Food Advertising and Marketing to Children: RWJF Research Roundtable III ~ Welcome!

April 4-5, 2011

Academy for Education DevelopmentWashington, DC

Coordinated Approaches to Reducing Youth Exposure to Unhealthy Food Marketing

ADVOCACYADVOCACY

EVIDENCEEVIDENCE

ACTIONACTIONNational Policy and

Legal Analysis Network

Healthy Eating Research

Food Trust

Childhood Obesity Modeling Network

Save the Children

RWJF Center to Prevent Childhood Obesity

IOM Standing Committee

ChildObesity 180

African American Collaborative Obesity Network National Collaborative on

Childhood Obesity Research (NCCOR)

Communities Creating Healthy Environments

Leadership for Healthy Communities

Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity

Bridging the Gap

Hudson Institute

Salud America! Food Marketing Workgroup

Healthy Kids, Healthy Communities

The 4 P’s of Food Marketing

U.S. Children

Advertising/Promotion

Source: Sonia Grier and Shiriki Kumanyika

Price

Product/Packaging

Placement

Gov’t food assistance Programs,

Macro-Level

Societal and cultural norms

Home/ Family

Individual

Agriculture andeconomic policies, foodsubsidies

Food Industry action (product, packaging, pricing, placement)

Local health care

services/coverage

Local public healthprograms,policies, mediacampaigns

Point-of-purchase information, promotions in restaurants, convenience/grocery stores

Exposure to healthy and unhealthy foods and ads in schools , communities

Media andpublic educationcampaigns

Access to healthy/unhealthy foods in communities (grocery stores, corner stores,fast food, farmers markets)

National healthcarepolicy

Land use, zoning, business incentives

Federal policies (children’s food advertising, food labeling, Healthy & Hunger-Free Kids’ Act, Farm Bill)

Food advertising and marketing, industry regulation and self-regulation

Psychosocial• food norms, preferences• knowledge• attitudes • skills, supports• role models

Biological• age• gender• genes• physiology

Household environment and feeding practices,

incl. portion size

Parent/child care provider training and education

Individualized health careinterventions

Community and Organizational

Source: Orleans, 2007

Food price/taxes

BMI per Person

Target Population

DALYs Gross Cost

Net Cost

TV viewing 0.45 227,000 6,700 $54.6M -$2.1M

TV advertising 0.17 2.4 M 37000 $0.13M -$300M

Soft drinks 0.13 119,000 1,060 $3.3M -$5.2M

Family-based targeted program 1.7 5,800 2,700 $11M -$4.1M

Walking School Bus 0.03 16,000 30 $22.8M $22.6M

Targeted multi-faceted school-based 0.52 4,300 370 $0.56M -$0.08

Multi-faceted school-based +PE 1.1 115,000 8,000 $40.4M -$28.7M

Multi-faceted school-based –PE 0.31 115,000 1,600 $24.3M $11.2M

Active After-School 0.07 99,000 449 $40.3M $36.6M

Orlistat in adolescents 0.86 3,300 450 $6.4M $4.0M

Gastric Surgery (adolescents) 13.9 4,100 12,300 $130 M $55.0M

General practice counseling 0.25 9,700 511 $6.3M $3.0M

High Projected Population Impact – Projections from Australia

Source: Haby, Vos, Carter et al., 2006

Today’s Aims

• Review progress since 2005/6 IOM Report Food Marketing to Children and Youth and highlight new developments/cutting-edge research

• Prioritize research on children’s food marketing that will advance policies and practices to reduce youth exposure to unhealthy food marketing and activate the public, parents and youth – by 2015?!

• Outline ways to broaden our networking and collaboration across research, action and advocacy

Watershed

• Best bets (targets) for policies, practices, regulations or environmental changes able make a difference in children’s/adolescents’ food environments, norms,  diets, health and BMI?  reduce disparities/inequities in exposure to unhealthy  food marketing? short- and long-term impact?

• Best opportunities and approaches in next 4 years (e.g., research, action, advocacy, communication, consumer engagement, strategic alliances)?

• feasible and politically viable actions at federal, state and local levels

• sufficient evidence, advocacy, potential to spur consumer demand/coalition action?

• “Game changers?” (def: Nike’s systematic approach to programming to  increase movement worldwide)

• strategies that are relatively new, not well known or well exploited, powerful motivators, have high ROI, are relevant to large populations, are characterized by feedback loops, synergies, “win-win’s” and lend themselves to strategic alliances. (~ disruptive innovations?)

704/22/23