Too many Australian children are eating diets high in added sugars, saturated fats, salt, energy and ultra-processed foods. And often they’re not getting enough fruits, vegetables and wholegrains.

A key driver of unhealthy diets among Australian children is that unhealthy foods and drinks are ever-present and aggressively marketed.

In a new study, we looked at how manufacturers are targeting Australian children with marketing techniques on the packaging of unhealthy foods. We found widespread, unregulated use of promotional techniques, like cartoon characters, that directly appeal to children.

Children are vulnerable to food marketing​

There’s strong evidence food marketing works. When children are exposed to food marketing, such as in ads on social media or on TV, it increases brand awareness, results in positive brand attitudes, and leads to increased purchase and consumption of marketed products.

Even very young children are affected. For example, there’s evidence kids as young as 18 months can recognise corporate labels, at 20 months can associate items with brand names, at two years old can make consumer choices, and by two to three can draw brand logos.

The way food packaging is designed can also have an important influence on what people buy and consume.

The use of techniques such as cartoon and movie characters, gifts, games and contests on product packs has been shown to encourage children to think of these products as tasty, more fun and more appropriate for them.

Kids’ vulnerability to food marketing leaves parents having to juggle competing desires and demands. The concept of “pester power” recognises the power children have in influencing purchasing decisions.

​

Our study​

We analysed the packages of around 8,000 Australian foods and drinks across a range of categories. These included biscuits, confectionery, breakfast cereals, non-alcoholic drinks, dairy, snack foods, and foods for infants and young children.

We assessed the number of products carrying child-directed promotional techniques on the pack, and grouped the techniques into two major categories:

1. “child-directed characters”, including branded or licensed cartoon characters, children or child-like figures, personified characters (for example, spoons with faces) and celebrities that appeal to children
2. “non-character-based elements”, including gifts, games and contests that appealed to kids, unconventional packaging, or product names that specifically reference children (for example, “kids bar”).

We then assessed the healthiness of products that used child-directed promotional techniques on the pack.

What we found​

Some 901 out of 8,006 (11.3%) products had one or more child-directed promotional technique on the pack. Promotions were most common on foods for infants and young children, confectionery, snack foods, and dairy.

Child-directed characters were twice as common as non-character-based elements. Personified characters were the most popular tactic.

We found the vast majority of products using child-directed promotional techniques on their packaging were unhealthy. Some 81% of the child-directed marketing was on ultra-processed products, and the average health star rating of the products with child-directed marketing was 2.34 (out of 5).

How are other countries managing this issue?​

To protect children’s health, the World Health Organization recommends governments implement policies to restrict children’s exposure to the marketing of unhealthy foods and drinks across a wide range of media.

In line with those recommendations, several countries have rules in place that ban child-directed promotions on food packaging.

For example, in Chile and Mexico, legislation prohibits the use of child-directed promotions on packaging of products that are high in ingredients such as sugar and salt. These bans are part of broader efforts to address unhealthy diets.

If Australia adopted similar legislation to Mexico, 95.5% of the products in our study with child-directed promotions would have to remove them from the pack.

Children are vulnerable to marketing on food packaging. BAZA Production/Shutterstock

What regulations does Australia have in place?​

In Australia, there are some limited government regulations that restrict some unhealthy food advertising on free-to-air television during dedicated children’s programs.

There are also a range of voluntary guidelines developed by the food and advertising industries that restrict some types of food advertising.

But public health experts have criticised these voluntary codes for being weak and ineffective. They also exclude product packaging.

If Australia is serious about improving children’s health, stronger regulation of child-directed promotional techniques on the packaging of unhealthy foods is warranted.

What changes are needed?​

Australia could draw inspiration from Chile and Mexico, which have integrated marketing restrictions with their front-of-pack labelling policies.

In Australia, a similar approach would mean foods that score below a threshold health star rating (say less than 3.5 out of 5) would not be able to use child-directed promotions on the pack. For this to operate effectively, the health star rating system, which is currently voluntary, would need to be made mandatory on all packs.

In the short term, it’s worth noting nearly two-thirds of products using child-directed promotions in our analysis were made by just 15 manufacturers. This offers some potential for action targeting specific manufacturers to request they voluntarily stop using such tactics on unhealthy foods.

This may be particularly fruitful for Australia’s large supermarket chains, given international examples where this has worked. Lidl in the UK removed cartoon characters from a selection of its own-brand cereals, for instance.

However, given the likely reality that most manufacturers won’t voluntarily abandon the revenue they gain from marketing to children in this way, government regulations are likely to be necessary to drive meaningful and sustained change.

This article was first published on The Conversation, and was written by, Gary Sacks, Professor of Public Health Policy, Deakin University, Alexandra Jones, Senior Research Fellow (Food Policy and Law), George Institute for Global Health

 

[Cyberchook]

Parents (who's the boss??) still buy the food and can steer their children away from the growing junk food market if they choose to. Also in our family, we work and cook. Many are too busy now to create decent meals from fresh ingredients. Not all, of course, most of our children are usually given a good menu. I recall we as kids, and this still applies, were told our teeth would rot and fall out and could even get too big too quickly to wear our favourite clothes, puff very hard with playing the games we loved outside and many normal activities. We accepted that and still had things such as fish and chips and some take-out treats now and then, Cornflakes etc occasionally never Froot Loops and Chocolate flavoured cereals, so never felt' junk' food deprived. We were not swayed by the other children's lunchboxes that had sweet and high-fatty things either. It was being educated by parents who were aware of the seduction marketing trends knowing how people love taste beyond anything else. We downunder are swiftly following America (why I wonder?)with its unhealthy fast food and packaged offerings and show no interest in exercising have a 20% or thereabout of obese kiddies up to 17 years old, some with early Diabetes 2. I guess the easy food and nagging kids who constantly see plus subliminally, the tempting ads on TV etc and seeing other kids eating it are often the real answer. Food suppliers are to blame for chasing the unholy dollar ...as usual.

 

[scanning 43]

Parents are the purchasers of food. Making healthy meals at home is not only healthy but also easier on the finances. Occasional treats are lovely, but should be only given as a special addition to good healthy food.

 

[Joseph Gallina]

Buying products which are high in sugars, carbohydrates, preservatives and various other compounds which our bodies will reject and sicken over time is totally the fault of the parents whilst children are at a younger age. Parents must provide and model a healthy lifestyle for their children, and this starts when they are young. Using excuses like time poor and finances are not excuses but are in fact 'cop outs'. Parents must provide a platform for the future of their kids, and this is one of them. If you are an obese father or mother, then you are surely not that type of person and need to have a hard look at yourself.

It is amazing that we ensure tobacco products are labelled in such a way as to deter its use for obvious reasons, but we still allow toxic foods to be packaged in such a way that will promote their use rather than deter it. If you smoke, you will in most cases develop health issues which in the main will be fatal. This can be over a short term or a long term. The same is evident with processed foods, sugar, carbohydrates, and foods laden with chemicals. These sorts of foods will over time impact a person's health in the same way.

Of course, let's be honest here. If it were that simple in terms of eradicating the promotion of toxic products, then we would have done that by now. The problem here is that governments, industry, and our own societal values are influenced and revolve around 'money'. Supermarkets are in the game of making money and hence don't really care about what is good and what is bad. Governments make money from sales and taxes and will promote most industries that provide employment. Industry creates the environment and will promote their products whilst at the same time falsely claiming their nutritional value. We the consumers are either lazy or uneducated.

We can of course also discuss the media and its various formats. Media gets the false message out there under the guise of a free market and will say that everyone is entitled to promote their own good (unless they are illegal products). Of course, we know that's how they make money. I've stopped watching free to air TV now for over 5 years and instead subscribe to outlets that provide education and facts on world matters and not advertising rhetoric and unbalanced points of view that influence a particular narrative. This is also where children become influenced and start down the slippery slope of food addictions, unhealthy lifestyles and inactivity, in a lot of cases their parents are right there alongside of them.

 

[MariaG]

Take a little while to stand back and watch what happens when mummy takes the kiddies to the supermarket with her.
In most cases, I want, I want, I want is silenced with OK, just one.
Rarely do I see NO being the final word.
Don't take kids grocery shopping with you if at all possible. If you do, you need to have an iron will.
A lot of these little darlings are relentless in the pursuit for yummy stuff.
My SCD friends have already said that the parent are in charge. It's amazing how quickly that goes out the window when the predictable tantrum starts.
My late sister addressed this issue when her kids were little. She said, sure you can have that, but you have to pay for it out of your pocket money. I will not be including it in this shop. That stopped the pleas quick smart. They couldn't take it any further because they were not being denied, however, there was no way they were giving up their pocket money. Might be different today, but the principle is simple.