1. PS30129_11264
1
A critical analysis of whether the television advertising of ‘junk food’ to
children should be banned.
Introduction
‘Junk’ food can be defined as highly processed food of little nutritional value,
low in protein, minerals or vitamins and high in fat, salt, sugar and calories
(Mhaske and Patel 2013). The consumption of ‘junk’ food has been
associated with the onset of obesity, which the World Health Organisation
have noted to be one of the most serious public health challenges of the 21st
century (World Health Organisation 2016). It is not only adults who are
experiencing an increase in weight, however. There has also been an
alarming increase in the number of children medically classified as overweight
or obese in recent years. In 2015 the National Child Measurement
Programme showed that 33% of children aged ten and eleven, and almost
22% of children aged four and five, were overweight or obese (Public Health
England 2016). Changes regarding people’s relationship to food may be to
blame for such trends; overconsumption in particular has become a greater
issue due to food being more readily available, heavily advertised and in real
terms, much cheaper (Public Health England 2014). Youth exposure to Pepsi,
for example, has more then tripled for children and increased 146% for
teenagers (Harris and Graff 2012). This increase in consumption and its
associated health implications has led to the controversy over ‘junk’ food
advertising, and there maintains a debate between food campaigners, the
food industry and the government as to the extent to which televised ‘junk’
food advertising to children should be banned (Dixon et al 2007; Kelly et al
2010; Andreyeva et al 2011). This discussion will outline the key popular
debates concerning the impact of televised ‘junk’ food advertising on children,
drawing upon academic literature to critically analyse these claims and assess
in light of this evidence whether ‘junk’ food advertising to children should be
banned.
Contextualisation: United Kingdom
Since the turn of the 21st century, the advertising of ‘junk’ food to children has
been a topic heavily debated in policy discussions in the United Kingdom. In

2. PS30129_11264
2
November 2006, the broadcasting code OFCOM announced the ban of
television advertisements for ‘junk’ food in programs aimed at children below
the age of sixteen (OFCOM 2010). However, the food and drink federation
labelled the ban ‘over the top’; while health campaigners argued that the
restrictions were too lenient (BBC 2006).
Recently, there has been further pressure placed on the government in the
United Kingdom to act upon the increase in obesity and consumption of ‘junk’
foods, with Public Health England’s 2014 report on sugar reduction
suggesting that the government impose a price increase of at least 10% to
20% on high sugar products (Public Health England 2014; Public Health
England 2015). Shortly after the release of the report in 2015, Prime Minister
David Cameron quoted that he did not see a need for the price increase
(Donnelly 2015), but since stated he was not ruling out a sugar tax entirely.
Whilst chef and food activist Jamie Oliver proposed an online petition to
support the tax, which has evoked considerable public interest, gaining
150,000 signatures (Triggle 2015). Earlier this year, the sugar tax was
debated in the Houses of Parliament, with the tax agreed to commence in
2018 (Ruddick 2016) indicating that the attitudes of the British government
regarding ‘junk’ food are shifting.
Contextualisation: Worldwide
However, whilst the British government are only very recently considering the
impact of ‘junk’ food consumption on children, and have very tame laws
regarding its advertisement, Scandinavian countries have much stricter laws.
Sweden and Norway policy states that no television advertising may be
directed towards children under twelve, and no adverts at all are allowed
during children’s television programs (Matthews et al 2005). Moreover,
Quebec has also taken action to combat advertising to children, choosing to
prohibit any commercial advertising directed to children under the age of
thirteen (OPC 2012; Advertising Standards 2015). Not only is advertising to
children prohibited, but since 2006 the weight coalition in Quebec has taken
on the task of ensuring the rigorous application of the law by lodging
complaints against advertisements that seem directed at children.

3. PS30129_11264
3
Taking these policies towards food advertising into account, whilst it is
apparent that the United Kingdom is by no means alone in questioning the
legitimacy of ‘junk’ food advertising, the question must be raised as to whether
the United Kingdom is doing enough to prevent the affect of televised food
advertising to children.
Is ‘Junk’ Food Advertising on Television Empowering to Increasingly ‘Tech-
Savvy’ Children?
On the one hand, certain popular literature suggests that advertising ‘junk’
food to children is empowering since it informs their decision-making and
therefore there is no reason for it to be banned. Schor (2005) suggests that
children are increasingly ‘tech-savvy’ and are not easily manipulated. Whilst
children in the 1970s had rather limited abilities to understand and withstand
the influence of advertising, industry insiders now ignore and denigrate this
research on the grounds that it no longer applies. Lisa Judson of the
children’s television channel Nickelodeon says that ‘kids have a kind of truth
meter. They are able to tell when marketers are trying to trick them’ (n.d, as
cited in Schor 2005: 180). As such, industry spokespeople argue that children
do not need protection in their dealings with marketers, and that advertising
actually empowers children since it enriches their decision making process.
This argument is supported by academic text by Martin (1997), who
conducted a meta-analysis of twenty-one previous studies between 1972 and
the mid 1990s, and found an increase in the ability of younger children to
understand adverts. However, the correlation found in Martins (1997) study
was weak, and may have been due to changes in the way researchers have
measured children’s understanding.
Indeed, academic literature with more robust research strategies suggests
that while some children may have become more ‘tech-savvy’, it is certainly
not the case for all children. Rather, the relationship children have with ‘junk’
food consumer culture depends on the child as an individual. Academic
literature by Roedder (1981) indicates that the child’s age is crucial in

4. PS30129_11264
4
determining the extent to which they can understand the intent of adverts. He
suggests that children aged four and five may see adverts as entertainment
as opposed to persuasive selling techniques, but by the age of eight children
are aware that adverts are intended to sell products. Yet, there is dispute as
to whether these children are sceptical of advertising intent (Brucks et al
1988). By twelve years of age, Roedder (1981) suggests children’s cognitive
abilities are developed enough to make unaided assessments about what is
designed to entertain, and what is designed to persuade. However, there
remains debate over whether children above the age of twelve are truly
equipped with the skills to be critical of these adverts (Blatt et al 1972; Moses
and Baldwin 2005; Nairn and Dew 2007).
Furthermore, an academic study conducted by Lewis and Hill (1998)
suggested that the child’s weight plays a role in the influence of televised
‘junk’ food advertising. The results indicated that, rather than expressing
vulnerability to food advertising, overweight children appeared to accept and
reflect the personal enhancement messages that pervaded the commercials.
Overweight children felt healthier, as well as having a relative decrease in the
desire to eat sweets, after watching ‘junk’ food advertisements unlike their
normal weight peers.
Indeed, these claims are based on the assumption that a child’s age stage
and weight influence their ability to perceive and withstand advertising intent.
For this reason the banning of adverts to safeguard all children as a
precaution may be beneficial.
Does ‘Junk’ Food Advertising on Television Encourage Children to Trust and
Choose Unhealthy Brands?
Popular literature suggests that children exposed to ‘junk’ food adverts
become more trusting of the brands, and thus fail to think for themselves.
Such claims are grounded in the belief that children do not have the adequate
skills to resist ‘junk’ food advertising, and are thus particularly vulnerable to its
persuasion. Within a controlled study, Schor (2005) found that students
exposed to more advertisements to be more positive about the products

5. PS30129_11264
5
advertised. In addition, Bates (2011), a journalist for the Daily Mail, reports a
study of 281 children by Boyland (2011), that found children aged between six
and thirteen years exposed to commercials for high fat and high carbohydrate
food were more likely to choose unhealthy meals, as they learn to trust well
known brands and thus fail to make truly informed decisions, or consider the
consequences of their choices.
These claims by popular text are supported by academic literature by
Robertson and Rossiter (1974), who found within a study of 289 boys, that
almost 65% of six to seven year old child participants reported ‘trusting all
commercials’, and making their decisions based on this trust. Moreover,
Veerman et al (2009) found that reducing children’s exposure to television
food advertising from 80.5 minutes per week to 9 would likely reduce total
consumption of ‘junk’ food by 4.5%, due to children making their food choices
based on their own decisions, rather than implicit media prompts. In fact, they
note that as many as one in three obese children would not be obese in the
absence of food advertising on television (Veerman et al 2009).
This being said, Mehta et al (2010) found within a study of thirty-seven
children, that while participants were able to demonstrate complex critical
thinking skills through their articulation of concerns about the promotion of
unhealthy foods and distortions of truth, they were unable to put these into
practice. When exposed to ‘junk’ food advertisements, they were still more
likely to consume unhealthy food. This study indicates that while children may
possess skills necessary to resist advertising, its existence is still problematic
since children cannot actively execute these skills. Harris and Graff (2012)
argue the reasoning for this to be because, although children are often highly
sceptical of advertising and understand its intent, their brains are not
sufficiently developed to enable them to regularly inhibit impulsive behaviours
and resist immediate gratification for longer-term rewards, which is required to
successfully resist advertising for highly appealing, but unhealthy, ‘junk’ foods.
For this reason, regardless of whether advertising causes children to become
trusting or not, it appears to have a negative influence on their ‘junk’ food

6. PS30129_11264
6
consumption. In light of this evidence, a ban on ‘junk’ food advertising would
be beneficial.
‘Junk’ Food Advertising on Television: Considering Situational Circumstances
and Alternative Marketing Platforms
Popular literature has argued that, while television advertising may be
negative, there are certainly other aspects of children’s lives that influence
their consumption patterns. Ladner (2011) argues that children are more likely
to consume ‘junk’ food when their family’s finances are limited, and when
schools cannot afford the complex preparation tasks required to produce and
provide healthy foods. Indeed, it is well established that childhood obesity and
exposure to television is higher in lower income groups, for multiple reasons
(Power and Moynihan 1987; Viner et al 2005; BBC 2009).
Moreover, considering alternative marketing platforms that advertise ‘junk’
food to children is important to this debate. Popular literature by Schor (2005)
suggests that the complexities of modern life render the suggestion that
television alone influences children’s ‘junk’ food consumption as far too
simplistic. She claims that the relationship between parents, children and
marketers is a very entangled triangulation, with multiple ingredients aside
from television advertising playing a fundamental role. Further, she contends
that all three parties need to behave separately if the consumption of ‘junk’
food, and its affects on children, are to be reduced. The importance of
acknowledging alternative marketing platforms is addressed in a report by the
British Heart Foundation, which argues that the vague rules governing
advertising online allow companies to market ‘junk’ food to children, which are
prohibited during children’s television programs (British Heart Foundation
2011). With over 90% of children today having access to the Internet at home,
this alternative means by which ‘junk’ food can be advertised to children must
be recognised (Sheppard 2011). The banning of television advertising may
not be sufficient, since it fails to address situational circumstances or regulate
the alternative means by which ‘junk’ food can be advertised (Molloy 2014).

7. PS30129_11264
7
This claim is supported by Buckingham (2009), who has suggested that only
two per cent of the variation in children’s food choices is due to ‘junk’ food
television advertising. For this reason, he suggests that the focus of policy
should not be solely on ‘junk’ food television advertisements, but also on
significant other factors that arguably play an even greater role. According to
Buckingham (2009), such factors include the price of different foods, the
influence of parents, patterns of physical activity and the lack of outdoor play
areas. To focus too much attention on television advertising, Buckingham
therefore argues, may lead to the neglect of other, more important factors, in
children’s food consumption patterns.
Indeed, this argument is supported by academic literature from Lobstein and
Dibb (2005), who find that associations between food advertising and
overweight children to be mediated by more specific means. They suggest
that generalised marketing, such as advertising to parents and promotions to
children through the Internet, and non-specific socio-economic factors, such
as food pricing, food availability and cultural preferences, influence
consumption and lifestyle patterns of children; presenting evidence that whilst
advertising does have an affect on children, it cannot be seen as the sole
cause of obesogenic behaviour. Interestingly, Lobstein and Dibb (2005)
argue that the levels of overweight children in countries with low levels of
‘junk’ food advertising are still considerably higher than they were one or two
decades earlier, indicating that additional factors must bear responsibility.
While it is significant to note that the degree of television exposure children
experienced was not controlled for in this study, and therefore results are not
totally reliable, it is notable that further research has found similar results. In
fact, a study conducted by Dhar and Baylis (2011) in the Canadian
provenance of Quebec, explored the impact of banning ‘junk’ food advertising
targeted at children. The study found that the effectiveness of banning ‘junk’
food advertisements on television only occurred within samples of children
who were not exposed to additional media sources, such as online. They
suggested, therefore, that while exposure to ‘junk’ food advertising on
television played a significant role, other factors played into the consumption
of unhealthy foods. These claims are based on the recognition of the role of

8. PS30129_11264
8
situational circumstances and children’s engagement with multiple media
platforms that market ‘junk’ food, thus not only is their consumption influenced
by television advertising, but their circumstances and interaction with other
marketing platforms. From this perspective, it is arguable that the banning of
‘junk’ food advertisements on television alone would have little impact.
Conclusion
On the basis of the preceding discussion, ‘junk’ food advertising does appear
to influence children’s consumption of unhealthy foods in part. However, this
discussion has explored literature that indicates the importance of
acknowledging the child in question and the situational circumstances when
assessing the influence of televised ‘junk’ food advertising. Moreover, it also
became apparent that policy should address alternative marketing platforms
that advertise ‘junk’ food to children, particularly the growth of online
marketing. With this in mind, while the banning of ‘junk’ food advertisements
on television would be effective to some extent, alone it would not have
sufficient impact. For a ban to be worthwhile, it is vital to address a child’s
situational circumstances whilst also subjecting other marketing platforms to
strict regulation.

9. PS30129_11264
9
References
Advertising Standards. 2015. The Canadian Code of Advertising Standards.
[Online]. Available from:
http://www.adstandards.com/en/standards/canCodeOfAdStandards.aspx
[Accessed: 1/4/2016]
Andreyeva, T., Kelly, I.R. and Harris, J.L., 2011. Exposure to food advertising
on television: associations with children's fast food and soft drink consumption
and obesity. Economics & Human Biology, 9(3), pp.221-233.
Bates, D., 2011. Junk Food Adverts Really Do Make Children Hungry for
Unhealthy Meals, say Scientists [Online]. London: The Daily Mail. Available
from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2009128/Junk-food-adverts-
really-make-children-hungry-unhealthy-meals-say-scientists.html. [Accessed:
20th April 2016].
BBC. 2006. Reactions in Quotes: Ad Ban. [Online]. London: BBC. Available
from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6157956.stm [Accessed: 18/4/2016]
BBC. 2009. Child Obesity Trends ‘Suggest Class Divide is Emerging'. BBC
News. [Online]. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8412796.stm
[Accessed: 26/4/2016]
Blatt , J . , Spencer, L . and Ward , S . 1972. ‘ A cognitive developmental
study of children’s reactions to television advertising ’ , in Rubinstein, E.A.,
Comstock, G.A. and Murray, J.P . (ed) Television and Social Behavior , Vol. 4,
Television in Day-to-Day Life: Patterns of Use Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Washington , pp. 452 – 467
Boyland, E. 2011. Food commercials increase preference for energy-dense
foods, particularly in children who watch more television. Paediatrics. 128(1)

10. PS30129_11264
10
British Heart Foundation. 2011. The 21st Century Gingerbread House: How
companies are marketing Junk Food to Children Online. [Online]. Available
from: file:///Users/admin/Downloads/the-21st-century-gingerbread-house.pdf
[Accessed: 20/4/2016]
Brucks , M . , Armstrong , G . M . and Goldberg , M . E . 1988. ‘ Children’s
uses of cognitive defenses against television advertising: A cognitive
response approach ’. Journal of Consumer Research , Vol. 14 (March), pp.
471 – 482 .
Buckingham, D., 2009. The Impact of the Commercial World on Children's
Wellbeing: Report of an Independent Assessment. Nottingham: Department
for children, schools and families, (DCSF-00669-2009)
Dhar, T., and Baylis, K., 2011. Fast-Food Consumption and the Ban on
advertising Targeting Children: The Quebec Experience. Journal of Marketing
Research, 48 (5), pp. 799-813.
Dixon, H.G., Scully, M.L., Wakefield, M.A., White, V.M., and Crawford, D.A.
2007. The effects of television advertisements for junk food versus nutritious
food on children’s food attitudes and preferences. Social Science and
Medicine. 65(7), pp.1311-1323
Donnelly, L. 2015. Revealed: ‘Sugar tax report’ which was suppressed by
Government. The Telegraph. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11947892/Revealed-Sugar-tax-
report-which-was-suppressed-by-Government.html [Accessed: 19/4/2016]
Harris, J. L., and Graff, S. K., 2012. Protecting Young People From Junk Food
Advertising: Implications of Psychological Research for First Amendment Law.
American Journal of Public Health, 102 (2), pp.214-222.
Kelly, B., Halford, J.C., Boyland, E.J., Chapman, K., Bautista-Castaño, I.,
Berg, C., Caroli, M., Cook, B., Coutinho, J.G., Effertz, T. and Grammatikaki,

11. PS30129_11264
11
E., 2010. Television food advertising to children: a global perspective.
American Journal of Public Health, 100(9), pp.1730-1736.
Ladner, P., 2011. The Urban Food Revolution: Changing the Way We Feed
Cities. Canada: New Society Publishers.
Lewis, M. K., and Hill, A. J., 1998. Food advertising on British children's
television: a content analysis and experimental study with nine-year olds.
International Journal of Obesity Related Metabolic Disorders, 22 (3). pp. 206-
214.
Lobstein, T., and Dibb, S., 2005. Evidence of a possible link between
obesogenic food advertising and child overweight. Obesity Reviews, 6 (3),
pp.203- 208.
Martin, M., 1997. Children's Understanding of the Intent of Advertising: A
Meta-Analysis. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 16 (2), pp.205-216.
Matthews, A., Cowburn, G., Rayner, M., Longfield, J., and Powell, C. 2005.
The marketing of unhealthy food to children in Europe: A report of phase 1 of
the 'children, obesity and associated avoidable chronic diseases' project.
[Online]. Available from: http://www.epha.org/IMG/pdf/English.pdf [Accessed:
23/4/2016]
Mehta, K., Coveney, J., Ward, P., Margarey, A., Spirrier, N., and Udell, T.,
2010. Australian children's views about food advertising on television.
Appetite, 55 (1), pp. 49-55.
Mhaske, S., and Patel, P. 2013. Bye Bye Junk Food. International Journal of
Food, Nutrition and Dietics. 1(2), pp 55-56
Molloy, A. 2014. Children being targeted by junk food ads during family
television shows, research finds. The Independent. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/children-being-targeted-

12. PS30129_11264
12
by-junk-food-ads-during-family-television-shows-research-finds-9207196.html
[Accessed: 20/4/2016]
Moses , L . J . and Baldwin , D . A . 2005. ‘ What can the study of cognitive
development reveal about children’s ability to appreciate and cope with
advertising? ’. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing. Vol. 24 (2), pp. 186 –
201 .
Nairn, A., and Dew, A., 2007. Pop-ups, pop-unders, banners and buttons: The
ethics of on-line advertising to primary school children. Journal of Direct, Data
and Digital Marketing Practice, 9 (1). pp.30-46.
OFCOM. 2010. HFSS Advertising Restrictions: Final Review. [Online].
Available from: http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/tv-
research/hfss-review-final.pdf [Accessed: 19/4/2016]
OPC. 2012. OFFICE DE LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR:
Advertising directed at children under 13 years of age guide to the application
of sections 248 and 249 consumer protection act. [Online]. Available from:
https://www.opc.gouv.qc.ca/fileadmin/media/documents/consommateur/sujet/
publicite-pratique-illegale/EN_Guide_publicite_moins_de_13_ans_vf.pdf
[Accessed: 3/4/2016]
Power, C. and Moynihan, C., 1987. Social class and changes in weight-for-
height between childhood and early adulthood. International Journal of
Obesity, 12(5), pp.445-453.
Public Health England. 2014. Sugar Reduction: Responding to the Challenge.
[Online]. Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
324043/Sugar_Reduction_Responding_to_the_Challenge_26_June.pdf
[Accessed: 10/4/2016]

13. PS30129_11264
13
Public Health England. 2015. Sugar Reduction: The Evidence for Action.
[Online]. Available from:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/
470179/Sugar_reduction_The_evidence_for_action.pdf [Accessed: 18/4/2016]
Public Health England. 2016. Child Obesity. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.noo.org.uk/NOO_about_obesity/child_obesity [Accessed:
22/4/2016]
Robertson, T. S., and Rossiter, J. R., 1974. Children and Commercial
Persuasion: An Attribution Theory Analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 1
(1), pp. 13-20.
Roedder , D . L . 1981. ‘ Age differences in children’s responses to television
advertising: An information processing approach ’. Journal of Consumer
Research. Vol. 8 (September), pp. 144 – 153 .
Ruddick, G. 2016. Drinks makers Consider Legal Action against Sugar Tax.
The Guardian. [Online]. Available from:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/mar/20/drinks-makers-consider-
legal-action-against-sugar-tax-budget [Accessed: 23/4/2016]
Schor, J. 2005. Born To Buy: ‘Empowered or Seduced?’ The Debate About
Marketing and Advertising to Kids. Ch.9. New York, London, Toronto,
Sydney: Scribner.
Sheppard, P. 2011. Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report.
[Online]. Available from:
http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binaries/research/media-
literacy/oct2011/Children_and_parents.pdf [Accessed: 23/4/2016]
Triggle, N. 2015. Be Bold on Sugar Tax, Jamie Oliver says. BBC News.
[Online]. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34576006
[Accessed: 18/4/2016]

14. PS30129_11264
14
Veerman, J. L., Van Beeck, E. F., Barendregt, J. J., and Mackenbach, J. P.,
2009. By how much would limiting TV food advertising reduce childhood
obesity? The European Journal of Public Health, 19 (4), pp.365 -369.
Viner, R.M. and Cole, T.J., 2005. Television viewing in early childhood
predicts adult body mass index. The Journal of Paediatrics, 147(4), pp.429-
435.
World Health Organisation. 2016. Childhood Overweight and Obesity.
[Online]. Available from: http://www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/childhood/en/
[Accessed: 22/4/2016]