Self-regulation ads are not for children; they only benefit the food industry

You won’t be the only one who thinks it’s time for something to be done about junk food and children.

What about the existing measures? Do these US studies have any lessons for countries like Australia?

Children’s food advertising

The PLOS Study examined TV advertisements for fast food restaurants broadcast on US National Television between July 2009 and December 2010.

McDonald’s dominated the ads targeting children (62 out of 95), followed by Burger King (30) and Subway (3).

Burger King’s and McDonald’s ads for children were more likely than 92 adult-targeted ads to include food packaging (88% against 23%), and to show street views of restaurants (41% against 12%). The importance of branding for children is evident in the marketing.

In a study from 2007, it was found that children prefer the taste of foods and drinks in McDonald’s packaging.

In both chains, 69% (vs. 1% in adult-targeted ads) of the child-targeted advertising featured a free toy or a giveaway. And 55% (vs. 14%) of them featured film tie-ins.

It is not surprising that the authors came to the conclusion that advertisements for fast food aimed at children didn’t focus on food but instead focused on toys, bonuses and tie-ins. The authors concluded that the companies in question had failed to adhere to the letter and spirit of the industry’s self-regulation codes.

Picture of Australia

In a study conducted in 2011, Australian researchers found that self-regulation did not reduce the advertising of fast food to children.

In case you’re still convinced by the industry’s arguments that self regulation is effective, a systematic review concluded that peer-reviewed scientific studies found that self-regulation in food advertising was ineffective. The study also found that reports sponsored by the industry showed high levels of compliance with voluntary codes.

There is evidence to show that children find licensed cartoon characters on packaging more appealing.

In 2009, following advocacy by parent groups as well as NGOs (nongovernmental organisations) about the widespread use of premiums in advertising fast food to Australian kids, the mandatory Children’s Television Standards was revised to clarify:

The reference must not be more than incidental.

In 2010, a review of food and drink advertisements was conducted in five Australian cities for a period of two months. The review identified 619 violations of the standards. This included 120 violations of this clause and 332 of the voluntary industry regulations.

The PLOS ONE study also focused the advertising voiceovers on film tie-ins and giveaways. These same chains focused on price, taste and portion size when they targeted adults.

Fast food restaurants are not the only ones to target children and adults simultaneously with messages that are very different about food products.

In our research on snack food advertising, we found that ads in children’s magazines emphasized fun, games, “coolness”, and implied popularity. While advertisements for adult magazines focused on convenience and nutrition.

We found that the adults viewed the messages differently in both mediums. Importantly, their intent to buy the snacks for their children differed depending on which version they saw.

You can find out more

A study, published in the Journal of Pediatrics last week , found that children who drink soft drinks have a higher risk of developing behavioral problems.

Researchers found that even after controlling for possible confounders such as socio-demographic factors and maternal depression, children who drink one soft drink per day are more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior.

Children who drink more than four soft drinks per day are twice as likely to fight, attack others, or destroy their property. They also have more attention problems.

It was not a small-scale study with just a few kids; it was an extensive study by researchers who evaluated soft drink consumption, and behavioral outcomes for 2,929 5-year-olds from 20 US cities.

The authors recommend that warning labels on soft drinks be added to inform parents of the dangers associated with their children’s consumption.

Australian Beverages Council, not surprisingly dismissed study’s recommendations. They argued that study authors “failed factor out other important factors”.

The peak body has argued, as expected, that there is no need for mandatory regulation because the industry has taken voluntary steps to allow consumers to “make informed choices”.

These strategies are not more effective than self regulation in reducing the marketing of unhealthy foods to children. I won’t hold my breath.