Advertising of fast food to children on Australian television: the impact of industry self-regulation

One of the key recommendations of the National Preventative Health Taskforce1 was that children’s exposure to advertising of unhealthy foods should be reduced. This was because of the negative impact this advertising had on children’s food preferences and consumption, and potentially on children’s weight status.2 In response, the federal government recommended that the Taskforce continue to monitor the impact of self-regulation by food and advertising industries before the government took any further action.3 However, recent evidence has indicated that self-regulation is inadequate in protecting Australian children from the harmful effects of junk-food advertising.4,5

In Australia, statutory guidelines (the children’s television standards) regulate the use of promotions, popular characters and unsuitable material during time periods dedicated to children’s television programs.6 However, these standards do not regulate the types of foods that may be advertised to children (with the exception of alcohol), and do not apply during times when the highest numbers of children are viewing.6,7 Recent self-regulatory initiatives for responsible advertising to children, introduced by food and advertising industries, have provided some specifications for the types of foods and marketing techniques they consider appropriate for advertising to children and for defining child audiences.8,9 However these specifications are poorly defined, highly permissive, and are voluntary for food manufacturers and services.5,10

The most recent self-regulatory initiative, the Australian Quick Service Restaurant Industry (QSRI) Initiative for Responsible Advertising and Marketing to Children,8 specifies that fast-food companies (ie, quick-service restaurants) should “ensure that only food and beverages that represent healthier choices are promoted directly to children . . .”.8 The QSRI initiative began in August 2009 with seven signatories: Chicken Treat, Hungry Jack’s, KFC, McDonald’s, Oporto, Pizza Hut and Red Rooster.8 These companies agreed that in advertising to children under 14 years of age, they would only advertise products that represent healthier choices (as determined by a defined set of nutrition criteria for assessing children’s meals), and/or represent a healthy lifestyle in advertisements directed primarily to children.8

We aimed to measure the impact of the QSRI initiative on the rates of fast-food advertising on Australian commercial television; identify the types of fast foods advertised in terms of their nutritional value; and estimate the likely energy contribution to children’s diets of children’s meals advertised by fast-food companies.

Sampled fast-food advertisements comprised those promoting healthier alternatives (at least one core food advertised), non-core foods, or other (company brand or specific promotion only) (Box 1).

The mean number of advertisements per hour for all foods, each food category, and each fast-food category are shown in Box 2, with the IRR comparing 2009 with 2010. The mean frequency of total food advertisements increased significantly from 6.0 per hour in 2009 to 6.3 per hour in 2010. However, changes in food advertising varied across food categories; excluding fast-food advertising, the rate of advertisements for non-core foods (ie, sugared beverages and confectionery) decreased while advertising for miscellaneous foods rose, and that for core foods remained the same (Box 2).

From 2009 to 2010, the rate of fast-food advertisements increased significantly. Box 2 also shows that the mean frequency of non-core fast-food advertisements was constant from 2009 to 2010; this was also the case during children’s peak viewing times (1.3 per hour). However, relative to all fast-food advertising, the rate of non-core fast-food advertisements decreased significantly (Box 2). This occurred with an increase in the rate of fast-food advertisements promoting healthier alternatives and those promoting other aspects (Box 2).

We measured the impact of the QSRI initiative on overall rates of television advertising for fast food as a gauge of children’s exposure to fast-food advertising; our study was not designed to examine industry’s compliance.

Since the self-regulatory QSRI initiative came into effect, fast-food advertising on television increased overall. Despite this, the rate of non-core fast-food advertising decreased; although this was likely an artefact of an increase in the relative share of fast-food advertisements for healthier alternatives, and “other” advertisements (ie, company brand or specific promotions). To illustrate, in 2009, non-core fast-food advertising comprised 93% of total fast-food advertising, compared with 67% in 2010. Regardless, the observed decrease in non-core fast-food advertising was predominantly from companies not signed to the QSRI initiative (84% decrease, versus 17% for QSRI-initiative signatory companies), and the frequency of advertisements for non-core fast foods remained the same during times when most children were watching television.

The limited impact of the QSRI initiative on children’s exposure to fast-food advertising is likely due to limitations in the specifications of the initiative, as is the case for the Australian Food and Grocery Council’s Responsible Children’s Marketing Initiative.5,9 One key limitation is the narrow range of fast-food advertisements the QSRI initiative potentially applies to, that is, only those advertisements deemed by industry to be directed primarily to children.

Another reason for the limited impact of the QSRI initiative is that it applies nutrient criteria only to children’s meals — a small segment of fast-food advertising. Based on our definition of a children’s meal, only four of the 21 unique fast-food advertisements in the 2010 sample period were for a children’s meal. Three of these were family meals, found to contain energy far in excess of children’s requirements. However, as the QSRI initiative only applies to advertisements directed primarily to children, these family meals may not be subject to any nutritional assessment under this initiative, even though the food is clearly intended for children’s consumption.

Arguably, a responsible marketing approach would apply restrictions to a wider range of foods that children actually consume (not just designated children’s meals), and apply to all advertisements that children are likely to be exposed to, and not just those deemed by industry to be directed to children.

The ambiguity of industry specifications, as well as the narrow approach of the QSRI initiative, underlines the rationale for the World Health Organization recommendations for governments to set clear definitions for policies on food advertising to children, to facilitate uniform implementation, monitoring and evaluation.18

The finding that the rate of advertisements for the company brand or branded promotions increased is also of some concern, as children recognise branded fast foods more easily than other branded foods, and may prefer branded, over unbranded, fast foods.19,20 Hence, consideration should also be given to restricting the use of branded promotions, particularly where the advertised company’s menu is predominantly for non-core foods. However, these variations in the focus of fast-food advertisements, targetting multiple products or simply the brand, pose a challenge for monitoring and regulatory systems.

Finally, we found that fast-food advertisements promoting healthier alternatives still promoted some non-core foods (Box 1). This use of references to foods that are additional to the main product being advertised has been recognised in previous literature.15

A limitation of this study is the short periods over which we collected advertising data. However, these sample periods were within comparable seasons and excluded holidays and special events. Previous research has also found no significant differences in the proportion of advertisements for foods between 1-week and 4-day samples.4 However, when focusing on non-core fast-food advertisements by company type, we found that smaller sample sizes resulted in large confidence intervals.

We recognise that children’s energy requirements will vary between individuals, but age, sex and physical activity level were all considered in energy calculations, based on current literature and data for the Australian population.16,17

We found no difference between the number of non-core fast-food advertisements viewed by children in the sample periods before and after the introduction of the QSRI initiative. This is of concern, given that numerous systematic reviews have found that children’s exposure to advertising of unhealthy foods negatively influences their intake, purchase requests, and potentially their health outcomes.2,21 The frequent advertising for non-core fast foods found in this study continues to promote excessive energy intake and increased risk of weight gain.22,23

The limitations of current industry-based self-regulatory initiatives that are illustrated in our study reinforce the recommendations of the World Health Organization on the need for government leadership to set the policy framework and key definitions for restrictions on food marketing to children.18

3 Contribution of fast-food meals advertised for children’s consumption in 2009 and 2010 to energy requirements for boys and girls aged 4, 8 and 12 years

* Chicken nuggets (6), fruit bag (60 g) and apple juice (250 mL). † Chicken nuggets (6), fruit bag (60 g) and milk (236 mL). ‡ Seared chicken snack wrap, fruit bag (60 g) and chocolate flavoured milk (250 mL). § Cheeseburger (2), Big Mac (2), chicken nuggets (6), regular fries (4), regular soft drink (4); total energy divided by 4. ¶ Grand Angus burger (1), Big Mac (1), Quarter Pounder (2), chicken nuggets (6), regular fries (4), regular soft drink (4); total energy divided by 4. ** Fried chicken pieces (10) and large fries (2); total energy divided by 4. †† Adjusted for age and sex.