1. obesity in children - effects of advertising Dr Rosemary Stanton OAM

2. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 excess weight in Australia  all ages & both sexes getting fatter - starts young  increase rapid & continuing  no one accepts responsibility  looking for something to blame

3. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 increases in 10-year period  number of children classified as overweight almost doubled  number of children classified as obese more than tripled

4. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 since 1995  the problem is continuing  Central Coast NSW (2000) - 25% of children (26% boys & 24% girls) overweight or obese  Victorian data (2001) indicates 29% children overweight or obese (36% in lower SES and 25% in higher SES)

5. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 reasons for increase kids are eating more –a 13% increase in kilojoules kids are moving less –more TV/computers –driven everywhere –sport too competitive

6. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 children’s kJ intake 4-8 year-olds between 1980s & 1995 intake increased by 500-1500 kJ/day Magarey & Bolton data from Adelaide children’s health study

7. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 children’s kJ intake 10-15 year-olds kilojoules increased by 1400 kJ/day in boys 900 kJ/day in girls Cook T, Rutishauser I, Seelig M. Comparable data on food, nutrient intake & physical measurements from 1983, 1985, 1995 national nutrition surveys. 2001. Australian Food & Nutrition Monitoring Unit. Canberra

8. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 between 1985 & 1995  fruit - decrease in whole fruit  vegetables - decrease (except chips)  carbonated drinks – big increase (48% for boys, 29% for girls)  pizza, burgers, pastries, biscuits, noodles – big increase (46% for boys & girls)  sugary products – big increase (59% for boys, 139% for girls)  confectionery – big increase (56% for boys, 40% for girls) Cook T, Rutishauser I, Seelig M. Comparable data on food, nutrient intake & physical measurements from 1983, 1985, 1995 national nutrition surveys. 2001. Australian Food & Nutrition Monitoring Unit. Canberra NO ADS ADS

9. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 changes  take-away foods ‘normal’  packaged snacks ‘normal’  frequent treats ‘normal’  50% eat in front of TV  TV carries advertising for take-away foods & snacks

10. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 options for action  no one strategy will be effective on its own  need multiple strategies

11. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 anti-smoking campaigns needed multiple strategies:  ban on tobacco advertising  changes in workplace practices  changes in media attitudes  overcome interference from industry PR campaigns trying to distort evidence

12. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 advertising  when advertisements for tobacco stopped, smoking rates declined (education had little effect)

13. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 children & advertising are they fair game?

14. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 children & advertising up to age 4ads seen as entertainment age 6 to 7 believe ads provide information to age 7–8can’t distinguish between information & intent to persuade by 10–12can understand motives & aims of advertising, but most unable to explain sales techniques sources: Young B (1998), Emulation, Fears and Understanding: A review of recent research on children and television advertising, ITC, London. Kunkel D Children and Advertising A Fair Game? 1994. Ward S., Wackman D. & Wartella E., (1977), How Children Learn to Buy, Beverly Hills CA: Sage, cited in Young B (1998)

15. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 what are kids watching?  more food ads per hour than any other country (6-12/hour)  75-80% food ads promote energy- dense, nutrient-poor foods  many ads include promotions for toys & ‘collectibles’ (regulations useless to protect kids)

16. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 what are kids watching?  few ads for breads, cereals, fruit, vegetables, dairy products - these are generally shown during adult viewing times  children's ads run at 3 times the pace, use cartoons (25%) animated characters (14%) magic, adventure & violence (50%). Egberts K, Riley M. Food advertisements during children's and adult's viewing times: a comparative study. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004;13(Suppl):S60

17. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 hours of TV/week  corresponds with requests for foods advertised  children who watch the most TV consume the most kilojoules & are the fattest Story M. Television and food advertising: An international threat to children? Nutr & Diet 2003; 60:72-73

18. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 pester power 73% of children demand advertised products 80% persist with demands when parents say ‘no’ Source: CWS Ltd 2000 Blackmail – the first in a series of inquiries into consumer concerns about the ethics of modern food production and advertising, CWS Ltd Manchester; Sustain 2000 Reaching the parts. Community mapping: working together to tackle social exclusion and food poverty. Sustain London

19. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 is there proof? A systematic review by the UK Food Standards Agency found that advertising does affect food choices and does influence dietary habits ref: Hastings G et al Systematic Review of Research on the Effects of Food Promotion to Children (2002-2003) available at http://www.food.gov.uk/healthiereating/promotion/http://www.food.gov.uk/healthiereating/promotion/

20. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 is there proof? Children younger than 7 or 8 are unable to recognise advertising’s persuasive intent. The government should put restrictions on marketing to children American Psychological Association Report 2005, available at http://www.apa.org/releases/childrenads.pdf http://www.apa.org/releases/childrenads.pdf

21. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 is there proof? restricting TV is effective in reducing childhood obesity* - more time for physical activity - reduced demand for foods advertised *Robinson TN. Reducing children's television viewing to prevent obesity: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 1999;282(16):1561-7.

22. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 opposition to ban - “there is no proof that banning advertising will decrease obesity” - “no ads in Norway, Sweden or Quebec, and children are still obese”

23. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 response - no one suggests that any single strategy will decrease obesity - Norway & Sweden get TV from neighbouring countries - some effect in Quebec, eg children eat fewer sweetened cereals

24. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 Quebec - Quebec has the lowest obesity rates in Canada despite lower rates of physical activity than 10 provinces and territories* Quebec residents consume more fruits and vegetables than residents of any other province or territory** *Tanuseputro P, Manuel DG, Leung M, Nguyen K, Johansen H. Risk factors for cardiovascular disease in Canada. Can J Cardiol 2003;19(11):1249-1259. ** (Statistics Canada, Dietary practices by sex, household population aged 12 and over, Canada, provinces, territories, health regions and peer groups, 2000/01, Health Indicators, May 2002, Cat. No. 82-221-XIE

25. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 support for advertising ban precedents  Australia already bans alcohol ads until after 9pm  Sweden, Norway & Quebec have shown no adverse effects on children, or on children’s TV programming

26. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 opposition to ban claim of ‘nanny state’  television is the greatest ‘nanny’ in our society  TV ‘nanny’ shows a constant diet of fat, sugar and salt

27. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 question to advertisers if advertising is not a major influence on children’s consumption patterns, why do food and advertising industries get so upset at international suggestions to ban it?

28. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 question to advertisers if advertising is not a major influence, how do you sell it to food companies? or are food companies given a different message?

29. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 changes needed government intervention  restrict advertising to kids  tax junk foods & use the proceeds for nutrition education, including cooking classes, food literacy

30. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 marketing to children  advertising  internet marketing  in-school marketing  sponsorship  product placement  sales promotions

31. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 internet promotions  already occurring  children’s online ‘clubs’ with advertisements, competitions, games (including ones that are supposedly promoting nutrition), prizes

32. © Rosemary Stanton 2005 whose responsibility?  individual families?  schools?  food industry?  advertising industry?  government?  NGOs?  all the above?