Is it legitimate to advertise "junk food" to children and is this the only factor that affects obesity?
Is it legitimate to advertise "junk food" to children and is this the only factor that affects obesity?
This essay will discuss whether the advertisements of junk food are reasonable to advertise and are there other aspects that help obesity to develop in children.
Increasing rates of obesity appear to be common to the process of industrialisation and have been linked with many factors, including a more sedentary lifestyle and diets high in fat and sugars and an abundance of food. (Gordon, Richard, 2000) The number of children suffering from obesity has increased dramatically since the mid 1980's in the UK. However this is not just a UK problem but also a global issue. Obesity is defined as 'An abnormal accumulation of body fat usually 20% or more over an individual's ideal body weight. Obesity is associated with the increased risk of illness, disability, and death.'
A large proportion of TV advertising targeted at children is for processed foods; the vast majority of this promotes foods high in fat, sugars or salt. The debate about food advertising and advertising viewed by children is one that has continued for many years. During that time a wealth of evidence has emerged to show that targeting advertising as a means of tackling childhood dietary, nutritional or weight gain problems is completely unjustifiable and ineffective.
One of the most heavily studied areas of advertising's cumulative effects is the impact of commercials on children's eating habits. As noted above, commercials for sweets, snacks, and fast food are mainstays of the advertising targeting children. It is well documented that such ads are typically effective in persuading children to like and request the product (Borzekowski & Robinson, 2001). In a study with particularly strong external validity, Gorn and Goldberg (1982) controlled the advertising shown to 5- to 8-year-old children at a 2-week long camp. Some children saw commercials for fruit and fruit juice, while others viewed ads for candies and Kool-Aid, a sugar-sweetened drink. As expected, children's actual food and drink choices during the camp were significantly influenced by the ads they viewed.
Advertising plays a role in expanding children's waistlines in three primary ways: 1) the types of products targeted at kids; 2) the influence of ads on children's food preferences; and 3) the extent to which these preferences actually impact children's food consumption. Studies have found that the vast majority of television ads targeted at children are for food products and services (Barcus, 1975). Of those ads, most are for sweets, sweetened cereals and fast-food restaurants. But do exposure to such ads translate into requests for those foods? The research indicates that it does. Ads for junk food and sweets have been found to influence children's short and long-term food preferences (Atkin and Gibson, 1978; Goldberg et al, 1978).
One of the most popular is McDonalds. McDonalds spend over two billion each year on advertising. The Golden Arches are more recognised than the Christian cross. Using collectable toys, television adverts, promotional schemes in schools and figures such as Ronald McDonald, the company bombards their main target group: children. Many parents object strongly to the influence this has over their own children. Many nutritionists argue that the type of high fat, low fibre diet promoted by McDonalds is linked to obesity and other serious diseases. The sort of diseases that are now responsible for nearly three-quarters of premature deaths in the western world. McDonalds respond that the scientific evidence is not conclusive and that their food can be a valuable part of a balanced diet. Some people say McDonalds are entitled to sell junk food in exactly the same way that chocolate or cream cake manufacturers do. If people want to buy it that's their decision. But should McDonald's be allowed to advertise their products as nutritious? Why do they sponsor sports events when they sell unhealthy products?
Admittedly when rises in obesity and attendant costs are considered together with children's vulnerability in terms of limited emotional and cognitive capacity to make fully rational decisions (Ahuja et al., 2001), calls to give children special protection from marketing communications are not only understandable, but desirable. However, the existent evidence indicates that suggested remedies, while well intentioned, are potentially misguided and perhaps destined to be ineffectual in dealing with what is a very real and major potential health problem amongst children.
Main arguments concerning perceived harmful health effects of advertising have recently centred on the advertising of food and soft drink products and the assumption that this is a major cause of unhealthy dietary habits, obesity and nutritional problems. The underlying assumption is that a range of societal problems will be ergo removed through the imposition of either stringent restrictions or bans on advertising - which is of course the most visible and accessible form of external influence, (Higham, 1999). Proponents of restrictions on advertising to children would find correspondence with the following statement: "eight in ten adults agree ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Main arguments concerning perceived harmful health effects of advertising have recently centred on the advertising of food and soft drink products and the assumption that this is a major cause of unhealthy dietary habits, obesity and nutritional problems. The underlying assumption is that a range of societal problems will be ergo removed through the imposition of either stringent restrictions or bans on advertising - which is of course the most visible and accessible form of external influence, (Higham, 1999). Proponents of restrictions on advertising to children would find correspondence with the following statement: "eight in ten adults agree that business marketing and advertising exploit children by convincing them to buy things that are bad for them or that they don't need" (Heubusch, 1997) The highest concerns are always in relation to food/nutrition issues (Dibbs,1993; and Marquis, 1994). Governments are ostensibly under pressure to be seen to act on constituents' concerns, But, restricting or banning advertising to a group seen as particularly vulnerable to marketing manipulation or imposing punitive taxes as a direct social engineering attempt to change behaviour may seem easy ways to show that a government takes such issues seriously. The factual evidence for, and the efficacy of such actions, however, appears dubious.
In relation to children, it is commonly highlighted that the majority of foods advertised to them are 'processed', i.e. high in fat and sugar and low in nutrients, such as crisps, sweets, ice creams, fizzy drinks, and many other ostensible 'food' products. Consumption of these foods is seen as not only undermining parents' dietary preferences but also contributing to increasing weight and associated health problems among children (Hill and Radimer, 1997; Story and Faulkner, 1990). The real concern is that more than 80% of obese adolescents sustain their obesity in adulthood (Craypo et al., 2002), primarily because dietary habits developed when young persist over time. Assumption of a direct cause-and-effect relationship is usually inherent in these criticisms - i.e. brand advertising is the direct cause of the weight and health problems and this appears to be widely accepted by critics and by some policy makers (McGovern, 2002). Causal factors behind these problems may, however, be more complex.
Avery et al (1997) allege that television advertising particularly provides unhealthy messages about food, nutrition and weight, and several other studies have confirmed that advertisements in children's programmes promote foods that are high in fat and sugars and relatively low in nutritional value (Brown, 1996; Taras and Gage, 1995). Critics therefore state that television directly influences children's health and dietary behaviours (Byrd-Bredbenner and Grasso, 2000). But, uncritical acceptance of empirical findings from studies with limited generalizability is imprudent. For example, Donohue (1975) reported that children whom were heavy television viewers believed that, to maintain good health, they should take advertised medicines and vitamins, drink soft drinks, and eat fast foods. But, the sample was limited, unrepresentative, and the methodology may have introduced considerable bias in terms of response. Now, nearly three decades later, this study is dated, but it is still frequently cited in support of those claiming direct negative influences of advertising on children.
In 1996 Young and Webley undertook a major British study into food products for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This study countered many direct advertising/food linkage assumptions, and suggested that there was then no evidence that advertising is the principal influence on children's eating behaviours. In addition, this study showed that there was no serious or methodologically sound evidence that shows that food advertising led to an increase in the consumption by children of whole categories of food (i.e. fast food).
Proponents of a direct link between exposures to food related imagery and obesity have distorted the debate by focussing on the impact of advertising without taking into account the impact of the television program environment. Kaufman (1980) provides a more balanced approach with her content analysis of American television advertising within the programme context. She found that commercial references to fruit and vegetables outweighed programme references to these food types by more than 3 to 1. Further, she found that 64% of non-nutritious foods were represented in programme content rather than in commercials, while 62% of nutritious foods were represented in commercials. In addition, she highlights that television characters rarely ate balanced meals but rather snacked between meals, portraying both food choice and eating behaviour associated in real life with problems of weight control and nutrition - yet television characters are rarely depicted as obese. There may well be some validity in this observation as Irving and Berel (2001) suggest that exposure to medias that promote a thin ideal of beauty may be associated not with overeating and obesity, but with the opposite extreme - eating disorders. It should be noted that the Kaufman study is now over two decades old and a replication / extension of the study could prove invaluable. It is worth noting the increasing prevalence of programme sponsorship and in-programme product placement that has taken place since the 1980's (Kitchen, 1999). This is just as much part of marketing as is advertising.
There is also evidence that the greatest costs of childhood obesity may be psychological. Young children may be teased because of their weight, and they may have difficulty making friends. Because they tend to be taller, obese children may be perceived as being older than they really are and may have unrealistic expectations placed on them. Self-concept may be low in an overweight child, especially during adolescence. How a child deals with these negative attitudes is in part related to how their parents feel about him/her. If parents accept their child regardless of his/her weight and focus on positive attributes, their child is more likely to have a positive self-concept.
Peadiatricians and nutritionists agree that rising obesity among young people is closely linked to an increasingly sedentary lifestyle in which TV, video games and computers are fast becoming the leisure activities of choice. Of course, a lack of physical activity is just one side of the weight gain equation. The other is an unbalanced diet that's heavy on high-fat foods.
Furthermore, there is evidence that children's television viewing (and therefore their exposure to commercials) is positively related to their consumption of sweets and snack foods (Atkin, 1975). The more TV kids watch, the less active they are, the more commercials they see and the more they ask for - and eat- foods that are high in fat and low in nutritional value.
Paradoxically, at the same time that some ads sell snack foods to kids, others emphasize a female body image that is unrealistically thin. While children are encouraged to indulge in high-fat foods, girls are also given the strong message that they must not get fat. These two contradictory messages (combined with intense social pressure to be thin) can lead to unhealthy eating behaviours. Print and television advertising's use of models who weigh 23% less than the average woman creates a standard of beauty that is unattainable by most women. Studies have shown that when women compare themselves to pictures of thin models they feel depressed, guilty, ashamed and dissatisfied with their bodies (Irving, 1990; Stice & Shaw, 1994).
There is a considerable amount of evidence to suggest that poor diet (14% of children do not eat enough fruit and vegetables), and a sedentary lifestyle (only 50% of children do not exercise regularly or in some cases at all), together also contribute to potential health problems (Cristol, 2002; Baxter and Thompson, 2002; Ulrich, 2002). Changed and continually changing lifestyles may also contribute to problems. Cowell (2001) asserts that children now lead more independent lifestyles than did their parents and are no longer shielded from the realities of life. Today, children opt for their own preferred food and drink rather than acquiescing to parental preferences. Hunter (2002) reports a 1999 study in which 26% of 6 - 17 year olds were involved in meal preparation for the family. An interesting commentary on today's lifestyles is that, when asked where they had learned to cook, many of the children surveyed indicated that they simply followed the package instructions. However, it cannot be inferred that 'traditional' home prepared family' meals are in fact 'superior'. Lino et al. (2002) clearly stress that quality of children's diets varies by socio-demographic status. Further, Escobar (1999) notes that the more hours women work outside the home, the fewer hours are spent preparing meals, and the more meals their children eat away from home, but note often with positive effects on children's overall nutrition intake. It would seem to be crucial to undertake empirical research on the range of variables that influence children's food preferences. Perhaps Donohue's (1975) study could be used as a starting point for informing such a study, but with a considerably improved methodology as a prerequisite for a modified replication?
Schools have taken initiatives such as controlling food range (Craypo et al., 2002), running advertising literacy skills, diet procedures, dietary practice, and nutrition programmes (Lord, 2000). Lack of awareness of healthy alternatives is not likely to be an issue. Hitchings and Moynihan (1998) assert that most children know what constitutes a healthy diet - but this knowledge often is not reflected in the foods actually eaten. Martin (2002:26) states that: "Educators are on record as saying that so-called junk food and soda are often sold on campuses largely to keep students from leaving schools to get the snacks they demand".
Mills (2001) posits that children (and perhaps also adults) like unhealthy food because it is unhealthy, perhaps linking to the 'forbidden fruit' hypothesis (Cantor and Nathanson, 1997), which is based on the theory of psychological reactance (Rummel et al., 2000). This theory states that people become motivated to assert their freedom by performing behaviour when it appears that their freedom might be threatened or restricted. Thus, parental disapproval of particular television shows or foodstuffs can be interpreted by children as threatening their freedom of choice - and may motivate them to consume more of the product disapproved of - precisely because of the disapproval.
Further, it is claimed (Anon, 2001) that when children aged 7 - 17 eat in restaurants, they consumer an average of 55% more calories than when they eat at home. But are such statistics meaningful to the current debate on the correlation between obesity and its presumed causes? Ergo, we know that a complex set of factors affects the rising incidence of overweight people. Lifestyles, exercise, stress and factors related to the socialisation of children all contribute - i.e. not just advertising. Matorin claims (2001: 50) It is argued that lifestyle, particularly exercise choices, and dietary choices are likely to be influenced primarily by parents (Lord, 2000). In terms of the latter, maternal influences appear to be the strongest (Anon, 2002), with maternal feeding practices, such as pressuring a child to eat everything on their plate, more strongly predict a child's adiposity levels than the child's energy and fat intake. Thus, children can be persuaded not to regulate energy intakes. Given this, the strongly criticized promotion by fast food chains of large portions (Kucharsky, 2002) would appear to be contributing to excessive calorie intake in some children. An aspect usually neglected in this debate is the influence of peer pressure on children. Cioletti (2001) points to the importance of social interaction and peer approval for children.
It is also said that advertising incites children to pester their parents. Such pestering, however, appears to occur whether there is advertising or not. It is highly misleading to ascribe this time-honoured characteristic of the parent-child relationship to advertisements. Chips are the most requested food type yet the amount of advertising for them is extremely modest (and actually only for a "low fat" brand) but in our modern society children are increasingly involved in family purchasing decisions, and so they should be.
Therefore Children are consumers; they have noticeable sums of pocket money and have preferences like everyone else. While there are a variety of limits on their choices, not least economic, the assumptions that they are incapable of making informed choices and, in this context, are being manipulated by advertising is a patronising form of scaremongering; it deliberately overstates and misrepresents the potency and role of advertising.
REFRENCES
Anonymous (2002), Maternal feeding practices are linked to childhood obesity" Obesity, Fitness and Wellness Week, April 6, 3.
Atkin, C., & Heald, G. (1977). The content of children's toy and food commercials. Journal of Communication, 27 (1), 107-114
Avery, R.J., Mathios, A., Shanahan, J. and Bisogni, C. (1997),"Food and nutrition messages communicated through prime-time television", Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 16 (2), 217 - 227.
Borzekowski, D. L. G., & Robinson, T. N. (2001). The 30 second effect: An experiment revealing the impact of television commercials on food preferences of preschoolers. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 101(1), 42-46
Byrd-Bredbenner, C. & Grasso, D. (2000), "Health, medicine, and food messages in television commercials during 1992 and 1998", Journal of School Health, Vol. 70 (2), 61 - 65.
Collette, J. (2001), Kid-venience. Supermarket Business, May 15, 31 - 32.
Craypo, L., Purcell, A., Samuels, S., Agron, P., Bell, E., and Takada, E. (2002), "Fast food sales on high school campuses: results from the 2000 California High School Fast Food Survey", Journal of School Health, 72 (2), 78 - 82.
Dibbs, S. (1993), Children: Advertisers' Dream, Nutrition Nightmare. National Food Alliance, England.
Donohue, T.R. (1975), "Effects of commercials on black children", Journal of Advertising Research, 15 (6), 41 - 47.
Gordon, Richard, 2nd edition, 2000, Eating Disorders: Anatomy of a Social Epidemic, Blackwell, Oxford
Heubusch, K. (1997),"Is it OK to sell to kids?" American Demographic, 19 (1), January, 55.
Higham, N. (1999),"Industry divided over prospect of ban on children's advertising". Marketing Week, July 8, 1999, 17.
Hill, J.M. and Rapier, K.L. (1997),"A content analysis of food advertisements in television for Australian children", Australian Journal of Nutrition & Dietetics, 54(4), 174 - 192.
Hitchings, E. and Moynihan, P.J. (1998),"The relationship between television food advertisements recalled and actual foods consumed by children", Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, 11 (6), 511 - 517.
Kaufman, L. (1980), "Prime Time nutrition", Journal of Communication, 30 (3), 37 - 46
Kitchen, P.J. (1999) Marketing Communications: Principles and Practice, International Thomson, London.
Lino, M., Basiotis, M.P. Gerrior, S.A. and Carlson, A. (2002),"The Quality of Young Children's Diets". Family Economics and Nutrition Review, 14 (1), 52 - 60
Lord, M. (2000), "Schools fight fat by teaching kids to eat their greens", U.S. News & World Report, 128 (17), 60
Marquis, S. (1994),"The Young Ones". Marketing, March 10, 22 - 23.
Matorin, J. (2001),"Obesity awareness campaign needed, but regulators won't curb fast-food appetite". Nation's Restaurant News, August 27, 32.
McGovern, C. (2002),"Brave new world. A clear and present danger". The Report, July 8, 56.
Story, M. and Faulkner, P. (1990), "The prime time diet: a content analysis of eating behaviour and food messages in television programmes and commercials". American Journal of Public Health, 80 (6) 738 - 740.
Taras, H. L. and Gage, M. (1995),"Advertised foods on children's television". Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 144, 649 -652.
