A
Children’s food promotion is dominated by television advertising, and
the great majority of this promotes the so-called ‘Big Four’ of pre-sugared
breakfast cereals, soft drinks, confectionery and savoury snacks. In the
last ten years advertising for fast food, outlets have rapidly increased.
There is some evidence that the dominance of television has recently begun
to wane. The importance of strong, global branding reinforces a need for
multi-faceted communications combining television with merchandising,
‘tie-ins’ and point of sale activity. The advertised diet contrasts sharply
with that recommended by public health advisors, and themes of fun and
fantasy or taste, rather than health and nutrition, are used to promote it
to children. Meanwhile, the recommended diet gets little promotional
support.
B
There is plenty of evidence that children notice and enjoy food
promotion. However, establishing whether this actually influences them is a
complex problem. The review tackled it by looking at studies that had
examined possible effects on what children know about food, their food
preferences, their actual food behaviour (both buying and eating), and
their health outcomes (eg. Obesity or cholesterol levels). The majority of
studies examined food advertising, but a few examined other forms of food
promotion. In terms of nutritional knowledge, food advertising seems to
have little influence on children’s general perceptions of what constitutes
a healthy diet, but, in certain contexts, it does have an effect on more
specific types of nutritional knowledge. For example, seeing soft drink and
cereal adverts reduced primary aged children’s ability to determine
correctly whether or not certain products contained real fruit.
C
The review also found evidence that food promotion influences
children’s food preferences and purchase behaviour. A study of primary
school children, for instance, found that exposure to advertising
influenced which foods they claimed to like; and another showed that
labelling and signage on a vending machine had an effect on what was bought
by secondary school pupils. A number of studies have also shown that food
advertising can influence what children eat. One, for example, showed that
advertising influenced a primary class’s choice of daily snack at playtime.
D
The next step, of trying to establish whether or not a link exists
between food promotion and diet or obesity, is extremely difficult as it
requires research to be done in real-world settings. A number of studies
have attempted this by using the amount of television viewing as a proxy
for exposure to television advertising. They have established a clear link
between television viewing and diet, obesity, and cholesterol levels. It is
impossible to say, however, whether this effect is caused by the
advertising, the sedentary nature of television viewing or snacking that
might take place whilst viewing. One study resolved this problem by taking
a detailed diary of children’s viewing habits. This showed that the more
food adverts they saw, the more snacks and calories they consumed.
E
Thus the literature does suggest food promotion is influencing
children’s diet in a number of ways. This does not amount to proof; as
noted above with this kind of research, incontrovertible proof simply isn’t
attainable. Nor do all studies point to this conclusion; several have no
found an effect. In addition, very few studies have attempted to measure
how strong these effects are relative to other factors influencing
children’s food choices. Nonetheless, many studies have found clear effects
and they have used sophisticated methodologies that make it possible to
determine that i) these effects are not just due to chance; ii) they are
independent of other factors that influence diets, such as parents’ eating
habits or attitudes; and iii) they occur at a brand and category level.
F
Furthermore, two factors suggest that these findings actually
downplay the effect that food promotion has no children. First, the
literature focuses principally on television advertising; the cumulative
effect of this combined with other forms of promotion and marketing is
likely to be significantly greater. Second, the studies have looked at the
direct effects of individual children, and understate indirect influences.
For example, promotion for fast food outlets may not only influence the
child but also encourage parents to take them for meals and reinforce the
idea that this is normal and desirable behaviour.
F
Furthermore, two factors suggest that these findings actually
downplay the effect that food promotion has no children. First, the
literature focuses principally on television advertising; the cumulative
effect of this combined with other forms of promotion and marketing is
likely to be significantly greater. Second, the studies have looked at the
direct effects of individual children, and understate indirect influences.
For example, promotion for fast food outlets may not only influence the
child but also encourage parents to take them for meals and reinforce the
idea that this is normal and desirable behaviour.
G
This does not amount to proof of an effect, but in our view does
provide sufficient evidence to conclude that an effect exists. The debate
should now shift to what action is needed, and specifically to how the
power of commercial marketing can be used to bring about improvements in
young people’s eating.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment
thank you for visiting my blog and for your nice comments