children now pledge monitoring

7/28/2019 Children NOW Pledge Monitoring

1/44

Commissioned by:

Children Now

Conducted by:

Dale Kunkel, Ph.D.

Christopher McKinley, M.A.

Paul Wright, M.A.

University o Arizona

December 2009

The Impact o Industry Sel-Regulation on the Nutritional

Quality o Foods Advertised on Television to Children


2/44

ii

Strong scientic evidence shows that the marketing o unhealthy oods to children is a signicant risk

actor contributing to childhood obesity. In 2006, amidst growing public concern about this issue, the

ood and beverage industry responded with the sel-regulatory Childrens Food and Beverage Advertising

Initiative. This initiative aims to signicantly improve the nutritional quality o ood and beverage products

advertised to children.

Children Now commissioned this study to analyze the efectiveness o the Childrens Food and Beverage

Advertising Initiative.


3/44

1

Executive Summary 3Background 5

Report Objectives 6

Key Findings 6

Conclusion 7

Complete Report 9Background 11

Method 13

Results 15

Conclusion 34

Appendix A 39


4/44

2


5/44

3

Executive Summary


6/44

4


7/44

5

The IOMs conclusions conrmed the role o

ood and beverage marketing practices in

the childhood obesity crisis, subsequently in-

creasing attention to the issue among public

health ocials and childrens advocates. In re-

sponse to this growing pressure or change,

the ood and beverage industry responded

with a sel-regulatory program aimed at re-

ducing unhealthy ood advertising to children.

This program is known as the Childrens Food

and Beverage Advertising Initiative.

The Childrens Food and

Beverage Advertising

InitiativeIn 2006, in partnership with the Council o

Better Business Bureaus, a coalition o majorood companies announced that it would sig-

nicantly improve the nutritional quality o

oods advertised to children. The publicly

stated goal o this voluntary industry eort,

called the Childrens Food and Beverage Ad-

vertising Initiative, is to change the landscape

o child-directed advertising by encouraging

healthier dietary choices and healthy liestyles

in all advertising to children (Peeler, Kolish, &

Enright, 2009, p.1).

The initiative introduced the term better-or-

you to identiy the products that participating

companies had sel-selected as the healthier

ood and beverage products they would con-

tinue to advertise to children. The initiative,

however, lacked uniorm criteria speciying the

minimum nutritional standards or the bet-

ter-or-you designation. Rather, each o the

participating companies issued its own de-

tailed pledge that dened better-or-you in

its own way, resulting in substantial variabil-

ity in the nutritional criteria used rom one

company to the next.

At the time this study was conducted, 15

companies were participating in the initiative(please see page 11 or company list), in which

they publicly pledged to dramatically improve

the nutritional prole o their ood marketing to

children. One additional company (Post Foods)

has joined the initiative since then, bringing the

current number o participants to 16.

BackgroundFor the rst time in modern history, the current

generation o children may ace a lie expec-

tancy that is shorter than that o their parents.This is due to the childhood obesity epidemic.

Among the many health complications asso-

ciated with childhood obesity are the earlier

onset and growing rates o type 2 diabetes,

high blood pressure and heart disease. There

is a strong consensus that aggressive actions

are urgently needed to better deend the na-

tions children rom this growing crisis.

Numerous actors have been shown to con-

tribute to childhood obesity, including reduced

physical activity, the wider availability o nutri-

tionally poor convenience oods, ewer amilymeals and advertising that promotes unhealthy

oods. This study addresses ood advertising to

children, a actor o particular interest because

it impacts virtually every child in the nation.

Children are exposed to tens o thousands o

commercials each year on television alone, in-

cluding ads or ast ood, sugared cereals and

sugared beverages. Most o these oods are

high in added sugar, salt and at, and they are

unhealthy when consumed on a regular basis.

In 2004, Congress commissioned the Institute

o Medicine (IOM) o the National Academies

to evaluate the role o ood marketing as a con-tributing actor to childhood obesity. The IOM

report, released in 2006, reviewed all exist-

ing scientic studies and determined that ood

and beverage advertising targeted at children

inuences their product preerences, requests

and diet. It concluded that ood and bever-

age marketing practices geared to children

and youth are out o balance with healthul

diets, and contribute to an environment that

puts their health at risk (Institute o Medicine,

2006, p. 10).

Given the severity o the childhood obesityepidemic, the IOM recommended that the

ood and beverage industry shit its market-

ing practices to children away rom products

high in added sugar, salt and at, and toward

healthy products that children can saely

consume as part o their everyday diet. To un-

derscore the importance o this goal, the IOM

specied that i the industry proved unable

to achieve such reorm voluntarily, Congress

should intervene with legislation.


8/44

6

The Impact of Industry Self-Regulation on the Nutritional Quality of Foods Advertised on Television to Children

Roughly one-third (31%) o the ood ads rom

companies participating in the initiative are

or Slow products, which have moderate nu-

tritional value but should be consumed only

sometimes, at most several times a week.

Healthy ood advertising is invisible.

Ads or truly healthy Go products, such as veg-

etables, ruits, whole grain breads and other

products that can be consumed anytime,

account or less than 1% o all advertising rom

participating companies. There is no increase

in the proportion o ads or healthy products

in 2009 rom 2005, beore the initiative went

into eect.

It would require 10 hours o viewing childrens

television programs to nd one healthy ood

ad. During that same period, a child viewerwould see 55 ads or Whoa oods and 20 ads

or Slow oods. In summary, ewer than one in

100 ood ads promote a healthy product that

can be eaten saely on a daily basis.

Licensed characters are increasingly used to

promote nutritionally poor ood and bever-

age products to children.

Research shows that licensed characters are

particularly eective at inuencing children

because children trust the characters they see

in program content. Consequently, the Insti-

tute o Medicines report recommended thatlicensed characters should be used only or

the promotion o oods and beverages that

support healthul diets. Yet companies par-

ticipating in the initiative have nearly doubled

their use o licensed characters over the past

our years, rom 8.8% in 2005 to 15.2% in 2009,

and roughly hal o all ads with such charac-

ters (49.4%) are or nutritionally poor Whoa

products.

Despite the industrys sel-regulatory pledges,

which speciy that participating companies will

only use licensed characters to promote their

better-or-you products, none o the health-

ier oods and beverages they marketed with

licensed characters qualiy as a Go product

that children can consume every day.

More than one-quarter o all ood and bev-

erage advertising to children originates rom

companies that do not participate in the

initiative.

Report ObjectivesThe Impact o Industry Sel-Regulation on the

Nutritional Quality o Foods Advertised on

Television to Children provides the rst inde-pendent, comprehensive evaluation o the

Childrens Food and Beverage Advertising Ini-

tiative and its impact on the childrens ood

marketing environment on television. Com-

missioned by Children Now and conducted

by Dale Kunkel, Ph.D., and colleagues at the

University o Arizona, this research report ex-

amines the ood advertising environment

during childrens television programming.

The report compares advertising patterns in

2005, several years beore the Childrens Food

and Beverage Advertising Initiative went into

eect, to those in 2009, ater the initiative wasin place. The data rom this report indicate the

extent to which this initiative has succeeded at

achieving the goals specied by the Institute

o Medicine in 2006.

One o the key measures Dr. Kunkel used to

assess the impact o the Childrens Food and

Beverage Advertising Initiative is the U.S. De-

partment o Health and Human Services

Go-Slow-Whoa ood rating system. This rame-

work is part o the We Can! (Ways to Enhance

Childrens Activity & Nutrition) program, de-

signed to help parents make healthier choices

or their children and amilies. Please reer to

the Appendix o this report or inormation on

the Go-Slow-Whoa ood rating system.

Key FindingsThe majority o advertisements rom compa-

nies participating in the Childrens Food and

Beverage Advertising Initiative are or nutri-

tionally poor Whoa products, which should

only be consumed on special occasions (see

Figure 1, p. 7).Despite industry claims that ood marketing

to children would be limited to healthier prod-

ucts through the initiative, this study nds that

more than two-thirds (68.5%) o all advertising

by participating companies is or oods and

beverages in the Whoa category, the lowest

category o nutritional quality. These Whoa

products should be consumed only on special

occasions, such as your birthday.


9/44

7

ConclusionThe ndings in this report demonstrate that

the Childrens Food and Beverage Advertising

Initiative has not improved the overall nutrition-

al quality o ads targeting children. Moreover,

the ood and beverage industry has ailed to

meet the Institute o Medicines principal rec-

ommendation to voluntarily shit the balance

o childrens ood marketing away rom low-

nutrient, high-density oods to advertising

strategies that promote healthier oods, bev-

erages, and meal options.

The advertising environment targeting chil-

dren continues to expose them to nutritionally

poor ood products, contributing to the current

childhood obesity epidemic. Children Nows

study illustrates that the Childrens Food and

Beverage Advertising Initiative has ailed to

signicantly improve this situation. As such, it

is time or our nations leaders to step orward

and help ensure a healthy ood advertising en-vironment or our children.

Across all childrens ood ads on television,

28.7% are by companies that do not partici-

pate in the Childrens Food and Beverage

Advertising Initiative; thereore, their market-

ing practices to children are not guided by its

measures.

In addition, the major broadcast networks

and cable channels that deliver childrens pro-

gramming and advertising play no role in theinitiative. This creates another loophole, allow-

ing a substantial proportion o ood advertising

to children to occur, without holding it to stan-

dards regarding the nutritional quality o the

advertised products.

Under sel-regulation, overall improvement in

the nutritional quality o oods marketed on

television to children is negligible (see Figure

2, this page).

Despite calls or dramatic reorm rom public

health ocials and advocates, ood and bev-

erage advertising to children continues to be

predominated by products o poor nutrition-

al value. In 2005, prior to the inception o the


tiative, 84% o oods marketed to children were

or Whoa products. In 2009, Whoa products

have decreased only to 72.5%. Thus, at this

pace, it would take until 2017 or nutritionally

poor Whoa products to decline to only hal o

all oods marketed to children and until 2033

or them to disappear entirely.


10/44

8


11/44

9

Complete Report


12/44

10


13/44

11

BackgroundChildhood obesity has become one o the

most serious threats to public health. Nu-

merous actors contribute to this increasingepidemic, including reduced levels o physical

activity or many children, shiting sociological

elements that impact amily eating patterns

and the increased availability o convenience

oods with little nutritional value (Institute o

Medicine, 2005; Krishnamoorthy, Hart, & Jela-

lian, 2006). This study addresses yet another

distinct actor that contributes to childhood

obesity: television advertising that promotes

low-nutrient, high-calorie ood products to

children.

Existing research shows that childrens expo-sure to television advertising or non-nutritious

ood products is a signicant risk actor con-

tributing to childhood obesity (Institute o

Medicine, 2006; Kaiser Family Foundation,

2004; Vandewater & Cummings, 2008). In

the most comprehensive review o research

to date, the Institute o Medicine o the Na-

tional Academies concluded that television

commercials signicantly inuence childrens

ood preerences, purchase requests and

dietary intake. The act that younger children

do not comprehend the persuasive intent o

advertising messages (Calvert, 2008; Gunter,

Oates, & Blades, 2005; Kunkel et al., 2004) and

televised ood advertising has long been dom-

inated by low-nutrient, high-calorie products

(Larson & Story, 2008; Palmer & Carpenter,

2006) exacerbates concern in this area. The

IOM (2006) report summed up the situation,

observing that ood and beverage marketing

practices geared to children and youth are out

o balance with healthul diets, and contrib-

ute to an environment that puts their health

at risk (p. 374). A comparable conclusion

was reached in an earlier review o research

conducted or a similar United Kingdom gov-

ernment inquiry (Hastings et al., 2003).

Prodded by this scientic evidence, policy-

makers have devoted increasing attention to

the issue o ood marketing to children as they

seek to address the growing epidemic o child-

hood obesity. The Federal Trade Commission

(FTC) has conducted hearings and issued

reports on the topic (FTC, 2008; Holt, Ippolito,

Desrochers, & Kelley, 2007); the Federal Com-

munications Commission (FCC) hosted an

inter-governmental Task Force on Media and

Childhood Obesity (FCC, 2009); and individual

members o Congress have issued statements

reecting their concern (Harkin, 2007; Markey,

2007). Indeed, concern about the topic is not

limited to the U.S. For example, the United

Kingdom recently adopted strict governmen-

tal regulation that prohibits the advertising o

non-nutritious, or so-called junk ood, prod-

ucts during programs that attract signicant

audiences o children (Hawkes, 2007).

In an eort to respond to public concern

about the nutritional quality o the oods mar-

keted to children, a coalition o major ood

companies has collaborated with the Council

o Better Business Bureaus to establish an in-

dustry sel-regulatory ramework designed to

improve the nutritional quality o oods adver-tised to children (Council o Better Business

Bureaus, 2007). This eort has been termed


Initiative. Among the companies participating

in the initiative are many o the nations largest

ood conglomerates. At the time this study

began in early 2009, a total o 15 companies

participated in the initiative. These include:

Burger King Corporation

Cadbury Adams USA

Campbell Soup Company

Coca-Cola Company

ConAgra Foods, Inc.

The Dannon Company

General Mills, Inc.

Hershey Company

Kellogg Company

Krat Foods, Inc.

Mars, Inc.

McDonalds USA

Nestle USA

PepsiCo, Inc.

Unilever United States

As part o the industry initiative, each company

has issued a detailed pledge o its commit-ment to limit its marketing eorts targeted

at children to healthier ood products, or in

some cases, messages that promote healthy

liestyles. It is important to note, however,

that each company denes what constitutes a

healthier ood product based on diering nu-

tritional criteria. Participating companies have

also pledged to restrict the use o licensed

characters solely to advertising or oods that

meet their specic nutritional standards or


14/44

12


healthier products, or in some cases, products

that are generically considered to be healthy

dietary choices. Proponents o industry sel-

regulation assert that this initiative should

resolve the concerns that have been raised

and neutralize any need or direct governmen-

tal regulation o ood marketing to children.

Indeed, the initiative asserts it will change the

mix o ood and beverage products advertised

to children to encourage healthier dietary

choices and healthy liestyles in an eort to

change the landscape o child-directed ad-

vertising (Peeler, Kolish, & Enright, 2009, p. 1).

This study provides an independent eval-

uation o how well industry sel-regulation

has accomplished these goals. While some

o the participating companies pledges

were announced as early as the summer o2007, others have been added more recent-

ly, and some aspects o the pledges did not

become ully operational until January 1, 2009.

Clearly, then, 2009 provides the rst oppor-

tunity to evaluate the ecacy and impact o


Initiative on the overall marketplace o adver-

tising to children.

To pursue this research agenda, there are two

key ocuses that we scrutinize. The rst is the

issue o whether or not each company has

succeeded in ullling all o the elements o its

pledge. Evaluating this issue requires careul

measurement, given the lack o a uniorm nu-

trition standard or dening healthy oods

across the various companies. To accomplish

this, products advertised in commercials tar-

geted at children are linked to their parent

corporation and then assessed or conormity

with the applicable nutritional standards spec-

ied by that company.

A second and arguably more critical issue to

be examined is the impact o the industry ini-

tiative on the overall environment o ood

advertising to children. Not all ood companiesparticipate in the program, which means the

eorts o the initiative could be diluted by ad-

vertising or less healthy oods that originates

rom other sources (i.e., companies not partic-

ipating in the initiative). Indeed, it is important

to assess the proportion o the total volume

o ood marketing to children that is provided

by companies participating in the initiative, in

order to help evaluate its reach and impact.

Given the varying nature o the denitions o

healthier ood products that have been es-

tablished by the participating companies, it is

also critical to independently evaluate the nu-

tritional quality o the overall marketplace o

ood advertising directed at children and to

compare the patterns that are observed once

the initiative is in eect with the levels that

existed in the past. This is particularly impor-

tant because o the inclusion o oods dened

by industry as better-or-you as part o the

sel-regulatory marketing reorms. It remains

to be seen whether oods dened as better-

or-you (e.g., reduced at Oreos) are indeed

good-or-you (i.e., healthul), which is the

requisite goal o advertising reorm that seeks

to reduce childhood obesity.

This study engages both o these critical tasks.It examines a broad base o advertising con-

tained in a sample o more than 100 childrens

television programs monitored between Feb-

ruary and April o 2009. In the rst part o

the report, we present detailed inormation

about the nature and extent o ood market-

ing messages targeted at child audiences. In

the second portion o the report, we provide

an evaluation o the eectiveness o the in-

dustrys eort at sel-regulation, known as the


tiative. In examining both o these areas, we

benet rom previous studies o ood market-ing to children that we conducted in 2005 and

2007 (Kunkel, McKinley, & Stitt, 2008; Stitt &

Kunkel, 2008). These previous studies employ

sampling strategies and measures identical to

the research reported here and, thus, provide

optimal comparison points or tracking change

over time in the ood industrys advertising

practices targeted at children.

Finally, we note that this study employs a

unique measurement strategy or evaluat-

ing the nutritional quality o advertised oods.

Many previous studies that have assessed ood

advertising to children either measure producttype without any evaluation o nutritional

quality or, alternatively, report such detailed

nutritional inormation that it is dicult to draw

practical conclusions rom the evidence. The

ormer approach is clearly inadequate, partic-

ularly as marketers practices evolve toward

healthier oods. While one might reasonably

have surmised that a ast ood ad represent-

ed a non-nutritious product in the distant past,


15/44

13

maximizes the representativeness o content-

based ndings.)

Childrens programs were dened as any show

with a V-chip rating o TV-Y (appropriate or

all children) or TV-Y7 (appropriate or children,ages 7 and above), or any show with an FCC

rating o E/I (educational/inormational or

children) that claims to target children under

12 years o age. The audiences or all o the

programs sampled are consistently predomi-

nated by children younger than 12.

The channels examined in the study include all

ve national broadcast networks that deliver

childrens programming: ABC, CBS, Fox, NBC

and CW. In addition, two national cable net-

works that are among the largest providers

o childrens programming are also included:Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon. The Disney

Channel was omitted because the network

does not present outside (i.e., non-Disney-

based) advertising and, thus, ood marketing

would likely be minimal, i not absent entirely.

The 2009 sample included a total o 139 shows,

representing 70.5 hours o childrens program-

ming across the seven networks included in the

study. The programs were recorded between

February 1, 2009, and April 15, 2009. Where

applicable, we compared our 2009 data with

ndings rom our previous studies, using iden-

tical methods and measures to analyze ood

advertising (Kunkel, McKinley, & Stitt, 2008;

Stitt & Kunkel, 2008).

MeasuresAll non-program content (see Condry, Bence,

& Scheibe, 1988) that appeared during each

childrens program was categorized by segment

type (i.e., commercial, program promotion,

public service announcement) and mea-

sured or length o time. In order to provide

context, descriptive inormation is provided at

the outset o the Results section regarding theoverall amount o time devoted to advertising.

All other data reported in the study, however,

are derived solely rom the examination o

commercials devoted to ood products.

Each ood commercial was rst categorized

by producttype. Categories were constructed

in an eort to discriminate more healthy rom

less healthy oods, while at the same time acil-

itating comparisons with previous research to

today such an ad might just as well present a

ruit plate as opposed to a burger and ries.

This underscores that the nutritional quality o

the oods advertised in each commercial must

be careully measured, rather than inerred. We

(Kunkel, McKinley, & Stitt, 2008; Stitt & Kunkel,

2008) successully employed a measurement

ramework based on a consumer-oriented nu-

tritional scheme devised by the Department

o Health and Human Services as part o the

agencys We Can! (Ways to Enhance Childrens

Activity and Nutrition) public inormation ini-

tiative. These measures simpliy the evaluation

o nutritional quality, while maintaining strong

rigor and credibility, thus maximizing the value

o the evidence produced by the study.

To summarize, this study provides a detailed

examination o the overall landscape o tele-vised ood advertising to children. It identies

changes that have occurred between 2005

and 2009. The study also assesses compli-

ance with the industry sel-regulatory program

known as the Childrens Food and Beverage

Advertising Initiative. Finally, the study ana-

lyzes the impact o industry sel-regulation on

the nutritional quality o oods advertised in

the overall childrens television marketplace.

In the next section, we detail the methodology

used to conduct the research.

Method

SampleThis study examines ood advertising in a

broad base o childrens programming on

broadcast and cable television channels. The

sampling design involves the creation o two

composite days (one weekday, one Satur-

day) or each network included in the study.

Composite days are created by videotaping

programming at randomly selected times overa period o several months, until an entire days

schedule has been recreated through the com-

posite collection process or each network.

The sampling strategy captures one episode

o all childrens programming that regularly

airs between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on each

o the targeted channels. (See Stitt & Kunkel,

2008 or more detailed inormation regarding

the procedure or creating composite days, as

well as an explanation o how the technique


16/44

14


analyses o advertising to children (Barcus,

1977; Kunkel & Gantz, 1992) to represent the

predominant promotional strategy embodied

in the segment overall and is judged as a mu-

tually exclusive variable or each commercial.

Categories included: un/happiness, taste/

avor/smell, premium, unique product, popu-

larity o product and healthy product, among

others. Ads are placed in a given category i

they associate the product with the applica-

ble theme. For example, a McDonalds ad in

which Ronald McDonald jumps in a swimming

pool and is shown exercising vigorously while

playing various water activities with lots o chil-

dren would be classied as a physical activity

theme. An example o a un/happiness appeal

is an ad where children are shown going on

a scavenger hunt to nd the cereal they love,

with the ad ending with the children shown assatised upon nding and eating the cereal. An

example o a popularity theme/appeal is an ad

where a parent is shown serving the product to

a crowd o neighborhood children, all o whom

are clamoring loudly or the ood item.

Other tactics used by ood marketers to in-

crease the attractiveness o their products

to children were measured, including the use

o spokes-characters (characters associated

solely with the product, e.g., Capn Crunch,

Ronald McDonald); licensed characters/ce-

lebrity product endorsers (characters whosepopularity is not originally associated with a

ood product, e.g., Spongebob Squarepants,

Dora the Explorer); contests; and websitepro-

motions (ad identies a website address or

children to visit that is sponsored by the ood

company, e.g., www.postopia.com).

To evaluate compliance with sel-regulatory

pledges regarding the nutritional standards

and use o licensed characters, we compared

all products observed in advertising monitored

by the study to the nutritional guidelines spec-

ied by the relevant parent company, as part

o the Childrens Food and Beverage Advertis-ing Initiative. To conrm product ingredients,

we relied on inormation included in the label-

ing or each product.

Coding and ReliabilityThe classication o data or the study was ac-

complished by a group o seven coders. All

coders were trained over an eight-week period

and practiced extensively in order to achieve

the greatest extent possible. When necessary,

inormation required to properly classiy ad-

vertised products was obtained by consulting

ingredient labels on products and/or company

websites. Categories included: sugared snacks,

salted snacks, sugared beverages, sugared

cereals, pastries/wafes, pasta, ast ood/

restaurants, dairy, ruits/vegetables/100%

ruit juice, and prepackaged lunches, among

others. Applicable products were considered

sugared snacks or sugared cereals i sugar

was one o the rst three ingredients listed.

Drinks were considered sugared beverages i

they included any added sugar.

In addition to classiying ood commercials

descriptively by product type, each advertise-

ment was also categorized according to its t

with an evaluative ood rating scheme devisedby the U.S. Department o Health and Human

Services (2005). The department employs

the We Can! campaign to help parents select

a healthy diet or their children (www.nhlbi.

nih.gov/health/public/heart/obesity/wecan/

index.htm), o which the centerpiece is a ood

rating system that dierentiates products

in three categories: Go, Slow and Whoa. Go

oods are products rich in nutrients and rela-

tively low in calories. They are low in at and

added sugar and, thereore, can be consumed

almost anytime (U.S. Department o Health

and Human Services, 2005, p. 14). Examplesinclude vegetables, ruits, whole grain breads

or breakast cereals, g bars, low-at yogurt,

nonat milk and diet soda. Slow oods are

higher in at, added sugar and calories than Go

oods, and should be consumed sometimes,

at most several times a week (U.S. Depart-

ment o Health and Human Services, 2005,

p. 14). Examples include broiled hamburgers,

nuts or peanut butter, wafes, most pastas,

100% juice, sports drinks and 2% low-at milk.

Whoa oods are high in calories and low in

nutrients. They are highest in at and added

sugar, and should be consumed only once in

awhile or on special occasions and then only

in small portions (U.S. Department o Health

and Human Services, 2005, p. 14). Examples

include rench ries, ried chicken or hamburg-

ers, cookies, cakes, pies, ice cream, candy,

whole milk and regular soda.

Food commercials were also evaluated or

the advertisements primarytheme/appeal. This

measure has been used consistently in content


17/44

15

has successully transormed the landscape

o ood marketing to children, rom an em-

phasis on low-nutrient, high-density ood

products to an emphasis on healthier oods

and beverages.

Amount and Type o

Televised Food Marketing to

ChildrenThe ndings reported in this section are or-

ganized according to key research questions

addressed by the study.

QUESTION: How much ood advertising is

presented during childrens programming?

Across the entire sample o 139 programs

monitored in 2009, a total o 1,819 commer-cials were observed. O these, 534 (29.5%)

were ood and beverage ads. This total base

o advertising or ood products is the ounda-

tion o all evidence presented in this report.

Table 1 compares the amount o ood ad-

vertising on broadcast and cable television.

Broadcast carried slightly higher levels o ood

advertising (8.8 ads/hour) than cable (7.2 ads/

hour) in 2009. Across both media, childrens

programming presented an average o 7.6

ood ads per hour.

The rate at which ood ads appear during chil-

drens shows has declined over the our-year

span o this study (see Table 2). Our previ-

ous research ound an average o 10.9 ood

ads per hour appeared in 2005, and 8.5 per

hour in 2007, compared to our current nding

o 7.6 per hour in 2009. Across the 2005-09

study period, the overall number o com-

mercial messages included in childrens

programming has remained relatively stable,

with means ranging rom 23.3 to 25.8 total ads

per hour. Thus, ood ads represent a smaller

proportion o the overall childrens advertis-

ing environment today than in the past, and

young viewers are likely to encounter ewer

ood ads while watching childrens programs

in 2009 as compared to recent years. This

shit is consistent with the widespread pattern

o incremental reductions in traditional mea-

sured-media advertising practices by most

marketers as they implement a corresponding

increase in online and other digital media pro-

motional eorts (Chester, 2008). Despite this

acceptable levels o inter-coder reliability

beore beginning the process o generating

data or the study. Reliability was assessed at

the end o training and roughly once per week

during the two-month period required to com-

plete all classication o data. All advertising

contained in a total o 10 randomly select-

ed hal-hour programs was evaluated by all

coders and compared using Scotts pi to de-

termine reliability coecients. The programs

contained 48 ood commercials. All variables

examined in the study achieved a level o re-

liability o .90 or above with the exception o

primary theme/appeal, which yielded agree-

ment at .76. This judgment is inherently more

subjective and interpretive, and, thus, nd-

ings involving this attribute should be viewed

with caution. Notwithstanding this one vari-

able, all measures in the study proved highlyreliable and, thus, the data can be viewed with

condence.

ResultsThis report o ndings addresses two distinct

topic areas investigated by our research. The

rst provides descriptive inormation analyzing

the amount and type o ood advertising deliv-

ered during childrens television programming.

Where possible, we compare the ndings rom

our current data gathered in 2009 with pat-

terns observed in our previous studies in 2005

and 2007. This rst section also includes an

overall assessment o the nutritional quality o

the oods marketed on television to children.

These data provide a clear picture o the en-

vironment o ood advertising on television to

children and how it has changed over the past

our years.

The second aspect o our ndings (below)

evaluates the ecacy o the Childrens Food

and Beverage Advertising Initiative that was

implemented in July 2007. As o early 2009,a total o 15 companies participated in the

initiative, each one oering a unique com-

mitment to improve their marketing activities

targeted at children. Our evaluation employs

two complementary perspectives. The rst

assesses whether or not the companies com-

plied with their pledges, issued under the

initiative program. The second, and arguably

more critical analysis, examines the extent to

which the industrys sel-regulatory program


18/44

16


o ood advertising during childrens pro-

gramming. In contrast, the proportion o ads

devoted to sugared snacks declined rom

20.8% to 10.1% during that same period. Most

other aspects o the product proles adver-

tised to children remained relatively stable,

just as they have in the past. O particular note,

the category o ruits/vegetables/100% juice

remained almost invisible, accounting or 0.4%

o all advertising during childrens programs in

2009, as compared to 0.7% in 2005.

QUESTION: What types o persuasive tactics

are used to promote ood products to

children?

Each ood commercial observed during the

study was judged or its primary theme or

appeal. Associating un/happiness with the

advertised product was the most common

tactic used in advertising to children, account-

ing or 30.7% o all ads (see Table 4). Nearly as

common, taste/avor/smell was the primary

theme in 28.8% o all ads. The oering o a

shit, however, ood commercials remain a sig-

nicant presence on television and are still one

o the most heavily advertised product types

on that medium.

QUESTION: What types o ood products are

advertised to children?

A small number o popular categories accounts

or the large majority o ood advertising to

children. In 2009, commercials promoting

sugared cereals, ast oods/restaurants and

sugared snacks comprised over 70% o all ood

advertising during childrens shows (see Table3). This pattern has held relatively stable over

the past several decades (Kunkel & McIlrath,

2003; Palmer & Carpenter, 2006). Consistent

with this pattern, these same categories ac-

counted or 67.6% o all ood commercials in

our 2005 study.

A noticeable shit rom 2005 to 2009 is that

ast oods/restaurants have increased their

share rom 20.8% to 35.5% o the total volume

table 1

Comparison o Time Devoted to Food Ads and Non-Food Ads

Food Ads (N=534) Non-Food Ads (N=1285) Total Ads (N=1819)

N per hourMinutesper hour N per hour

Minutesper hour N per hour

Minutesper hour

Broadcast 8.8 3:06 15.3 6:45 24.1 9:52

Cable 7.2 2:39 19 8:06 26.3 10:45

Overall 7.6 2:44 18.2 7:49 25.8 10:34

table 2

Diferences in Time Devoted To Food and Non-Food Ads Across Channel Type, 2005-2009

Broadcast Cable Overall

2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009 2005 2007 2009

Food ads per hour 12.7a 8.2b 8.8b 9.9a 8.6a 7.2b 10.9a 8.5b 7.6b

Minutes per hour devoted to

ood ads 5:14a 3:16b 3:06b 3:52a 3:33a 2:39b 4:22a 3:29b 2:44c

Non-ood ads per hour 11.5a 13.3a,b 15.3b 13.4a 15.2a 19.0b 12.8a 14.7b 18.2c


non-ood ads 4:30a 5:32a,b 6:45b 5:59a 6:11a 8:06b 5:29a 6:02a 7:49b

All ads per hour 24.2a 21.5a 24.1a 23.2a 23.8a 26.3b 23.7a 23.3a 25.8b


all ads 9:45a 8:49a 9:52a 9:52a 9:45a 10:45b 9:51a 9:32a 10:34b

Findings with dierent subscripts are signifcantly dierent at p < .05.


19/44

17

table 3

Distribution o Food Product Types Shown During Televised Food Advertising to Children

Product Type Broadcast Cable Overall

Sugared cereals (N=138) 18.2% 28.4% 25.8%

Fast oods/restaurants (N=190) 40.9% 33.8% 35.5%

Sugared snacks (N=54) 12.1% 9.5% 10.1%

Sugared beverages (N=38) 12.9% 5.2% 7.1%

Pasta (N=34) 4.5% 7.0% 6.4%

Salted snacks (N=33) 5.3% 6.5% 6.2%

Dairy (N=30) 5.3% 5.7% 5.6%

Pre-packaged lunches (N=8) 0.8% 1.7% 1.5%

Easy to prepare meals (N=4) - 1.0% 0.7%

Fruits/Veggies/100% Juice (N=2) - 0.5% 0.4%

Other (N =3) - 0.7% 0.6%

Columns sum to 100% N=132 N=402 N=534

table 4

Primary Themes and Appeals Used in Televised Food Advertising to Children

Broadcast Cable Overall

Fun/happiness (N=164) 31.1% 30.6% 30.7%

Taste/avor/smell (N=154) 34.1% 27.1% 28.8%

Premium (N=90) 10.6% 18.9% 16.9%

Popularity o product (N=34) 2.3% 7.7% 6.4%

Unique (N=22) 5.3% 3.7% 4.1%

Product perormance (N=10) 3.8% 1.2% 1.9%

Physical strength (N=10) 3.8% 1.2% 1.9%

Economy/price (N=10) 3.0% 1.5% 1.9%

Quantity/size/amount (N=8) 0.0% 2.0% 1.5%

Social context (N=6) 0.8% 1.2% 1.1%

Convenience (N=5) 3.0% 0.2% 0.9%

Texture (N=4) 0.8% 0.7% 0.7%

Healthier ood (N=1) - 0.2% 0.2%

Other (N=16) 1.5% 3.5% 3.0%

Columns sum to 100% N=132 N=402 N=534

premium in addition to the product (e.g., a toy

included with purchase o a childrens meal)

was the principal message in 16.9% o all ood

ads. Collectively, these three tactics account

or the primary persuasive appeal in roughly

three-ourths (76.4%) o all ood advertising to

children.

Among the least common type o themes

were ads devoted primarily to inormation

about the ood product. For example, 1.9% o

all ads emphasized economy or price, while

1.5% o ads ocused on quantity/size/amount

o the product. Commercials that emphasize

the advertised ood is a healthy product are

extremely rare, at 0.2% o all ood ads. As with


20/44

18


to promote ood products are typically the

most popular gures across the landscape o

childrens television.

Table 6 also indicates that product-based

spokes-characters appear in roughly hal(53.9%) o all ood ads during childrens pro-

grams. Spokes-characters are requently used

to promote sugared cereals, appearing in 68.1%

o all such commercials, as well as ast oods/

restaurants, appearing in 58.4% o their spots

aired during childrens programming. Licensed

characters are used less oten overall, but are

still a regular presence, appearing in 15.7% o

childrens ood ads.

Important policy questions have been raised

regarding the use o licensed characters within

commercials that promote non-nutritious oodproducts to children. This issue will be ad-

dressed in the next section o this report.

QUESTION: What is the nutritional quality o

the oods advertised during childrens televi-

sion programming?

As noted earlier, many previous studies o

ood marketing to children have limited their

analysis to descriptive statistics regarding the

requency with which various product types

(e.g., sugared cereals, salted snacks) are ad-

vertised. Unortunately, this approach requires

that inerences be drawn about the nutrition-al value o various ood product categories. In

some cases, such as ads or sugared cereals,

these inerences may well be sound; but in

others, such as tallying ads or ast oods/

restaurants, a problem can occur, because a

commercial could be devoted either to a ruit

salad oering or a hamburger and ries meal.

Each o these cases would clearly hold dier-

ent implications or evaluating the nutritional

quality o the oods advertised to children, yet

both would simply be classied as a ast ood/

restaurant ad i measurement was limited

strictly to product type.

One o the strengths o this study is its in-

dependent analysis o the nutritional quality

o each ood product presented in all com-

mercials shown during childrens television

programming. To accomplish this analysis, we

employ the U.S. Department o Health and

Human Services Go, Slow, Whoa ood rating

ramework. Figure 1 demonstrates two clear

trends in our ndings regarding the nutritional

the types o products advertised, the primary

theme/appeal in childrens advertising has

also remained remarkably stable across past

decades (Kunkel & Gantz, 1992; Kunkel & McIl-

rath, 2003), so it is not surprising our current

data show little, i any, change rom the long-

standing trends that have emphasized un/

happiness over product inormation.

Table 5 reveals that certain types o persua-

sive appeals are more closely associated with

some products than others. For example, un/

happiness themes are used requently in ads

or salted snacks (66.7%) and ast oods/res-

taurants (48.4%). Fun/happiness themes are

even more common in ads or childrens easy-

to-prepare meals (75%), though the small

number o cases observed or this type o

product (N=4) suggests some caution in in-terpreting this nding. The use o premiums is

another tactic oten employed to attract chil-

dren to ood products. Commercials or dairy

productsprimarily yogurtwere the most

likely to use premiums as a persuasive tactic

(56.7%), although ast oods/restaurants also

used this technique as their primary appeal in

more than a quarter o all ads (27.4%).

Table 6 assesses how requently several other

promotional tactics were employed within ads,

including eorts to encourage children to visit

ood marketing company websites. While the

overall volume o ood advertising to children

on television is down, as we reported above,

other research has documented an increasing

amount o online ood marketing to children

(Chester & Montgomery, 2007; Weber, Story,

& Harnack, 2006). Thus, it is not surprising

that more than hal (57.1%) o all ood ads

airing during childrens television programs

in 2009 promote a ood marketing company

website (e.g., postopia.com, millsberry.com). In

contrast, only 18.7% o all childrens ood adver-

tising in 2005 promoted a company website,

which means the rate o web site promos has

more than tripled since 2005.

Food and beverage marketers also employ the

use o product-based spokes-characters, as

well as licensed characters, in their commercial

messages. Research shows that licensed char-

acters are particularly eective at inuencing

children because children trust the characters

they are repeatedly exposed to in program

content (Institute o Medicine, 2006). Indeed,

the licensed characters chosen by advertisers


21/44

19

table 5

Primary Themes and Appeals Used in Televised Food Advertising to Children, by Product Type

Primary theme/appeal

Product Type

Fun/

happiness

Taste/

avor/smell Premium

Popularity

o product

Healthy

product

Sugared cereals (N=138) 16.7% 44.2% 7.2% 13.8% -

Fast oods/restaurants

(N=190) 48.4% 7.4% 27.4% 1.0% -

Sugared snacks (N=54) 7.4% 46.3% 18.5% 5.6% -

Sugared beverages (N=38) 34.2% 39.5% - 15.8% -

Pasta (N=34) 5.9% 70.6% 2.9% 8.8% -

Salted snacks (N=33) 66.7% 18.2% - 3.0% -

Dairy (N=30) 10.0% - 56.7% - -

Pre-packaged lunches (N=8) 12.5% 87.5% - - -

Easy to prepare meals (N=4) 75.0% - - - -

Fruits/Veggies/100% Juice

(N=2) 50.0% - - - 50.0%

Other (N=3) - 66.7% - - -

Overall (N=534) 30.7% 28.8% 16.9% 6.4% 0.2%

table 6

Frequency o Selected Advertising Tactics, by Product Type

Product Type Contests

Website

Promotion

Product-based

spokes-character

Licensed

character

Sugared cereals (N=138) 2.9% 30.4% 68.1% 18.1%Fast oods/restaurants (N=190) - 55.3% 58.4% 23.2%

Sugared snacks (N=54) 18.5% 88.9% 18.5% 5.6%

Sugared drinks (N=38) - 97.4% 2.6% -

Pasta (N=34) 32.4% 91.2% 82.4% -

Salted snacks (N=33) - 36.4% 33.3% -

Dairy (N=30) 56.7% 60.0% 66.7% 30.0%

Pre-packaged lunches (N=8) - 100% 100% 12.5%

Easy to prepare meals (N=4) 50.0% 50.0% 100% 50.0%

Fruits/Veggies/100% Juice (N=2) 78.9% 100% - -

Other (N=3) - - 33.3% -Overall (N=534) 8.2% 57.1% 53.9% 15.7%

quality o the oods advertised to children in

2009.

First, the large majority o oods advertised

to children in 2009 are nutritionally decient

products that should be avoided in a childs

regular diet. Nearly three-ourths (72.5%) o

all ood ads presented during childrens pro-

grams promote Whoa products. Moderately

healthy Slow products comprise roughly one-


22/44

20


breaks down as ollows. Viewers will see 5.5

ads per hour or Whoa products and 2.0 ads

per hour or moderately healthy Slow prod-

ucts. The requency with which genuinely

healthy ood ads appear is so low, however,

that a child would need to watch more than

10 hours o childrens programs beore he or

she would encounter just one commercial or a

Go product (see Figure 2). During the 10 hourso viewing that would be required to encoun-

ter just one healthy ood ad, a child meanwhile

would be exposed to a total o 55 ads or Whoa

products and 20 ads or Slow products.

Summary o Key FindingsTo review, this section o our report identies

two critical ndings. First, ood advertising to

children on television has declined in volume

between 2005 and 2009. The average number

o ood ads appearing during childrens pro-

gramming has dropped rom 10.9 per hour in

2005 to 7.6 per hour in 2009. While most other

patterns in televised ood marketing to children

have remained stable, this nding reects a

30% reduction in the amount o ood advertis-

ing presented during childrens programming.

Although that reduction is meaningul, it is im-

portant to recognize that ood and beverage

marketing retains a signicant presence in the

childrens television environment, and young

viewers will still be see thousands o ood

ourth (26.6%) o the total volume o ood ads,

while genuinely healthy Go ood products are

almost never advertised on television to chil-

dren. They represent less than 1% (0.9%) o the

534 total ood ads identied in the study.

The second important trend illustrated by

Figure 1 is strong consistency in the nutrition-

al quality o oods marketed to children acrossthe two platorms o broadcast and cable tele-

vision. That is, the nutritional quality o oods

advertised does not vary during childrens pro-

gramming, regardless o whether one watches

broadcast or cable channels. In either case,

children will see an equivalent preponderance

o nutritionally poor oods during the commer-

cial interruptions.

Another perspective on the nutritional quality

o oods marketed to children can be gained

by evaluating the ad content contained in an

average hour o programs. This perspective

is presented in Table 7, which analyzes the

average number o ood ads shown per hour,

with breakdowns or each o the three cate-

gories in the U.S. Department o Health and

Human Services Go, Slow, Whoa ramework.

As reported above, our 2009 data show that

youngsters will see an average o 7.6 ood ads

or every hour they spend watching childrens

programming (see Table 7). This overall total

table 7

Average Number o Food Ads Per Hour by Nutritional Quality Categories

Nutritional Quality Category

Product Type Whoa (N=387) Slow (N=142) Go (N=5)

Sugared cereals (N=138) 1.96 - -

Fast oods/restaurants (N=190) 1.16 1.52 0.01

Sugared snacks (N=54) 0.77 - -

Sugared beverages (N=38) 0.52 0.01 -

Pasta (N=34) 0.21 0.27 -

Salted snacks (N=33) 0.31 0.16

Dairy (N=30) 0.37 0.04 0.01

Pre-packaged lunches (N=8) 0.11 - -

Easy to prepare meals (N=4) 0.06 - -

Fruits (N=2) - - 0.03

Other (N=3) 0.01 0.01 0.01

Overall (N = 534) 5.52 2.01 0.09


23/44

21


24/44

22


Beore drawing nal conclusions rom our

research, it is important to consider the ol-

lowing section o this report, which provides a

detailed evaluation o the ecacy o all key di-

mensions o the Childrens Food and Beverage

Advertising Initiative. Nonetheless, the ndings

rom this rst section o our study present the

undamental evidence or measuring achieve-

ment o the IOMs industry-wide goals.

While sel-regulatory eorts have clearly ac-

complished slight change in the desired

direction, reducing the prevalence o nutrition-

ally poor ood advertising rom 84% to 72.5%

o advertising during childrens programs

between 2005 and 2009, the reorm accom-

plished to date alls ar below the stated goal.

In addition, the change observed is occurring

at a pace that does not reect the urgency othe public health crisis the nation aces involv-

ing childhood obesity.

Consider the ollowing extrapolation. With

the measuring stick or nutritionally poor ood

ads starting at 84.0% in 2005, and a demon-

strated rate o change that has reduced this

level roughly 12% over our years time, one

can project uture expectations. At the current

pace, it would take approximately eight more

years, or until 2017, to reach the tipping point

where the proportion o childrens ood adver-

tising devoted to nutritionally poor products

would rst drop below the 50% level. Yet this

calculation represents only hal o the basic

goal structure.

In addition to halting the predominance o

nutritionally poor ood products in TV adver-

tising to children, the Institute o Medicine also

implored the ood and beverage industry to

exercise its marketing muscle to promote gen-

uinely healthy ood options. In this regard, our

data show that literally no progress has yet

been achieved. Whereas 3% o all televised

ood marketing to children in 2005 were or

genuinely healthy Go products, that level hasallen slightly to 0.9% in 2009. In other words,

to the extent that industry advertising eorts

have modestly reduced promotion o the

worst possible ood products to children, they

have so ar replaced those undesirable options

with only slightly improved ood oerings that

are still o limited nutritional value in a childs

daily diet.

ads each year during childhood, even at this

reduced rate o exposure. Thus, the nutrition-

al content o the oods advertised to children

remains critically important, which leads to our

second key conclusion.

The nutritional quality o oods marketed to

children remains heavily skewed toward non-

nutritious products that should not be part

o a childs regular diet. That is, nearly three

o every our ood ads aired during childrens

television programs (72.5%) promote a Whoa

product. Whoa products are high in calories

and low in nutrients, and should be consumed

only once in awhile or on special occasions,

according to the U.S. Department o Health

and Human Services (2005, p. 14). The extent

to which unhealthy oods predominate over

healthier are has declined somewhat since2005, when Whoa products accounted or

84.0% o all ood ads targeted to children (see

Figure 3). Nonetheless, our data demonstrate

that nutritionally poor ood products contin-

ue their strong predominance in the childrens

advertising environment. O arguably equal

importance, ads or truly healthy oods, classi-

ed as Go products under the U.S. Department

o Health and Human Services scheme remain

virtually invisible. Indeed, less than one o

every 100 (0.9%) ood ads aired on childrens

shows promotes a healthy product that chil-

dren can eat saely on a daily basis.

Based on these ndings, it is clear that, as o

2009, the ood marketing industry has ailed

to meet the recommendation o the Institute

o Medicine (2006) o the National Academies

to voluntarily shit the longstanding emphasis

in childrens ood marketing away rom low-

nutrient, high-density oods to a clear reliance

on healthy ood options. Moreover, it is worth

noting that the Institute o Medicine issued a

contingency recommendation i voluntary in-

dustry eorts were not successul in reversing

the existing pattern. Specically:

I voluntary eorts related to advertising

during childrens television program-

ming are unsuccessul in shiting the

emphasis away rom high-calorie and

low-nutrient oods and beverages to

the advertising o healthul oods and

beverages, Congress should enact leg-

islation mandating the shit on both

broadcast and cable television. (IOM,

2006, pp. 14-15)


25/44

23

such as a promise to not use licensed

characters at all, or to use them only

in ads or products that meet certain

nutritional standards.

Across the 15 companies studied, our o them(Cadbury Adams, Coca-Cola, Hersheys, Mars)

have pledged not to advertise any o their

products to audiences o children under 12.

The remaining 11 companies have all devised

independent criteria or dening a healthy

ood product (labeled better-or-you under

the initiative program specications), and all

but one have pledged to limit their advertis-

ing to children exclusively to these products.

Finally, the 11 participating companies that ad-

vertise to children all include in their pledges

some type o commitment to limit the use o li-

censed characters to advertising that promoteshealthy oods. The most common pledge is

that licensed characters will be eatured only

in ads or products that meet a companys nu-

tritional standards or healthy oods, although

some participants oer a more vague commit-

ment to limit licensed characters to advertising

or healthy dietary choices (McDonalds) or

that will support sound ood choices (Camp-

bell Soup).

As with the prior section, the ndings to eval-

uate the industrys sel-regulatory initiative

(below) are organized according to key re-

search questions addressed by the study.

QUESTION: Are companies that participate

in the Childrens Food and Beverage Ad-

vertising Initiative ullling their individual

pledges regarding the nutritional quality o

advertised oods?

As noted above, our o the participating com-

panies have pledged not to advertise any ood

products to children. Across the entire sample

or this study, spanning a total o 139 childrens

programs on broadcast and cable channels,

no commercials rom any o these companies

were ever observed, and thus their portion o

the pledge program was ullled. It is possi-

ble that this aspect o the initiative program

contributes to the reduction observed in the

overall amount o ood advertising present-

ed during childrens programming in 2009, as

compared to 2005.

O the remaining 11 companies, our study ob-

served advertising messages aired by eight o

Evaluation o Industry

Sel-RegulationThe second principal aspect o the study in-

volves examination o the Childrens Food andBeverage Advertising Initiative. In this section

o the report, we address two key ocuses: (1)

how well do companies that participate in the

initiative ulll their pledges, and (2) how has

the initiative impacted the overall nutrition-

al quality o oods marketed on television to

children?

To qualiy as a participant in the Childrens

Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative,

companies must agree to devote at least

hal o their advertising directed to children

under 12 on TV, radio, print and the Internet

to better-or-you products and/or to messag-es that encourage good nutrition or healthy

liestyles (Kolish & Peeler, 2008, p. 4). In addi-

tion, participants commit to reduce the use o

third-party licensed characters in advertising

primarily directed to children under 12, unless

such advertising is or better-or-you oods or

includes healthy liestyle messaging (Kolish &

Peeler, 2008, p. 4). While the initiative also in-

cludes commitments to limit advertising in

terms o product placement, interactive games

and in elementary school environments, only

the two prongs cited above are relevant to this

studys examination o television advertisingand, thus, are the ocus o this evaluation.

In addition to subscribing to the core principles

o the initiative, each participating company

oers an individual pledge that species its

own unique criteria or dening a healthy ood

product. There is no uniorm nutrition stan-

dard applied across all companies involved

in the initiative pledge program. Rather, each

participant establishes a distinct pledge, indi-

cating its commitment in terms o:

(a) overall restrictions on ood adver-

tising to children, such as a promise

not to advertise any products to

child audiences;

(b) standards that must be met regard-

ing the nutritional quality o ood

products that will be advertised to

children;

(c) limits on the use o licensed charac-

ters in ood advertising to children,


26/44

24


or products rom companies that are not par-

ticipating in the pledge program. Thus, the

current reach o industry sel-regulation stands

at a bit more than two-thirds o all commer-

cials presented during childrens programs.

Table 8 indicates that our companies pre-

dominate in the marketplace o childrens ood

advertising. Krat, McDonalds, General Mills,

and Kellogg collectively account or 58.3% o

ood advertising observed overall and or 81.9%

o all advertising rom pledge companies.

The level o participation in the industrys sel-

regulatory initiative has grown since July 2007,

when the program was initially unveiled with

11 participating companies. According to the

Council o Better Business Bureaus, the parent

organization that supervises the ChildrensFood and Beverage Advertising Initiative, the

original 11 companies accounted or at least

two-thirds o the television advertising expen-

ditures or ood and beverage advertising to

children in 2004 (Kolish & Peeler, 2008, p. 3).

It is important to note, however, that the in-

clusion o our additional companies has not

appreciably expanded the reach o ood ad-

vertising to children that is subject to industry

sel-regulation, which stands at 71.3% in 2009.

This may be due, in part, to the act that some

companies participating in the pledge program

have reduced and/or discontinued entirely

their ood marketing eorts targeted at chil-

dren. For example, ve companies (Cadbury

Adams, Hershey, Nestle, PepsiCo and Unilever)

that currently participate in the sel-regulato-

ry program collectively accounted or 15% o

the total o 557 ads observed in our previous

study in 2005. In contrast, no advertising by

any o these companies was identied across

139 childrens programs in 2009.

This creates an ironic situation. While it may

be desirable rom a public health perspective

to see companies that oer low-nutrient, high-density ood products voluntarily discontinue

their advertising to children, this outcome may

provide opportunity or other companies that

do not adhere to industry sel-regulation to

enter the market and/or to increase their ad-

vertising eorts in order to gain competitive

advantage over initiative participants. Should

this be the case, the net impact o the in-

dustry sel-regulatory initiative, in terms o

signicantly aecting the overall landscape o

them (Burger King, Campbell Soup, ConAgra

Foods, Dannon, General Mills, Kellogg, Krat

Foods, and McDonalds USA) (see Table 8).

No advertising was encountered or prod-

ucts marketed by Nestle, PepsiCo or Unilever

across any o the 139 childrens programs

sampled or our research between February

and April 2009.

O 381 total ads rom the eight companies

participating in the initiative program, all com-

plied with the unique criteria specied by the

parent companys nutritional guidelines. That

is, each ad eatured a product that met all el-

ements o the applicable companys nutrition

standards, as specied in its individual pledge.

Some ads were encountered that placed little,

i any, emphasis on a specic ood product.

For example, a McDonalds ad that showedRonald McDonald preparing or bedtime never

mentioned a particular advertised product,

though it included a one-second-long visual

depiction o a pledge-compliant Happy Meal

on his night stand in the background. While

this commercial might be argued to promote

McDonalds general brand and overall product

portolio, which includes many non-nutritious

options, the study ultimately judged this ad

and a handul o others like it to be devoted

to a pledge-compliant ood product, based

on the brie visual presentation o a pledge

product. Thus, such ads were not considereda violation.

In sum, our data make clear that all participants

in the Childrens Food and Beverage Advertis-

ing Initiative have complied with all aspects

o their commitments regarding nutrition-

al guidelines or the oods advertised to the

child audience, as specied by each company.

We demonstrate with additional data below,

however, that this nding does not warrant the

conclusion that the oods marketed to children

by participating companies should necessarily

be considered healthy.

QUESTION: How much o the televised

ood advertising targeted at children origi-

nates with companies that participate in the

Childrens Food and Beverage Advertising

Initiative?

O 534 total ood ads identied in the study

during 2009, 71.3% (N=381) came rom compa-

nies participating in the industry sel-regulatory

program. The remaining 28.7% (N=153) were


27/44

25

As noted in a previous section, the undamen-

tal policy goal advocated by the Institute o

Medicine is to reverse the childrens ood adver-

tising environment by shiting the emphasis

away rom high-calorie and low-nutrient oods

and beverages to the advertising o healthul

oods and beverages (IOM, 2006, pp. 14-15).

To be clear, this recommendation does not

seek to have the industry merely reduce the

unhealthy ingredients in high-calorie, low-nu-

trient oods and beverages in a manner thatrenders them less unhealthy. Rather, the Insti-

tute o Medicine clearly articulates a goal that

ood marketers should shit their advertising to

healthy oods and beverageswith healthy

judged rom an absolute, not a relative, per-

spective. Herein lies the disconnect between

the aspirations o the industrys sel-regulatory

program and the public health goals currently

sought to help deeat the epidemic o child-

hood obesity.

The near-term public health goal is to achieve

a predominance o healthy oods in advertising

to children, rather than the opposite pattern

that has prevailed long into the past. Yet the

near-term industry response, in the orm o


Initiative, addresses the issue rom a dier-

ent angle. Most companies allow products to

qualiy as healthier under their nutritional

standards simply as a unction o altering the

ingredients to modestly reduce health risk rom

heavy consumption. For example, an existing

televised ood advertising, could be severely

compromised.

Regardless o any conjecture about uture de-

velopments, our data indicate that more than

one-quarter (28.7%) o all televised ood mar-

keting to children is not subject to any o the

precautions or protections provided by the

Childrens Food and Beverage Advertising

Initiative.


the oods marketed to children by companies

that participate in the Childrens Food and

Beverage Advertising Initiative?

Despite the act that all ood advertising by

industry sel-regulatory participants com-

plies with each companys nutritional pledge,

our data indicate that two-thirds o all pledge

company advertising to children is devoted

to products o the poorest nutritional quality,

according to the Go-Slow-Whoa ood rating

system. Specically, 68.5% o all ood ads

aired by participating companies promote

non-nutritious Whoa products, while 31.0%

eature moderately healthy Slow products and

only 0.5% are or truly healthy Go products.

These data illustrate a undamental disconnect

between the way in which ood products are

dened as healthy, according to the pledge

criteria employed or the Childrens Food and

Beverage Advertising Initiative, and the way

in which healthy nutritional quality is judged

rom an independent perspective.

table 8

Distribution o Food Ads, by Pledge Company

Pledge Company N o Ads

% o All Food

Ads

% o Pledge

Co. Food Ads

Krat 89 16.7% 23.4%

McDonalds 85 15.9% 22.3%

General Mills 81 15.2% 21.2%

Kelloggs 57 10.5% 15.0%

Campbells 19 3.6% 5.0%

Dannon 19 3.6% 5.0%

Con Agra 17 3.2% 4.5%

Burger King 14 2.6% 3.6%

Overall 381 71.3% 100%

1. Four participating companies (Cadbury Adams, Coca-Cola, Hersheys, Mars) pledged not toengage in child-directed ood and beverage advertising.

2. No ads were observed or Nestle, Pepsi, or Unilever during the study period.


28/44

26


product that has substantial added sugar, at

or salt can qualiy or the healthier designa-

tion i part o the added ingredient is removed

rom the product recipe, despite the act that

the product still includes levels o added ingre-

dients (i.e., sugar, at, salt) considered to be

excessive. Indeed, the ood marketing industry

has coined the term better-or-you speci-

cally to describe such products in an eort to

imply they represent a healthul ood.

This study demonstrates that the majority o

ood products advertised to children that are

classied as better-or-you are not really

good-or-you, at least according to the U.S.

Department o Health and Human Services

consumer ood rating scheme. When viewed

rom an absolute, rather than a relative per-

spective, the majority o oods that complywith the nutritional standards o the industrys

sel-regulatory initiative are not considered

healthul. Indeed, almost none (0.5%) are

truly healthy Go products, while only about

one-third (31.0%) are considered moderately

healthy Slow products.

Figure 4 illustrates precisely what the indus-

trys sel-regulatory initiative has achieved

in terms o improving the overall nutritional

quality o oods marketed to children. In 2005,

the concern about ood marketing to chil-

dren had not ully suraced as a critical public

health issue, and no sel-regulation could be

seen on the horizon. In 2007, the initial pledges

or the Childrens Food and Beverage Adver-

tising Initiative were announced and became

operational. Thus, by comparing the industrys

advertising practices in 2005 to those o 2009,

it is possible to quantiy the improvements

accomplished by the Childrens Food and Bev-

erage Advertising Initiative. Over a our-year

span, the predominance o Whoa products di-

minished rom an initial level o 78.7% o all ads

rom participating pledge companies to 68.5%

in 2009. In complementary ashion, the share

o pledge company advertising devoted tomoderately healthy Slow products increased

rom 17.1% in 2005 to 31.0% in 2009, while ad-

vertising or Go products remained extremely

low across both times o measurement.

This change is a positive one, and the indus-

try deserves some credit or achieving it.

That said, the degree o improvements ac-

complished in the overall nutritional quality o

oods marketed to children clearly all ar short


29/44

27

In terms o change over time, the nutritional

quality o advertising by non-pledge com-

panies improved rom 2005 to 2009. The

proportion o ads devoted to Whoa products

declined rom 98.7% in 2005 to 82.9% in 2009,

while the requency o moderately healthy

Slow product advertising increased rom 1.3%

to 15.1% over the same period. Advertising orGo products remained extremely low across

both times o measurement.

It is important to compare the advertising

practices o companies that do and do not

participate in the industrys program o sel-

regulation. That issue is addressed in the next

section.

QUESTION: How does the nutritional quality

o ood marketed by non-pledge companies

compare with the nutritional quality o oods

marketed by pledge companies that partic-

ipate in the Childrens Food and Beverage

Advertising Initiative?

Figure 6 demonstrates that non-pledge com-

panies advertise nutritionally poor Whoa

products at a much higher rate than compa-

nies that participate in the voluntary pledge

program. Specically, 82.9% o non-pledge

company ood advertising was or Whoa

products in 2009, as compared to only 68.5%

o the objectives specied by the Institute o

Medicine.


the oods marketed to children by companies

that do not participate in the Childrens Food

and Beverage Advertising Initiative?

Another means o evaluating the benet oindustry sel-regulation is to examine the ad-

vertising practices o those companies that

do not participate in the initiative. As noted

above, companies that do not participate in

the pledge program accounted or 28.7% o

all ood advertising during childrens program-

ming. Chuck E. Cheeses is the most prominent

non-participant, accounting or 12.4% o chil-

drens ood advertising observed in the study

(see Table 9). Another visible non-participant

is Topps, makers o Ring Pop and Baby Bottle

Pop candies, among others. This company ac-

counts or 5.3% o all ood ads observed in2009. Our study also identied ads rom 10

other national companies that are not includ-

ed in the voluntary program.

Figure 5 presents the nutritional prole o the

ood products advertised by non-participating

companies. In 2009, 82.9% o ads rom non-

pledge companies were or Whoa products.

O the remainder, 15.1% were or Slow products

and 2.0% were Go products.

table 9

Distribution o Food Ads, by Non-Pledge Company

Non-Pledge Company N o Ads

% o All Food

Ads

% o Non-Pledge

Co. Food Ads

Chuck E. Cheeses 66 12.4% 43.1%

Topps 29 5.3% 19.0%

Sunny Delight 14 2.6% 9.2%

Subway 14 2.6% 9.2%

Peretti Van Melle 11 2.1% 7.2%

IHOP 9 1.7% 5.9%

Wrigleys 2 0.4% 1.3%

Yum! 2 0.4% 1.3%

Jack in the Box 2 0.4% 1.3%

Johnson & Johnson 2 0.4% 1.3%

Novartis 1 0.2% 0.6%

Mrs. Butterworth 1 0.2% 0.6%

Overall 153 28.7% 100%


30/44

28


not qualiy as healthy according to the nutri-

tional guidelines or cereals marketed by Krat

Foods.

This is not an isolated example. There are

seven other General Mills cereal products ea-tured in ads and observed in this study that t

the same prole; they are judged as healthy

by their parent companys set o standards but

would not be classied as such by the nutrition-

al guidelines o another participating company.

Moreover, this example is not an indictment o

lax nutritional standards on the part o General

Mills. This pattern o inconsistency is pervasive,

and examples o similar conicts can be iden-

tied when comparing many products across

diering pairs o company standards.

At its root, this situation suggests that eachcompany tailors its unique nutritional guide-

lines to dene healthy oods by careully

weighing the implications o each actor or

its particular product portolio. It implies that

shades o grey in close call decision-making

may be shaped at least in part by a companys

sel-interest in qualiying more o its prod-

ucts in the healthy category. As a result, it

means that even though each participating

company may ully comply with its pledge

commitments, that does not necessarily mean

all oods marketed to children that meet those

company-based standards would actually

qualiy as healthy when judged rom an inde-

pendent, neutral perspective.

Many observers suggest the optimal approach

to evaluate the nutritional quality o oods

marketed to children would be to employ a

uniorm nutritional standard, whether or not

that standard is applied by industry sel-reg-

ulation or governmental regulatory policy

(Miller, 2008). In an eort to apply a level-play-

ing eld test that airly evaluates the nutritional

quality o oods marketed to children by sel-

regulatory participants, we have devised a set

o uniorm nutritional standards based entirelyon guidelines already implemented by one or

more companies as part o the Childrens Food

and Beverage Advertising Initiative. We have

devised a metric that we term an Optimal Com-

posite Nutritional Standard (OCNS). The OCNS

is specic to certain types o products, such as

(a) childrens meals and (b) breakast cereals,

which are the two examples we employ here.

To construct the OCNS or childrens meals, we

or pledge companies. Conversely, pledge

companies are twice as likely to advertise a

moderately healthy Slow product to children

(31% o all their ood advertising) compared

to non-pledge companies (15.1% o all their

ood advertising). The amount o advertising

devoted to healthy Go products is so low overall

as to render any comparison meaningless.

These data indicate that, rom a comparative

perspective, companies participating in the


tiative tend to devote more o their marketing

eorts to oods o better nutritional quality

than non-participating companies. Concomi-

tantly, pledge participants devote less o their

advertising to oods o the poorest nutritional

quality, as compared to non-participants.

QUESTION: What proportion o oods mar-

keted to children by pledge companies meet

the best nutritional standards specied by all

companies that participate in the Childrens

Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative?

A signicant limitation o the sel-regulatory

program is the lack o any uniorm nutrition-

al standard or identiying ood products that

qualiy as healthy and are, thereore, consid-

ered appropriate or advertising to audiences

o young children. Indeed, it is puzzling that

a ood product classied as healthy by one

companys standards can all short o the nu-tritional guidelines o another because o the

varying nutritional criteria employed across

the ull range o participating companies. In

such a case, an identical product could be

judged as either healthy and pledge-compli-

ant or non-nutritious and a pledge violation,

depending on its aliation with one particular

corporate parent, as compared to another.

Consider the ollowing example: Cocoa Pus

cereal meets all the applicable criteria spec-

ied by its parent corporation, General Mills,

to qualiy as a healthy product. It contains no

more than 175 calories per serving, no trans

ats and no more than 12 grams o added sugar,

among other criteria. I the same product was

marketed by Krat Foods, however, it would

all short o Krats guideline, which species

that a healthy product contains no more than

25% o total calories rom added sugar. This

means that Cocoa Pus is considered a healthy

product according to nutritional guidelines or

cereals specied by General Mills, but it would


31/44

29

o the OCNS to all ads aired by pledge com-

panies or childrens meal products. As noted

in a previous section, all ads rom Childrens

Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative

participants complied with the applicable

company-specic nutritional guidelines. Table

10, however, indicates that, across all com-

mercials or meal products rom participating

companies, only 12% o products meet the

OCNS criteria. Only meals marketed by Burger

King comply with all applicable standards. In

contrast, 88% o the meal products advertised

by participating companies all short on one

or more o the uniorm nutritional standards

that comprise the OCNS, including all oer-

ings rom ConAgra, Krat, and McDonalds.

A second area to which we apply the Optimal

Composite Nutritional Standard is breakastcereals. A total o 20 dierent cereal products

marketed by three participating companies ap-

peared in 138 ads identied by the study. Table

11 reveals that only 8% o all the products ea-

tured in ads meet the OCNS criteria and, thus,

would be classied as healthy oods. These

include two well-known products, General

Mills Cheerios and Kelloggs Rice Krispies. In

contrast, 92% o all cereals advertised by com-

panies participating in sel-regulation all short

on one or more o the uniorm nutritional stan-

dards that comprise the OCNS.

To summarize, because the Childrens Food

and Beverage Advertising Initiative lacks a

uniorm nutrition guideline, and, thus, the

standards or dening a healthy ood vary

substantially rom one company to another,

this study compiled a list o the best nutri-

tional standards employed by sel-regulatory

participants in two ood product areas: chil-

drens meals and breakast cereals. This set

o standards is termed the Optimal Compos-

ite Nutritional Standard. Our analysis revealed

the overwhelming majority o advertising rom

companies participating in the initiative do

not meet these best standards shared by theirpeers in the two product areas we examined.

Specically, 88% o all advertised products ell

short in the area o childrens meals, while 92%

ailed the test among breakast cereals.

Like our previous ndingthat roughly three-

ourths o all ood advertising that ully complies

with the pledges o sel-regulatory participants

is actually o poor nutritional categorythe

outcome here seems to urther question the

consider the basic nutritional guidelines spec-

ied by the initiative, one criterion at a time:

number o calories per serving, amount o

calories rom at, amount o calories rom satu-

rated at, amount o calories rom added sugar

and amount o sodium. For each criterion, we

search through the entire range o standards

indicated in the pledges across all participat-

ing companies and then identiy the guideline

that is the best, or optimal,

children now pledge monitoring

Documents