Effect of TV food advertising restriction on food environment for children in South Korea

Transcription

1 Health Promotion International, 2017;32:25 34 doi: /heapro/dat078 Advance Access Publication Date: 12 November 2013 Article Effect of TV food advertising restriction on food environment for children in South Korea Youngmi Lee 1, Jihyun Yoon 2, Sang-Jin Chung 3, Soo-Kyung Lee 4, Hyogyoo Kim 5 6 and Soyoung Kim * 1 Department of Food and Nutrition, Myongji University, Yongin , South Korea, 2 Department of Food 3 and Nutrition, Seoul National University, Seoul , South Korea, Department of Foods and Nutrition, Kookmin University, Seoul , South Korea, 4 Department of Food and Nutrition, Inha University, Incheon , South Korea, 5 Department of Advertising and Public Relations, Dongguk 6 University, Seoul , South Korea and Department of Food Science and Nutrition, Soonchunhyang University, Asan , South Korea *Corresponding author. sonyah@naver.com Summary This study attempted to determine the effects of restrictions on television (TV) food advertising on children s food environments in South Korea. It examined changes that occurred in the marketing mix of food companies following enactment of those restrictions. An on-line survey was conducted with marketers or R&D managers of 108 food companies. A questionnaire was used to inquire about changes that occurred in Product, Place, Price and Promotion as a result of the restrictions placed on TV food advertising. Analysis was performed on the data collected from the responding 63 food companies (58.3%). The results of their answers showed that among the four marketing mix components the restrictions exerted relatively stronger effects on Product. Effects were stronger on companies that produced foods within the product categories of Energy-Dense and Nutrient-Poor foods (EDNP companies) in comparison with companies that did not (non-ednp companies). The restrictions exerted positive effects on EDNP companies with respect to compliance with labeling requirements and reinforcement of nutritional contents examination, as well as changes to products such as reducing unhealthy ingredients and fortifying nutrients. Overall, the results revealed the possibility that restrictions on TV food advertising could improve children s food environments by encouraging EDNP companies to make favorable product changes. On the one hand, the results also found that some food companies attempted to bypass the regulations by changing marketing channels from TV to others and by reducing product serving sizes. Thus, future measures should be implemented to prevent food companies from bypassing regulations and to control children s exposure to marketing channels other than TV. Key words: TV food advertising; restriction; children; food environment INTRODUCTION The promotion of foods that contain poor nutritional values has been identified as a modifiable risk factor for non-communicable diseases and, by leading to unhealthy diet, has been linked to the global increase in childhood obesity (Hastings et al., 2003, 2006; Harris et al., 2009a; WHO, 2010). A recent systematic review reported that food promotion had a direct effect on VC The Author Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please journals.permissions@oup.com

2 26 Y. Lee et al. children s nutritional knowledge, preferences, purchasing behaviors, consumption patterns and diet-related health (Cairns et al., 2012). In particular, TV food advertising has drawn attention for its potential role in the promotion of children s unhealthy eating habits. TV advertising is the most widely used form of food marketing aimed at children in most countries although its dominance has decreased (Federal Trade Commission, 2008). Studies conducted in several countries have shown that TV advertising during children s viewing hours predominantly promoted foods high in sugar, fat and/or salt (Lewis and Hill, 1998; Harrison and Marske, 2005; Neville et al., 2005; Chapman et al., 2006; Wilson et al., 2006; Powell et al., 2007; Batada et al., 2008; Huang et al., 2012). TV marketing of these foods employed highly persuasive techniques to encourage regular consumption and repeat purchases (Dalmeny et al., 2003; Hebden et al., 2011b). Moreover, the impact of TV food advertising has extended to other products in the same product categories (Young, 2003; Ambler, 2006; Buijzen et al., 2008; Harris et al., 2009b; Andreyeva et al., 2011). Therefore, continued exposure to TV advertising of unhealthy foods may lead to more generic unhealthy eating patterns. Recommended actions to reduce children s exposure to the marketing of unhealthy foods include the introduction of policies to restrict marketing, especially TV advertising of these foods. The regulations of TV food advertising directed at children range from a complete ban on advertising, through partial restrictions for certain types of food or for broadcast times, to food industry self-regulation (Hawkes and Lobstein, 2011; King, 2012). Most countries have begun to encourage voluntary agreements and food industry self-regulation. Similar to most countries worldwide, concern has increased in South Korea about the high prevalence of overweight and obese children (Ministry of Health and Welfare, 2008). In 2008, the South Korean government passed the Special Act on Safety Management of Children s Dietary Life. It included restrictions on TV advertising of Energy-Dense and Nutrient-Poor (hereafter, EDNP) foods targeting children. These restrictions took effect on 1 January 2010 and they included a 3- year sunset provision that requires the South Korean Congress to reauthorize the Act after 3 years. The Act restricts TV advertising of EDNP foods before, during, and after all TV programs broadcast between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. The EDNP foods subject to the Act included snacks and meal substitutes favored by children that fail to satisfy nutritional standards with threshold levels for energy, sugar, saturated fat, sodium and minimum levels of protein per single serving size set by the Korean Food and Drug Administration (hereafter, KFDA) (KFDA, 2010b). The main objectives of regulations are to encourage changes in children s eating behaviors by reducing their direct exposure to unhealthy foods. These regulatory approaches can also indirectly improve food environments and exert positive impacts on children s health. The food environment, which includes the range and composition of available foods, prices, promotion and/ or marketing, is a considerable contributive factor to children s dietary quality (King, 2012). Food companies are important stakeholders that perform roles in the processing, formulation, production, distribution and marketing of foods (King, 2012). As such, these regulations may potentially promote positive changes in obesogenic food environments by encouraging food companies to implement voluntary actions including the reformulation or development of healthier products to promote healthful diets. Many recent studies have evaluated these regulations impacts on TV food advertising by examining compliance (King et al., 2011; Kim et al., 2013), advertising expenditures (Department of Health, 2008), children s exposure to advertising (Landmark Europe, 2010; Kent et al., 2011; Powell et al., 2011; Adams et al., 2012) and their food consumption (Dhar and Baylis, 2011). However, little is known about the influence of restricting TV food advertising on food companies marketing activities that might contribute to changes in food environments. Hence, the current study attempted to determine effects of restricting TV food advertising on the children s favorite food market in South Korea by examining changes in food companies marketing practices following the passage of the restrictions. METHODS Sample design and sampling A total of 108 food companies in South Korea were chosen as the sample for this study. Respondents were individuals in charge of marketing or R&D in targeted food companies. Of the total 111 members of the Korea Food Industry Association (KFIA), 107 food companies were classified as subjects of the investigation, with the exception of four associations (e.g. the Korea Dairy Industries Association). Of those 107 companies, KFIA provided a list of respondents employed in 102 food companies that agreed to participate in the study. KFIA is an association that represents entities that manufacture or process foods or food additives, as well as food-related organizations in South Korea, established in An additional

3 Effect of TV food advertising restriction on food environment 27 six fast food companies that produce hamburgers or pizzas were included in the survey samples. These six companies were not members of KFIA. However, the decision of inclusion was made because the companies produced hamburgers or pizzas fallen within the EDNP food categories subject to the restrictions, as well as they advertised these products on TV prior to the enforcement of the restrictions. The data from a total of 63 food companies that completed the questionnaire (58.3%) were used for the analysis. Questionnaires and data collection The preliminary study s goal was to gain an understanding of the general changes in the 4 Ps of the marketing mix (i.e. Product, Price, Place and Promotion) (hereafter, the 4 Ps ) of food companies after the restrictions were enacted. surveys and in-depth interviews were conducted with marketers or R&D managers employed by 14 food companies. Each company advertised EDNP foods via five South Korean TV channels (i.e. KBS 2, MBC, SBS, EBS and Tooniverse) between 5:00 and 7:00 p.m. during the period from January 2009 to March Based on the results of the preliminary study, a selfadministered on-line questionnaire was developed containing a total of 39 questions, divided into four parts: (i) current status of products and their TV advertising, (ii) changes in Product and Price that resulted from the restrictions, (iii) changes in Place and Promotion that resulted from the restrictions and (iv) demographic information of the respondents. The questions that addressed the restrictions influences on changes in Product, Place and Promotion were measured by 5-point scales (1. strongly disagree; 2. somewhat disagree; 3. neither disagree nor agree; 4. somewhat agree; 5. strongly agree). The survey was conducted between 12 July and 4 August Questionnaires were sent to marketers or R&D managers of the participating food companies. Multiple attempts to gather missing data were made by and telephone follow-up. Analyses Statistical analyses were conducted using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS WIN 19.0). The responding food companies were divided into two groups. Food companies that produced any products within EDNP food categories were classified as EDNP companies, regardless of whether their products were actually EDNP foods subject to the restrictions. Food companies that did not produce products within EDNP food categories were classified as non-ednp companies. EDNP food categories primarily included food products favored by children. These included snacks or meal substitutes such as candies and hamburgers. Within the EDNP food categories, products that fail to satisfy nutritional standards set by the KFDA are subject to restrictions on TV advertising (see Appendix 1). To examine the differences in changes that occurred in the 4 Ps between the two groups of food companies (i.e. EDNP and non- EDNP companies), v 2 tests or independent t-tests were performed. RESULTS General information Among the 63 food companies that completed questionnaires, 32 food companies were classified as EDNP food companies (51%). The rest of 31 companies produced beverages, milks, canned foods, cereals, instant noodles, and so on, that did not fall within the EDNP food categories. A total of 32 companies advertised their products on TV, 24 of which broadcasted TV advertising for foods that fell within EDNP food categories. These included products such as mixed beverages, processed/fermented milks, confectioneries, carbonated beverages, fruit/vegetable beverages, chocolates, candies, ice creams, sweetened ices, hamburgers, yogurt drinks and breads. Of the 45 food companies that failed to respond to questionnaires, 18 were EDNP food companies (40%). Overall effects of TV food advertising restrictions Among the 4 Ps of the marketing mix, the highest effect of TV food advertising restrictions was observed for Product, where an average score of 3.1 was obtained. All three the other components achieved less than three points on average, and generally they did not appear to have been affected by the restrictions. EDNP companies scored significantly higher for the restrictions effects on Product (p ¼ 0.040), Price (p ¼ 0.021) and Promotion (p ¼ 0.005) than non-ednp companies. This indicates that EDNP companies were more likely to be affected by restrictions placed on TV food advertising (Table 1). Effects of TV food advertising restrictions on Product Table 2 shows the changes in food companies Product strategies that occurred after the regulations on TV food advertising were enacted. The categories of strict compliance with labeling requirements and reinforcement of nutritional contents examinations of new products scored relatively higher in comparison with other

4 28 Y. Lee et al. Table 1: Effects of TV food advertising restrictions on the marketing mix (4Ps) of food companies Classification EDNP company (n 5 32) Non-EDNP company (n 5 31) Total (n 5 63) p-value* Mean 6 SD a Effects on Product Effects on Price Effects on Place Effects on Promotion a Scale of 1 ¼ strongly disagree, 2 ¼ disagree, 3 ¼ neither disagree nor agree, 4 ¼ agree, and 5 ¼ strongly agree *p-value by two-independent samples t-test. Table 2: Changes in food companies product strategies due to the restrictions on TV food advertising Classification categories. EDNP companies scored significantly higher in all categories than non-ednp companies, with the exception of reinforcement of R&D and shortened cycle to release new products. In particular, the scores for strict compliance with labeling requirements and reinforcement of nutritional contents examinations of new products equaled 3.78 and 3.75 points, respectively. These scores were higher than scores calculated for the other categories. The examination of companies modifications to the products component after the enactment of regulations revealed significant results (Table 3). In most cases, food companies reduced energy by lowering free sugar content (including substitution of artificial sweeteners for sugar) (28.6%), reduced trans-fatty acids (22.2%), reduced sodium content (20.6%) and reduced energy by lowering fat content (17.5%). However, more than half of food companies (50.8%) responded that they made no product changes. EDNP companies reported more changes to food products than non-ednp companies. They reduced the EDNP company (n 5 32) Mean 6 SD a Non-EDNP company (n 5 31) Total (n 5 63) p-value* Strict compliance with labeling requirements Reinforcement of nutritional contents examinations <0.001 of new products Redesign of existing products Release of premium products Reinforcement of R&D Release of products with well-being concept Release of eco-friendly products Development of products for children Shortened cycle to release new products a Scale of 1 ¼ strongly disagree, 2 ¼ disagree, 3 ¼ neither disagree nor agree, 4 ¼ agree and 5 ¼ strongly agree. *p-value by two-independent samples t-test. contents of free sugar (40.6%), reduced trans-fatty acids (34.4%) and reduced fat (28.1%). They also fortified healthful nutrients such as protein (15.6%) and vitamins and minerals (25.0%). EDNP companies engaged in diverse product modifications, such as reducing single serving or package sizes, and increasing the use of domestic or organic ingredients. Eleven out of the 32 EDNP companies reported that they had not implemented any product changes, whereas 21 out of the 31 non-ednp companies reported that they made no changes. Based on these results, it could be inferred that most of non-ednp companies did not make any significant product changes after enforcements of regulations, although there were limited level of changes such as reductions in sugar, sodium or trans-fatty acid contents. Effects of TV food advertising restrictions on Promotion Table 4 shows the changes that occurred in food companies promotion strategies because of the enactment of

5 Effect of TV food advertising restriction on food environment 29 Table 3: Changes in food companies products due to the restrictions on TV food advertising Classification EDNP company (n 5 32) n (%) Non-EDNP company (n 5 31) Total (n 5 63) p-value* Reducing energy by lowering free sugar content 13 (40.6) 5 (16.1) 18 (28.6) Reducing trans-fatty acids 11 (34.4) 3 (9.7) 14 (22.2) Reducing sodium content 8 (25.0) 5 (16.1) 13 (20.6) Reducing energy by lowering fat content 9 (28.1) 2 (6.5) 11 (17.5) Fortifying vitamins or minerals 8 (25.0) 1 (3.2) 9 (14.3) Reducing single serving sizes 6 (18.8) 3 (9.7) 9 (14.3) Increasing the use of domestic ingredients 5 (15.6) 2 (6.5) 7 (11.1) Fortifying protein 5 (15.6) 0 (0.0) 5 (7.9) Reducing package sizes 4 (12.5) 1 (3.2) 5 (7.9) Increasing the use of organic ingredients 3 (9.4) 1 (3.2) 4 (6.3) Out of production 3 (9.4) 0 (0.0) 3 (4.8) Not applicable 11 (34.4) 21 (67.7) 32 (50.8) *p-value by the v 2 test. Table 4: Changes in food companies promotion strategies due to the restrictions on TV food advertising Classification the restrictions. With the exception of reinforcement of legal examinations related to promotion (3.29 points), in general, the effects equaled less than three points (i.e. neither disagree nor agree ). However, the results revealed that the promotion strategies of EDNP companies were generally more affected than those of non- EDNP companies. The results revealed that companies instituted diverse changes in promotional activities because of the enactment of the regulations, although at a limited level. These changes included the modification of package designs (15.9%), the introduction of on-line marketing (14.3%), offering free gifts (9.5%), the modifications of merchandise displays in stores (7.9%) and the EDNP company (n 5 32) Mean 6 SD a Non-EDNP company (n 5 31) Total (n 5 63) p-value* Reinforcement of legal examinations related to promotion Reinforcement of CSRs Influence on advertising strategies Influence on PR strategies Introduction of self-regulation on promotion targeting children Influence on personal sales Reinforcement of corporate image advertisements rather than individual product advertisements Change of marketing target from children to adults Influence on sales promotion strategies a Scale of 1 ¼ strongly disagree, 2 ¼ disagree, 3 ¼ neither disagree nor agree, 4 ¼ agree, and 5 ¼ strongly agree. *p-value by two-independent samples t-test. introduction of newspaper, magazine and radio marketing (7.9%). However, 41 of the surveyed companies did not implement any changes in promotional activities (Table 5). EDNP companies engaged in significantly more changes in the promotional activities than non-ednp companies. The introduction of on-line marketing was the change occurring most often (25.0%), followed by the modification of package designs (21.9%), offering free gifts (15.6%) and the introduction of mobile marketing (12.5%); 46.9% of EDNP companies stated that they had made no changes, whereas 89.3% of the non- EDNP food companies stated that they had not adopted any changes. These results imply that the enforcement of

6 30 Y. Lee et al. Table 5: Changes in food companies promotional activities due to the restrictions on TV food advertising Classification EDNP company (n 5 32) n (%) Non-EDNP company (n 5 31) Total (n 5 63) p-value* Modification of package designs 7 (21.9) 3 (9.7) 10 (15.9) Introduction of on-line marketing 8 (25.0) 1 (3.2) 9 (14.3) Offering free gifts 5 (15.6) 1 (3.2) 6 (9.5) Introduction of newspaper, magazine and radio marketing 3 (9.4) 2 (6.5) 5 (7.9) Modification of merchandise display in stores 3 (9.4) 2 (6.5) 5 (7.9) Introduction of mobile marketing 4 (12.5) 0 (0.0) 4 (6.3) Introduction of social marketing 4 (12.5) 0 (0.0) 4 (6.3) Price discount 1 (3.1) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.6) Downsize or cease of promotion 1 (3.1) 0 (0.0) 1 (1.6) Not applicable 15 (46.9) 26 (83.9) 41 (65.1) *p-value by the v 2 test. Table 6: Changes in food companies Place due to the restrictions on TV food advertising Classification EDNP company (n 5 32) Mean 6 SD a restrictions did not affect promotional activities in most of non-ednp companies. Effects of TV food advertising restrictions on Price and Place Most of the surveyed companies reported that the restrictions did not affect production costs and product sales prices. However, respectively, 37.5 and 21.9% of the EDNP companies reported increased production costs and sales prices. Of the non-ednp companies, only 9.7 and 6.5%, respectively, reported increased production costs and sales prices. With respect to both types of food companies, the effects of the restrictions on Place are showed in Table 6. Overall, the effects equaled less than three points ( neither disagree nor agree ). EDNP companies appeared to have been more affected by the regulations than non- EDNP companies. However, no significant differences were apparent between both types of companies with the exception of the influence on distribution structure. Non-EDNP company (n 5 31) DISCUSSION Total (n 5 63) p-value* Influence on distribution structure Distribution decrease in school cafeteria Distribution decrease in Green Food Zone Influence on introduction of new strategies like on-line sale, home delivery etc a Scale of 1 ¼ strongly disagree, 2 ¼ disagree, 3 ¼ neither disagree nor agree, 4 ¼ agree and 5 ¼ strongly agree. *p-value by two-independent samples t-test. This study examined the effects of regulations on TV food advertising had on the South Korean food environment by investigating changes in the four elements of marketing mix (4 Ps) of food companies. The results showed that food companies primarily responded to the restrictions by changing their Product, rather than changing Price, Place or Promotion. This may have occurred because food companies initially considered adjusting their strategies by transforming their products that failed to meet the nutritional criteria established by the KFDA. In order to make them meet the nutritional criteria, the companies appeared to reinforce protein or lower sugar, fat, trans-fatty acids and sodium contents. Moreover, the results demonstrated that the regulations inspired food companies strict compliance with labeling requirements. It was also found that food companies reinforced examinations of the new products nutritional contents because of the regulations. These changes exerted more significant effects on EDNP

7 Effect of TV food advertising restriction on food environment 31 companies. Thus, it could be inferred that the regulations caused positive changes on food environments for children s health. These results are encouraging when considering previous studies revealing that children s exposure to TV advertising affected their consumption of advertised products, as well as their consumption of foods classified within similar product categories (Young, 2003; Buijzen et al., 2008; Harris et al., 2009b). Furthermore, the regulations of TV food advertising also exerted a positive albeit limited effect on non- EDNP companies by encouraging them to adjust their products in the more health favorable direction. The current study was conducted 1 year after the introduction of the regulations. Hence, additional significant consequences might occur over the long term. On the one hand, it was revealed that companies made misleading changes to products, such as reducing serving sizes. These changes may represent one of several strategies food companies employed to bypass the regulations. Currently in South Korea, food companies themselves can set serving sizes for products for which standard serving sizes have not been defined. Moreover, serving sizes for confectioneries and beverages can be chosen freely between 67 and 200% of standard serving sizes (KFDA, 2011). This self-decision condition might be used in a negative manner to evade the regulations. Indeed, there were cases where serving sizes for the same products were set differently resulting in two different groups: non-ednp food in case of larger serving sizes and EDNP food for smaller serving sizes (KFDA, 2010a). Therefore, in order to prevent food companies from taking advantage, attempts should be made to clarify and define the standard serving sizes on a base of individual products characteristics. In addition, it needs to consider the gradual expansion of the regulation to include all products that fall within EDNP food categories, regardless of serving sizes. In comparison with the effects of restricting TV food advertising on Product, the effects on Price, Place or Promotion appeared relatively weaker. Nevertheless, EDNP companies reacted more strongly to the regulations than non-ednp companies by reinforcing the legal examinations involved during creation of promotional activities. On the one hand, the regulations appeared to provide opportunities for food companies to create promotional activities that do not rely on TV advertising. The most often seen change was the introduction of online marketing. EDNP companies engaged in more changes to promotional activities than non-ednp food companies. The regulations on TV advertising seemed to encourage food companies to seek marketing channels other than the ones that have been regulated. The same phenomenon also seen in the limitation policy on cigarette advertising, where the limiting of cigarette advertising in broadcast media resulted in a change of advertising media and increased numbers of smokers (Teel et al., 1979). The majority of previous studies that examined the impact of marketing on children s eating habits focused on TV advertising. However, the types of food marketing are diverse: in addition to TV advertising, they include print media, Internet, outdoor advertisements and product packaging. The World Health Organization (WHO) devised a set of recommendations related to food marketing directed at children. They included recommendations for product placement, sponsorship, website and shop promotion (WHO, 2010). In fact, companies aggressively utilize integrated marketing communications that incorporate diverse promotional methods such as advertising, public relations, sales promotions, direct marketing, sponsorships and point-of-purchase advertisement (Kitchen et al., 2004). Food companies also increasingly employ the integrated use of diverse marketing channels (Dalmeny et al., 2003). Ofcom (Ofcom, 2010) reported that funds spent on TV food advertising between 2005 and 2009 decreased although, during the same period, funds spent on Internet advertisement increased by 353%. In particular, companies producing foods high in fat, sugar and sodium tend to use social media such as Facebook or Twitter (British Heart Foundation, 2011). The current study revealed that EDNP companies introduced more on-line or mobile marketing than non-ednp companies. This variety of promotional activities that companies employ, other than TV advertising, may exert an important effect on children s food habits. Free gifts or attractive package designs also draw children s attention. Thus, these efforts increase children s favorable feeling toward products (Cairns et al., 2012). The results of this study suggest that children could still be exposed to unhealthy food marketing, other than TV advertising, because EDNP companies changed package designs or offered free gifts. As noted in the WHO recommendations, the scope of these regulations should be expanded from TV to other marketing channels to minimize the negative effects of food marketing on children s health. The results also showed that self-regulation by food companies is unsatisfactory. Levels of self-regulation on promotions that targeted children were low both for EDNP and non-ednp companies. Therefore, it is imperative that efforts are made to encourage the food industry s voluntary agreement or self-regulation. Although this research tried to evaluate the indirect effects of restricting TV food advertising on food

8 32 Y. Lee et al. environments for children by examining changes in food companies marketing, the results might not entirely reflect the actual changes in food companies marketing, as the study is based on a survey rather than observations of food companies actual practices. Another limitation is that the survey was conducted 1 year after the enforcement of the regulations on TV advertising, and focused solely on short-term changes. Yet despite these limitations, the study demonstrates the indirect effects of TV advertising restrictions on the food environment of children. As such, the results of this study can be used to predict the long-term impact of policies related to food market for children in South Korea or in other countries sharing similar concerns. They may also provide the grounds for an evidence-based policy decision after the 3-year sunset provision ends in CONCLUSION This study examined the effects of restrictions on TV food advertising on changes in food companies marketing in South Korea 1 year after their enforcement. The results revealed the possibility that restrictions on TV food advertising may contribute to improvement of the food environment for children s health by encouraging EDNP companies to adjust their products to become more health friendly. Additional positive changes could be expected in the long term, because the current study was performed 1 year after the introduction of these regulations. However, the results showed that some food companies employed strategies to bypass the regulations by changing marketing channels from TV to others or by reducing products serving sizes. Therefore, it is imperative that efforts be made to determine optimal ways to prevent food companies from bypassing these regulations and that the regulation be extended from to other marketing channels. FUNDING This work was supported by the Korean Food and Drug Administration (08082Meokeulgeori ). APPENDIX 1 Nutrition standards for energy-dense and nutrient-poor foods (I) Applicable foods A. Snacks 1) Processed foods: confections (excluding Korean traditional confectioneries)/candies/sweetened ices, breads, chocolates among confectioneries; processed milks/fermented milks (excluding fermented butter milk, fermented milk powder)/ice creams among dairy products; fish/meat sausage among processed fish/meat products; fruit/vegetable beverages/carbonated beverages/lactic acid bacteria beverages/mixed beverages among beverages. 2) Prepared foods: confectionery/bakery products and ice creams. B. Meal substitutes 1) Processed foods: deep-fried noodles/noodles (limited to noodles packaged in ready-to-eat containers), rice rolls in laver (kimbap)/hamburgers/ sandwiches among ready-to-eat foods. 2) Prepared foods: fast foods including hamburgers/ pizzas, etc. (II) Nutrition standards for Energy-Dense and Nutrient- Poor foods A. Standards for children s foods for use as snacks 1) Foods containing >250 kcal and <2 g of protein per serving. 2) Foods containing >4 g of saturated fat and <2 gof protein per serving. 3) Foods containing >17 g of sugars and <2 g of protein per serving. 4) Foods containing >500 kcal or 8 g of saturated fat or 34 g of sugars per serving among those foods that do not fall under the category specified above in (1) to (3) *In the case that one serving size is <30 g, the values shall be converted to those based on the serving size of 30 g. B. Standards for children s foods for use as meal substitutes 1) Foods containing >500 kcal and <9 g of protein per serving; 2) Foods containing >500 kcal and >600 mg of sodium per serving. But in the case that deep-fried noodles/noodles (limited to noodles packaged in ready-to-eat containers), 1000 mg of sodium per serving is applied to. 3) Foods containing >4 g of saturated fat and <9 gof protein per serving. 4) Foods containing >4 g of saturated fat and >600 mg of sodium per serving. But in the case that deep-fried noodles/noodles (limited to noodles packaged in ready-to-eat containers), 1000 mg of sodium per serving is applied to. 5) Foods containing >1000 kcal or 8 g of saturated fat per serving among those foods that do not fall under the category specified above in (1) to (4).

9 Effect of TV food advertising restriction on food environment 33 REFERENCES Adams, J., Tyrrell, R., Adamson, A. J. and White, M. (2012) Effect of restrictions on television food advertising to children on exposure to advertisements for less healthy foods: repeat cross-sectional study. PLos One, 7, 1 6. Ambler, T. (2006) Does the UK promotion of food and drink to children contribute to their obesity? International Journal of Advertising, 25, Andreyeva, T., Kely, I. R. and Hariis, J. L. (2011) Exposure to food advertising on television: Associations with children s fast food and soft drink consumption and obesity. Economic and Human Biology, 9, Batada, A., Seitz, M. D., Wootan, M. G. and Story, M. (2008) Nine out of 10 food advertisements shown during Saturday morning children s television programming are for foods high in fat, sodium, or added sugars, or low in nutrients. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 108, British Heart Foundation. (2011) The 21st century gingerbread house: how companies are marketing junk food to children online. (last accessed 30 June 2012). Buijzen, M., Schuurman, J. and Bomhof, E. (2008) Associations between children s television advertising exposure and their food consumption patterns: a household diary-survey study. Appetite, 50, Cairns, G., Angus, K., Hastings, G. and Caraher, M. (2012) Systematic reviews of the evidence on the nature, extent and effects of marketing to children. A retrospective summary. Appetite, Chapman, K., Nicholas, P. and Supramaniam, R. (2006) How much food advertising is there on Australian television? Health Promotion International, 21, Department of Health. (2008) Changes in food and drink advertising and promotion to children. UK Department of Health, London.A report outlining the changes in the nature and balance of food and drink advertising and promotion to children, from January 2003 to December UK Department of Health, London October Dhar, T. and Baylis, K. (2011) Fast-food consumption and the ban on advertising targeting children: the Quebec experience. Journal of Marketing research, 163, Dalmeny, K., Hanna, E. and Lobstien, T. (2003) Broadcasting Bad Health: Why Food Advertising Needs to be Controlled. The International Association of Consumer Food Organizations, London, Federal Trade Commission. (2008) Marketing food to children and adolescents. A review of industry expenditures, activities, and self-regulation. (A report to congress). Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC. os/2008/07/p064504foodmktingreport.pdf;downloaded (last accessed 30 June 2012). Harris, J., Pomeranza, J., Lobstein, T. and Brownel, K. (2009a) A crisis in the market place. How food marketing contributes to childhood obesity and what can be done. Annual Review of Public Health, 30, Harris, J. L., Bargh, J. A. and Brownell, K. D. (2009b) Priming effects of television food advertising on eating behavior. Health Psychology, 28, Harrison, K. and Marske, L. A. (2005) Nutritional content of foods advertised during the television programs children watch most. American Journal of Public Health, 95, Hastings, G., Stead, M., McDermott, L., Forsyth, A., MacKintosh, A. M., Rayner, M. et al. (2003) Review of research on the effects of food promotion to children-final report. Report to the Food Standards Agency. University of Strathclyde, Centre for Social Marketing, Glasgow. Hastings, G., McDermott, L., Angus, K., Stead, M. and Thomson, S. (2006) The Extent, Nature and Effects of Food Promotion to Children. A Review of the Evidence Technical Paper Prepared for the World Health Organization. WHO, Geneva. cations/2007/ _eng.pdf (last accessed 30 June 2012). Hawkes, C. and Lobstein, T. (2011) Regulation the commercial promotion of food to children: a survey of actions worldwide. International Journal of Pediatric Obesity, 6, Hebden, L., King, L. and Kelly, B. (2011b) Art of persuasion: an analysis of techniques used to market foods to children. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 47, Huang, L., Mehta, K. and Wong, M. L. (2012) Television food advertising in Singapore: the nature and extent of children s exposure. Health Promotion International, 27, Kent, M. P., Dubois, L. and Wanless, A. (2011) Self-regulation by industry of food marketing is having little impact during children s preferred television. International Journal of Pediatric Obesity, 6, Kim, S., Lee, Y., Yoon, J., Choung, S. J., Lee, S. K. and Kim, H. (2013) Restriction of television food advertising in South Korea: impact on advertising of food companies. Health Promotion International, 28, King, L. (2012) Briefing document for Japan-WHO regional consultation for promoting healthier dietary options for children. King, L., Hebden, L., Grunseit, A., Kelly, B., Chapman, K. and Venugopal, K. (2011) Industry self regulation of television food advertising: responsible or responsive? International Journal of Pediatric Obesity, 6, e390 e398. Kitchen, P.J., Brignell, J., Li, T. and Jones, G.S. (2004) The emergence of IMC: a theoretical perspective. Journal of Advertising Research, 44, Korean Food & Drug Administration. (2010a) The list of foods and beverages favored by children March, Korean Food & Drug Administration. (2010b) The Special Act on Safety Management of Children s Dietary Life. Korean Food & Drug Administration. (2011) Standard of labeling for food. Landmark Europe. (2010) Landmark Europe EU Pledge Monitoring Report Available at: (last accessed 30 June 2012).

10 34 Y. Lee et al. Lewis, M. K. and Hill, A. J. (1998) Food advertising on British children s television: a content analysis and experimental study with nine-year olds. International Journal of Obesity, 22, Ministry for Health and Welfare. (2008) National nutrition survey (2008). (last accessed 30 June 2012). Neville, L., Thomas, M. and Bauman, A. (2005) Food advertising on Australian television: the extent of children s exposure. Health Promotion International, 20, Ofcom. (2010) HFSS Advertising Restrictions-Final Review. Office of Communications, UK, org.uk/market-data-research/tv-research/hfss-final-review (last accessed 30 June 2012). Powell, L. M., Szczypka, G., Chaloupka, F. J. and Braunschweig, C. L. (2007) Nutritional content of television food advertisements seen by children and adolescents in the United States. Pediatrics, 120, Powell, L., Schermbeck, R. and Szczypka, G. (2011) Trends in the nutritional content of television food advertisements seen by children in the United States. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 165, Teel, S. J., Teel, J. E. and Bearden, W. O. (1979) Lessons learned from the broadcast cigarette advertising ban. Journal of Marketing, 43, Wilson, N., Signal, L., Nicholls, S. and Thomson, G. (2006) Marketing fat and sugar to children on New Zealand television. Preventive medicine, 42, WHO. (2010). Set of Recommendations on the Marketing of Foods and Non-alcoholic Beverages to Children. World Health Organisation, Geneva. physicalactivity/publications/recsmarketing/en/index.html (last accessed 30 June 2012). Young, B. M. (2003) Does food advertising influence children s food choices? A critical review of some of the recent literature. International Journal of Advertising, 22,