The impact of regulation on children s exposure on the advertising of unhealthy food during programming they like: Implications for the adoption of regulation of media Jason C G Halford, Lauren McGale, Rosa, Whalen, Emma J Boyland
Why market to children? The child is a key market due to: 1. Influence over family spending ( pester power ) 2. Direct market, due to personal spending power 3. Future market, lifelong spending potential ( cradle-to-grave consumer )
Despite recent fluctuations TV viewing still higher than ten years ago Internet use has increased dramatically as expected. Using both at same time via smart phones etc (OfCom 2016).
Changes bring print, cinema, online and social media into line with television, where strict regulation prohibits the advertising of unhealthy food to children Independent, 6 th Dec 2016
ASA/CAP
World Health Organisation recommendations and frameworks (WHO, 2010;2012) Taken from A framework for implementing the set of recommendations on the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children (WHO, 2012).
Exposure Core, non-core and miscellaneous food advertising For all view time across 4 channel types in 2010 Children's 2010 Sports 20.5% 27.4% 16% 8% 51.2% 75.9% Core Non-core Miscellaneous Music Family 22.6% 9.6% 27.2% 14.5% Core Non-core Miscellaneous Core Non-core Miscellaneous 67.9% 58.3%
Children s Peak Viewing Times 26.41% 2008 Peak 18.46% 18.45% 2012 Peak 22.75% Peak Core Peak Non-Core Peak Misc Peak Core Peak Non-Core Peak Misc 54.84% 2010 Peak 58.33% 24.63% 14.65% Peak Core Peak Non-Core Peak Misc 60.24% Multinomial regression analysis underway. 2018 data to be added
% food adverts Exposure Children s channels Food types advertised 2008 versus 2010 30 25 27.4% UP Fast food (+13.8%) Sugar sweetened drinks (+7.3) Full fat dairy items (+4.8%) 2008 2010 20 15 13.6% 13.3% 12.9% Low fat milk(+2.6) Fruit and fruit products (+7.2%) Vegetables (+6.1%) Four are non core and three are core (still more non core) 10 8.5% 10.8% 10.2% 8.1% 7.8% 6.6% 10.3% 5 2.9% 3% 4.2% 3.2% 3.1% 2.8% 0 Fast food Supermarkets Low advertising no fat/reduced fat food/non milk, yoghurt specified Sugar sweetened drinks 0.9% Fruits and fruit products 0.5% 0.4% Full cream milk Vegetables Baby and toddler milk formulae High sugar/low Tea and coffee fibre breakfast cereals
Exposure Top 10 food types advertised during peak times 2008 versus 2010 Fast food and sugar sweetened drinks up from 2008 14 12 11.6% 13% 11.2% Seven are non core and only one core (i.e.7 times as many) 2008 2010 10 8 6 4 9.4% 8.2% 8% 7.3% 6.6% 6.8% 6.7% 3.8% 6% 5.8% 4.4% 2.8% 5.5% 7.8% 4.7% 8.7% 4.1% 2 0 Fast food restaurants S/markets generic Chocolate and confectionary High fat/sugar/salt spreads Full cream milk Alcohol S/markets noncore Sugar sweetened drinks Low fat dairy High sugar/low fibre breakfast cereal
% of food adverts Exposure 80 Seasonal variation - 2008 versus 2010 70 66.3% 67% 64.3% 60 50 53.4% 55.9% 59.2% 46.9% 45.8% 55% 51.5% 40 UK Schools Holidays 49.1% 36.4% Core (2010) Non-core (2010) Core (2008) 30 26.4% 26.1% 30.6% Non-core (2008) 20 10 23.3% 18.7% 15.8% 23.2% 10.9% 13.8% 14.4% 16.2% 3.4% 0 Feb April June August October December In 2010, more non-core food adverts were broadcast during August (UK schools closed for holidays) compared with previous month of data for June (64.3% versus 46.9%). Shift in non-core food adverts to times when children are have more time to engage in television viewing.
Primary school children and their experience of food marketing (Boyland, Whalen & Halford) Phase 1 - Local piloting and validation of online measures (20 parent- child dyads). Phase 2 - Nationally representative online survey (2500 parent-child dyads, core self-report data). Census quotas on SES (IMD and occupational data), age of parents and geographical locations. Phase 3 - Real-world follow-up of survey contents and additional qualitative data collection with families in which children have high/low HFSS marketing exposure and/or high/low parental-report BMI. These data will provide key insights that can be used to underpin advocacy for policy action to reduce children s exposure to HFSS food promotion as an integral part of strategies to reduce childhood obesity.
World Health Organisation recommendations and frameworks (WHO, 2010;2012) A framework for implementing the set of recommendations on the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children (WHO, 2012).
Commercial viewing is a predictor of children s obesity Zimmerman & Bell (2010)
Amount Eaten in Grams (g) Number of Adverts Recognised Food promotion and childhood obesity: Impact on Policy (a). Number of Adverts Recognised. 10 8 *** *** 6 4 Non-Food Adverts Food Adverts 2 0 lean overweight obese (b). Amount of Food Eaten After Presentation of Adverts. 200 150 100 50 *** *** * *** *** = p < 0.001 food eaten after nonfood adverts food eaten after food adverts 0 lean overweight obese *** = p < 0.001 ** = p < 0.01 * = p < 0.05
Number of Adverts Recognised Amount Eaten in Grams (g) External cues and appetite 10 8 6 4 2 0 (a). Number of Adverts Recognised. lean *** overweight obese *** Non-Food Adverts Food Adverts *** = p < 0.001 (b). Amount of Food Eaten After Presentation of Adverts. 200 150 100 50 0 *** lean *** * overweight obese *** food eaten after nonfood adverts food eaten after food adverts *** = p < 0.001 ** = p < 0.01 * = p < 0.05 Obese children recognised more food adverts than toy but all children responded to them by increasing gram intake and altering food choice (including shifting to HFSS foods) ACTIVE OVER CONSUMPTION
Modified design Energy intake analysis FA 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%). Weight status effects can be very obvious especially in older children
Celebrity Endorsers Promotional characters Licensed characters Brand equity characters
Power Promotional characters - 2008 versus 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010 2008 2010 80 70 67.6% 2008 2010 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Brand Equity 55.5% 2008 2010 32.4% Licensed 44.5% 1. Use of promotional characters advertising non-core foods increased to 63.6% in 2010, up 8.8% from 2008 (54.8%). 2. Despite the regulations there was an increase of use of licensed characters of 12.1% in 2010. 3. Across the whole sample, use of brand equity characters decreased 23.1%
Power Promotional characters: school holidays Promotional characters doubled for noncore foods during school holidays
% of food adverts Power Seasonal variation in use of promotional characters in non-core food adverts - 2008 versus 2010 90 80 77.9% 70 60 59.2% 60.2% 62.1% 66.5% 55.5% 62.2% 61.2% 50 49.1% 49.5% 45% 2008 40 42.4% 2010 30 UK Schools Holidays 20 10 0 February April June August October December
Ok, so what does all this old TV stuff have to do with new non broad cast (social media)? Meet Zoella the Vlogger! Peer Endorser May 2016 Favourites 1,892,365 views +1 (9:30am this morning) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cr9g5bkeivk&t=628s Anna Coates PhD
Summary: 1. Despite a regulatory approach in the UK children are still exposed to adverts which promote unhealthy food choices. 2. These effect the preferences and choices of all children but the effect are more exaggerated in children defined as overweight or obese. 3. These adverts remain on children s channels and during their peak viewing on channels popular with them linked to / support by digital media phenomenon such as advergames. 4. The use of social media is also prevalent. In 2017 these came under the same regulatory framework. 5. Post regulation advertising for fast food and sugar sweetened beverages increased as did advertising during the summer holidays and advertising using promotional characters (known to affect children s preference and liking of foods). 6. The regulation of digital media may be equally ineffective and far more difficult to monitor.
Find out more - food marketing research at the University of Liverpool Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Liverpool Food marketing research: Dr Emma Boyland, Professor Jason Halford, Rosa Whalen (PhD student), Lauren McGale (PhD student). Twitter: @rosawhalen @emmaboyland @laurenmcgale School of Law, University of Liverpool Food marketing policy research: Nikhil Gokani and Professor Amandine Garde
Acknowledgements, Collaborators and Funding Human Ingestive Behaviour Laboratory Dr Joanne Harrold (academic team lead) Mrs Georgina Hughes (researcher) Dr Una Masic (researcher) Dr Emma Boyland (academic) Mrs Nicola Williams (laboratory supervisor) Dr Sonia Tucci (academic) Prof Matt Field (associate academic) Professor Tim Kirkham (academic) Professor John Blundell (honorary academic) Dr Graham Finlayson (honorary academic) Dr Andrej Stancak (associate academic) Ms Catherine Slevin (PhD Student) Ms Vassiliki Sinopoulou (PhD Student) Ms Sophia Komninou (PhD Student) Ms Lauren McGale (PhD Student) Ms Rosa Whalen (PhD Student) Ms Bethan Mead (PhD Student) Ms Jayne Pickering (PhD Student) The laboratory receives support from the BBSRC, MRC/NRPI, and EU Frame Work 7. These grants are focused on appetite control and weight management and funding within such schemes is dependent on the involvement various Universities, SMEs and Industry Partners. The laboratory is a functional nutritional research facility and as such receives direct funding from the pharmaceutical, weight management, ingredients, and food industry for appetite research. Current research funders include American Beverage Association, Astra Zeneca, Bristol Meyers Squib and Unilever. Companies engage the University in Consultancies related to weight management and appetite control (the generation of products that reduce hunger and increase satiety). The lab has advised Novo Nordisk, Optibiox and Orexigen on appetite control. No academic in the Laboratory takes any personally consultancy. NO POLICY WORK IS SUPPORTED BY INDUSTRY AND NO WORK ON POLICY INVOLVES INDUSTRY All work engaged on behalf of the University has to meet necessary institutional codes and standards. All research projects receive full independent review.