How is fast food advertised

Because of that, she takes a more pessimistic stance. News U. Politics Joe Biden Congress Extremism. Special Projects Highline. HuffPost Personal Video Horoscopes. Follow Us. Terms Privacy Policy. All rights reserved. S3studio via Getty Images.

Source: FreeTV []. In November , Australian Health Ministers concluded that overweight and obesity were significant public health problems that required an Australia-wide response.

The Ministers agreed to establish a National Obesity Taskforce which would be charged with developing a national obesity action plan. The Taskforce produced the Healthy Weight report in While he was Minister for Health, the current Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, stressed that in his opinion, junk food can be enjoyed occasionally without harmful effects for either children or adults.

He added that those who did not like the content of any advertising on television should simply switch it off. Abbott iterated this view in an address to the Queensland Obesity Summit in I think people need to retain substantial authority over how they live their lives.

I think people need to be allowed to make mistakes. But I do think it is important that everyone has a sense of responsibility for what he or she does and for the consequences of our actions. Liberal Mal Washer, for example, believed a ban for some types of junk food was a good idea.

As there appears to have been no further public comment from Abbott on the subject, there is no indication that his views have altered since when he concluded that there is no evidence a ban on junk food advertising would reduce obesity rates significantly. The Taskforce set about developing strategies to tackle health challenges caused by tobacco, alcohol and obesity and to develop a National Preventative Health Strategy.

These were:. Recommendation The Committee recommends that the Minister for Health and Ageing commission research into the effect of the advertising of food products with limited nutritional value on the eating behaviour of children and other vulnerable groups. The Committee recommends that the Minister for Health and Ageing adopt a phased approach regarding regulations on the reformulation of food products.

Industry should be encouraged to make changes through self-regulation but if industry fails to make concrete changes within a reasonable timeframe the Federal Government should consider regulations. To date, it appears that voluntary self regulation has been the principle means employed by the Government in dealing with junk food advertising to children.

See the relevant excerpt from the strategy below:. Source: NPHT []. At the time of the release of the NHPT report, some commentators implied that the marketing industry had been told by the Government it had only a few months to prove that self regulation worked if it was to avoid tighter government regulations. Chapman maintained this was because there was only a modest link between it and obesity and limited research was available on the benefits of banning junk food advertising.

Revised CTS, which came into force 1 January , imposed additional requirements regarding advertising. What we need are actions, funds and policies on the ground and in communities around Australia that provide real, tangible health benefits, not more health bureaucrats sitting in Canberra trying to tell people how to live their lives. It remains to be seen to what extent the agency will be committed to regulating the junk food industry. More importantly, it also remains to be seen to what extent the Government will embrace any reforms the agency may suggest.

In October , actress Kerry Armstrong featured in an advertisement which Coca Cola claimed shattered myths about the harm the soft drink could do to consumers and balanced debate about the product.

Coca Cola also had the same amount of acidity as many other foods and drinks and with good dental hygiene would not cause harm to teeth. Despite claims that the industry was capable of responsibly self regulating to ensure claims such as those made by Coca Cola were not promoted, the Advertising Standards Council had previously dismissed complaints about the myth busting advertisement. Consumer groups considered the incident illustrated that the advertising industry was out of touch with community standards and unable to self-regulate effectively.

As a study for WHO points out, the fundamental policy choices in dealing with issues such as junk food advertising are statutory regulation, self-regulation or a mixture of the two—co-regulation. Self-regulation aims to reduce the amount of deceptive, misleading and exploitative advertising to children, but it does not legally regulate or prohibit that marketing. Statutory regulation can include a number of options:. The following examples illustrate how these options have been employed in a number of countries:.

Broadcasting legislation passed in in Ireland required the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland to introduce a code that deals specifically with advertising either directly or indirectly targeted at children.

The code defines children as persons aged under 18 years. The Irish code bans the use of cartoon characters and celebrities to promote foods to children and certain categories of food, such as fast foods, must carry messages stating that the foods should be eaten in moderation; as part of a balanced diet.

Confectionary products must have an auditory or visual message stating that sugar-sweetened products can damage teeth. Broadcasters are required to provide visual or auditory cues to denote when a commercial break is beginning and ending.

The ban was challenged in and the European Court of Justice ruled in that it was a restraint of trade which discriminated against foreign broadcasters. Hence, it has been argued that much of the impact of the ban has been negated, as satellite channels continue to expose Swedish children to advertising. Advertisers have ignored the fact that the advertising ban in Sweden has been effectively evaded. They often point to the Swedish experience to argue that prohibiting advertising to children is an ineffective means of discouraging unhealthy diets, as obesity in Sweden has risen rapidly since the introduction of the ban.

Norway banned television advertisements to children aged 12 years and younger in This was accomplished through strategies such as food subsidies, price manipulation, retail regulations, clear nutrition labelling and education. Consumption of saturated fat fell by 18 per cent and blood cholesterol by 10 per cent during this period. Advertisements that attempt to persuade children to buy products through direct offers are prohibited, as are advertisements which use cartoon characters or children to market goods.

The Danish Marketing Act includes a clause that marketing directed at children and young people must take special account of their natural credulity and lack of experience. The Act makes no specific mention of food advertising, however. The scheduling restrictions and content rules applied to all channels transmitted by United Kingdom broadcasters, whether aimed at United Kingdom or external audiences.

Ofcom reviewed the restriction in and found that during —08, children saw around 34 per cent less HFSS advertising than in A final review of the restrictions took place in This review found that the restrictions had:. Ofcom therefore considered it appropriate to maintain the current restrictions, but not to extend them. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the national public broadcaster, does not accept advertising in programs directed at children younger than 12 years.

Self regulatory conditions also apply in Canada. This code states that advertising directed to children must not exploit their credulity or lack of experience and must not present information that may harm their physical, emotional, or moral well-being. The code specifically restricts the use of puppets and subliminal messages which may encourage children to purchase products.

In the province of Quebec, a consumer protection Act, which prohibits advertising aimed directly at children aged 13 years and younger on commercial television, has been in force since In February , a decree defined the nature of the health information required under the legislation and the conditions for its use.

The information consists of four short messages. These are:. On television and in cinemas these health messages are shown on a thin horizontal band corresponding to only 7 per cent of the height of the screen , or as a screened notice displayed just after the advertisement.

On radio, the message is broadcast immediately after the advertisement. Printed materials include a horizontal message strip also corresponding to 7 per cent of the total height of the advertisement. The speed at which these messages are flashed on screen is not defined in legislation, nor is their colour, typeface or font size. Companies that do not add public health warnings to all television advertisements will be required to pay a government levy of 1.

Money from the levy goes directly to the French national institute for health prevention and education, the body that promotes healthy living. Where the participants diverge is with regards to the subtleties of what causes obesity and how to deal with what has been labelled an epidemic of modern life. This is particularly so when the issues of overweight and obesity are raised in relation to children.

A diverse group, comprising parents, health economists, politicians and other policy analysts argue that there is incontrovertible evidence that much of the blame for obesity epidemic lies with the producers of foods that are high in fats, sugar and salt—the junk food industry. This group considers that radical steps need to be taken to deal with the marketing of junk foods.

Australian advocates argue that in the case of children at least the current self regulatory regime does not work; children are continually, and in a variety of ways, exposed to junk food advertising. In opposition to this group, there are other analysts and representatives of the food and advertising industries, as well as organisations that benefit from junk food sponsorship, who argue that a healthy diet can contain some foods high in fat, sugar or salt.

That is, hamburgers, chocolate, soft drinks and crisps can be enjoyed as treats without people becoming obese. The rationale behind this perspective is that when it comes to food, it is not what, but how much is eaten.

Advertisers argue that they do not make fraudulent claims about products. They provide information on products of all types. People, including children, can then make informed decisions about whether to purchase those products. It is after all, the aim of their industry to promote and sell products.

In relation to products such as junk foods, it is up to parents to e ducate their children to become discerning consumers. Despite claims to the contrary from the junk food industry and advertisers, public concern about the incidence of childhood overweight and obesity has increased. This concern has led a number of governments to introduce various measures to restrict the marketing of junk foods.

These range from legislative bans to so called fat taxes. There has been much debate about the effectiveness of such measures, but little hard evidence to date about which of them, if any, works effectively for the long term. In this context of uncertainty, Australian governments have acted cautiously. In , academic Paul Williams commented that effective policy or legislation to deal with junk food advertising should have been put in place by Labor early in its first term.

But there are likely to be some who want immediate action and who consider the setting up of another agency amounts to abrogating responsibility on the obesity issue in general, and junk food marketing specifically, to bureaucratic equivocation.

More adults are becoming overweight and obese; more children are becoming overweight and obese and likely to grow into obese adults, who will place increasing burdens on the health system. Despite claims by the junk food and advertising industries that self regulation works and further intervention is not necessary, it appears that something needs to be done to prevent public health and economic disaster.

Similarly, while industry arguments which posit that the link between junk food, advertising and obesity is inconclusive have been influential in the past, it appears that evidence to the contrary is now becoming more accepted.

This is reflected in the question of whether the negative results of individual choices—for example in smoking, consuming alcohol or eating junk foods— should consequently be regarded as an individual or collective problem. As noted throughout this paper, those who see the issue as a matter for the individual consider that government action, such as the limiting or restricting of the advertising of junk food, is paternalistic.

The individual is a rational being, able to make informed choices about the health risks of his or her food consumption. While it is not the intention of this paper to engage overly in ideological debate, it is worth noting comments on this subject by academic, Dr Linda Botterill:. A classical liberal interpretation of obesity would surely be that over-eating and low levels of physical activity are private behaviours which, at worst, result in harm to the obese person themselves.

This is the interpretation which calls for limits on advertising, particularly to children, and taps into concerns about the protection of the helpless and the innocent. Professor Boyd Swinburn, who has written extensively on this subject, points out that governments have often required certain behaviours of their citizens to decrease public health threats.

These include the wearing of seatbelts and imposing smoke free public environments. Therefore, despite there being a current climate which supports the imposition of a more regulatory advertising regime for junk foods, it is likely that crucial decisions ultimately will be about how effectively any government can, and is committed to balancing a number of complex issues— protecting children from manipulation and exploitation, the rights of commercial interests to promote their goods and to trade legitimately, and divergent ideological stances.

According to WHO statistics 2. Note: there are a number of terms used to refer to foods high in sugars, salts and fats; for example, in Britain these are referred to as HFFS foods.

This is not to imply that advertising is the sole influence; factors such as a fundamentally sedentary lifestyle combined with lack of intentional participation in physical activities, such as playing sport , peer influences and income also are important contributing factors. Those persons aged between five and 17 years.

Center for Science in the Public Interest reports, op. Kunkel et al. Studies on this topic are given as examples and are as cited in J McGinnis, J Appleton Gootman and V Kraak, eds, Food marketing to children and youth: threat or opportunity?

Listing derived from Kunkel et al. Some displays target young children using this technique by placing products such as confectionery and chocolates at child height. S57—63, Crowle and Turner, Childhood obesity , op.

Crowle and Turner, Childhood obesity , op. Fletcher, Frisvold and Tefft as cited in Freebairn, J. Watts, Protecting children from unhealthy food marketing, op. Section 51 v of the Constitution: The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: Postal, telegraphic, telephonic, and other like services. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:- i Trade and commerce with other countries, and among the States; and xx Foreign corporations, and trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the Commonwealth.

Note: despite the limitations in its power in relation to the print media, the federal government has been able to impose certain prohibitions on print advertising.

Most notable is its prohibition of print advertising of tobacco products through a series of acts passed between and A premium offer is anything offered with or without additional costs that is intended to induce the purchase of an advertised product or service.

This may include, for example, a free action figure found within a packet of chips. This was to occur through changes to the Broadcasting Services Act The Schools Assistance Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity Act was also to be amended to provide that financial assistance to schools was conditional upon schools not displaying advertisements or sponsorship announcements by companies whose principal activity is the manufacture, distribution or sale of junk food.

Therefore, it did not recommend adopting the proposed amendment. The ACCC dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the advertisement did not contain inaccuracies and the public would be aware that the product was not healthy.

Hawkes, Marketing food to children: changes in the global regulatory environment, op. Hawkes, Marketing food to children, op. Representative Dennis Kucinich, H. Thow et al. L Botterill, Constructing an epidemic? Advertisers and marketers have begun to target the rapidly growing number of US children online with a variety of new interactive advertising and marketing techniques. Utilizing the unique features of the Internet, companies can seamlessly integrate advertising and Web site content. These sites include games, word-find puzzles, contests, quizzes, riddles, music, e-mail cards, clips of commercials, sweepstakes, downloadable recipes, desktop wallpaper and screensavers that feature their products, and on-line stores that sell licensed merchandise.

Children can also sign up to receive electronic newsletters with news about products and promotions. The sites often feature popular product spokes-characters and animated cartoon characters, such as Tony the Tiger, Chester Cheetah, Toucan Sam, and Snap!

And Pop! The integration of products into games is commonplace. The company's website is frequently featured on ads or product packaging.

Examples of food branded environments for children on food company websites are shown in Table 3. In addition to food company sites, there are also several other commercial sites that advertise food products to children.

Internet sites aimed at preschoolers have proliferated in recent years. All of these websites are supported by advertising.

It is reported that more than two-thirds of all Internet sites designed for children and adolescents use advertising as their primary revenue stream. Due to criticisms from consumer advocacy groups, many children's websites and food company web pages for children now put "ad bugs" or the word "advertisement" next to a sponsor's hotlink. There has been a recent trend among food companies to market toys and products with brand logos to preschoolers and young children to develop an early and positive relationship with the child and thereby promote brand awareness and preference.

The food industry has partnered with toy manufacturers to create toys that advertise food. General Mills last year partnered with Target stores to create a line of children's loungewear based on iconic cereal brands like Trix and Lucky Charms. Examples of toys with brand logos are shown in Table 4. Several companies sell counting and reading books for preschoolers and young children for brand-name foods. For example, Kellogg's Foot Loops! On the Amazon.

These books are being promoted as teaching tools but are clever advertising ploys. Promotions are a commonly used marketing method for reaching children and adolescents and include cross-selling, tie-ins, premiums, and sweepstakes prizes. Cross-selling and tie-ins combine promotional efforts to sell a product. In the US, the food industry has forged promotional links with Hollywood and Network studios, toy companies, and sports leagues. Burger King has sold chicken nuggets shaped like Teletubbies.

In , Disney signed a ten-year global marketing agreement with McDonald's. Kellogg's also has an agreement with Disney to extend the Disney characters to cereals, Keebler cookies and Eggo waffles.

Premiums and sweepstakes prizes have increased recently [ 64 ] and are often used to appeal to children's and adolescent's tastes and desires. Sweetened cereals also commonly give premiums in the form of toys, cards or games. Premiums can increase short-term sales since children may desire the item over the food, but they also can help elevate the image of that brand in children's minds.

Of critical importance is whether youth-targeted marketing and advertising of food products has any impact on children's food behaviors or body weight. Almost all of the studies on the impact of food advertising on children's food preferences and behaviors were conducted in the mid s and the s. These studies focused on the relationship between children's exposure to television advertising and their food preferences, food choices, food intake or purchase requests.

A strength of correlational studies is that external validity can be high given the broad range of potential influences that can be studied. A major weakness is that causality cannot be established. Longitudinal studies that prospectively link exposure to food advertising to children's food intake or behavior have not been done. There also have not been any meta-analyses review studies conducted in which effect-size estimates from multiple studies are combined.

Further, the studies to date have focused almost exclusively on television food advertising. However, considering all the evidence to date, the weight of the scientific studies suggests that television food advertising is associated with more favorable attitudes, preferences and behaviors towards the advertised product. Daily for two weeks, children watched 30 minutes of a television cartoon with about 5 minutes of advertising embedded. The four experimental conditions differed in the type of food advertising included with the cartoon: ads for candy and Kool-Aid; ads for fruit and fruit juice; control no ads ; and public service ad announcements for healthy foods.

Each day after the television exposure, the children were given a selection of fruits, juices, candy, or Kool-Aid to choose to eat. The report concluded that while the evidence that the heavy marketing of fast food outlets and energy-dense, micronutrient-poor food and beverages to children causes obesity is equivocal, sufficient indirect evidence exists to place this practice in the "probable" category for increasing risk of obesity.

Clearly, additional research is needed to examine possible links between exposure to food ads, food consumption patterns and obesity. It is evident that food advertising targeting children is well-funded and saturates their environment from multiple channels.

Furthermore, much of the non-television advertising, such as the food companies' web sites, toys, in-school marketing, is indirect and subtle e.

Finally, available evidence suggests that food ads on television have an influence on children's food choices. As children have become an increasingly important target market for the food industry, consumer and child advocate organizations have become increasingly concerned that adequate safeguards exist to protect children from exploitative commercial gain.

This section reviews US regulations related to food advertising to children. In the US, there are currently few policies or standards for food advertising and marketing aimed at children.

The CARU voluntary guidelines list seven basic principles, which address areas such as product presentation and claims, endorsement and promotion by program characters, sales pressures, disclosures and disclaimers and safety concerns. Concerns about advertising on children's television were first raised in the early s by the children's advocacy group, Action for Children's Television ACT which urged the FCC and the FTC to prohibit or limit advertising directed at children.

This involved policies against "host selling," the use of a program host or other program personality to promote products on the program.

As a result it became common for television stations to air "bumpers," such as "We'll be right back after these commercial messages". In , the FTC formally proposed a rule that would ban or severely restrict all television advertising to children. A key argument was First Amendment protection for the right to provide information about products to consumers. The act specifically prohibited any further action to adopt the proposed children's advertising rules.

In , children's advocacy groups persuaded Congress to pass the Children's Television Act that included limiting the amount of commercial time during children's programming to These time limits remain in effect today. A chronology of key events in the regulation of food advertising to children is shown in Table 6. Advertising and marketing aimed at children is rapidly becoming a pervasive presence on the Internet, with new techniques constantly being developed, yet advertising on the Web is virtually unrestricted.

For example, one of CARU's guidelines for television is that products derived from or associated with program content primarily directed to children should not be advertised during or adjacent to that program. Yet, this does not apply to websites or the Internet. In the mid s, children's media advocacy groups documented a number of exploitative data collection marketing practices on children's websites used to gather personal information from children and learn about their preferences and interests.

These included interactive surveys with animated characters or spokespersons, guest books, registrations, incentives, contests, and prizes for filling out surveys. This information permitted companies to conduct market research which then could be used to and create personalized marketing and sales appeals to children. The majority of US schools and states do not have any policies about commercial marketing activities in schools.

The US GAO report found that only 19 states currently have statutes or regulations that address school-related commercial activities. Only five states were reported to have more comprehensive policies covering various activities related to product sales, and direct or indirect advertising. Several national organizations and youth advocacy groups are concerned about the growing influx of in-school marketing and advertising and have advocated limiting commercial activities in schools, arguing that children's health is not an acceptable "trade off" for increased revenues.

Recently, there have been successful local initiatives to eliminate soft drink vending machines and advertising from schools. Several school districts across the country have refused to enter into agreements with soft drink companies after protests by parents, students and school officials. The same year, the Los Angeles unified school district, which includes schools and , students, voted to ban the sales of soft drinks in vending machines.

Concerns about the effects of television advertising on children are shared by a number of European countries and Australia.

Australia does not allow ads during television programming for preschoolers. In recent years, the food and beverage industry has viewed children and adolescents as a major market force. As a result, children and adolescents are targeted aggressively by food advertisers, and are exposed to a growing and unprecedented amount of advertising, marketing, and commercialism through a wide range of channels.

The principal goal of food advertising and marketing aimed at children is to influence brand awareness, brand preference, brand loyalty, and food purchases among youth. A wide range of food advertising techniques and channels are used to reach children and adolescents to foster brand awareness to encourage product sales.

The strong similarities between the marketing and promotional activities used by food companies to advertise unhealthy foods to children and those used by the tobacco industry to market cigarettes to children are striking.

Promotional materials caps, sports bags, lighters with cigarette brand logos , sweepstakes, and premiums were commonly used. The "Marlboro Man," with his image of independence and autonomy, struck a responsive chord among adolescent males.

Collectively, the advertising techniques and promotional campaigns targeting youth were highly successful in encouraging underage smoking. Numerous studies have shown that foods heavily marketed to preschool and grade school children are predominantly high in sugar and fat, [ 36 , 40 , 41 ] which is the antithesis of healthful eating recommendations for children.

Experimental studies have consistently shown that children exposed to food advertising prefer and choose advertised food products more frequently than those not exposed to such ads. African American and Hispanic children also have a higher prevalence of obesity than white children.

Because marketing to children and adolescents has become so pervasive, many child advocates and media experts believe that such marketing constitutes an escalating public health problem. Numerous studies have documented that children under 8 years of age are developmentally unable to understand the intent of advertisements and accept advertising claims as factual.

The purpose of advertising is to persuade, and young children have few defenses against such advertising. Older children and teens can be manipulated by the strong emotive messages in advertisements. Social and environmental structures can actively support and promote healthy food choices for children.

There is a need for national discussion and dialogue on these issues. The growing epidemic of childhood obesity has focused attention on the possible role that food and beverage advertising and marketing may play in influencing child and adolescent eating behaviors and body weight.

More research is needed to examine whether food advertising is a causal factor for increased risk of obesity. Experimental and epidemiologic research, including longitudinal designs, is needed to study the effect of food advertising on children's food choices, eating behaviors and body weight.

Studies need to include the various marketing channels used to reach youth, such as television, schools, and the Internet, as well as different age periods, such as early childhood, middle childhood and adolescence.