Parentsrsquo and Childrenrsquos Perceptions ofthe Ethics of Marketing Energy-DenseNutrient-Poor Foods on the InternetImplications for Policy to RestrictChildrenrsquos Exposure

K P Mehta Nutrition and Dietetics Flinders University Australia

J Coveney Prevention Promotion and Primary Health Care Flinders University

Australia

P Ward Public Health Flinders University Australia

E Handsley Law Flinders University AustraliaCorresponding author Kaye P Mehta Nutrition and Dietetics School of Health Sciences Flinders University Bedford park SA 5042 Australia

Email kayemehtaflinderseduau

Childrenrsquos exposure to the marketing of energy-dense nutrient-poor (EDNP) foods is a public health concern and

marketing investment is known to be shifting to non-broadcast media such as the Internet This paper examines

the perceptions of parents and children on ethical aspects of food marketing to which children are exposed The

research used qualitative methods with parent-child (aged between 8ndash13 years) from South Australia Thirteen

parent-child pairs participated in this research Ethical concerns raised by parents and children included the

marketing of EDNP foods pester power and family conflict and the use of powerful techniques via the Internet

Their views on rights and responsibilities represented a complex mixture of idealistic and pragmatic positions

They appeared to be caught within the tensions of problematizing unhealthy food marketing to children both

as a social problem and as an individual problem Their dilemmas are not dissimilar to the broader policy debate

in Australia on the matter of food marketing to children The stale-mate on statutory regulations to protect

children from exposure to EDNP food marketing could be advanced by stronger use of ethical arguments to

protect children from harmful exploitation and to protect parents from forces that undermine their authority

Introduction

The associations among childrenrsquos exposure to market-

ing communications for energy-dense nutrient-poor

(EDNP) foods the consequent influence on their food

choices and the rising rates of childhood obesity have

been recognised by international groups such the World

Health Organisation and Australian groups such as the

National Preventative Health Taskforce as constituting

a public health problem (NPHTF 2009 WHO 2010)

A trend has been observed for marketing communica-

tions to move from traditional media (such as television

advertising) to non-broadcast media such as the

Internet video games school sport product placement

on television programmes movies DVDs childrenrsquos

magazines supermarket outdoor environment and

brochures delivered to homes (Calvert 2008)

Childrenrsquos high engagement with screen-based media

increases the potential for exposure to marketing mes-

sages on non-broadcast media (ABS 2012) While the

majority of discussion about childrenrsquos exposure to

EDNP food marketing has centred around problems

relating to nutrition food choice and obesity there

have been some concerns raised about the ethics of mar-

keting to children (Harris et al 2008 Rogers 2008)

This article examines the perceptions of parents and

children on ethical aspects of food marketing to which

children are exposed These findings emerged from a

PUBLIC HEALTH ETHICS VOLUME 7 NUMBER 1 2014 21ndash34 21

doi101093phephu002

The Author 2014 Published by Oxford University Press Available online at wwwpheoxfordjournalsorg

at SerialsCentralL

ibrary on July 31 2014httppheoxfordjournalsorg

Dow

nloaded from

larger study enquiring into parents and children con-

ceptualisations of food marketing to which children are

exposed (Mehta et al 2010)

Ethical Issues

Marketing to children is considered ethically problem-

atic from a number of different viewpoints Informed

choice in consumer decision-making is a central tenet of

ethical business practice (Rogers 2008) and this means

that (i) children need to know when they are being mar-

keted to (separation of advertising from editorial con-

tent) and (ii) they need to understand the persuasive

intent of marketing in other words that markets have

profit interests in mind and therefore will present the

product in its best light in order to encourage purchase

(Kunkel 2001) The early research on television adver-

tising conducted by developmental psychologists estab-

lished that children under the age of 5 years have

difficulty determining advertising from programme

content (John 1999) However with new forms of mar-

keting such as product placement on the Internet and

movies sports promotions and viral marketing using

new media researchers such as Moore and Rideout

(2007) and Nairn and Dew (2007) assert that even

older children have difficulty discerning advertising

from lsquoprogrammersquo content Brucks et al (1988)

showed that even though children understand the per-

suasive intent of advertisements by the age of 8 years

they nevertheless do not spontaneously engage this cog-

nitive defence and continue to be influenced by adver-

tisements well into their teen years And while younger

children who do not fully understand that they are being

marketed to or who do not understand the persuasive

intent of marketing are particularly vulnerable to

making consumer decisions without full information

and therefore being unfairly pressured to consume

(Kunkel 2001) the fact is that all children are suscep-

tible to the persuasive effects of marketing by conscious

or unconscious means (Moore 2004 Livingstone and

Helsper 2006)

Marketing Strategies

Techniques used in marketing on non-broadcast media

(in particular marketing on the Internet) such as prod-

uct placement advergames1 viral marketing2 and any

technique involving the collection of personal informa-

tion are especially problematic from an ethical perspec-

tive because they constitute stealth or below-the-radar

marketing (BRM3) Stealth marketing is considered to

be an innovative practice within the marketing industry

albeit with caveats to control against excess and abuse

(Martin and Smith 2008) However from an ethical

perspective it fails the requirements for disclosure and

transparency so that children are aware that they are

being marketed to in this way it can subvert their cog-

nitive defence and result in implicit persuasion (Moore

2004 Rogers 2008 Lee et al 2009) Stealth marketing is

particularly evident on the Internet In their study of 50

childrenrsquos (aged 9ndash13 years) websites Nairn and Dew

(2007) found that 50 per cent of the advertisements were

not labelled and 50 per cent of the advertisements did

not warn users that they were leaving the host site to visit

the advertiserrsquos site In their study of advergames asso-

ciated with food products marketed to children Lee

et al (2009) found many types of brand identifiers

embedded within games these included brand identi-

fiers as active game components as primary or second-

ary objects to be collected and as billboard style

advertisements within the game or placed around the

frame of the game They suggested that product place-

ment of this kind represented marketing by stealth and

could increase positive attitudes towards products

through implicit persuasion thereby rendering it ethic-

ally suspect (Lee et al 2009) Fielder et al (2007) inter-

viewed children aged 7ndash15 years about their perceptions

of marketing through the Internet and the children

were able to distinguish advertisements by their position

on the web page and movement for example banner

advertisements and pop-up advertisements were easily

distinguishable However the children found adver-

games and product placement more difficult to distin-

guish as forms of marketing Other studies have also

verified that children are less aware of marketing

through product placement on non-broadcast media

compared with television advertisements (Center for

Science in the Public Interest 2003 Lindstrom and

Seybold 2004 Brady et al 2008)

Policy Perspectives

The question of restricting childrenrsquos exposure to EDNP

food marketing has been seriously debated internation-

ally by the World Health Organisation (WHO 2003

2010) and nationally within many countries including

Australia (DHA 2003 NPHTF 2009) While childhood

obesity has driven the regulatory considerations some

ethicists have contributed the viewpoint that govern-

ments have a prima facie responsibility to protect and

promote the health of the population (Rogers 2008)

Rogers argues that the public health question of respon-

sibility for health outcomes hinges on questions of at-

tribution and efficacy She notes that matters located in

22 MEHTA ET AL

at SerialsCentralL

ibrary on July 31 2014httppheoxfordjournalsorg

Dow

nloaded from

the environment (such as advertising and marketing)

are (i) not of the individualrsquos making and (ii) not

under the individualrsquos control to change It is the state

that has the power to alter the environment in physical

economic and political ways Justifications for govern-

ment intervention on ethical grounds include reason-

able means proportionality harm avoidance and

fairness In the case of government intervention to re-

strict EDNP food marketing to children she argues that

this is justified because of the lsquohealth risksrsquo associated

with obesity and that legislative measures are reasonable

in the face of the inadequacy of health education and

industry self-regulation (Rogers 2008) Baum (2008)

adds that it is necessary to distinguish between medical

and public health approaches The former are focussed

lsquodownstreamrsquo of health problems employing treatment

and education interventions which are premised on as-

sumptions about individual responsibility for health

Public health approaches by contrast are focused lsquoup-

streamrsquo towards the causes of health problems and

enhancement of health employing population interven-

tions which are premised on broad socio-environmental

determinants of health Effectively tackling the problem

of childrenrsquos exposure to EDNP food marketing would

therefore require regulatory approaches rather than

individual education approaches

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the

Child (CRC) (UNHCR 1989) provides a useful frame-

work for considering policy and regulation to protect

childrenrsquos interests For a start the CRC asserts that as a

matter of human rights childhood is entitled to special

care and assistance Article 3 (1) sums this up as follows

lsquoIn all actions concerning children whether undertaken

by public or private social welfare institutions courts of

law administrative authorities or legislative bodies the

best interests of the child shall be a primary consider-

ationrsquo The section of the CRC that is most relevant to

the debate on food marketing to children is Article 17

(e) which calls for lsquoprotection of the child from infor-

mation and material injurious to his or her well-being

bearing in mind the provisions of Articles 13 [on chil-

drenrsquos freedom of expression] and 18 [on parentsrsquo

responsibilities]rsquo Article 13 describes childrenrsquos right

to freedom of expression including to seek receive

and impart information and ideas of all kinds subject

to considerations of among other things public health

this can be read as childrenrsquos rights to the information

that enables them to participate in meaningful way in

family food purchases Article 18 refers to parentsrsquo

responsibilities and indicates that children have rights

of expression within constraints of parents having pri-

mary responsibility for childrenrsquos upbringing it also

suggests that the state has a responsibility to support

parents in this role One way to interpret the CRC in

relation to food marketing and children is that parents

are the ultimate decision-makers about food purchases

and the state has a responsibility to support parents by

restricting childrenrsquos exposure to EDNP food marketing

which can undermine parental authority by encoura-

ging childrenrsquos desire for unhealthy products Article

32 is also relevant in its call for children to be protected

from all forms of exploitation prejudicial to any aspect

of their welfare (UNHCR 1989 Handsley et al 2013)

While the WHO has urged member countries to re-

strict the impact of marketing on children public policy

development has progressed slowly in many countries

due in large part to industry resistance to marketing

regulation (WHO 2010) The policy debate appears to

have got lsquostuckrsquo on the issue of responsibility in other

words who is responsible for the problem of childrenrsquos

poor nutritional intake lack of physical activity and

consequent obesity In the spirit of minimal government

intervention neoliberal societies essentially entrust the

market to regulate its own ethical practice (Dean 1999)

The marketing of EDNP foods to children exemplifies

this situation with governments (for example in

Australia) unwilling to restrict industry practices par-

ticularly when this is resisted by said industries (Jones

2004 NPHTF 2009) The mantra of lsquoconsumer choicersquo

that drives commerce assumes that consumers will select

appropriate products in other words that they will not

purchase unethical products or services this of course

places an unfair burden of responsibility at the con-

sumption-end rather than the production-end of the

market

Considering the views of citizens in particular mar-

ginal or disadvantaged citizens is important in public

policy development in order to ensure equity in health

(Baum 2008) Women and children are included in this

category and their input into public policy processes has

been noted to be particularly absent (Baum 2008)

Consequently the original study by Mehta et al

(2010) was interested in parentsrsquo and childrenrsquos concep-

tualisations of food marketing to which children are

exposed

The larger study by Mehta et al (2010) set out to (i)

critically analyse parentsrsquo and childrenrsquos awareness of

and perceptions about food marketing to which chil-

dren are exposed (in particular food marketing on non-

broadcast media) (ii) critically analyse how parents and

children consider responsibility and regulation with re-

spect to food marketing to which children are exposed

and (iii) critically analyse how parents and children

relate to food marketing as consumers This article

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY TO RESTRICT CHILDRENrsquoS EXPOSURE 23

at SerialsCentralL

ibrary on July 31 2014httppheoxfordjournalsorg

Dow

nloaded from

extracts those responses of parents and children that

refer to ethics of marketing and discusses these findings

within the context of consumer society and prevailing

discourses of neoliberalism and individual

responsibility

Methodology and Methods

The epistemology underpinning the original study

(Mehta et al 2010) was constructionism the theoret-

ical perspective was interpretivism and the methodology

was qualitative because the research was interested in

understanding the subjective experiences of and mean-

ings assigned to food marketing by parents and children

(Crotty 1998)

Sampling and Recruitment

The study was interested in the views of parents and

children as individual stakeholders in the area under

investigation with different and separate points of

view Consequently one parent and one child (aged be-

tween 8 and 13 years) from the same family were

sampled The sampling of parents and children did

not constitute dyadic research which is concerned

with examining the relationship between dyad partners

(Quinn et al 2010) There is evidence to suggest that

people from different socio-economic backgrounds ex-

perience food marketing differently (Grier and

Kumanyika 2010) Consequently parentndashchild groups

were purposively sampled to represent high and low

socio-economic groups and metropolitan and rural

residence in South Australia in order to obtain a wide

range of perspectives The intention of the research was

not to compare and contrast socio-economic groups but

rather to sample widely in order to obtain a diversity of

views The childrenrsquos age range of 8ndash12 years was theor-

etically selected because by this age children are known

to understand the lsquoselling intentrsquo of advertising and

therefore have some cognitive defence against advertis-

ing but are still susceptible to the effects of marketing

(Brucks et al 1988 Livingstone and Helsper 2006)

they are also likely to have their own discretionary

spending but remain dependent on parents for house-

hold food and beverage purchases (Schor and Ford

2007) Most of the parentndashchild pairs were recruited

using a social research recruitment company and the

rest were recruited through a community-based nutri-

tion programme targeting low-income communities

Data Collection

Parents and children were interviewed individually The

interviews used a semi-structured format and followed

an iterative process whereby findings were constantly

compared with the literature and the interviews modi-

fied to explore emerging concepts (Minichiello et al

2008) Two rounds of interviews were conducted with

the same parents and children over a 2-year period

(interviews held 12 months apart) The second

round of interviews allowed for deeper exploration of

issues of theoretical interest (on responsibility regula-

tion and consumerism) that emerged from the first

round of interviews Detail of the domains of enquiry

in the interviews is provided in Appendix A

Two different methods were used to collect informa-

tion from parents and children in the first round all

parents and children were interviewed individually

whereas in the second round some parents were inter-

viewed in a focus group Interviews with parents and

children (for both rounds) were conducted separately

1 week apart Interviews with metropolitan respondents

were held in their homes except for the focus-group

interview which was held in a public venue For the inter-

views with metropolitan children some parents sat with

the child and interviewer (KM) while other parents lsquohov-

eredrsquo in the background doing household tasks

Interviews with rural respondents were conducted over

the telephone so it was not possible to know the extent to

which parents were present The individual interviews

lasted about 60 min for parents and 30ndash45 min for chil-

dren face-to-face interviews were longer than telephone

interviews due most likely to the greater rapport that was

possible between researcher and respondent

A focus group method was chosen in the second

round because of a suspicion of lsquosocial desirability re-

sponse biasrsquo (Podsakoff et al 2003) in the way parents

discussed questions of responsibility and regulation in

relation to food marketing and childrenrsquos food choices

Individual interviews may be problematic in relation to

honest disclosure of parenting difficulties and the focus

group offers an opportunity to circumvent this problem

by creating an atmosphere of camaraderie and empathy

between parents which allows them to share negative or

uncomfortable experiences (Liamputtong and Ezzy

2005 Roberts 2005)

All interviews and the focus group were audio-taped

and transcribed verbatim The interviews were con-

ducted by principal researcher (KM) who is a dietitian

and discussed with the research team comprising JC

(public health nutritionist) PW (sociologist) and EH

(lawyer)

24 MEHTA ET AL

at SerialsCentralL

ibrary on July 31 2014httppheoxfordjournalsorg

Dow

nloaded from

Analysis

Data were coded and managed using NVivo Version 8

All interviews were read listened to and all responses

coded immediately Shared as well as opposing views

were included in the codes Codes were generated de-

ductively from the interview questions as well as induct-

ively from the data itself Verbatim quotes were

recorded against each code to provide detailed descrip-

tions of the codes Codes with similar characteristics

were grouped into categories The codes and categories

were subjected to constant comparison to find patterns

associations and differences (Liamputtong and Ezzy

2005) Themes and concepts emerged through an on-

going process of discursive dialogue between the

findings in the form of codes and categories and the

theoretical and empirical literature The respondentsrsquo

descriptions were read critically and compared with the-

oretical and empirical ideas in the published literature in

order to establish links between concepts or ideas and to

situate the findings within the broader research context

(Grbich 1999) Emerging concepts were not only tested

against the literature but also in subsequent interviews

with respondents in order to achieve deeper and more

precise enquiry (Minichiello et al 2008) Reflective

notes provided an additional source of data about emer-

ging themes and issues (Minichiello et al 2008)

Ethics

Ethics approval was obtained from the Social and

Behavioural Research Ethics Committee of Flinders

University of South Australia Prior to participating in

interviews parents completed consent forms for them-

selves and their children Children completed an assent

from prior to their interview This was only done once

at the start of the first round of interviews

Findings

Thirteen parentndashchild pairs participated in this re-

searchmdash10 parents were mothers 9 parents were metro-

politan residents 6 were aged over 40 years 9 were

married and 9 had tertiary qualifications (diploma or

degree) Of the 13 children 7 were girls and the mean

age was 10 years and 6 months Presented here are the

views of parents and children on ethical aspects of food

marketing to which children are exposed In order to

ensure that a diversity of views were obtained respond-

ents were selected from different socio-economic

groups However the analysis found that patterns of

response could were not attributable to socio-economic

status The findings are presented under the following

themes marketing EDNP foods purchase requests

marketing on the Internet and rights and

responsibilities

Marketing EDNP foods

Parents in this study considered many aspects of mar-

keting to be problematic and unethical They were pri-

marily troubled by the promotion of EDNP foods

which they judged to put their childrenrsquos health at risk

The majority of children in this study also expressed

concerns about the marketing EDNP foods posing a risk

to childrenrsquos health

I donrsquot really like it I donrsquot really know itrsquos justtrying to get people to buy their thing becausethey say itrsquos good for you or it looks good becauseit has got a cartoon character on it when itrsquos ac-tually not that good like Coco Pops or some-thing and they have like a character on the frontand they say it is all healthy for you and every-thing when its actually really quite bad for youthen its really kind of bad (Boy Metro)

Purchase Requests

Parents felt that marketing encouraged children to make

purchase requests for EDNP foods and this in turn

undermined their authority to regulate and guide their

childrenrsquos food choices Constant purchase requests also

contributed to parental stress and family conflict

Yes I really hate that they use cartoon charactersto sell junk food The Nemo Dora theExplorer because the kid is going to see thecartoon character they are not going to knowor care whatrsquos in the food They just want theydonrsquot want the yoghurt they want theNemo [the product appears] more prettyand happier and it just adds to the pesterpower (Mother Rural)

I have been worn downmdashyou get really worndown I didnrsquot realise that there would besuch intense pressure from other quarters [mar-keting] if you donrsquot get it for them then theythink it is special (Mother Rural)

Some children echoed concerns about the potential for

EDNP food marketing to contribute to family conflict

Um theyrsquoll just crave it [unhealthyfoods] practically all the time and they willstart with their parents to get it and it will pull

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY TO RESTRICT CHILDRENrsquoS EXPOSURE 25

at SerialsCentralL

ibrary on July 31 2014httppheoxfordjournalsorg

Dow

nloaded from

parents families apart Because it will provokearguments in the family (Boy Rural)

Marketing on the Internet

Parents were particularly concerned about marketing on

the Internet through advergames viral marketing and

the mining of personal information importantly be-

cause it was happening in childrenrsquos private space and

therefore below parental supervision or radar

I guess the biggest concern I would probablyhave there would be the viral marketing because Ithink that can get spread when kids see theopportunity to challenge or to win somethingthatrsquos a real temptation yeah so that would prob-ably be the one that would concern me the most(Mother Rural)

my girls are both on Facebook eventhough they are quite young I know theyhave the demographic stuff I know that theyuse that information to push little ad-verts they are targeting you all the time andits no mistake so you sort of think lsquowhat the hellare they doing what are they are going to dowith all of that information they have got aboutmy children They think they are 14 [years old] tostart withrsquo (Mother Metro)

With respect to product placement in marketing com-

munications in particular advergames the children in

this study had variable awareness of product placement

in other words some children were aware of it and some

were not but the parents on the other hand had very

little awareness of product placement because of their

dis-engagement from childrenrsquos leisure activities

(Referring to Internet) No I am not aware ofanything that she has been exposed to in thatway because I donrsquot play with her on the com-puter (Father Metro)

Both parents and children expressed concern about im-

plicit persuasion through marketing techniques such as

advergames

the whole game-playing thing not a fan ofthat at all because like I said even though theyare playing a game itrsquos planted a seed and I donrsquotagree with getting them to interact with themWhereas this way [advertisement] they areseeing it but they are not interacting with itbut when they are playing Freddo Frog gamesor biscuit games whatever it was they are actuallyinteracting with it and I donrsquot agree with that atall (Mother Metro)

Well I think that um if itrsquos just a game with prod-uct placement in it it um itrsquos kind of differentbecause you just want to play the game then yousee the product in it as in these ones [adver-games] are all about that product so itrsquos tryingto get you to buy it more I think (Boy Metro)

Most parents considered much of marketing on non-

broadcast media to constitute BRM because the sheer

ubiquitousness of marketing resulted in it slipping

below their conscious awareness and therefore to exert

lsquosubliminalrsquo (their phrase) effects consequently they held

strong ethical concerns about marketing on non-broad-

cast media and in particular marketing on the Internet

As well as subverting childrenrsquos scepticism they held con-

cerns that BRM undermined their regulatory role

Um I think it [marketing] is happening every-where yeah I guess it is like itrsquos a sense thatsomeone is like subliminally brain-washing mychildren I guess I think hopefully theywonrsquot see it they wonrsquot notice it You feel likesomething underhanded is happening (MotherRural)

Yeah I imagine it becomes very tough becausethey are going to get to an age where lsquoyoursquorejust mum what do you knowrsquo If you havegot no idea if you have got no knowledge ofwhat they are wanting or needing or seeing wellI imagine thatrsquos pretty tough (Mother Metro)

Rights and Responsibilities

Notwithstanding their opinions about the unethical

nature of EDNP food marketing to which children are

exposed both parents and children also lsquoacceptedrsquo mar-

keting as an integral part of consumer society and es-

sential for business success they judged the primary

responsibility for mitigating the adverse effects of mar-

keting to lie with parents

Ultimately the parents I definitely think parentshave the major responsibility not completely be-cause there is the pester power and we knowwhat kids are like but in the end they are theones that buy the food As a parent it is our re-sponsibility to make the right decisions andchoose healthy choices for our children Nomatter what is out there (Mother Rural)

Parents well they have the strongest role theyboss their children and they are the boss ofwhat they buy etc what they put in the cup-boards (Boy Rural)

They were ambivalent about assigning responsibility

to corporations and restricting corporate food

26 MEHTA ET AL

at SerialsCentralL

ibrary on July 31 2014httppheoxfordjournalsorg

Dow

nloaded from

marketing to children They supported some restric-

tions on the marketing of EDNP foods and beverages

to children but they did not want this to happen at the

expense of business success in this way they appeared

somewhat protective of business rights to make profits

even at the expense of childrenrsquos health

I donrsquot think they should be completely excludedfrom marketing the unhealthy products butmaybe a certain percentage or times can be theunhealthy stuff and then the majority of the timeshould be only healthy advertising (MotherRural)

Um well I would probably would think that that[healthier foods] would be pretty hard to bringin because lots of people would um lose theirjobs people that work for that company orum or that sells the food or whatever Andthey might get like like um not be able to payfor basic things like food or things like that (BoyMetro)

So fair or not its their right to be able to promotetheir businesses in the best marketable way Imean hey you know if I could make a gazilliondollars by bombarding adverts on TV then looklets face it we would probably all do it (MotherMetro)

In supporting some restrictions on EDNP food mar-

keting to children the parents were generally cynical

about the capacity of corporations to act ethically in

their childrenrsquos interests and therefore favoured gov-

ernment regulation to restrict the marketing of EDNP

foods to children

I really think it is some sort of interventionlike I said from the government that would haveto step in to make them [companies] respon-sible to stop that but I donrsquot think theywould voluntarily (Mother Rural)

While most parents unambiguously supported chil-

drenrsquos rights to be protected from EDNP food market-

ing they were much less certain about their own rights

not to be undermined in their role of guiding children to

make healthy food choices

they shouldnrsquot be bombarded with all thisjunk that is on the market because at theirage they donrsquot have the understanding of justhow dangerous it can be for them later on inlife if they do start from this age to eat theseunhealthy foods (Mother Metro)

Are you talking about rights to protect you fromyour own kids Rights (laughter) Just tell them tolsquoshut uprsquo you know Just tell them lsquoto stoprsquo Itrsquoseasy just tell them you know lsquostop pestering

me and thatrsquos it stop itrsquo And if they keep goingwell whatever discipline you need to use on themyou will (Father Metro)

Overall parents reflected a sense of resignation about

the complexity of tackling the ethical problem of chil-

drenrsquos exposure to EDNP food marketing

Itrsquos [marketing] downright evil shouldnrsquot beallowed but you know I feel pretty helplessabout it (Father Metro)

I am quite taken with the concept of the rights toprotect children from direct marketing on alllevels But I kind of feel like the machine is sopowerful that itrsquos very unlikely to have thatright fulfilled (Mother Metro)

Discussion

Food Marketing and Health

Parents and children in this study considered a number

of aspects of food marketing to be problematic and un-

ethical They were primarily troubled by the promotion

of EDNP foods which they judged to put childrenrsquos

health at risk Their concerns mirror the public health

discourse on this subject namely that the promotion of

EDNP foods gives children biased information about

food choice and puts them at risk of unhealthy diets

and obesity (Swinburn et al 1999 WHO 2003

Hastings et al 2006 WHO 2006 2010) All children

are susceptible to the persuasion effects of EDNP food

marketing (Livingstone and Helsper 2006) and children

under the age of 8 years are particularly vulnerable be-

cause they do not fully understand the persuasive intent

of marketing (Kunkel 2001) To the extent that it pro-

motes a risky product to a vulnerable population group

EDNP food marketing can be considered to be

unethical

Pester Power and Family Conflict

Pester power is the term given to childrenrsquos nagging of

their parents to purchase marketed products which they

desire This is considered to be the principal means by

which children exert their consumer potency and re-

quires literally haranguing parents in order to break

down their resistance to purchasing the product in ques-

tion (Nicholls and Cullen 2004) Both children and

parents in this study were aware that pester power was

the means by which EDNP food marketing mediated its

effects and that family conflict over purchase decisions

was one of the consequences Marketing promotes

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY TO RESTRICT CHILDRENrsquoS EXPOSURE 27

at SerialsCentralL

ibrary on July 31 2014httppheoxfordjournalsorg

Dow

nloaded from

childrenrsquos commercial culture as lsquocool for kidsrsquo and sets

parents up for conflict when they refuse to purchase

products for children this is perceived as a negative ex-

perience by parents (Turner et al 2006 Nairn 2009)

and is also considered to undermine parental authority

(Steinberg and Kincheloe 1997) South Australian

adults have consistently revealed strong disquiet (80ndash

90 per cent of survey respondents) about the relation-

ship between food advertising and children pestering

parents for products (SA Health 2011)

The inexorable rise of consumer society has brought

with it the commercialisation of childhood so that in the

twenty-first century children comprise a distinct market

segment pursued by corporations for their consumption

potential (Langer 2002) The ethical tensions associated

with food marketing to children can be resolved by

seeing this as a balance between the rights and respon-

sibilities of children and parents in this case parentsrsquo

rights not to be undermined in their role of guiding

childrenrsquos food choices and childrenrsquos rights to partici-

pate in decisions that concern them (UNHCR 1989)

Parents have a responsibility to involve children in de-

cision-making and children have a responsibility to obey

their parents (Nicholls and Cullen 2004) Further to

this the state has a responsibility to support parents

by restricting childrenrsquos exposure to EDNP food mar-

keting which would act to undermine parental respon-

sibility for childrenrsquosrsquo food choices (Handsley et al

2013) The rights-based discourse can be interpreted

within a neoliberal context as championing personal

autonomy and responsibility including for children

and consequent diminution of state intervention in in-

dividual care however this is counter to the original

intent of the CRC which explicitly calls for lsquoprotection

and care of children in light of their specific vulnerabil-

itiesrsquo (Wells 2011 p 18)

Not all parents in this study were concerned about the

capacity of marketing to influence their children Those

who were less concerned attributed their childrsquos ability

to resist the effects of marketing to their own lsquostrong

parentingrsquo In this way they not only subscribed to the

moralistic discourse of lsquogoodrsquo parenting but also to indi-

vidualising the problem of marketing and attributing

protection to individual resilience knowledge and skills

(Baker 2009)

Marketing on the Internet

Parents and children were particularly concerned about

the ethics of food marketing through the Internet

Marketing through the Internet has been identified as

a public health concern because of childrenrsquos high

engagement with computers and the Internet with up-

wards of 90 per cent of children aged 5ndash14 years using

computers regularly and accessing the Internet at least

weekly (Linn and Novosat 2008 ABS 2012) Many chil-

dren exceed the National Australian Guidelines of no

more than 2 hours of small screen recreation per day

(Hardy et al 2006 Granich et al 2010) A problematic

aspect of childrenrsquos lsquonewrsquo leisure commodities is that

they are designed specifically for children to use pri-

vately for example in their bedroom the proportion

of children with electronic media in their bedroom is

not inconsequential and equates roughly to 30 per cent

for TV 23 per cent for computer and 50 per cent for

video game console (Salmon et al 2005 Roberts and

Foehr 2008 Granich et al 2010)

The lack of explicitness and visibility of Internet mar-

keting tactics were salient issues for parents and children

in this study Their concerns concur with public health

researchers who have identified particular problematic

aspects of Internet food marketing these include prod-

uct placement implicit persuasion and BRM (Moore

and Rideout 2007 Nairn and Dew 2007 Martin and

Smith 2008) Many of the marketing techniques used

on the Internet fall into the category of stealth market-

ing which has been labelled unethical because withhold-

ing the identity of the sponsor or not disclosing to a

child that they are being marketed to is fundamentally

deceitful and fails the ethical tests of (i) consent to be

engaged in a commercial interaction and (ii) making an

informed consumer decision (Rogers 2008) By with-

holding persuasion knowledge and agent knowledge

stealth marketing comes in lsquobelow childrenrsquos cognitive

radarrsquo It can also be intrusive into their personal space

for example intruding into their game playing or surfing

the net for leisure and exploitative of personal relation-

ships by suggesting to or encouraging children to send-

on marketing messages or promote products to their

friends or family (Martin and Smith 2008) Stealth mar-

keting violates industryrsquos own codes of practice of trans-

parency and honesty in marketing (Martin and Smith

2008)

Product placement and advergames were particular

concerns for parents and children in this study Product

placement is a marketing strategy that breaches the eth-

ical requirement of separation of advertising from edi-

torial content so that children know that they are being

advertised to and in that way can make informed

choices as consumers (Schmitt et al 2007 Rogers

2008) In failing to separate marketing from entertain-

ment or editorial content product placement has the

potential to subvert childrensrsquo scepticism and thereby

increase their vulnerability to marketing persuasion

28 MEHTA ET AL

at SerialsCentralL

ibrary on July 31 2014httppheoxfordjournalsorg

Dow

nloaded from

(Moore 2004 Lee et al 2009) Children are known to

have difficulty separating commercial and entertain-

ment content on the Internet (Lindstrom and Seybold

2004 Fielder et al 2007 Brady et al 2008) and prod-

uct placement has been shown to positively influence

childrenrsquos food choices with persuasion effects being

augmented by prior and repeated exposure (albeit in a

study involving product placement in a movie) (Auty

and Lewis 2004 p 712) The high degree of repetitious

playing of computer games would put children at par-

ticular risk of implicit persuasion by marketing

embedded in

Both parents and children considered food marketing

on the Internet to constitute BRM While BRM is com-

monly problematized from a parental supervision per-

spective (in other words childrenrsquos exposure to

marketing away from parental supervision and regula-

tion) it can of course also refer to persuasion effects

below childrenrsquos cognitive radar (Martin and Smith

2008) Parents in this study felt that in order to be

strong regulators of their childrenrsquos diets they needed

to be aware of food messages that their children were

exposed tomdashakin to Foucaultrsquos Panopticon for effective

surveillance (Danaher et al 2000)mdashand BRM put them

in the unenviable position of failing their end of the

neoliberal social contract vis-a-vis being responsible

for their childrenrsquos food choices (Rose 1996 Dean

1999) In this way BRM made it difficult for them to

live up to the social expectations of being lsquogood parentsrsquo

and good citizens (Grieshaber 1997 Giddens and

Pierson 1998 Baker 2009) The parentsrsquo reaction to

BRM typifies one of the ethical dilemmas of childrenrsquos

exposure to EDNP food marketing whereby in a neolib-

eral world individuals (in this case parents) are required

to take responsibility for social problems not of their

making and outside their power to control (Rogers

2008)

Rights and Responsibilities

In spite of articulating unethical aspects of EDNP food

marketing both parents and children nominated par-

ents as being primarily responsible for mitigating the

adverse effects of food marketing

These views held by parents and children are consist-

ent with neoliberal discourse that individualises social

problems (Rose 1996 Dean 1999) Research done in

the UK also found parents to be critical of corporations

marketing EDNP foods to children while at the same

time accepting it as part of modern society and taking

responsibility for mitigating the effects of marketing on

childrenrsquos food preferences (Spungin 2004)

Notwithstanding their position of assigning primary

responsibility to themselves parents did nominate gov-

ernment regulation as an important solution to the

problem of childrenrsquos exposure to EDNP food market-

ing Their views concur with the broader Australian

public surveys have shown strong (in the order of 90

per cent of respondents) support for government-

imposed restrictions on EDNP food marketing to chil-

dren (Morley et al 2008 SA Health 2011)

While most parents unambiguously supported chil-

drenrsquos rights to be protected from EDNP food market-

ing they were much less certain about their own rights

not to be undermined in their role of guiding children to

make healthy food choices even though the

Conventions on the Rights of the Child states that the

state should support parents in carrying out their

responsibilities towards the well-being of children

(UNHCR 1989) It appeared that notions of parental

rights were overshadowed by dominant discourses of

individualism responsibilisation and reflexive parent-

ing (Rose 1996 Grieshaber 1997 Dean 1999 Baker

2009)

Policy Implications

This study found that parents and children were aware

of and held concerns about the ethical problem of chil-

drenrsquos exposure to EDNP food marketing Public health

protagonists including the WHO have consistently

advocated for policy and legislative restrictions on the

marketing of EDNP foods to children as part of a com-

prehensive approach to combating childhood obesity

and improving childrenrsquos nutritional health outcomes

(Harris et al 2008 Swinburn et al 2008 WHO 2010)

The WHO implementation strategy on prevention and

control of non-communication diseases instructed

member countries to institute policies that would re-

strict the reach and power of marketing to children

where lsquoreachrsquo refers to exposure and lsquopowerrsquo refers to

the sophisticated and integrated techniques used by

marketers (WHO 2010)

While the problem of EDNP food marketing to chil-

dren has been debated in many countries around the

world there has in fact been very little action Hawkes

(2004 2007) found that more governments had sup-

ported industry self-regulatory codes than had imple-

mented statutory restrictions and most of the industry

self-regulatory codes focussed on television advertising

and did not go far enough to reduce the amount of

marketing that children were exposed to nor the power-

ful methods used to entice children She advocated

statutory regulation to afford more protection to

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY TO RESTRICT CHILDRENrsquoS EXPOSURE 29

at SerialsCentralL

ibrary on July 31 2014httppheoxfordjournalsorg

Dow

nloaded from

children from the powerful influences that marketing

exerted on their food choices (Hawkes 2007) In

Australia the policy debate has been quite equivocal

While government committees have recognised the obe-

sogenic role of marketing EDNP foods to children

(DHA 2003 NPHTF 2009) federal governments of

different persuasions (liberal and labour) have been re-

luctant to take a leadership stance on policy develop-

ment (ABC 2011) That the problem has not been fully

resolved and children continue to be exposed to mar-

keting messages for EDNP foods is the result of oppos-

itional interests between industries that benefit from

marketing to children public health groups that want

to restrict childrenrsquos exposure and neoliberal govern-

ments reluctant to regulate (Moodie et al 2006 Egger

and Swinburn 2010)

Prevention of childhood obesity has been the central

argument for statutory restrictions on childrensrsquo expos-

ure to EDNP food marketing (NPHTF 2009 WHO

2010) Ethical imperatives to protect children from

harmful exploitation and to protect parents from

forces that undermine their authority to guide children

to make healthy choices could be more strongly invoked

to argue for statutory regulations (Handsley et al

2009)

Strengths and Limitations of the Study

The sample size 13 parentndashchild pairs was relatively

small but interveiwing the same cohort twice over a

2-year period provided a depth of information that

enhanced the quality of the research findings

Saturation of research data was seen to be reached

with this number of respondents because no new infor-

mation was obtained from latter pairs that was different

to the earleir ones (Hennink et al 2011) The range of

parentndashchild pairs representing different socio-eco-

nomic groups and areas of residence was an important

strategy to enable diverse views and contexts to be ob-

tained however analysis of interviews showed a surpris-

ing commonality of views

The children in this study displayed capacity to reflect

on marketing as a social phenomenon and to problem-

atise marketing as an ethical concern (James and Prout

1997) The interviews with children were successful in

engaging their interest and achieving sufficient trust for

them to talk freely about their opinions thoughts and

feelings about food marketing In this way this research

affirmed childrenrsquos citizenship agency and sentience by

bringing their opinions about a public matter to the fore

and affording them the possibility to be heard in the

policy debate on childrenrsquos exposure to EDNP food

marketing (Prout 2002) The presence of parents in

the lsquobackgroundrsquo of some child interviews nevertheless

may have exerted an inhibitory effect on childrenrsquos

honest and open disclosure of their views

Conclusion

The parents and children in this study identified a

number of ethical concerns about childrenrsquos exposure

to food marketing in particular the marketing of EDNP

foods pester power and family conflict and the use of

powerful techniques through the Internet Their views

on rights and responsibilities represented a complex

mixture of idealistic and pragmatic positions They ap-

peared to be caught within the tensions of problematiz-

ing unhealthy food marketing to children both as a

social problem and as an individual problem Their di-

lemmas are not dissimilar to the broader policy debate

in Australia on the matter of food marketing to children

in so far as it appears that policy-makers also are con-

strained by conflicting analyses of unhealthy food mar-

keting as a social and as an individual problem The

stalemate on statutory regulations to protect children

from exposure to EDNP food marketing could be

advanced by stronger use of ethical arguments to protect

children from harmful exploitation and to protect par-

ents from forces that undermine their authority to guide

children to make healthy choices

Acknowledgements

All authors contributed to reviewing study methods and

findings writing and editing the article In addition

KPM took primary responsibility for study design

data collection and analysis of data

Funding

The research study was funded by the South Australian

Department of Health under the Strategic Health

Research Priorities 2008ndash2010

Conflict of Interest

All authors declare no competing interests

30 MEHTA ET AL

at SerialsCentralL

ibrary on July 31 2014httppheoxfordjournalsorg

Dow

nloaded from

Notes

1 Advergames are advertiser-sponsored computer

games into which branded items are embedded

(Kaiser Family Foundation 2004)

2 Viral marketing is the dissemination of branded in-

formation by consumers themselves (Calvert 2008)

3 BRM is commonly considered to be that marketing

which children are exposed to away from parental

supervision and regulation marketing messages in

this context therefore reach children lsquobelow-

the-radarrsquo of parental supervision (Austin and

Reed 1999)

References

ABC (2011) Food Lobbyists Accused of Sabotaging

Public Health Lateline Australian Broadcasting

Corporation

ABS (2012) Childrenrsquos participation in Cultural and

Leisure Activities ABS 49010 Australian Bureau of

Statistics

Austin M and Reed M (1999) Targeting Children

Online Internet Advertising Ethics Issues The

Journal of Consumer Marketing 16 590ndash602

Auty S and Lewis C (2004) Exploring Childrenrsquos

Choice The Reminder Effect of Product

Placement Psychology amp Marketing 21 699ndash716

Baker J (2009) Young Mothers in Late Modernity

Sacrifice Respectability and the Transformative

Neo-Liberal Subject Journal of Youth Studies 12

275ndash288

Baum F (2008) The New Public Health Melbourne

Australia Oxford University Press

Brady J Farrell A Wong S and Mendelson R

(2008) Beyond Television Childrenrsquos Engagement

with Online Food and Beverage Marketing Clinical

Medicine Pediatrics 2 1ndash9

Brucks M Armstrong G M and Goldberg M E

(1988) Childrenrsquos Use of Cognitive Defenses

Against Television Advertising A Cognitive

Response Approach Journal of Consumer Research

14 471ndash482

Calvert S (2008) Children as Consumers

Advertising and Marketing The Future of Children

18 205ndash234

Center for Science in the Public Interest (2003)

Pestering Parents How Food Companies Market

Obesity to Children Washington DC Center for

Science in the Public Interest

Crotty M (1998) The Foundations of Social Research

Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process St

Leonards NSW Allen amp Unwin

Danaher G Schirato T and Webb J (2000)

Understanding Foucault St Leonards NSW Allen

amp Unwin

Dean M (1999) Governmentality Power and Rule in

Mondern Society London Sage Publications

DHA (2003) Healthy Weight 2008mdashAustraliarsquos Future

Canberra National Obesity Taskforce Department

of Health and Ageing Commonwealth of Australia

Egger G and Swinburn B (2010) Planet Obesity

Crows Nest NSW Allen amp Unwin

Fielder A Gardner W Nairn A and Pitt J (2007)

Fair Game Assessing Commercial Activity on

Childrenrsquos Favourite Websites and Online

Environments London National Consumer Council

Giddens A and Pierson C (1998) Conversations with

Anthony Giddens Making Sense of Modernity

Cambridge United Kingdom Polity Press

Granich J Rosenberg M Knuiman M and Timperio

A (2010) Understanding Childrenrsquos Sedentary

Behaviour A Qualitative Study of the Family

Home Environment Health Education Research

25 199ndash210

Grbich C (1999) Qualitative Research in Health An

Introduction St Leonards NSW Allen amp Unwin

Grier S and Kumanyika S (2010) Targeted Marketing

and Public Health Annual Review of Public Health

31 349ndash369

Grieshaber S (1997) Reconceptualising Parent and

Child Conflict A Foucauldian Perspective In

Farrell C and Grove K (eds) The Foucault

Legacy QLD Queensland University of

Technology Press pp 639ndash650

Handsley E Mehta K Coveney J and Nehmy C

(2009) Regulatory Axes on Food Advertising to

Children Australian and New Zealand Health

Policy 6 158

Handsley E Nehmy C Mehta K and Coveney J

(2013) A Childrenrsquos Rights Perspective on Food

Advertising to Children International Journal of

Childrenrsquos Rights pp 21 doi 10116315718182-

55680024

Hardy L L Dobbins T A Denney-Wilson E Okely

A D and Booth M (2006) Descriptive

Epidemiology of Small Screen Recreation among

Australian Adolescents Journal of Paediatrics and

Child Health 42 709ndash714

Harris J L Pomeranz J L Lobstein T and Brownell

K D (2008) A Crisis in the Marketplace How Food

Marketing Contributes to Childhood Obesity and

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY TO RESTRICT CHILDRENrsquoS EXPOSURE 31

at SerialsCentralL

ibrary on July 31 2014httppheoxfordjournalsorg

Dow

nloaded from

What Can Be Done Annual Review of Public Health

30 211ndash225

Hastings G McDermott L Angus K Stead M and

Thomson S (2006) The Extent Nature and Effects

of Food Promotion to Children A Review of the

Evidence Technical paper prepared for World

Health Organisation United Kingdom Institute

for Social Marketing University of Stirling and

The Open University

Hawkes C (2004) Marketing Food to Children The

Global Regulatory Environment Geneva World

Health Organisation

Hawkes C (2007) Marketing Food to Children Changes

in the Global Regulatory Environment 2004ndash2006

Geneva World Health Organisation

Hennink M Hutter I and Bailey A (2011)

Qualitative Research Methods Los Angeles CA Sage

James A and Prout A (1997) Constructing and

Reconstructing Childhood Contemporary Issues in

the Sociological Study of Childhood London Falmer

Press

John D R (1999) Through the Eyes of a Child

Childrenrsquos Knowledge and Understanding

Advertising In Macklin M and Carlson L (eds)

Advertising to Children Concepts and Controversies

Thousand Oaks CA Sage Publications pp 3ndash26

Jones C (2004) PM Wonrsquot Ban Junk Food Ads The

Courier Mail 17 June 17

Kaiser Family Foundation (2004) The Role of Media in

Childhood Obesity Henry J California Kaiser Family

Foundation

Kunkel D (2001) Children and Television Advertising

In Singer D G and Singer J L (eds) Handbook of

Children and the Media Thousand Oaks CA Sage

Publications pp 375ndash394

Langer B (2002) Commodified Enchantment

Children and Consumer Capitalism Thesis Eleven

69 67ndash81

Lee M Choi Y Quilliam E T and Cole R T (2009)

Playing With Food Content Analysis of Food

Advergames Journal of Consumer Affairs 43

129ndash154

Liamputtong P and Ezzy D (2005) Qualitative

Research Methods Oxford Oxford University Press

Lindstrom M and Seybold P B (2004) Brandchild

Remarkable Insights into the Minds of Todayrsquos Global

Kids and their Relationship with Brands Sterling VA

Kogan Page

Linn S and Novosat C (2008) Calories for Sale Food

Marketing to Children in the Twenty-First Century

The Annals of the American Academy of Political and

Social Science 615 133ndash155

Livingstone S and Helsper E (2006) Does Advertising

Literacy Mediate the Effects of Advertising on

Children A Critical Examination of Two Linked

Research Literatures in Relation to Obesity and

Food Choice Journal of Communication 56

560ndash584

Martin K D and Smith N C (2008)

Commercializing Social Interaction The Ethics of

Stealth Marketing Journal of Public Policy amp

Marketing 27 45ndash56

Mehta K Coveney J Ward P and Handsley E

(2010) Parentsrsquo and Childrenrsquos Experience of Food

and Beverage Marketing Directed at Children

Report to SA Health South Australian

Government Adelaide Flinders University

Minichiello V Aroni R and Hays T N (2008) In-

Depth Interviewing Principles Techniques Analysis

Sydney Pearson Education Australia

Moodie R Swinburn B Richardson J and Somaini

B (2006) Childhood Obesity A Sign of Commercial

Success But a Market Failure International Journal

of Pediatric Obesity 1 133ndash138

Moore E (2004) Children and the Changing World of

Advertising Journal of Business Ethics 52 161ndash167

Moore E and Rideout V (2007) The Online

Marketing of Food to Children Is It Just Fun and

Games Journal of Public Policy amp Marketing 27 202

Morley B Chapman K Mehta K King L

Swinburn B and Wakefield M (2008) Parental

Awareness and Attitudes about Food Advertising

to Children on Australian Television Australian

and New Zealand Journal of Public Health 32

341ndash347

Nairn A (2009) Business Thinks Family London

Family and Parenting Institute

Nairn A and Dew A (2007) Pop-ups Pop-unders

Banners and Buttons The Ethics of Online

Advertising to Primary School Children Journal of

Direct Data and Digital Marketing Practice 9 30ndash46

Nicholls A J and Cullen P (2004) The ChildndashParent

Purchase Relationship lsquoPester Powerrsquo Human

Rights and Retail Ethics Journal of Retailing and

Consumer Services 11 75ndash86

NPHTF (2009) Australia the Healthiest Country by

2020 Commonwealth of Australia Canberra

National Preventative Health Taskforce

Podsakoff P M MacKenzie S B Lee J Y and

Podsakoff N P (2003) Common Method Biases

in Behavioral Research A Critical Review of the

Literature and Recommended Remedies Journal of

Applied Psychology 88 879ndash903

32 MEHTA ET AL

at SerialsCentralL

ibrary on July 31 2014httppheoxfordjournalsorg

Dow

nloaded from

Prout A (2002) Researching Children as Social Actors

An Introduction to the Children 5ndash16 Programme

Children and Society 16 67ndash76

Quinn C Dunbar S Clark P and Strickland O

(2010) Challenges and Strategies of Dyad

Research Cardiovascular Examples Applied

Nursing Research 23 e15ndash20

Roberts M (2005) Parenting in an Obsesgenic

Environment Journal of Research for Consumers 9

1ndash12

Roberts D and Foehr U (2008) Trends in Media Use

The Future of Children 18 11ndash37

Rogers W A (2008) Constructing a Healthy

Population Tensions Between Individual

Responsibility and State-Based Beneficence In

Bennett B Carney T and Karpin I (eds) Brave

New World of Health Annandale NSW The

Federation Press

Rose N (1996) The Death of the Social Re-figuring

the Territory of Government Economy and Society

25 327ndash356

SA Health (2011) South Australianrsquos Views on the

Television Advertising of Unhealthy Food and

Beverages During Chidlrenrsquos Television Viewing

Time South Australia Government of South

Australia

Salmon J Timperio A Telford A Carver A and

Crawford D (2005) Association of Family

Environment with Childrenrsquos Television Viewing

and with Low Level of Physical Activity Obesity

Research 13 1939ndash1951

Schmitt N Wagner N and Kirch W (2007)

Consumersrsquo Freedom of Choice Advertising

Aimed at Children Product Placement and Food

Labeling Journal of Public Health 15 57ndash62

Schor J and Ford M (2007) From Tastes Great to Cool

Childrenrsquos Food Marketing and the Rise of the

Symbolic Journal of Law Medicine amp Ethics 35 10ndash21

Spungin P (2004) Parent power not pester power

Young Consumers Insight and Ideas for Responsible

Marketers 5 37ndash40 5 37ndash40

Steinberg S and Kincheloe J (1997) Kinderculture

The Corporate Construction of Childhood Boulder

CO Westview Press

Swinburn B Egger G and Razza F (1999) Dissecting

Obesogenic Environments The Development and

Application of a Framework for Identifying and

Prioritizing Environmental Interventions for

Obesity Preventive Medicine 29 563ndash570

Swinburn B Sacks G Lobstein T Rigby N Baur

L Brownell K Gill T Seidell J and Kumanyika

S (2008) The Sydney Principles for Reducing the

Commercial Promotion of Foods and Beverages to

Children Public Health Nutrition 11 881ndash886

Turner J Kelly J and McKenna K (2006) Food for

Thought Parentsrsquo Perspectives of Child Influence

British Food Journal 180 181ndash191

UNHCR (1989) Conventions on the Rights of the Child

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for

Human Rights available from httpwww2ohchr

orgenglishlawcrchtm [Accessed 29 May 2013]

Wells K (2011) The politics of life governing child-

hood Global Studies of Childhood 1 15ndash25

WHO (2003) Diet Nutrition and the Prevention of

Chronic Disease Technical Report Series No 916

Geneva World Health Organisation

WHO (2006) Marketing of Food and Non-alcoholic

Beverages to Children Oslo World Health

Organisation

WHO (2010) Prevention and Control of

Noncommunicable Diseases Implementation of the

global strategy A6312 Sixty-Third World Health

Assembly Geneva World Health Organisation

IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY TO RESTRICT CHILDRENrsquoS EXPOSURE 33

at SerialsCentralL

ibrary on July 31 2014httppheoxfordjournalsorg

Dow

nloaded from

Appendix A Summary of

Interview EnquirymdashParents and

Children

The table below lists an abridged version of interview

enquiry in original research by Mehta et al (2010)

The questions focussed on lsquofood marketing to which

children are exposedrsquo

Enquiry domains Parents Children

Round 1

Understandings about food marketing including marketing effects 3 3

Awareness of marketing on non-broadcast media that children are exposed to for

example Internet and childrenrsquos magazines

3 3

Opinions about food marketing 3

Opinions about restricting food marketing 3

Round 2

Opinions about marketing techniques on the Internet for example banner and

pop-up ads product placement in games viral marketing and social networking

3 3

Opinions about responsibility to mitigate the adverse effects of EDNP food mar-

keting ndash parents corporations children and government

3 3

Opinions about rights in relation to food marketing 3

Opinions about changing food marketing to protect childrenrsquos health 3

34 MEHTA ET AL

at SerialsCentralL

ibrary on July 31 2014httppheoxfordjournalsorg

Dow

nloaded from