Television Food Advertising to Children:

Effects on Eating Behaviour

Jason C.G. Halford & Emma J. Boyland

Biopsychology Research Group Liverpool Obesity Research Network (LORN)

www.liv.ac.uk/obesity

WHAT IS FOOD ADVERTISING?StanMark

A food advertisement can be defined as...

• ...a commercial ad featuring a food, beverage, or nutritional supplement that is meant to be ingested directly or have its flavours extracted by chewing (e.g. gum) (Abbatangelo-Gray et al., 2008).

• ...a part of branding activity, with a brand being defined as “a name, term, sign, symbol, design, or a combination of these, that identifies the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and differentiates them from those of the competition” (Chang & Liu, 2009).

• ...part of overall marketing activity which is dominated by television advertising but also includes internet advertising and “advergaming”, programme and event sponsorship, mobile phone advertising, viraladvertising, and printed advertisements.

TV FOOD ADVERTISING TO CHILDREN

• What is being spent?StanMark

Food advertising is a multi-million dollar industry

For every US $1 the WHO spends on trying to improve the nutrition of the world’s population, US $500 is spent by the food industry on promoting processed foods.

Big Spenders on TV Advertising in UK (2003)

Nielsen Media Research quoted in The Times (UK) Feb 7, 2004.

TV FOOD ADVERTISING TO CHILDREN

• What foods are being advertised?StanMark

Advertised foods are not consistent with with dietary recommendations

Current picture – extent and nature of food advertising on UK TV in 200814 most popular commercial channels chosen:

• ITV• Channel Four• Five• Nickelodeon• Cartoon Network• Jetix• CiTV• 4 Music (formerly The Hits)• Smash Hits• MTV• Sky One• Sky Sports 1• E4• Boomerang

StanMark

Study Design• For each channel:

• One weekday and one weekend day every month• 06:00 to 22:00 hours• Specified peak and non-peak children’s viewing times (BARB cited

in Ofcom, 2003).

• Each advert coded according to pre-defined criteria (Kelly et al., 2007):

• Advert product type e.g. food/drink; clothing; financial

• Each FOOD advert coded further:• Core foods e.g. bread; low sugar/high fibre breakfast cereals• Non-core foods e.g. chocolate/confectionery; fast food• Miscellaneous e.g. tea/coffee; supermarkets• Use of a promotional character (brand equity/licensed character)

Categorising the foodsCore foodsBread (inc. rice, pasta, noodles)Low sugar and high fibre breakfast

cerealsFruit and fruit products (no added sugar)Vegetables and vegetable products (no

added sugar)Low fat/reduced fat milk, yoghurt,

cheese, meat and meat alternatives (not crumbed or battered)

Core foods combined (inc frozen meals and sandwiches if less than 10g fat per serving)

Baby foods (excl. milk formulae) Bottled water

Non-core foodsHigh sugar/low fibre breakfast cereals Crumbed/battered meat and meat

alternativesCakes and biscuitsSnack foods (e.g. crisps, cereal bars)Fruit juice and fruit drinks, frozen/fried

potato productsFull cream milk, yoghurt, dairy

desserts, cheese, ice cream, chocolate and confectionery

Fast food restaurants,High sugar/fat/salt spreadsSugar sweetened drinks and alcohol

Miscellaneous = vitamins and supplements, tea and coffee, supermarkets advertising core foods/non-core foods/non-specified e.g. for non food items or not clearly core or

non-core, baby and toddler milk formulae.

StanMark

Proportion of ads for food

Types of foods advertised

StanMark

Categories of foods advertised

*** ******

*** p < 0.001

Examples of inter-channel variationITV Cartoon Network

Sky Sports One NickelodeonStanMark

Differences between peak and non-peak children’s viewing periods

***

*** p < 0.001

Persuasive appeals used in food adverts aimed at children

StanMark

TV FOOD ADVERTISING TO CHILDREN

• Evidence for a link with childhood obesity?

Levels of unhealthy food advertising correlate with prevalence of overweight

Lobstein & Dibb, 2005

The prevalence of overweight among school-age children correlated significantly with the number of adverts for sweet or fatty foods per 20 hours of children’s television broadcast.

StanMark

Zimmerman & Bell (2010)

Commercial viewing is a predictor of children’s obesity

Model 1,a b (95% CI)

Model 2,b b (95% CI)

Model 3,c b (95% CI)

Television viewing in 1997, h/dCommercial 0.11**(0.00, 0.21) 0.11**(0.00, 0.21) 0.10**(0.00, 0.21)Noncommercial 0.03 (–0.07, 0.14) 0.03 (–0.08, 0.13) 0.04 (–0.07, 0.14)

Television viewing in 2002, h/dCommercial 0.06 (–0.04, 0.16) 0.06 (–0.04, 0.16) 0.06 (–0.04, 0.17)Noncommercial 0.00 (–0.10, 0.11) 0.01 (–0.10, 0.11) 0.00 (–0.10, 0.11)

Physical activity in 1997, min/dNone (Ref)1–30 –0.06 (–0.34, 0.22)> 30 0.01 (–0.21, 0.23)

Physical activity in 2002, min/dNone (Ref)1–30 –0.19 (–0.43, 0.05)> 30 0.02 (–0.18, 0.21)

Eating in front of the television in 2002 0.03 (–0.04, 0.10)Adjusted R2 0.07 0.07 0.07

Further evidence – commercial TV viewing and diet• Children & adolescents who watched the most TV were significantly

more likely to be higher consumers of foods most commonly advertised on TV (Utter et al., 2006)

• Children’s exposure to food advertising was significantly related to their consumption of advertised brands and energy-dense product categories (Buijzen et al., 2008)

• 1 in 7 up to 1 in 3 obese children in the US may not have been obese in the absence of advertising of unhealthy foods on TV (Veerman et al., 2009)

• Exposure to ads for healthy foods was positively associated withreported fruit & vegetable intake (Klepp et al., 2007)

StanMark

TV FOOD ADVERTISING TO CHILDREN

• Experimental studies

Our studies at the University of Liverpool –food advertising and actual intake

Condition One

10 food adverts + cartoon

Condition Two

10 non-food adverts + cartoon

Advert recall/recognition test

Ad libitum Food Intake Measured

Height and weight measured at final visit

Low Fat High Fat Low Fat High Fat Low Energy

Savoury Savoury Sweet Sweet Density

StanMark

Key findings: Halford et al., 2004 Appetite

• All children increased intake of SW and HFSAV foods after food ads

• OW and OB children recognised more food than toy ads, and more food ads than NW children.

• Recognition of food ads correlated with amount eaten after those ads.

• Food advert exposure produced a significant increase in food intake in 5-7 year old children.

• No effects of weight status but +ve correlation between BMI s.d. score and amount eaten after food ads.

• Recognition of food ads was also related to BMI.

Key findings: Halford, Boyland et al., 2007 Appetite

NW OW/OB

Non Food Ads Food ads

StanMark

Key findings: Halford, Boyland et al., 2008 Public Health Nutrition

• Food advert exposure increased intake in all children

• However, the increased was greater in the obese children (155%) and the overweight children (101%) than the NW children (89%).

The effects on adverts and celebrity on the intake of branded and unbranded crisp/chip potato snacks

AimTo study the effects of exposure to:

1.toy advert, 2.general food advert, 3.celebrity endorsed branded food product ad (crisp) 4.clip of same celebrity in usual non-advert context (‘match of the day’ football highlights)

on choice between ‘branded’and ‘unbranded’ product (actually the same crisps).

209 children, 9-14 y (mean 11.1±1.3y). Between subjects design.

Results1. No overall difference in total intake between

conditions. All children ate significantly more of the branded crisps (36.1g v 18.7g; p<0.001).

2. In the crisp ad condition they ate significantly more branded crisps than in the other food ad condition (46.1g v 28.6g; p<0.001).

3. In the Match of the Day condition they ate significantly more branded crisps than the children in the other food ad condition (38.8g v 28.6g; p<0.05).

4. In the toy control condition they ate significantly more ‘non-brand’ crisps than in any other.

StanMark

Exposure to either the advert or the celebrity endorser exaggerated brand choice

Significant main effect of crisp brand (p<0.001) and an interaction between crisp brand and advert condition (p<0.001).

• Children who saw the food ads ate 45% more goldfish crackers while viewing than children who did not see the food ads (controlled for weight status, gender, TV in bedroom, ethnic origin) (Harris, Bargh & Brownell, 2009)

• In boys, food intake in the food ad condition was 18.9g higher than control whereas in girls, food intake in the food ad condition was 7.3g lower than control (Anschutz et al., 2009)

Further evidence for advertising effects on food intake

StanMark

Our studies at the University of Liverpool –effects on food preferences and choice• Leeds Food Preference Measure (LFPM)

• Adapted Food Preference Measure (AFPM)

• Leeds Forced Choice Test (LFCT)

A B

A B

Key findings: Halford, Boyland et al., 2008 Int J Pediatric Obesity

• Following FA exposure NW children chose more food items (both branded and unbranded) than after non-food adverts.

• OW/OB children showed greater preference for branded foods than the NW children per se, but did not increase the number of items chosen after FA.

• In OW/OB children only, there was a significant and positive relationship between food ad recall and the total number of foods chosen in the food condition.

StanMark

Further evidence for advertising effects on food preference• Children who had seen food adverts were more likely to choose

the advertised food product• Items advertised twice were chosen more often than items

advertised once (Borzekowski & Robinson, 2001)

• Children preferred the taste of food and drink items if they thought they were from McDonalds (Robinson et al., 2007)

• Exposure to ad during cartoon was significantly associated with preference for the advertised product (Chernin, 2008)

Key findings: Boyland et al., (in preparation)• All children selected more non-branded and branded items after FA

compared to TA.

Non branded (LFPM) Branded (AFPM)

*** p < 0.001

StanMark

• No weight status differences• NW and OW/OB children did not differ in their food preferences in

the control (toy ad) condition.• NW and OW/OB children did not respond differently to food

advertising exposure.

• Significant differences found between high and low viewers• High TV viewers had a higher mean BMI SDS than the low TV

viewers.• The food preferences of high TV viewers were more affected by

food ad exposure than low TV viewers.• In the FA condition, high TV viewing children selected a greater

number of branded food items than:• Non-branded items in the FA condition• Branded items in the TA condition• Branded items by low TV viewers in the TA condition.

Key findings: Boyland et al., (in prep.)

Thank you for your attention!

AcknowledgementsDr Jo Harrold

Professor Tim Kirkham

LORNhttp://www.liv.ac.uk/obesity/

StanMark