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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
(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
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
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
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
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
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
Top Related