Date post: | 22-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Food Marketing Quiz
How much per year is spent on food & beverage marketing directed to children & youth?
a.$500 millionb.$1 billionc.$5 billiond.$10 billion
Food Marketing Quiz
At what age can children differentiate advertising from program content on television?
a. 2 yearsb. 4 yearsc. 6 yearsd. 8 years
At what age do children understand the persuasive intent of advertising?
a. 4 yearsb. 6 yearsc. 8 yearsd. 10 years
Growth in New Food Products Targeted to U.S. Children and
Youth 1994 to 2004
New products targeted to total market
New products targeted to children & youth
Source: Williams J. 2005b. Product Proliferation Analysis for New Food and Beverage Products Targeted to Children, 1994–2004. University of Texas at Austin Working Paper.
Policy History
Tobacco • Surgeon General’s Report -1964• Labels and Warnings – within weeks• TV & Radio Advertising – Banned by Law in 1970
1971 FTC (Sweets and Cavities)• Rules proposed to ban ads for children <8• Congress intervenes to hold back FTC• CARU formed 1974
1990s• Alarming rise in Obesity
Committee Timeline- Congress asks CDC to study Food
Marketing and Children’s Diets- CDC commissions National Academy
of Science/Institute of Medicine- IOM Committee Formed- Committee Works Tirelessly (for
FREE!)- Press Release- Book in Print- $2,000,000,000 lawsuit
- Policy? E.g., Law, Monitoring body, etc.??
2004 SpringSummerFall
2005 Winter Spring
SummerFall
2006 Winter Spring
SummerFall
2007 2008
Main Committee Charge
Comprehensive evidence based review of what is known about:
The causal influence of food and beverage marketing on the diets and diet-related health outcomes of children and youth
Committee Work
15 Committee members
2 - ½ time IOM staff members
4 (2 ½ day) Meetings
Subgroups:• Diet• Marketing• Ecological Model• Evidence Review• Public Policy
6 months – almost weekly conference calls
Systematic Evidence Review
• explicit criteria for study inclusion
• explicit criteria for study relevance, ratings, etc.
• replicable
Study Inclusion
1. Only Peer-reviewed, published research
2. English
3. Any country
4. Any date
5. Only original research, no review articles
6. Only research that reports a quantitative relationship between a variable involving marketing, and a variable involving either a pre-cursor to diet, diet, or diet-related health
Dimensions for Study Evaluation:• Sample size, year published, population studied• Cause variable, effect variable• Research Method• Statistically significant association between
cause variable and effect variable?• Strength of evidence for causation
(Causal Inference Validity)• Quality of Measures• Generalizability (Ecological Validity)
Causal Framework Used for the Systematic Evidence Review
Mediators/Precursors
Food & Beverage Preferences, Beliefs,
Purchase Requests
Diet
Short--Term Consumption
Usual Dietary Intake
Diet ---Related Health Outcomes
Adiposity, Other
Moderators
Age, SES, Gender,Race/Ethnicity
Marketing
Product, Place,
Price, Promotion
Cause Variable, Effect Variable• Cause variable, e.g.:
– TV ad exposure– Product Placement in Film– Print Ad exposure– Radio Ad exposure
• Effect variable, e.g.,:– Food Preferences– Food Purchase requests– Short-term consumption– Adiposity
Research Method
• CS (cross-sectional)• Exp (randomized trial)• Exp-N (natural experiment)• L-Pnl (longitudinal study – panel)• L-Trnd (longitudinal study – trend)
Statistical Significance
Cause _||_ Effect | Measured Covariates
E.g., in a regression
BMI = 21.7 + .52*TVhours/day - .64*Mother’s Education
P-value = .0074
Strength of Evidence for Causation:
Experimental studies
• Randomized Assignment of Treatment
• High Quality Measures
• If dropout - not associated with treatment
Strength of Evidence for Causation:
Experimental studies
Cause Effect
Cause Effect
Cause Effect
Confounder
I
I
I
Evidence: Causeset _||_ Effect
Causeset _||_ Effect
Causeset _||_ Effect
Causeset _||_ Effect
Strength of Evidence for Causation:
Observational studies
• Quality Measures
• All potential confounders measured (well) and appropriately controlled for statistically,
• Reverse causation can be eliminated, perhaps by time-order
Strength of Evidence for Causation:
Observational studies
Cause Effect
Cause Effect
Cause Effect
Unmeasured Confounder
Measured Confounder
Cause Effect
Measured Confounder
Measured Confounder
Evidence: Cause _||_ Effect | Measured Confounders
Cause _||_ Effect | Measured Confounders
Cause _||_ Effect | Measured Confounders
Cause _||_ Effect | Measured Confounders
Cause _||_ Effect | Measured Confounders
Strength of Evidence for Causation:
Observational studiesCause _||_ Effect | Measured Confounders
Good Evidence for causation if:
Cause Effect
Cause Effect
Cause Effect
Unmeasured Confounder
Measured Confounder
Cause Effect
Measured Confounder
Measured Confounder
• Effect not prior to cause
• All confounders measured well
Measurement
• Validity – measure directly and accurately measures what it is intended to measure
• Reliability – same measurement technique applied repeatedly, yields same outcome
• Precision – fineness vs. coarseness of measure
Ecological Validity
Generalizability:
Similarity of observational conditions to real-life.
E.g., - after-school lab study vs. survey
Results
1.Tabular Overview of Evidence
Base2. Marketing Precursors
3. Marketing Diet
4. Marketing Health
Results
1. Tabular Overview of Evidence Base
2.Marketing Precursors3. Marketing Diet
4. Marketing Health
TV Ads and Purchase Requests
• (Young 2-5): Strong evidence for causation• (OC 6-11) Moderate evidence for causation• (Teens 12-18) Weak/Insufficient for causation
Results
1. Tabular Overview of Evidence Base
2. Marketing Precursors
3.Marketing Diet4. Marketing Health
Results: Short-term Consumption
• (Young 2-5): Strong evidence for causation• (OC 6-11) Strong evidence for causation• (Teens 12-18) No evidence
Results: Usual Dietary Consumption
• (Young 2-5): Moderate evidence for causation• (OC 6-11) Weak evidence for causation• (Teens 12-18) Weak/Insufficient against causation
– (not including French, et al., study on vending machine price
Results
1. Tabular Overview of Evidence Base
2. Marketing Precursors
3. Marketing Diet
4.Marketing Health
Results: Summary
• TV Ads Precursors (esp. for young children)
• TV Ads Short-term consumption (esp. for YC)
• TV Ads Usual Diet (???)
• Moderate evidence for YC
• Weak for OC
• Weak against for teens
• Marketing Health (???)
• TV Ads _||_ Obesity : strong evidence
• TV Ads Obesity: insufficient evidence
Results
• ONLY TV Ads studied – marketing much broader
• Only effects of ads for high-calorie, low nutrition foods studied
• Effects of ads for healthy foods – virtually unstudied!
Lawsuit
Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)
vs. Viacom, Kellog
Charge: Unfair and deceptive advertising and marketing to children under 8
Request: $1 billion each
Committee on Food Marketing and the Diets of Children and
YouthJ. Michael McGinnis (Chair),
Institute of MedicineDaniel Anderson, University
of Massachusetts, AmherstJ. Howard Beales III, George
Washington UniversityDavid Britt, Sesame
Workshop (retired)Sandra Calvert, Georgetown
UniversityKeith Darcy, Ethics Officer
AssociationAimee Dorr, University of
California, Los AngelesLloyd Kolbe, University of
Indiana
Dale Kunkel, University of Arizona
Paul Kurnit, Kurnit Communications & KidShop
Robert Post, Yale Law SchoolRichard Scheines, Carnegie
Mellon University Frances Seligson,
Pennsylvania State University
Mary Story, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
Ellen Wartella, University of California, Riverside
Jerome Williams, University of Texas, Austin
Co-study Directors: Jennifer Gootman and Vivica Kraak
For more information. . .
Read about the project and download fact sheets
at: www.iom.edu
The book is available at: www.nap.edu
Download the executive summary free . . .