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.