, food and nutrition professionals can join others to work to limit the marketing of nutrition-poor foods in schools, as the American Dietetic Association has supported through local school nutrition and physical activity wellness policies (17). Food and nutrition professionals also can urge food companies to stop marketing low- nutrition foods to children through television, food packaging, the Internet, and other approaches, and instead increase marketing of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and other healthful foods that children are under consuming. 


This article focuses on saturday morning children's television. This is one of the key timeslots where most children would be watching television and so food marketers will see this as an opportunity to promote as much as they can within a short space of time. 

Like many other readings, this article states that food marketing influences children’s food preferences, consumption, and health. There is no wonder that they are having such a huge influence when they are making use of every possible way they can to get their message across to children. 

This study found that the majority of foods advertised to children on Saturday morning television programs exceeds recommended levels of fat, added sugars, or sodium, or are low in nutrients. So, children are being promoted tonnes of unhealthy foods and hardly any healthy foods. Why aren't food marketers for healthy foods using these tactics? I'm sure it would make a lot of people happy if all of these sneaky promotional tactics were being used to promote healthy lifestyles compared to unhealthy junk food. 

There are health professionals out there giving advice on what they believe is best for children to eat, however, the marketers have a completely different concept on what they will promote as 'healthy to eat'. This makes it confusing for children as they are being convinced that the foods they are being promoted, and consuming, are healthy and good for them, just because the tv advertisement said so. There are an increasing number of policies in place where food marketers are trying to make small changes such as putting nutritional guidelines in place so they can't market anything too unhealthy directly towards children. They are also trying to convince people that their foods have some kind of health benefit, even when they are very unhealthy in every other way. This can be even more dangerous than not stating the health benefit at all as people may see this as an excuse to consume excessive amounts and rely on it. 

Overall, the article comes to a very common conclusion amongst my readings so far. It notes that changes need to be made such as more responsible food marketing to children, achieve a more healthful balance of food messages to children, limit the marketing of nutrition-poor foods in schools, urge food companies to stop marketing low- nutrition foods to children through television, food packaging, the Internet, and other approaches, and instead increase marketing of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and other healthful foods that children are under consuming. 

Children and Obesity: The Role of Food Marketing.

References: Matthews, A. (2007) 'Children and obesity: a pan-European project examining the role of food marketing.', European Journal of Public Health, Vol 18, Issue 1, Pages 7-11.

Here is an extract from an article I found on what part food marketers play on childhood obesity. It is a european study which uses questionnaires and data-collection relating to food promotion to children on 20 european countries. Results showed that unhealthy foods such as savoury snacks and confectionary were the most commonly marketed and consumed items by children. Television marketing was found to be the most commonly used promotional medium, but in-school and internet marketing were seen as growth areas. Only a few of the 20 countries reported the use of media literacy programmes designed to counterbalance the effects of food marketing to children, which means there aren't many people out there who are fighting this battle. The pattern of regulation discovered during this research was ineffective and incoherent because of the different restrictions each country had. Some have tough bans in place and others have nothing at all. Most health, consumer and public interest groups supported the point that restrictions need to be put in place, whereas industry and media groups advocated self-regulation.

The article's recommendations include the amendment of the European Union’s Television Without Frontiers Directive to ban all TV advertising of unhealthy food to children, the adoption of a commonly agreed European Union definition of an ‘unhealthy’ food, and the establishment of a mechanism for pan-European monitoring of the nature and extent of food marketing to children and its regulation.

A recent estimate that 20% of school-age children in Europe are carrying excess body fat (with a quarter of these being obese), poses an increasing risk of them developing chronic diseases with a significant likelihood of some having multiple risk factors for cardiovascular diseases, Type 2 diabetes and other co-morbidities before or during early adulthood.1 These risks are not uniform between European member states with children at particular risk in the countries around the Mediterranean and in the British Isles (see figure 1), although rising prevalence rates are occurring in all countries. Within the enlarged European Union (EU) of 2006, there are estimated to be almost 22 million overweight or obese children (about 30% of all children), and this figure is increasing by around 1.2 million each year. Of these children, 5.1 million are obese, and that figure is rising by some 300 000 children each year.2 

Phase 1 focused on one aspect of the cause of obesity—the marketing of food to children, in particular examining ‘promotion’ as a central element within marketing. Its aims were to
(i) Undertake a literature search of relevant existing international evidence.
(ii) Organize EHN national co-ordinators to collect data from the 20 European project countries: Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Information gathered related to food marketing to children, the regulatory environment and measures taken to compensate for any negative effects of the marketing.
(iii) Analyse the data and make recommendations about food marketing to children across Europe.

Defining unhealthy foods

In order to contextualize the nature of food marketing to children, co-ordinators were asked to report on any working definitions of unhealthy foods existing within each country. In countries where no definitions existed, co-ordinators reported their difficulty in agreeing what was meant by an ‘unhealthy’ food. Within the project there was a general assumption that such foods are high in fat, sugar or salt and that these foods are more likely to contribute to an unhealthy diet, but most countries had no working nutrient criteria which would have assisted such a definition.

Type and amount of food marketing to children
The data showed that food advertisements during children’s TV overwhelmingly promoted ‘unhealthy’ foods, with very little promotion of fruit and vegetables and other ‘healthy’ foods. The extent of unhealthy food marketing to children varied between countries with estimates ranging from 49% in Italy to nearly 100% in Denmark and the UK.
Advertisers spend a large and increasing proportions of their budgets on the food sector, illustrated by the following examples:

1. (i)  In the UK £743 million was spent on food and drinks advertising in 2003,4 with the total amount spent on food marketing increasing.5
   
2. (ii)  In Germany, 87% of total food advertising spend is on television advertising.6
   
3. (iii)  In The Netherlands advertising spending by the food industry as a whole grew by 128% between 1994 and 2003.7
   

Of concern was the volume of food advertising aimed at children. For example within the UK, children viewed an average of five television advertisements per day for Core Category pro- ducts (food, soft drinks and chain restaurants),8 the vast majority of which were for food items considered to be unhealthy in having a nutritional content high in fat, salt or sugar.5
Across countries, commonly used creative strategies used by food advertisers when targeting children included linking into children’s culture by referencing movies and their characters, and by using child-related appeals to play, fun, action-adventure, humour, magic or fantasy. Many advertisements make use of cartoon or celebrity characters.

Recent UK statistics suggest that though spending on advertising in the food sector may be increasing, the proportion spent on TV advertisements may be declining. Nonetheless, across countries where data was reported, the vast majority of food promotion was through television, with food promotion through radio, magazines and cinemas taking a low and possibly declining proportion of advertising spending. Schools, on the other hand, represented a growing marketing channel. Strategies included sponsoring events, linking food product purchasing to the provision of educational or sporting equipment often involving token collection schemes, and selling unhealthy food and drink products in vending machines. The Internet was also a new and growing medium, where creative strategies included cartoon-style games, competitions, educational materials and links to food company websites.

Attitudes towards food marketing to children
Reported data showed that health, consumer and other citizen groups acknowledged that obesity had many causes, but food marketing in particular was seen to play a significant role, thus raising the need to protect children in the interests of public health. The Danish Nutrition Council,9 for example, favoured restricting unhealthy food advertising to children as one element within a broader obesity prevention strategy. Similar groups favoured either banning or further restricting the marketing to children of foods high in fat, sugar or salt. Public interest groups also recommended other measures including nutrition and media education, taxing unhealthy foods and improving nutrition labelling.

On the other hand, the food and advertising industries defended their right to promote their products and they resisted proposed restrictions—attitudes which reflected their commer- cial aims. They opposed plans to ban food marketing to children, arguing for the removal of bans where they existed, and opposing the tightening of existing restrictions, warning governments that restrictions would harm trade and commerce. 

Across the EU, governments’ responses to these conflicting pressures have varied from tough regulations in a few countries to a more ‘laissez-faire’ approach in the majority of countries. In some countries, such as Germany, Spain and the UK, governments are trying to persuade the food and advertising industry to voluntarily restrict their activities, for example, by ‘responsible’ self-regulation and by challenging them to introduce social marketing techniques to promote healthier food. Governments in other countries are focusing on restricting food marketing in schools, for example, in Finland, where this influence is perceived as a key area of concern, and Greece, where a lack of agreed definitions for ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’ foods is inhibiting efforts to remove unhealthy food products from schools. Where countries have already banned food marketing to children on TV, governments are focusing on other areas, e.g. Norway is advocating a ban on cinema advertising, and Sweden is calling for an international ban on TV advertising to children.

Co-ordinators reported counterbalancing measures which although designed to improve children’s health or specifically tackle childhood obesity, nevertheless were also perceived to combat the effects of food marketing to children. Measures reported included fruit and vegetable promotion, general educational measures focusing on food and health, media literacy and physical activity programmes.

Fruit and vegetable promotion schemes were reported by most national co-ordinators. Many of these schemes advocated the consumption of at least five portions of fruit or vegetables a day. Many fruit and vegetable promotion schemes operated in schools, offering educational programmes, information and materials, tasting sessions and free or low cost fresh fruit and vegetables.

Most countries reported a variety of measures to promote physical activity—including projects run by or sponsored by food companies. From the companies’ perspective, such projects boosted their public image and deflected attention away from marketing activities which promoted ‘unhealthy’ food.

It is clear that food manufacturers are increasingly using integrated and sophisticated marketing strategies to promote their products directly and indirectly to children, which has also been found in other international research.11,12 Global commercial marketing to children of food and drink is dominated by unhealthy products, with television as the prime medium for such advertising.13–15 The data here concurs with these findings, but there was some evidence that television is losing its dominance as in-school and internet marketing are growing.

Strategies used to counterbalance this effect included fruit and vegetable promotion, and food, health and physical activity education programmes. Media literacy programmes, often held up by the food industry as the means by which children can be helped to a critical understanding of advertising, were found in only a handful of countries and very few had been evaluated. None had been designed and implemented as an integrated programme.

The attitudes of stakeholders revealed varying levels of responsibility with regard to food marketing to children. There was widespread agreement amongst health, consumer and other public interest groups that food marketing to children should be restricted across Europe. These views juxtaposed with those of the food and media industries which, whilst recognizing the vulnerability of children, argued that self-regulation was more effective than statutory restrictions which would only limit economic growth. Government responses to these debates varied between some adopting tough restrictions and others who sought to persuade industry to act responsibly.

This study concurred with previous research in showing that most European countries have an incoherent patchwork of legal and voluntary controls. This situation compromises the efforts of some countries who have strong national regulations but who are nevertheless powerless to prevent commercial communications arriving in their country from beyond their borders. For example, Sweden and Norway have statutorily banned TV advertising to children but receive advertisements on cable and satellite TV broadcast from other countries. The first recommendation to remedy these inconsistencies would be the amendment of the EU’s Television Without Frontiers Directive to bring about a ban all TV advertising of unhealthy food to children. Such a move would protect the effect of bans within individual countries and extend this protection to the rest of Europe’s children. Additional measures to control ‘unhealthy’ food marketing in schools and on the Internet are also needed. 


The marketing strategies used to promote products directly to children is increasing. This wouldn't be such a problem if healthy food was dominating, but of course it isn't. Television is the most used platform for advertising to children, however it is starting to lose it's dominance as in-school and internet marketing is on the rise. I feel as though in-school and internet marketing is going to become even more persuasive then television as they have much more potential to do more and have the children interact with their promotions. With children using technology more and more, most of them have access to the internet throughout the day—especially in schools where they have computer access. 

There have been some efforts to counterbalance the effects of marketing to children such as fruit and vegetable promotion, and food, health and physical activity education programmes. I feel as though these programmes do help in raising the awareness to children that they do need to eat healthily and have a physically active lifestyle, especially now they aren't going out as much as they play computer games! There has also been a handful of countries that have media literacy programmes in place that aim to help children understand advertising and how it works. More definitely needs to be done, especially if countries only want self-regulation in place. 

There is a big problem for the countries which do impose bans on tv advertising to children. Of course, they have a ban in place and their own tv networks have to abide by these rules, but the countries have tv broadcasting from other countries which do not have these bans in place and do not have to follow the rules. This means that they are still being exposed to ads directed to children, even with their bans in place. This problem could be solved by every country having to follow the same ban and therefore no countries rules would be broken.

  

Food Marketing & Childhood Obesity.

References: Nestle, M. (2006) 'Food Marketing and Childhood Obesity — A Matter of Policy', The New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 354, Issue 24, Pages 2527-2529.

One book that has been mentioned by quite a few of the journal articles I have read is 'Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity'. It is a book which examines food marketing to children and youth as a potential cause of health issues in children. The following article talks about the book and gives a good outline of some specific outcomes related to childhood obesity.

Food marketing, the IOM says, intentionally targets children who are too young to distinguish advertising from truth and induces them to eat high-calorie, low-nutrient (but highly profitable) “junk” foods; companies succeed so well in this effort that business-as-usual cannot be allowed to continue.
Since the late 1970s, obesity rates have more than doubled among children 6 to 11 years of age and more than tripled among those 12 to 19 years of age. As one consequence, type 2 diabetes mellitus is no longer rare in pediatric practice.2 The IOM states its first conclusion politely: the diets of American children are “in need of improvement.” As its report makes clear, this is a gross understatement: at least 30 percent of the calories in the average child’s diet derive from sweets, soft drinks, salty snacks, and fast food. Soft drinks account for more than 10 percent of the caloric intake, representing a doubling since 1980. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, even babies consume measurable quantities of soft drinks, and pediatricians say it is not unusual for overweight children to consume 1200 to 2000 calories per day from soft drinks alone. 

Marketing strongly influences children’s food preferences, requests, and consumption. The idea that some forms of marketing increase the risk of obesity, says the IOM, “cannot be rejected.”

Although marketers justify appeals to children as “training” in consumer culture, as free speech, and as good for business, they are not selling just any consumer product: they are selling junk foods to children who would be better off not eating them.

 American children spend nearly $30 billion of their own money annually on such foods, and companies design products to tap this market. Since 1994, U.S. companies have introduced about 600 new children’s food products; half of them have been candies or

chewing gums, and another fourth are other types of sweets or salty snacks. Only one fourth are more healthful items, such as baby foods, bread products, and bottled waters. Companies support sales of “kids’ foods,” with marketing budgets totaling an estimated $10 billion annually.1,3 Kellogg spent $22.2 million just on media advertising to promote 139.8 million dollars’ worth of Cheez-It crackers in 2004, but these figures are dwarfed by McDonald’s $528.8 million expenditure to support $24.4 billion in sales.
Marketing to children is hardly new, but recent methods are far more intense and pervasive. Television still predominates, but the balance is shifting to product placements in toys, games, educational materials, songs, and movies; character licensing and celebrity endorsements; and less visible “stealth” campaigns involving word of mouth, cellular-telephone text messages, and the Internet. All aim to teach children to recognize brands and pester their parents to buy them. The IOM notes that by two years of age, most children can recognize products in supermarkets and ask for them by name.
But the most insidious purpose of marketing is to persuade children to eat foods made “just for them” — not what adults are eating. Some campaigns aim to convince children that they know more about what they are “supposed to” eat than their parents do. Marketers explicitly attempt to undermine family decisions about food choices by convincing children that they, not adults, should control those choices.4 Indeed, children now routinely report that they, and not their parents, decide what to eat. 

The IOM concludes that its data establish a “need and an opportunity [to] . . . turn food and beverage marketing forces toward better diets for American children and youth.” This will be no small task. Junk foods are major sources of revenue for food companies. In response to threats of lawsuits and legislation, companies are scrambling to support health and exercise programs, to announce policies renouncing advertising directed at children under certain ages, and to make their products appear more healthful. Hence: vitamin-enriched candy, whole-grain chocolate cereals, and trans fat–free salty snacks. Yet candies, soft drinks, and snack foods remain the most heavily promoted products.1

In January 2006, advocacy groups announced a Massachusetts lawsuit to enjoin Kellogg and Viacom, owner of the Nickelodeon television network, from promoting junk foods to children.5 Dozens of state legislatures have introduced bills to curb food marketing, and parent and advocacy groups are demanding bans on food marketing in schools.

Such efforts may push U.S. policies in the direction of those of at least 50 other countries that regulate television advertising aimed at children. Australia, for example, bans food advertisements meant for children younger than 14 years of age; the Netherlands bans advertisements for sweets to those younger than 12; and Sweden bans the use of cartoon characters to promote foods to children younger than 12. Although such actions have not eliminated childhood obesity — rates in these coun- tries are increasing, although they remain lower than the U.S. rate — they may help to slow current trends. In contrast, U.S. regulations apply only to time: commercials may take up to 12 minutes per hour during weekdays but “only” 10.5 minutes per hour on weekends.

Worth serious consideration, I believe, are restrictions or bans on the use of cartoon characters, celebrity endorsements, health claims on food packages, stealth marketing, and marketing in schools, along with federal actions that promote media literacy, better school meals, and consumption of fruits and vegetables. With- out further changes in society, such actions may not be enough to prevent childhood obesity, but they should make it much easier for parents — and health care providers — to encourage children to eat more healthfully. 


Some key points from this article which I find relevant to my studies are:

Since 1970s, obesity rates have doubled for children aged 6-11 and tripled for those 12-19 years.

At least 30% of the nutrients a child consumes derive from sweets, soft drinks, salty snacks and fast food. Even babies are consuming up to 2000 calories per day from soft drinks alone!

It has been proven that marketing strongly influences childrens food preferences, requests and consumption.

Marketers are selling junk food to children who would be better off not eating them at all.

Companies continue to introduce new food products to the market but half of them are candies and a further fourth are other types of sweets and salty snacks. Leaving only one fourth of new products which are healthy options such as baby foods, breads and bottled waters.

Television is still the largest competitor on the marketing front, however, the balance in shifting to products placements, games, educational materials, songs, movies, character liscencing and celebrity endorsements and even more "stealth" campaigns including word of mouth, text messages and word of mouth. 

Campaigners are even trying to persuade children that they know better than their parents when it comes to what foods they consume. 

There is definitely a need to change food marketing techniques from promoting unhealthy foods to a much healthier, balanced diet. Food marketers are being faced with legislations and lawsuits and so are trying their best to avoid the situation by making small attempts to promote health and exercise programmes, and make their products seem more nutritious, hence vitamin-enriched sweets and whole-grain chocolate cereal. Unhealthy foods, however, are still promoted the heaviest.

Some countries have put bans in place to improve the health of children, but so far they haven't reduced the rate of childhood obesity, but maybe slowed it down. 

I agree with this article in that more definitely needs to be done to try to turn the health of children around. Restrictions and bans on the use of characters, celebrity endorsements, false health claims, stealth marketing and marketing in schools are definitely a good starting point. I think there should be more awareness raised on the topic to make more parents aware of what it actually happening to their childrens childhoods and then maybe more people would be outraged and call for a change. 

Limiting Children's Food Ads.

References: References: Barnes, B. (2007) 'Limiting Ads of Junk Food To Children.', The New York Times, Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/business/18food.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (Accessed: Wednesday 14 October 2015).

This article talks about the steps food companies have taken/are going to take in order to avoid government regulation coming into place. It is from 2007 but gives me a good idea of the kind of small changes the companies are willing to make in order to take a step towards reducing childhood obesity. 

Trying to persuade critics the industry does not need government regulation, 11 big food companies, including McDonald’s, Campbell Soup and PepsiCo, have agreed to stop advertising to children under 12 products that do not meet certain nutritional standards. Some of the companies, like Coca-Cola, have already withdrawn all such commercials or are in the process of doing so. Others, like General Mills, said they would withdraw them over the next year or so, while a handful agreed to expand their self-imposed bans to radio, print and Internet advertising.

General Mills will no longer be advertising Trix to the 12-and-under crowd, it will continue to peddle Cocoa Puffs, which have one less gram of sugar per serving. And it will be able to continue advertising Trix on television shows and other media that are considered to cater to “families” rather than just children.

That qualifier amounts to a major loophole, given the media-watching habits of children. An episode of Nickelodon’s “SpongeBob SquarePants,” for instance, is viewed by an average audience of 876,000 children age 6 to 11, according to Nielsen Media Research, and falls in the category of shows that are off-limits to ads for junk food. But “American Idol” from Fox, which qualifies as a family show, attracts 2.1 million children in the age group.

“This is great public relations for the companies, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough,” said Susan Linn, co-founder of the Boston-based group Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood. “It is going to be impossible to monitor if the companies are actually doing what they say.”

To some degree, the pledges appeared to be an effort by the food companies to get out in front of a forthcoming government study on childhood obesity.

The financial impact of the pledges on television networks like Nickelodeon, ABC Family and Cartoon Network will depend on how well the food companies can tweak their products. Many of the companies are not automatically withdrawing their products from the airwaves; rather, they are trying to reformulate the foods to meet nutritional guidelines. If they cannot do so to their satisfaction, they say they will replace ads for so-called junk foods with spots for healthier alternatives.

Cadbury Adams, the maker of Bubblicious chewing gum, says it will either withdraw advertisements of the brand from certain media or will direct half of its current Bubblicious budget to the promotion of healthier eating habits. The company declined to specify how much it spends promoting Bubblicious each year, but said that a healthier habit might be choosing a smaller portion of gum.

MTV Networks, which owns Nickelodeon and other channels popular with younger viewers, expects the agreements to have minimal impact on its bottom line. “Many products sold by these companies haven’t been on our air for years,” said Jim Perry, executive vice president for ad sales at Nickelodeon and MTV Networks Kids and Family Group. Marva Smalls, executive vice president for Nickelodeon public affairs, added, “We have been on the road pressing for this.”

Under PepsiCo’s pledge, only two products can be marketed to children under 12, according to Lynn Markley, vice president for health and wellness. They are Baked Cheetos, which have 50 percent less fat than regular Cheetos, and Gatorade. In the case of Gatorade, the company says the brand will sponsor ads that give tips to children on participating in sports. The product itself will not be pictured.

PepsiCo’s commitment will also translate to a diminished role for Cap’n Crunch, the familiar mascot of the cereal made by the company’s Quaker Oats division. Ms. Markley said that the Cap’n will remain on cereal boxes but that as of Jan. 1, 2008, he will not appear in any television, print, Internet or other advertising to children under 12. This will mean an end to his interactive arcade-style game for children at www.capncrunch.com.

Other companies agreed in their pledges to limit their use of licensed characters like SpongeBob or Scooby-Doo.

Deborah Platt Majoras, the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, called the various pledges “a significant step” and urged more food makers to join the effort. “While changes in food marketing alone will not solve the nation’s childhood obesity problem, these actions will help make a healthy choice the easy choice,” she said in a statement.

Efforts to curtail junk food advertisements started escalating about three years ago, as evidence of the problem of child obesity started mounting. Food companies, concluding that the issue would not go away and fearing the kind of government scrutiny given to tobacco companies, started trying to police themselves.

Kraft was an early leader. In January 2005, the company said it would stop advertising products like Oreos, Chips Ahoy and most Oscar Mayer Lunchables on programs aimed at children ages 6 to 11. Other companies followed, including Kellogg, which said last month that it would stop marketing foods that have more than 12 grams of sugar per serving to children. These include such childhood favorites as Froot Loops, Apple Jacks and Pop-Tarts.

Companies such as McDonalds, Campbell Soup, Coca Cola and PepsiCo have all agree'd to stop advertising products to children that don't meet certain nutritional standards. This means any products they have which contain more than 12g of sugar per serving have to either be reformulated to meet those requirements or alternatively, stop advertising the product to under 12's completely. 

However, there is still a huge loophole in these changes. Although the companies have agree'd to stop advertising nutritionally deficient products to under 12's, that doesn't stop them from advertising the same products on family shows. The article points out that family shows such as American Idol have a lot more under 12's watching than a show like Spongebob Square Pants and so they are still being targeted.

The article questions whether the companies are really making changes for the benefit of the children or whether it's just to cover their own backs with an upcoming investigation on childhood obesity. They don't want to be labelled as a contributor and so they are making small changes that on paper, make them appear much better. 

Although at first, it seems that the companies are being a massive help, when you look into it further, they aren't all they seem. One of the examples in the article states how a chewing gum brand plans to promote healthier eating habits, but when questioned what they would be, it is just eating smaller portions of their gum. 

Some companies are, however, making useful changes which really could make a difference such as PepsiCo getting rid of their character Cap'n Crunch from all television, print and internet advertisements. 

 

Regulating Food Ads To Children.

References: Graff, S. Kunkel, D. Mermin, S. (2012) 'Government Can Regulate Food Advertising To Children Because Cognitive Research Shows That It Is Inherently Misleading', Health Affairs, Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 392-398.

ABSTRACT: The childhood obesity crisis has prompted repeated calls for government action to curb the marketing of unhealthy food to children. Food and entertainment industry groups have asserted that the First Amendment prohibits such regulation. However, case law establishes that the First Amendment does not protect “inherently misleading” commercial speech. Cognitive research indicates that young children cannot effectively recognize the persuasive intent of advertising or apply the critical evaluation required to comprehend commercial messages. Given this combination—that government can prohibit “inherently misleading” advertising and that children cannot adequately understand commercial messages—advertising to children younger than age twelve should be considered beyond the scope of constitutional protection.

Extensive research has established that food advertising is effective at influencing children’s product preferences, requests, and actual diet.1,2 It is no surprise, then, that nearly 40 percent of the total energy consumed by people ages 2–18 is empty calories that lack nutritional value.6 According to the Institute of Medicine, food marketing practices geared to children and youth contribute to an environment that puts their health at risk.1 Under pressure from public health and child advocates, many food companies have pledged to limit how or what they market to children, principally through the self-regulatory Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative.7 But several studies have exposed serious inadequacies in industry’s voluntary measures.4,5,8 For instance, a 2009 report found that after several years of industry self-regulation, nearly three-quarters of foods advertised during children’s television programs were still nutritionally deficient.8 Moreover, evidence is mounting that the marketing of unhealthy food products is disproportionately targeted at ethnic minority youth.9

Frequent media use ensures that most children are heavily exposed to food marketing messages. Children ages 8–10 spend approximately six hours daily watching television and using online media, which are saturated with commercial advertisements.20 Children average 2.2 hours of television viewing per day at age one, and that average increases to 3.6 hours per day by age three.21 Most children are immersed in commercially supported media long before they leave the crib and high chair behind. 

Despite the growing problem of childhood obesity, most food commercials directed at children promote what nutritionists call “low-nutrient, calorie-dense” products,23,24 or what the lay public terms “junk food.” More specifically, the majority of food advertisements viewed by children are for products high in fat, sugar, or sodium.25 In contrast, genuinely healthy foods that should be a part of a regular diet are almost never advertised to children.26,27

The food brands most heavily advertised on television are also featured prominently online.28–30 In addition to banner-style advertising, websites include so-called advergames that engage children in entertaining activities while immersing them in a product-related environment.28 Emerging research shows that such interactive techniques wield powerful influence by diminishing children’s conscious awareness of marketing techniques while penetrating the sub-conscious with positive brand associations.31

Experimental lab studies establish that advertising influences children’s attitudes toward products and their food product choices and requests.1,32 These studies are complemented by field experiments, such as one conducted at a summer camp, where researchers manipulated the television advertising seen by children ages 5–8 over a two-week period and found that the foods children selected to eat in the camp cafeteria were significantly influenced by the ads they viewed.33 

Industry argues that it is parents’ responsibility to choose what their children consume. But advertisers invest billions of dollars to trigger children’s cravings, and parents frequently yield to children’s food requests.35,36

Thus, it is not surprising that more than sixty published studies demonstrate a relationship between television exposure and obesity.1 The evidence is strong that this linkage is driven as much or more by the advertising influence as by the sedentary nature of television viewing.1,37 For example, recent research found that the relationship between television viewing and obesity was significant for time spent watching commercial television, but not for time spent watching television without advertising.38

The scientific community now widely accepts that marketing unhealthy food products contributes to childhood obesity. After conducting a systematic review of all existing research in this realm, the Institute of Medicine concluded in 2006 that food marketing to children is a substantial contributor to childhood obesity.1 Subsequent studies corroborate this conclusion.39–41

This article links food advertisements to childhood obesity. It touches on some good points such as how healthy food is hardly ever advertised and how marketers are using several different platforms to target children. 

Research has shown that the majority of 2-18 year olds are eating 40% empty calories which lack nutritional value. It is no wonder then, that the health of children is on the downfall and nutrition-related illnesses are on the rise. Food companies have taken pledges in the past to reduce the amount of advertisements on unhealthy foods, but research has shown that nearly three-quarters of food advertised in 2009 was still nutritionally deficient.

Statistics prove that children are watching more television, spending more time online, playing games etc. and marketers are aware of this and use it to their advantage. They know that children love to play games and so they create a game based around one of their products. The children don't realise that the aim of the game is to get you to buy their products, they just want to play the game. This, again, is a misleading tactic which is being used against children and their parents on a regular basis.

Field experiments have shown that children exposed to products in advertisements are more likely to eat/drink that product when given the choice. The industry argues that it is the parents choice on what they allow their kids to consume yet they are constantly trying their hardest to trigger children's cravings, and parents often give in to their children's food requests. 

It is clear that children who watch more television will be exposed to more advertisements and therefore will be more influenced by the products advertised. However, if the advertisements weren't there and children who watched television were watching educational, factual programmes, then they wouldn't be influenced by product advertisements at all. People may argue that if you don't want your children to be exposed to these product ads then don't let them watch so much television, but the fact of the matter is that they shouldn't have to hide away from certain platforms because advertisements have taken over, they are everywhere and there sometimes is no avoiding them no matter how hard you may try. 

TV Food Marketing to Children.

Pomeranz, J. (2010) 'Television Food Marketing to Children Revisited: The Federal Trade Commission Had the Constituan and Statutory Authority to Regulate.', Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 98-116.

It explores the theory that because young children do not and cannot comprehend that they are being advertised to, this form of communication is inherently conducive to deception and coercion.11 The specific marketing techniques employed by the food and beverage industry to advertise to children further demonstrate that this form of communication should not be considered protected by the First Amendment. FTC rulemaking in this area would thus be consistent with the First Amendment’s lack of protection for such speech. Although the argument may apply to marketing for all products, this paper relies on the science relevant to children and food marketing so the current analysis is limited to the FTC’s authority to restrict food market- ing directed at youth.

The scientific literature is robust and consistent in finding that food and beverage (hereinafter food) marketing influences children’s nutrition related beliefs and behaviors and that young children cannot perceive the difference between marketing intended to influence them and regular programming or purely factual information.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) sought to determine the influence of food marketing on children and youth and published its findings in its 2006 report, Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity.12 The committee reviewed 123 published empirical studies13 and found “strong evidence” that television advertising affects the food and beverage requests and preferences of children ages two to eleven.14 The committee also found that food advertising increased children’s consumption of the advertised foods, at least in the short term.15 Similarly, Gerard Hastings et al. found strong evidence that food promotion affects children’s food purchasing-related behaviors and reasonably strong evidence that it influences their food preferences.16 Jennifer L. Harris et al. reported that the evidence indicates that television food advertising increases children’s preferences for the foods advertised and their requests to parents for those foods at both the brand and category level.17 Mary Story and Simone A. French reported that studies consistently show that children exposed to advertising will choose advertised foods significantly more than those who were not exposed, and purchase requests for specific brands or categories reflect those products’ advertising frequencies.18 In fact, the authors found that children most often request breakfast cereal, snacks, and beverages by brand name.19 This reflects the items most marketed to children on television.20

 

Because the vast majority of food marketed to children is unhealthy, the net effect is that children are developing poor nutrition-related beliefs and behaviors as a result of their exposure to such communication. Constant portrayals of children and beloved fictional characters eating, playing, or having fun with unhealthy food normalize unhealthy eating behaviors,21 which has been found to contribute to childhood obesity.22

The scientific literature also reveals that unlike for adolescents and adults, young children do not know that advertisements are intended to influence them. Marketing directed at young children may be manipulative due to this lack of understanding. The IOM’s review of the scientific literature led the committee to conclude that “most children ages 8 years and under do not effectively comprehend the persuasive intent of marketing messages, and most children ages 4 years and under cannot consistently discriminate between television advertising and programming.”23 The American Psychological Association’s Task Force on Advertising and Children (APA Task Force) similarly found that “young children who lack the ability to attribute persuasive intent to television advertising are uniquely vulnerable to such effects. Children below age 7-8 years tend to accept commercial claims and appeals as truthful and accurate because they fail to comprehend the advertiser’s motive to exaggerate and embellish.”24 

 

A final issue involved in the unique nature of marketing directed at youth is that marketers openly use their campaigns to encourage children to influence the purchases made by their parents. This has been called “pester power,”31 “the nag factor,”32 and “kid-influence”33 by the industry responsible for marketing to children. The Report of the APA Task Force explained it as follows: Along with the growth in marketing efforts directed toward youth has come an upsurge in the use of psychological knowledge and research to more effectively market products to young children. There [are] an increasing number of companies headed by people trained as child psychologists that specialize in market research on children.... [Publications] draw upon principles in developmental psychology and apply them to the goal of more effectively persuading children to want advertised products and to influence their parents to purchase these products.... [One study by marketers] was designed to determine which message strategy would most effectively induce children to nag their parents to buy the advertised product (‘The old nagging game’). 34 

New emerging research reveals distinct concerns for marketing via digital media and that adolescents are uniquely vulnerable to market- ers’ influence due to neurobiology susceptibility and their early adoption of digital media.35 Although these issues carry important public health repercussions, more scientific research is needed in this area and the First Amendment implications are outside the scope of this paper. 

12. Institute of Medicine (IOM), Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity, (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2006): at 227. 

16. G. Hastings, L. McDermott, K. Angus, M. Stead, and S. Thom- son, “The Extent, Nature and Effect of Food Promotion to Children: A Review of the Evidence,” Technical paper prepared for the World Health Organization, 2006.

17. J. L. Harris, J. L. Pomeranz, T. Lobstein, and K. D. Brownell, “A Crisis in the Marketplace: How Food Marketing Contrib- utes to Childhood Obesity and What Can Be Done,” Annual Review of Public Health 30 (2009): 211-225.

18. M. Story and S. French, “Food Advertising and Marketing Directed at Children and Adolescents in the US,” International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 1, no. 3 (2004): 1-17, at 11.

20. See FTC Report: Marketing Food to Children and Adolescents, July 2008, available at <http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/07/ P064504foodmktingreport.pdf> (last visited January 11, 2010).

This article touches on some relevant points for my studies. The articles main subject is about how advertising and marketing constitutes protected commercial speech in the First Amendment which allowed them to remain unregulated and how the Federal Trade Commission has since put self-regulations in place. However, the points which I found relevant to my research are those in which talk about how children are affected by marketing. Children's nutrition related beliefs and behaviours are being influenced by marketers and they can't comprehend the difference in marketing intended to influence them and purely factual or regular programming. 

There has been strong evidence found that television advertising affects the food and beverage requests and preferences of children aged 2-11, and also increases their consumption of the advertised foods in the short term. Studies also consistently show that children exposed to advertising will choose advertised foods significantly more than those who were not exposed, and purchase requests for specific brands or categories reflect those products’ advertising frequencies. It was also found that children most often request breakfast cereal, snacks, and beverages by brand name, which reflects the items most marketed to children on television.

The vast majority of food marketed towards children is unhealthy and shows their favourite characters eating, playing and having fun with the food/drink, thus normalising it to them. Children are developing poor nutrition-related beliefs and behaviours as an effect of their exposure to so many unhealthy food advertisements. This is one of the contributors to childhood obesity.

Marketing to children can be manipulative because they don't understand that the ads are intended to influence them, they can take them as truthful and factual because they don't understand the advertisers motive to exaggerate and embellish.

Marketers are openly using their techniques in order to encourage children to influence the purchases made by their parents. They are being clever about their techniques and a lot of thought goes into how they can get their product into the homes of children. 

This article backs up a lot of subjects which I touched on in my survey. Not only are children being manipulated by marketers, but they are also being encouraged to manipulate their parents into buying them the products. Advertisers have been very tactical about this and they are definitely successful in doing so. 

 

TV Advertising Loopholes and Hidden Messages.

References: Speers, S. Harris, J. Schwartz, M. (2011) 'Child and Adolescent Exposure to Food and Beverage Brand Appearances During Prime-Time Television Programming', American Journal of Preventative Medicine, Volume 41, Issue 3, Pages 291-296.

The following article talks about how food marketers target children during prime-time television programmes through product placement. With food and beverage marketing being a primary contributor to childhood obesity, product placements are a sneaky way of getting around the rules and regulations that are in place to improve the health of children.

In one study,8 children who viewed a movie scene in which a bottle of Pepsi was placed on the table were more likely to choose Pepsi over Coke compared to those who watched the same scene without the Pepsi bottle, even when the children did not remember seeing the Pepsi bottle.

In 2006, the Council of Better Business Bureaus launched the voluntary Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI), which required participating companies to “cease paying for or actively seeking to place their food and beverage products in editorial/ programming content that is primarily directed to children aged 􏰀12 years for the purpose of promoting the sale of those products.”13 However, the CFBAI has been criticized for shortcomings that allow companies to continue to advertise nutrient-poor foods to youth.6,14 Notably, limitations on product placements do not apply to TV programs with broad general audiences that include many children. Approximately 50% of children’s exposure to traditional food advertisements occurs on these types of general-audience programs.15

Nearly 35,000 food, beverage, and restaurant brands appeared on prime-time TV programming in 2008. Three categories (other restaurants, regular soft drinks, and energy/ sports drinks) made up the majority of appearances. Children and adolescents viewed approximately 0.8 and 1.2 of these brand appearances every day; and regular soft drinks represented three quarters of this exposure.

Coca-Cola alone represented 70% of brand appearances viewed by children. As a participant in the CFBAI, Coca-Cola has pledged it will not “engage in child-directed food and beverage advertising.”13 However, children viewed prime-time brand appearances for Coca- Cola products nearly four times per week in 2008. PepsiCo was the company with the second-highest exposure to brand appearances; but children viewed just eight PepsiCo product appearances in total in 2008.

Overall, CFBAI participating companies’ products made up 80% of brand appearances viewed by children. Thus this analysis reveals a substantial loophole in the CFBAI pledges that Coca-Cola alone appears to have taken advantage of; companies can claim they will not advertise to children while still exposing children to substantial numbers of product placements on prime-time TV. 

Food, beverage, and restaurant brands appeared a total of 35,000 times within prime-time TV programming examined by Nielsen in 2008. Regular soft drinks, traditional restaurants (i.e., not quickserve), and energy/sports drinks made up 60% of all brand appearances. Young people viewed relatively few of these appearances with one notable exception. Coca-Cola products were seen 198 times by the average child and 269 times by the average adolescent during prime-time shows over the year, accounting for 70% of child exposure and 61% of adolescent exposure to brand appearances. One show, American Idol, accounted for more than 95% of these exposures. Exposure of children to Coca-Cola products through traditional advertisements was much less common.

Brand appearances for most food industry companies, except for Coca-Cola, are relatively rare during prime-time programming with large youth audiences. Coca-Cola has pledged to refrain from advertising to children, yet the average child views almost four Coke appearances on prime-time TV every week. This analysis reveals a substantial, potential loophole in current food industry self-regulatory pledges to advertise only better-for-you foods to children.

This article highlights one of the loopholes in which marketers are using in order to target children. On the one hand, we have people fighting for regulations to be put in place and on the other, we have marketers finding new ways to avoid those regulations and get their messages across anyway. It seems that the regulations that are put in place, in this case, are simply not specific enough and have far too many loopholes in which the marketers can use to avoid the new rules. By saying they can't advertise/product place to programmes viewed primarily by under 12's isn't enough as when it comes to family shows where the whole family are watching, including those under 12's, they are using this as an opportunity to put lots of ad's and product placements in. 

Not only are the regulations too vague, product placement in general is a very sneaky way to advertise products, especially to children who don't see past what they are aiming to do. It is, in a way, a hidden/subliminal message as children are viewing the products without even realising and then they are suddenly more likely to choose that product over another (as explained by the coca-cola and pepsi example within the article).

This study has touched on some subjects which I would like to find out more about. I want to find out whether there are any more loopholes which are being used and also how exactly these product placements and advertisements are having an effect on children, do they really have as big of an effect as what this article implies?