Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-frvt8 Total loading time: 1.364 Render date: 2022-10-01T21:23:56.442Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Socio-economic differences in exposure to television food advertisements in the UK: a cross-sectional study of advertisements broadcast in one television region

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 August 2011

Jean Adams*
Affiliation:
Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clarke Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4AX, UK
Rachel Tyrrell
Affiliation:
Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clarke Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4AX, UK Human Nutrition Research Centre, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Ashley J Adamson
Affiliation:
Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clarke Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4AX, UK Human Nutrition Research Centre, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Martin White
Affiliation:
Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Baddiley-Clarke Building, Richardson Road, Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4AX, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Email j.m.adams@ncl.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

To document socio-economic differences in exposure to food advertising, including advertisements for foods high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) as defined by the UK Food Standards Agency's Nutrient Profiling Model.

Design

A cross-sectional survey. Information (including product advertised and viewing figures) on all advertisements broadcast in one UK region over one week (6–12 July 2009) was obtained. Food advertisements were identified and linked to nutritional information on the content of advertised foods.

Setting

UK Tyne-Tees television region.

Subjects

Data were sourced from a UK-wide television viewing panel.

Results

Eleven per cent of advertising seen was for food and 63 % of food advertising seen was for HFSS foods. The proportion of all advertising seen that was for food was smaller among viewers in the least v. most affluent social grade (OR = 0·98, 99 % CI 0·95, 1·00). There was no difference in the proportion of food advertising seen that was for HFSS food between viewers in the most and least affluent social grades. Total exposure to both all food advertising and HFSS food advertising was 2·1 times greater among the least v. the most affluent viewers.

Conclusions

While the least affluent viewers saw relatively fewer food advertisements, their absolute exposure to all food and HFSS food advertisements was higher than that of the most affluent viewers. Current UK restrictions prohibit advertisements for HFSS foods during programmes with a high proportion of child viewers. Extending these to all programming may reduce socio-economic inequalities in exposure to these advertisements and in diet and obesity.

Type
Research paper
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2011

Concern about food advertising has increased in recent years(Reference Nestle14). Numerous content analyses have documented that the foods promoted on television, in magazines and in outdoor public spaces are strongly biased towards foods that are not considered to make a major contribution to a healthful diet, particularly those that tend to be high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS)(Reference Hastings, Stead and McDermott5Reference Kelly, Cretikos and Rogers15). Two large reviews have now concluded that food promotion influences children's food preferences, purchasing requests and consumption(Reference Cairns, Angus and Hastings16, Reference McGinnis, Goolman and Kraak17). Less information on the effect of food advertising on the preferences and consumption of adults is available. However, recent work has found that the eating behaviour of adults is also affected by exposure to food advertisements(Reference Harris, Bargh and Brownell18), suggesting that advertising for less healthy foods is a threat to the health of the whole population, and not just that of children.

Food advertising is, therefore, thought to be part of the causal web responsible for the increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity in children, and adults, in high-income countries(Reference Butland, Jebb and Kopelman19). In response to these findings, regulation of television food advertising has now been introduced in a number of countries(Reference Kelly, King and Bauman20). In the UK, regulations on the scheduling and content of television food advertising to children were phased in between April 2007 and January 2009(21). The scheduling restrictions prohibit advertisements for HFSS foods (those defined as ‘less healthy’ by the Food Standards Agency's Nutrient Profiling Model(Reference Rayner, Scarborough and Boxer22)) on children's channels and during or around programmes on other channels with high proportions of viewers aged 4–15 years.

Alongside the increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity in high-income countries is a consistent finding of socio-economic differences in the prevalence of these conditions. Individuals with less education, lower incomes and living in more deprived neighbourhoods tend to have higher rates of overweight and obesity(Reference Craig and Mindell23). These inequalities are likely to be due to differences in exposure to the environmental determinants of overweight and obesity (i.e. all non-genetic determinants) – including food advertising. Very little published work has explored socio-economic differences in exposure to food advertising, but that which has confirms that less affluent individuals tend to have greater exposure to advertising for less healthy foods than more affluent individuals. In the UK, an analysis of weekly women's magazines found that foods advertised in magazines with less affluent readerships tended to have a less healthy nutritional profile – with higher fat, saturated fat, sugar and Na content(Reference Adams and White8). Furthermore, an analysis of food advertisements seen by US children found that food advertisements seen by black children were more likely to be high in fat, sugar or Na (compared with national dietary recommendations) than those seen by white children(Reference Powell, Szczypka and Chaloupka24). While race is not an ideal proxy for socio-economic position, black individuals in the US do tend to be less affluent than white individuals(Reference Krieger, Williams and Moss25).

Using data collected after full implementation of the new scheduling and content restrictions on television food advertising to children, we explored socio-economic differences in exposure to television food advertising in the UK, as well as socio-economic differences in the type and nutritional content of advertised foods.

Methods

Broadcast data

In the UK, a small number of channels have regional variants, while most are broadcast nationally. Information on all advertisements broadcast on all channels in one broadcast region, the Tyne Tees region, of the UK during one week, six months after the introduction of the final phase of the new UK scheduling restrictions (6–12 July 2009), was obtained from an audience research bureau (Attentional, Taunton, UK). These data included information on what was advertised, as well as an indicator of the number of viewers aged 4 years and older (television ratings; TVR) of each advertisement, overall and in four social grades. The TVR is the proportion of individuals who live in a household with equipment to receive each advertisement that watched the advertisement.

TVR data were calculated by Attentional from a UK-wide panel of households selected via a multistage, stratified design to ensure representativeness of all households with televisions across the UK in terms of means of television reception, a marker of life stage (pre-family, young family, older family, post-family and retired) and social grade (described below). Panel households, and individual members, receive credits in exchange for participation that can be exchanged for a variety of rewards including high-street shopping vouchers, day trips and household equipment. When a household agrees to join the panel, all television equipment in their home is connected to an electronic monitor that determines what (e.g. television or DVD; television channel) is being shown on each device. All household members and their guests register their presence when in a room in which a television set is on by pressing the button allocated to them on a handset that accompanies each monitored device. Whenever a panel member leaves a room they de-register their presence using the same handset.

The number of households with equipment to receive each channel varies between channels broadcast on different platforms (e.g. terrestrial, cable, satellite) and across channels with regional variants. TVR for channels with regional variants were based on a panel of viewers in the Tyne Tees region (n 496), while those for channels broadcast nationally on terrestrial television and other platforms were based on panels of viewers across the UK (n 11 903 for terrestrial television; n 11 192 for other platforms). These panels are nested within each other such that all members of the North East and national ‘other platform’ panels are also members of the national terrestrial platform panel.

Social grades were assigned using the occupation of the chief income earner in the household in which viewers lived according to the National Readership Survey (NRS) classification system. Social grades AB, C1, C2 and DE represent higher and middle managerial, administrative and professional; supervisors, clerical, junior managerial, administrative and professional; skilled manual; and semi- and unskilled manual occupations, respectively. The NRS classification system also assigns retired people and those reliant on state benefits to social grade DE (http://www.nrs.co.uk/lifestyle.htm).

Nutritional data

All advertisements for food and drink (collectively referred to as ‘food’) were identified. We excluded advertisements for alcoholic beverages, food supplements and supermarkets, but included those for fast-food chains.

In order to explore the nutritional content and HFSS status of advertised foods, information on the fruit and vegetable and nutritional content of advertised foods was collected in August–September 2009. Our preference was to use nutritional information from packaging and manufacturers’ websites and customer care lines. When this was not available, we relied on supermarket websites and customer care lines. When no other sources of nutritional information were available, we used nearest product matches in standard food table data(Reference Holland, Unwin and Buss26Reference Chan, Brown and Church34) (in 1084 of 91 518 (1·2 %) of food advertisements). We did not mix nutritional information data sources within individual foods, leading to some missing data when, for instance, information on some, but not all, of the nutrients of interest were displayed on packaging. Nutritional data were used to calculate the energy density (kJ/100 g); percentage of energy derived from carbohydrate, sugars, fat, saturated fat and protein; fibre and Na density (g/MJ); and, alongside information on fruit and vegetable content, the HFSS status of each food advertised.

As the analysis was conducted at the level of the individual advertisement, it was necessary to have a single ‘set’ of nutritional information for each food advertisement. However, in some cases, the information in the broadcast data set was not detailed enough to identify a single product (e.g. Branston Relish listed but six varieties of this product exist). This situation occurred in 38 495 of 91 518 (42·1 %) of food advertisements. Following comparison with a sample of advertisements from one channel (ITV1 – the most viewed commercial channel in the UK) we had recorded on DVD, we established this occurred when a range of products was shown (e.g. all varieties of Branston Relish), a single product was shown (e.g. Branston Hot Chilli and Jalapeno Relish) but this detail was not included in the broadcast data set, or no food products were shown (e.g. only a food brand logo shown or an advertisement was for a fast-food chain rather than a specific product). Using the broadcast data set alone, it was impossible to distinguish between these scenarios. In all these cases, we attempted to impute nutritional data on the top-selling product in the relevant brand range over the four weeks following broadcast of the advertisement (data provided by TNS (London, UK), a market research company). Where TNS did not have market share data (primarily food sold ready to eat by fast-food chains) or a multi-flavour pack was the top seller, the mean nutritional content of all products in the full range or multi-flavour pack, weighted according to relative pack (or suggested portion) size, was calculated and used. Thus the nutritional information attached to advertisements that were labelled solely with the name of a fast-food chain in the broadcast data set was a weighted mean of the nutritional content of all products sold by that chain.

In order to explore the types of food advertised, the single products attached to each food advertisement (as described above) were grouped into food categories. We used the five categories in the UK Food Standards Agency's ‘Eatwell plate’(35) plus two additional categories (see Table 2 for full list of categories) as this is a well-known, policy-relevant classification tool. Advertisements for fast-food chains were categorised as ‘meals, combination foods, soups & sauces’.

Statistical analysis

To derive a measure of ‘exposure’ to advertising and take into account the varying audience size and length of different advertisements, person-minute-views (PMV) for each advertisement were calculated by multiplying the total number of people watching by the length of each advertisement, in minutes. The total number of people watching any advertisement was calculated by converting TVR data from percentages to proportions (i.e. dividing by 100) and multiplying the result by the number of panel members for the relevant channel. Thus, one PMV equates to one panel member watching one advertisement lasting 1 min, two panel members watching one advertisement lasting 30 s, or one panel member watching three advertisements lasting 20 s, etc.

Total minutes viewed per person per week (MVPW) were also estimated by dividing the total PMV for viewers in each social grade by the number of terrestrial television panel members in that social grade. As viewing panels for different platforms are nested within each other (see above), there is no clear ‘denominator’ (e.g. total panel size that refers to all platforms combined) that could be used in these calculations and so we used the size of the terrestrial television panel as our ‘best guess’ for this figure.

For each social grade, we calculated the number and proportion of advertising PMV and MVPW that were for food, and the number and proportion of all advertising and food advertising PMV and MVPW that were for HFSS foods. Proportions among viewers in social grades C1, C2 and DE were compared with those in social grade AB using odds ratios (and 99 % confidence intervals). The distribution of food advertising PMV and MVPW across food categories was calculated and distributions among viewers in social grades C1, C2 and DE were compared with that in social grade AB using the χ 2 test. Average nutritional content of food advertisements, weighted according to PMV, was described using medians (and interquartile ranges) as the distributions of all nutritional metrics were noticeably skewed.

In order to minimise the risk of type 1 statistical error, a P value of <0·01 was used to indicate statistical significance throughout. All analyses were conducted using the STATA statistical software package version 11·0 (StataCorp., College Station, TX, USA).

Results

A total of 207 channels broadcast 607 867 advertisements during the study period. Of these, 91 518 (15·1 %) were food advertisements and 60 600 were for HFSS foods (66·2 % of food advertisements; 10·0 % of all advertisements). A total of 975 278 PMV of advertisements, 135 753 PMV of food advertisements (13·9 % of PMV for all advertisements) and 85 143 PMV of advertisements for HFSS foods (62·7 % of PMV for food advertisements; 8·7 % of PMV for all advertisements) were made by members of the viewing panel (Table 1). The proportion of all advertising seen that was for food was smaller among viewers in social grade DE than those in social grade AB (OR = 0·98; 99 % CI 0·95, 1·00), while the proportion of food advertising seen that was for HFSS foods was higher in viewers in social grade C1 than in those in social grade AB (OR = 1·05; 99 % CI 1·00, 1·10). There were no clear trends in either metric across social grades and the magnitude of these differences was small. However, total MVPW of advertisements, food advertisements and HFSS food advertisements increased progressively across social grades from social grade AB to DE. Viewers in social grade DE saw, on average, more than twice as much advertising, food advertising and HFSS food advertising than those in social grade AB.

Table 1 Exposure to television advertisements, food advertisements and HFSS food advertisements by social grade, UK, July 2009Footnote *

HFSS, high fat, salt or sugar; PMV, person-minute-views; MVPW, minute-views per person per week.

* Estimated by National Readership Survey (see: http://www.nrs.co.uk/lifestyle.htm).

Odds ratio of an advertising PMV being for food in each social class compared with social class AB.

Odds ratio of a food advertising PMV being for an HFSS food in each social class compared with social class AB.

The most frequently represented food categories that food advertisements fell into were ‘foods and drinks high in fat and/or sugar’ (29·0 % of food advertising PMV) and ‘bread, rice, potatoes, pasta’ (23·9 % of food advertising PMV; Table 2). The least frequently represented categories were ‘fruit & vegetables’ and ‘meat, fish, eggs, beans’ (both categories accounting for 3·4 % of food advertising PMV). The distribution of food advertising PMV across food categories differed significantly among viewers in social grades C1 and DE compared with viewers in social grade AB, but not for viewers in social grade C2. Again, the magnitude of these differences was small with the most marked differences being a lower proportion of food advertising PMV being devoted to ‘milk & dairy foods’ among viewers in social grade C1 compared with those in social grade AB (13·7 % v. 14·7 %); and lower proportions being devoted to ‘foods and drinks high in fat and/or sugar’ among viewers in social grades C2 and DE compared with those in social grade AB (28·8 % and 28·7 % v. 29·9 %). There was some indication of a trend for the proportion of food advertising PMV devoted to ‘foods and drinks high in fat and/or sugar’ to decrease progressively as the social class of viewers became less affluent.

Table 2 Food categories of television food advertising seen by social grade, UK, July 2009

PMV, person-minute-views; MVPW, minute-views per person per week.

*Includes diet soft drinks, sweeteners, tea, coffee, gum.

Table 3 shows the median nutritional content of food advertisements seen – weighted by PMV of viewers in each social grade. Also shown are recommended ranges for a diet recommended by the WHO/FAO for avoidance of diet-related diseases(36). Compared with this recommended diet, advertised foods tended to be lower in protein, higher in sugars and lower in fibre. The nutritional content of advertised foods was within recommended ranges in terms of percentage of energy derived from carbohydrate, fat and saturated fat, and Na density. Few differences were seen in the nutritional content of advertised foods seen by viewers in different social grades. However, the most marked differences in median nutritional content of advertised foods seen by viewers in different social classes was a higher percentage of energy derived from fat and saturated fat in all other social grades compared with those in social grade AB.

Table 3 Nutritional content of television advertised foods seen by social grade, UK, July 2009

PMV, person-minute-views.

*Recommended ranges for prevention of diet-related diseases(36).

†Based on a 8·4 MJ/d (2000 kcal/d) diet and a recommended daily fibre intake of >25 g/d.

‡Based on a 8·4 MJ/d (2000 kcal/d) diet and a recommended daily Na intake of <2 g/d.

Discussion

This is the first comprehensive analysis of variations in television food advertisements seen by viewers in different socio-economic groups in the UK.

Summary of findings

We estimate that, on average, individuals in the UK view almost 1·4 h of television advertising per week, including more than 11 min of food advertising and more than 7 min of advertising for ‘less healthy’ foods. Advertised foods tend to be higher in sugar and lower in protein and fibre compared with a diet recommended to avoid diet-related diseases.

There was some evidence that the proportion of advertising minutes devoted to food, but not the proportion of food advertising minutes devoted to ‘less healthy’ foods, was lower among the least, compared with the most, affluent viewers. No clear trends in either metric across social groups were seen. While small differences in the type of food advertisements seen were in the direction of ‘more healthy’ among less affluent viewers, the opposite was trend was seen in terms of nutritional content. In contrast, the overall volume of advertising, food advertising and ‘less healthy’ food advertising seen by viewers progressively increased as affluence decreased, with those in the least affluent social grade viewing more than twice the volume of all three types of advertising than those in the most affluent social grade.

Strengths and weaknesses

The work relied entirely on secondary data and this led to a number of methodological strengths, but also limitations. The broadcast data, provided by an audience research company, is likely to be the highest available quality, as these are the data relied on by industry to plan both programming and advertising. However, as viewing figures were provided as TVR, rather than number of individuals actually watching, we had to perform a number of rather complex calculations, and rely on estimates in some cases, to arrive at our results.

Similarly, manufacturer's data on the nutritional composition of advertised foods are likely to be the most product-specific data available. However, we did not view all food advertisements in the sample and this meant we had to rely, in some cases, on informed judgements of the foods shown in advertisements. Viewing all advertisements would have required substantially more resources than available to us.

In addition, we did not take into account other forms of marketing on television – such as product placement. At the time the advertisements included in the present study were broadcast, product placement was not allowed on UK-made television programmes, meaning that the overall contribution of product placement to television food marketing may have been low. While the viewing figures data used took into account playback of recorded television within seven days of broadcast, later playbacks – as well as exposure to food marketing via other screen media, such as online on-demand television – were not included. This is a growing sector that requires further research attention.

Our data were collected six months after full implementation of new regulations restricting television advertising of ‘less healthy’ foods to children. They, therefore, represent all broadcast television subject to the current regulatory framework in the UK.

The social grading system used is cruder than some systems(Reference Galobardes, Shaw and Lawlor37, Reference Galobardes, Shaw and Lawlor38). In particular, only four grades are included; all individuals are graded according to the occupation of the chief income earner in their household, rather than in their own right; and retired individuals are grouped with the least affluent grade, irrespective of their previous occupation. Using the NRS social grading system, individuals aged over 65 years account for about 55 % of social grade DE. As we could only access an aggregate, anonymised, viewing figures data set, and this was the classification used in the data set, we were unable to impose an alternative social classification structure. Alternative classification structures may have uncovered some socio-economic trends hidden in the current data.

As previous research and policy interest has focused, in particular, on the effect of food advertising to children, it would have been interesting to explore socio-economic differences in children's exposure to food advertisements. However, viewing figures for specific age–social grade groups are not available (only age-specific or social-grade-specific) and so we were unable to do this. It is difficult to speculate whether socio-economic differences among children would be similar to those among viewers of all ages reported here.

Interpretation

Unlike our current findings, previous work on socio-economic differences in exposure to food advertising has, if anything, found evidence that the relative balance of food advertising seen by less affluent individuals (including black children in the USA) is less healthy than that seen by more affluent individuals(Reference Adams and White8, Reference Powell, Szczypka and Chaloupka24). This highlights that food advertising trends are not necessarily consistent across national boundaries or advertising medium.

Although our results show only small differences in the relative proportions of advertising minutes seen that are for food and food advertising minutes seen that are for ‘less healthy’ foods across social grades, there were large absolute differences in exposure to both food advertisements and advertisements for ‘less healthy’ foods. This may be explained by differences in the absolute volume of television watched by individuals in different socio-economic groups in the UK(Reference Lader, Short and Gershuny39). These clear absolute differences in exposure to television food advertising may contribute to the socio-economic differences in diet and obesity seen in the UK(Reference Craig and Mindell23).

Implications for research and policy makers

Two potential ‘solutions’ to the ‘problem’ of food advertising have been suggested: increased regulation of food advertisements(Reference Nestle14) and increased training in media literacy skills(Reference Nestle1, Reference Matthews40). Little research has explored the benefit of media literacy training in terms of response to food advertisements, dietary preferences and consumption, or body weight(Reference Bergsma and Carney41). More work is required in these areas, as well as investigation of any socio-economic differences in the effect of media literacy training.

Worldwide, regulation of food advertisements has focused mostly on those advertisements aimed at, or likely to be seen by, children(Reference Nestle1). However, there may be a case for extending regulations to all advertisements, or at least all those shown before 21.00 hours, as suggested by recent guidance from the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence(42). Given the evidence that less affluent viewers are exposed to more food advertising and more advertising for ‘less healthy’ foods, such regulations are likely to decrease socio-economic inequalities in exposure to food advertising.

Conclusions

The clear socio-economic inequalities in absolute exposure to advertisements for ‘less healthy’ food seen here may contribute to known socio-economic differences in diet and obesity. Extending the current UK restrictions on advertising ‘less healthy’ foods from children's programming to all programming would likely reduce socio-economic inequalities in exposure to these advertisements and may also reduce inequalities in diet and obesity.

Acknowledgements

Source of funding: This work was funded through the UK National Prevention Research Initiative (http://www.npri.org.uk) with the support of the following organisations: British Heart Foundation; Cancer Research UK; Department of Health; Diabetes UK; Economic and Social Research Council; Food Standards Agency; Medical Research Council; Health & Social Care Research & Development Office for Northern Ireland; Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health Directorate; The Stroke Association; Welsh Assembly Government; and World Cancer Research Fund. The award was administered by the Medical Research Council (G0701873). J.A., A.J.A. and M.W. receive salary support from Fuse–the Centre for Translational Research in Public Health, which is funded by the British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Economic and Social Research Council, Medical Research Council and the National Institute for Health Research, under the auspices of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration. At the time of funding, A.J.A. received salary support from an NIHR Public Health Career Scientist fellowship. Conflicts of interest: No authors have any conflicts of interest to declare. Author contributions: J.A. conceived the idea for this analysis and performed data analysis, R.T. collected nutritional data, all authors made substantial intellectual contributions to the larger from study from which these data are drawn. All authors read and provided critical comments on previous versions of the manuscript.

References

1.Nestle, M (2006) Food marketing and childhood obesity – a matter of policy. N Engl J Med 354, 25272529.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Halford, J (2005) Serving up trouble? Advertising food to children. Psychologist 5, 284287.Google Scholar
3.Department of Health (2004) Choosing Health: Making Healthy Choices Easier. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
4. Public Health Association of Australia Inc. (2006); Television food advertising during children's viewing times – position statement. http://www.phaa.net.au/documents/TVfoodAdvertPosStatement.pdf (accessed July 2010).Google Scholar
5.Hastings, G, Stead, M, McDermott, L et al. (2003) Review of Research on the Effects of Food Promotion to Children, Final Report for the Food Standards Agency. Glasgow: Centre for Social Marketing.Google Scholar
6.Adams, J, Hennessy-Priest, J, Ingimarsdóttir, S et al. (2009) Changes in food advertisements during ‘prime-time’ television from 1991 to 2006: a UK–Canada comparison. Br J Nutr 102, 584593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Adams, J, Hennessy-Priest, K, Ingimarsdóttir, S et al. (2009) Food advertising during children's television in Canada and the UK. Arch Dis Child 94, 658662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Adams, J & White, M (2009) Socio-economic and gender differences in nutritional content of foods advertised in popular UK weekly magazines. Eur J Public Health 19, 144149.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Cowburn, G & Boxer, A (2007) Magazines for children and young people and the links to internet food marketing: a review of the extent of food advertising. Public Health Nutr 10, 10241031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Folta, SC, Goldberg, JP, Economos, C et al. (2006) Food advertising targeted at school-age children: a content analysis. J Nutr Educ Behav 38, 244248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Henderson, VR & Kelly, B (2005) Food advertising in the age of obesity: content analysis of food advertising on general market and African American television. J Nutr Educ Behav 37, 191196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Maryam, A, Mehdi, MR, Masood, K et al. (2005) Food advertising on Iranian children's television: a content analysis and an experimental study with junior high school students. Ecol Food Nutr 44, 123133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Pratt, C & Pratt, C (1995) Comparative content analysis of food and nutrition advertisements in Ebony, Essence and Ladies’ Home Journal. J Nutr Educ 27, 1117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Roberts, M & Pettigrew, S (2007) A thematic content analysis of children's food advertising. Int J Advertising 26, 357367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Kelly, B, Cretikos, M, Rogers, K et al. (2008) The commercial food landscape: outdoor food advertising around primary schools in Australia. Aust N Z J Public Health 32, 522528.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Cairns, G, Angus, K & Hastings, G (2009) The Extent, Nature and Effects of Food Promotion to Children: A Review of the Evidence to December 2008. Prepared for the World Health Organization by Institute for Social Marketing, University of Stirling & The Open University, UK. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
17.McGinnis, J, Goolman, J & Kraak, V (2006) Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity? Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
18.Harris, J, Bargh, J & Brownell, K (2009) Priming effects of television food advertising on eating behavior. Health Psychol 28, 404413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Butland, B, Jebb, S, Kopelman, P et al. (2007) Foresight Tackling Obesities: Future Choices – Project Report. London: Government Office for Science.Google Scholar
20.Kelly, B, King, L, Bauman, A et al. (2007) The effects of different regulation systems on television food advertising to children. Aust N Z J Public Health 31, 340343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Ofcom (2007) Television Advertising of Food and Drink Products to Children – Final Statement. London: Ofcom.Google Scholar
22.Rayner, M, Scarborough, P, Boxer, A et al. (2005) Nutrient Profiles: Development of Final Model. Final Report for the Food Standards Agency. Oxford: British Heart Foundation Health Promotion Research Group, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
23.Craig, R & Mindell, J (2008) The Health Survey for England 2006. vol. 1: Cardiovascular Disease and Risk Factors in Adults. Leeds: The Information Centre.Google Scholar
24.Powell, L, Szczypka, G, Chaloupka, F et al. (2007) Nutritional content of television food advertisements seen by children and adolescents in the United States. Pediatrics 120, 576583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Krieger, N, Williams, D & Moss, N (1997) Measuring social class in US public health research: concepts, methodologies and guidelines. Annu Rev Public Health 18, 341378.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Holland, B, Unwin, I & Buss, D (1988) Cereals and Cereal Products: The Third Supplement to McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 4th ed. London: Royal Society of Chemistry & Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.Google Scholar
27.Holland, B, Unwin, I & Buss, D (1989) Milk Products and Eggs: The Fourth Supplement to McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 4th ed. London: Royal Society of Chemistry & Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.Google Scholar
28.Holland, B, Unwin, I & Buss, D (1991) Vegetables Herbs and Spices: The Fifth Supplement to McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 4th ed. London: Royal Society of Chemistry & Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.Google Scholar
29.Holland, B, Unwin, I & Buss, D (1992) Fruits and Nuts: The First Supplement to McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 5th ed. London: Royal Society of Chemistry & Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.Google Scholar
30.Holland, B, Welch, A & Buss, D (1992) Vegetable Dishes: The Second Supplement to McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 5th ed. London: Royal Society of Chemistry & Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.Google Scholar
31.Holland, B, Brown, J & Buss, D (1993) Fish and Fish Products: The Third Supplement to McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 5th ed. London: Royal Society of Chemistry & Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.Google Scholar
32.Chan, W, Brown, J & Buss, D (1994) Miscellaneous Foods: The Fourth Supplement to McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 5th ed. London: Royal Society of Chemistry & Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.Google Scholar
33.Chan, W, Brown, J, Lee, S et al. (1995) Meat, Poultry and Game. Fifth Supplement to McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 5th ed. London: Royal Society of Chemistry & Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.Google Scholar
34.Chan, W, Brown, J, Church, S et al. (1996) Meat Products and Dishes. Sixth Supplement to McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 5th ed. London: Royal Society of Chemistry & Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.Google Scholar
35. NHS Choices (2011) The eatwell plate. http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/eatwell-plate.aspx (accessed 11 July 2011).Google Scholar
36.World Health Organization (2003) Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. Report of a Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation. WHO Technical Report Series no. 916. Geneva: WHO.Google Scholar
37.Galobardes, B, Shaw, M, Lawlor, D et al. (2006) Indicators of socioeconomic position (part 2). J Epidemiol Community Health 60, 95101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.Galobardes, B, Shaw, M, Lawlor, DA et al. (2006) Indicators of socioeconomic position (part 1). J Epidemiol Community Health 60, 712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.Lader, D, Short, S & Gershuny, J (2006) The Time Use Survey 2005, How We Spend Our Time. London: Office for National Statistics.Google Scholar
40.Matthews, A (2008) Children and obesity: a pan-European project examining the role of food marketing. Eur J Public Health 18, 711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41.Bergsma, LJ & Carney, ME (2008) Effectiveness of health-promoting media literacy education: a systematic review. Health Educ Res 23, 522542.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2010) Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease at Population Level: NICE Public Health Guidance 25. London: NICE.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 Exposure to television advertisements, food advertisements and HFSS food advertisements by social grade, UK, July 2009*

Figure 1

Table 2 Food categories of television food advertising seen by social grade, UK, July 2009

Figure 2

Table 3 Nutritional content of television advertised foods seen by social grade, UK, July 2009

You have Access
13
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Socio-economic differences in exposure to television food advertisements in the UK: a cross-sectional study of advertisements broadcast in one television region
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Socio-economic differences in exposure to television food advertisements in the UK: a cross-sectional study of advertisements broadcast in one television region
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Socio-economic differences in exposure to television food advertisements in the UK: a cross-sectional study of advertisements broadcast in one television region
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *