Nutrition N Targeted Items

Assessing fun foods: nutritional content and
analysis of supermarket foods targeted at children

C. Elliott
School of Journalism and Communication,
Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Received 2 June 2007; revised 26 September
2007; accepted 1 October 2007
Address for correspondence: C Elliott, School
of Journalism and Communication, Carleton
University, K1S 5B6. E-mail:
charlene_elliott@carleton.ca
Summary
This article provides a nutritional prole of foods targeted specically at children
in the Canadian supermarket. Excluding confectionery, soft drinks and bakery
items, 367 products were assessed for their nutritional composition. The article
examines the relationship between fun food images/messages, product claims
and actual product nutrition. Among other ndings, it concludes that approxi-
mately 89% of the products analysed could be classied as of poor nutritional
quality owing to high levels of sugar, fat and/or sodium. Policy considerations
need to be made in light of the fact that fun food is a unique category that poses
special challenges; as such, recommendations regarding food labelling and pack-
aging are presented.
Keywords: Childhood obesity, childrens foods, food marketing, nutrition.
obesity reviews (2008) 9, 368377
Childhood obesity is a signicant public health problem
and requires innovative public health solutions. Excess
body weight affects up to 35% of children across Canada,
the United States and Europe (1,2), and is linked to a range
of comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes, hypertension,
cardiovascular disease and some forms of cancer (3,4).
Overweight children also suffer from psychological and
social consequences (5,6) stemming from a pervasive and
serious weight stigma in society (7).
Various interventions in school and family settings seek
to address the childhood overweight/obesity problem. Yet
there is a weak evidence base as to what actually works
(2,8,9) and, consequently, the need to explore a range of
solutions (1013). The food industry is routinely identied
as a major contributor to the problem of childhood obesity
for promoting food to children that is high in sugar and/or
fat and low in nutrients. However, most of the studies that
assess food-related media messages targeted at children
focus primarily on televised advertising (1420). As the
US-based Institute of Medicine Committee on Food Mar-
keting and the Diets of Children and Youth reports televi-
sion advertising remains the dominant form of marketing
reaching children . . . that is formally tracked (14). One
key challenge the committee identies in its comprehensive
review of studies related to food marketing to children and
youth is that virtually all of the published scientic
research has focused on advertising and television adver-
tising in particular (14). In light of this, it proves necessary
to look beyond television food advertising to other critical
spaces, places and messages that comprise our food
environment.
Supermarket food and the packaging of fun
Missing from the scholarly discourse on food messages and
environmental cues is detailed knowledge of the foods tar-
geted specically at children in the supermarket. While a
substantial literature addresses television/advertising mes-
sages and fast-food campaigns, little research focuses on
the very basic mediascape of the supermarket. Many
analyses pertaining to childhood obesity, moreover, focus
squarely on confectioneries, sweets, fatty snack food and
sugared sodas (routinely classied under the category of
junk food) (1,21). Yet when one moves beyond this junk
food classication, a clear knowledge gap exists. With the
exception of one (dated) study (22), current research does
obesity reviews doi: 10.1111/j.1467-789X.2007.00418.x
368 2007 The Author
Journal compilation 2007 International Association for the Study of Obesity. obesity reviews 9, 368377
not examine the types of foods in the dairy, dry goods,
produce and frozen-food categories, which constitute chil-
drens fare or detail their nutritional value. Also lacking are
data on the relationship between food product images,
appeals and nutrition claims and actual product nutrition.
This study provides such a nutritional prole and packag-
ing assessment.
Method
The research uses content analysis to create a prole of the
food products being marketed specically for and to chil-
dren within the Canadian supermarket, and focuses on
regular foods (within the dry goods, dairy, produce and
frozen food categories) that have been repackaged to
appeal to children. The study excludes junk food con-
fectionery, soft drinks, cakes, potato chips, etc. as parents
would likely expect this category of food to be of poor
nutritional value.
Canadas Weston-owned Loblaws Superstore was
selected as the site/supermarket for food coding. George
Weston Limited and Loblaw Companies Limited is the
largest player in the Canadian food retail market, both
in terms of revenue and in terms of number of stores. As
such, it can be considered representative of the grocery
food environment available to Canadians. Moreover,
Loblaws market stores stock roughly 50 000 food and
non-food items combined. The expansive product offering
within Loblaws ensures that the study is comprehensive
but also generalizable. Most stores carry the same
national brands, and so the foodstuffs present in an
Ontario-based Loblaws will be consistent with one based in
Alberta.
Fun foods those specically targeted at children
were purchased in three separate trips made to the Loblaws
Superstore in December 2005. Products were photo-
graphed, stored and subsequently coded. Nutritional infor-
mation was recorded for each product.
Selections of fun food were made according to very
specic criteria. Food products/packaging had to speci-
cally speak to children; products signalled their status as
childrens food and/or fun through the use of particular
package shapes, colours, sizes, iconography, and graphics
and language. Specic indicators of fun food, and criteria
for inclusion in the sample, included a minimum of two of
the following aspects:
direct claims or allusions to fun/play on the package;
cartoon iconography pointedly directed to children;
tie-ins with childrens television programmes, mer-
chandise or lms;
the foregrounding of strange shapes, unusual colours
or unconventional tastes;
puzzles or games targeted at children.
1,2
A total of 367 products were purchased for coding and
36 variables were recorded for each product. Each case was
identied in terms of brand, product name, food category
and food type (i.e. breakfast, lunch, dinner, snack, beverage
or mixed/variable). Twenty-six variables pertained to the
packaging itself (i.e. the package semiotics), focusing on the
graphics (i.e. use of cartoons to attract attention, cross-
merchandizing appeals, etc.), nutrition claims and verbal
claims. Coders also identied any unique product claims,
detailed whether a game or activity adorned the package,
and recorded all nutritional information.
Two graduate students were involved in the product
coding. Prior to the actual coding, they independently coded
identical products until intercoder reliability reached higher
than 0.80. Sixteen products (4.4% of the sample) were later
randomly selected and coded for the intercoder reliability
test, showing a 0.90 agreement level between coders.
To assess the nutritional value of the products, we used
the criteria for Poor Nutritional Quality (PNQ) outlined
by the US-based Center for Science in the Public Interest
(CSPI) for fat and sodium (23) and a unique set of criteria
with regard to sugar. According to the CSPI, foods of PNQ
meet one of the following criteria:
>35% of total calories from fat, excluding nuts, seeds,
and peanut or other nut butters;
>35% added sugars by weight;
>230-mg sodium per serving for chips, crackers,
cheeses, baked goods, French fries, other snacks;
1
Cartoon images on the package do not suffice to signify childrens food.
The Jolly Green Giant, Betty Crocker, Aunt Jemima and the Pillsbury
Dough Boy are cartoon images, yet their mere presence does not make
a product fun food. These brand characters, used to promote everything
from corn to crescent rolls, require additional visuals to cue that the
product is targeted at children. Similarly, products were not selected
according to a predetermined or presumed classication of what com-
prises childrens food. While adults may consider Kraft Macaroni and
Cheese or Chef Boyardee Mini Ravioli as typical foods for children, such
products were not selected as part of the sample unless the package
adhered to the operationalization of fun food outlined above.
2
Other signicant exclusions pertain to both the type and package size of
the food. As the research is interested in creating a prole of childrens food
outside the category of junk food, candies, chips and sodas were
excluded, along with the array of snack cakes (e.g. Twinkies, Joe Louis).
Frozen novelties such as fruit and ice pops, however, were included in the
study, as such products could not be dismissed as mere junk. As the
sample was culled froma supermarket Superstore, all club pack products
(bulk-sized versions of products) were excluded fromthe study. For similar
reasons, as identical cereals (with identical boxes) might come in three
sizes (425 g, 725 g and 1 kg), only one size was included in the sample.
obesity reviews Assessing fun foods C. Elliott 369
2007 The Author
>480-mg sodium per serving for cereals, soups, pastas
and meats;
>600-mg sodium for pizza, sandwiches and main
dishes;
>770-mg sodium for meals (23).
Evaluating sugar in the selected food products posed a
unique methodological challenge and requires some
elaboration. CSPIs criteria state that, with regard to
sugar, foods of poor nutritional quality contain more
than 35% of added sugars by weight. As milk sugars and
fruit sugars are naturally occurring, it is not possible to
discern the added sugars by weight from the Nutrition
Facts label (the label only displays total sugars). The
quantity of added sugars must be provided by the manu-
facturer. Although the research team contacted the manu-
facturers of all products in which added sugars were in
question (due to the presence of fruit/fruit juice concen-
trate), virtually all manufacturers refused to reveal such
information due to the condential nature of their for-
mulas. As such, it was necessary to use another set of
criteria for sugars. A similar study of food products con-
ducted by Fitzhugh and Lobstein of the British Food
Commission (22) classied foods as having high levels of
sugar if they had more than 10 g sugar per portion or per
hundred grams. However, a more nuanced calculation of
sugar is presented in Harrison and Marskes nutritional
assessment of the food products advertised to children on
television (17). Harrison and Marske calculated the
percentage of sugars per 200-calorie serving; any products
that exceeded the 20% limit recommended by the
American Heart Association were classied as PNQ. Since
Harrison and Marske were interested in the percentage of
sugars (rather than an absolute cut-off regardless of
portion size), their criteria are used for this project.
It is critical to underscore that, due to the proprietary
nature of food manufacturing, it proves difcult to separate
the natural content of the food (e.g. naturally occurring
milk or fruit sugars) from the added sugars. Previous
research (such as the Fitzhugh and Lobstein and Harrison
and Marske studies) have had to read the Nutrition Facts
label at face value; CSPIs criteria for dening food of
PNQ equally acknowledge the problem of distinguishing
fruit sugars from added sugars from the information pro-
vided on the Nutrition Facts label. CSPIs compromise, as
with the other studies, was to assess the nutritional quality
of products such as fruit snacks using the amount of total
sugars displayed on the label (23). Similar difculties
extend to naturally occurring milk sugars. To reiterate,
without actual data from the manufacturer, it is nearly
impossible to determine precisely what percentage of
sugars are added. So while it would be ideal to know how
the products were made, we simply needed to go with the
information available. This analysis both follows and
builds upon other researchers methodology, updating and
extending existing studies that classify products according
to nutritional quality.
Part two of our analysis examined whether foods
meeting the poor nutritional quality criteria also con-
tained nutrition claims on the front of the package e.g. a
cereal tagged as of PNQ owing to its high sugar content
might also contain a nutrition claimof high in iron or low
in fat (thus appearing healthy owing to the nutrition label
for iron/low fat while distracting attention away from the
sugar content). The analysis also considered whether
package images were consistent with or counter to the
actual product nutrition.
Methods of analysis
Two types of quantitative analysis were used in this paper.
First, univariate analyses in the form of frequencies were
initially conducted to describe the nature of variables
used in this study. Results of these are summarized in
Tables 14. Second, bivariate analyses were conducted on
our data; these include cross-tabulations with appropriate
measures of association (chi-square, phi and Cramers V).
The results of those tabulations are summarized in
Tables 514. Where appropriate, statistically signicant
relationships were agged by asterisk.
Results
Of the 367 products analysed, three failed to provide infor-
mation related to the quantity of sugar in the product, three
related to sodium and two related to fat. Approximately
89% of products (326 products) with nutritional data
could be classied as of poor nutritional quality owing to
high levels of sodium or an excessive proportion of calories
coming from fat or sugar. Almost 23% of products were
classied as poorly nutritious owing to an excessive quan-
tity of calories coming from fat (>35% of total calories
from fat), 17% had high levels of sodium and 69.5% are
poorly nutritious owing to a high percentage of calories
Table 1 Nutritional assessment of childrens foods*
High level (%)
Sugar 69.5
Total fat 22.7
Sodium 17.0
One or more of the above 89.3
Low levels of sugar, sodium and fat 10.7
*Excluding all the products that lacked information relevant to the
amount of fat, sodium, and/or sugar in the product, we end up with a
sample of 320 products. However, the statistics in this table are
calculated from a sample of 367 products minus the missing cases
relevant to the nutritious values under investigation.
370 Assessing fun foods C. Elliott obesity reviews
2007 The Author
coming from sugar (20% or more of calories came from
sugar). Conversely, just over 10% of products were low in
sodium and did not contain an excessive amount of calories
sourced from fat or sugar (Table 1).
The most dominant representation of fun foods was
found in the dry goods category (222 products; approxi-
mately 61% of the sample). Refrigerated and frozen foods
came second (63 products; 17.1%) and dairy, third (53
Table 2 Nutritional quality within dry goods
Over 35% of calories
coming from fat
(poor nutrition)
High sodium
(poor nutrition)
coming from sugar
(poor nutrition)
Type of food Frequency/% Frequency/% Frequency/%
Cereal (1) 2.5 (37) 92.5
Crackers (12) 70.6 (11) 64.7 (2) 11.8
Cookies/biscuits (4) 13.3 (1) 3.8 (27) 90.0
Fruit snacks/applesauce (38) 88.4
Granola bars/cereal bars (1) 12.5 (8) 100.0
Pasta (boxed/canned)/soups (8) 88.9 (8) 88.9
Drinks/drink boxes (25) 86.2
Dressings/sauces/condiments (19) 100.0
Puddings/Jell-Os (13) 100.0
Dressing/sauces/condiments/toppings (2) 100.0 (2) 100.0
Peanut butters/jams/spreads (2) 18.2 (1) 10.0
Total (22) 10.0 (20) 9.1 (180) 81.8
Table 3 Nutritional quality within refrigerated and frozen foods
coming from fat
(poor nutrition)
High sodium
(poor nutrition)
coming from sugar
(poor nutrition)
Frozen dinners/meals (2) 22.2 (7) 77.8 (1) 11.1
Pizza/pogos (17) 81.0 (14) 66.7 (1) 4.8
Fries/potatoes (3) 75.0 (1) 25.0
Packaged lunch (13) 72.2 (17) 94.4 (7) 38.9
Frozen breakfast foods/waffles/strudels/pancakes (4) 36.4 (5) 45.5
Total (38) 61.9 (38) 60.3 (15) 23.8
Table 4 Nutritional quality within dairy products
coming from fat
(poor nutrition)
High sodium
(poor nutrition)
coming from sugar
(poor nutrition)
Milk* (1) 100.0
Yogurt (10) 100.0
Milk/yogurt drinks (14) 100.0
Cheese (12) 42.9 (16) 57.1
Total (12) 22.6 (41) 77.4
*It is rather misleading to see milk in the category of poorly nutritious foods. Note that this one product is 2% chocolate milk with extra sugars
coming not only from the naturally occurring lactose but also from the chocolate sweetening.
2007 The Author
products; 14.4%). Signicantly underrepresented was the
produce category: fruits and vegetables comprised roughly
1% of the sample, being promoted under the two brands of
Presidents Choice Mini Chefs and Tanimura & Antle.
Worth noting is that childrens fare in the world of
produce boils down to small apples and baby carrots no
other fruits and vegetables were specically targeted at
children.
Dry goods
Within the dry goods category, high levels of sugar were
particularly evident. Just under 82% of the 222 products in
this category were classied as foods of PNQ because of a
high percentage of calories coming from sugar. Ten percent
of dry goods products were of PNQ owing to a high
proportion of calories derived from fat, and 9% of these
products also fared poorly because of high sodium levels
3
(Table 2).
Examples of culprits include granola bars/cereal bars
(100% PNQ, S), puddings/Jell-Os (100% PNQ, S),
pasta (boxed/canned) and soups (89% PNQ, Na), and
drinks/drink boxes (86.2% PNQ, S). Not surprisingly,
over 90% of the childrens cereal analysed was identied as
PNQ owing to high levels of sugar.
Refrigerated and frozen foods
Sugar was less of an issue in this food category; however,
many products contained high levels of fat or sodium. Over
60% of the refrigerated and frozen foods were PNQ foods
owing to a high proportion of fat calories; another 60%
were deemed of poor nutrition due to high sodium levels,
and 23.8% were PNQ foods owing to a high proportion of
sugar calories (Table 3).
Examples include: packaged lunch (94% PNQ, Na and
72% F), frozen dinners/meals (78% Na), pizza/pogos
(67% Na and 81% F) and fries/potatoes (75% F).
Dairy
Overall, dairy products fared well nutritionally when it
came to sodium and fat. Of the 53 products analysed, none
contained high levels of sodium, and only 22.6% of prod-
ucts (all cheese) contained a higher proportion of calories
coming from fat. Sugar, however, was still an issue as over
three-quarters of products (77.4%) had a signicant pro-
portion of calories derived from sugar (Table 4).
Nutritional quality and nutrition claims
Mandatory nutrition labelling is now required on most
pre-packaged food in Canada; a standardized Nutrition
Facts table provides information on calories and 13 nutri-
ents. Along with the Nutrition Facts table, however, many
food products highlight particular nutrition claims on the
front of the box.
This study revealed that fun food generally claims to be
nutritious food, insomuch as 230 products (62.7%of prod-
ucts analysed) make one or more nutrition claims on the
front of the box (Table 5). Products contain a Smart Spot! or
nutrition mark/seal (7.9%) claim to be low fat (6.5%), a
source of calcium (6.8%), made with real fruit juice (6.0%)
or trans-fat-free (4.4%). Other claims include: no articial
avours/colours (7.4%), a source of X essential nutrients
(6.5%), preservative-free (5.7%), peanut-free (3.2%), a
source of whole wheat/bre (3%) or organic (1%).
What proves interesting, however, is the relationship
between nutrition claims and actual product nutrition.
Using the established criteria for identifying foods of PNQ,
it was found (as earlier noted) that 326 of the childrens
fun foods were of PNQ. Of these 326 items, 202 (62.0%)
have nutrition claims on the front of the package.
3
A total of 222 products comprised the dry goods category. One product
did not display information regarding the amount of fat and/or calories in
the product; another two did not reveal information regarding sodium; and
two regarding sugar and/or calories. Thus, a valid sample of products
from the dry goods category for analysis of nutritional quality with regard
to fat is 221 products, to sodium is 220 products and to sugar is 220.
Table 5 Overview of nutrition claims made on the front of the box*
Poor nutritious quality
due to either fat,
sodium, and/or sugar
Not poor nutrition
Claim on front box Frequency/%* Frequency/%*
Some sort of claim (202) 62.0 (27) 69.2
No claim (124) 38.0 (12) 30.7
Total (336) (39)
This table provides a cross-tabulation of poor/not poor food and claims,
not simple frequencies of claims.
*c
2
= 0.79 (r < 0.38); Phi = 0.05 (r < 0.38).
Table 6 Overview of nutritional claims made on front of the box of
products of poor nutritional quality due to sugar
due to sugar
Not poor nutrition
No claim (81) 32.0 (55) 49.5
Total (253) (111)
*c
2
= 10.4 (r < 0.001); Phi = 0.17 (r < 0.001).
2007 The Author
Remarkably, over 75% of products (22 out of 29) that
have a Smart Spot! or nutrition mark/seal on the front of
the package also contain over 10 g sugar per serving the
amount Fitzhugh and Lobstein classify as high levels of
sugar (22). Almost all of the products (21 out of 22) that
claim to be low fat also contain over 10 g of sugar per
serving. Seventy-nine per cent of products (19 out of 24) that
claim to be a source of calcium are equally a source of high
sugar a claimthat is not emphasized. Made with real fruit
juice, in around 83%of cases (15 out of 18), equally brings
a high sugar content along with the juice claim. Similarly,
products with nutrition claims may equally be high in fat or
sodium. It is worth noting that Health Canada, under the
Food and Drugs Act, states that a low fat food contains less
than 3 g fat per serving (24,25), yet many childrens foods
have higher percentages of fat. Moreover, the disparity
between claims regarding fat and actual fat content may
not be recognized by all consumers. For instance, 87.5% of
products that claimto be trans-fat-free also have over 3 g of
fat per 100 g serving size. Asimilar observation can be made
for sodium. Health Canada identies as healthy products
containing 480 mg of sodium or less per serving. However,
a number of products in our analysis had high levels of
sodium along with a nutrition claim (e.g. 30% of products
claiming a source of calcium; 27.3%of products claiming no
articial avours/colours).
Sugar
Of the 364 products that listed nutritional information on
sugar, 253 (69.5%) were classied as of PNQ owing to a
high proportion of calories coming from sugar. Yet 172
products (68.0% of the sample of products with high
sugar) contained a specic nutrition claim on the front of
the products package (Tables 6 and 7). Cereals, fruit
snacks and granola/cereal bars and drinks/drink boxes
were particularly likely to have nutrition claims along with
high levels of sugar.
Fat
Of the 365 products that listed details on fat, 83 products
(22.7%) were of PNQ owing to the >35% of total calories
coming from fat. However, 37%(31 products) of the prod-
ucts tagged as of PNQ due to fat made a specic nutrition
claim on the front of the product package (Tables 8 and 9).
Peanut butters mixed with chocolate claimed to be a
source of six essential nutrients, for instance, or pizza
pops (a pre-cooked, calzone-type snack available in
Canada) highlighted a source of calcium. Several manu-
facturers of crackers also made specic nutrition claims
emphasizing no trans-fats.
Table 7 Nutrition claims on products of poor
nutritional quality due to sugar
Less than 20% calories
from sugar
(not a poor nutrition)
More than 20% calories
from sugar
(poor nutrition)
No specic claim (53) 51.5 (82) 31.5
Smart spot/nutrition mark/seal (10) 9.7 (19) 7.3
No articial avours/colours (3) 2.9 (8) 3.1
Low fat (3) 2.9 (21) 8.1
Whole wheat/bre (1) 1.0 (4) 1.5
Source of calcium (6) 5.8 (18) 6.9
Non-hydrogenated oil (3) 2.9
No trans-fat (6) 5.8 (10) 3.8
Organic (1) 1.0 (2) 0.8
No preservative (2) 1.9 (6) 2.3
Source of x essentials (4) 3.9 (10) 3.8
Made with real fruit juice (22) 8.5
Peanut-free (2) 1.9 (6) 2.3
Other (9) 8.7 (52) 20.0
Total (103) (260)
*c
2
= 34.3 (r < 0.001) ; Cramers V = 0.31 (r < 0.001).
products of poor nutritional quality due to fat
due to fat
Not poor nutrition
No claim (52) 62.7 (83) 29.5
Total (83) (281)
*c
2
= 30.11 (r < 0.0001); Phi = -0.29 (r < 0.0001).
2007 The Author
Sodium
Of the 364 products with information regarding sodium
content, 62 (17.0%) were PNQ due to high sodium. Of
this, almost 34%(21 products) made a specic nutrition
claim on the front of the package (Tables 10 and 11).
Particular appeals were made regarding the foods calcium
level (Source of calcium = 11.3%) or the fact that the
product was free of trans-fats (No trans-fat = 9.7%).
Crackers and pizza pops/pogos were particularly notable in
this regard.
4
Package appeals and product nutrition
Key indicators of fun food are often found through the food
packagings font and graphics. As such, it is certainly not
surprising that 84% of coded products used either a car-
toonish script or a crayoned font (suggesting a childs hand-
writing) to identify itself as childrens fare. Three out of
four products also had a cartoon image on the front of the
box predominantly an anthropomorphized animal or
gure (47.8%) or the cartoon image of a human boy or
girl (24.5%). Interestingly, almost one-fth of the sample
(19.3%) pictured the cartoon image engaged in some type
of physical activity, from skateboarding (3.9%) and
snowboarding/skiing (3.6%) to soccer/basketball (1.8%)
and biking (1.1%). Over 25% of the sample (28.6%) also
showed cartoon images engaged in activity on the back or
side of the box.
Selling food through the use of cartoon gures either
skateboarding, snowboarding or engaged in some type of
sporting activity raises the question of the relationship
between the active nature of the cartoon image speci-
cally that found on the front of the package (as it is the
most visible) and the actual product nutrition contained
within the package. The association between PNQ and the
presence of cartoons engaged in physical activity was found
to be statistically insignicant. However, it is worth noting
that one in ve products with active images on the front of
the box were of PNQ.
Almost one-third (31%) of products of PNQ owing to
high sodium had a cartoon image engaged in some kind of
physical activity displayed on the front of the package
(Table 12).
4
Pizza pops are a calzone-type snack available in Canada, which are sold
pre-cooked and frozen. Pogos are battered cooked frankfurters on a stick.
The association between claims made on the front of the box and
products actual nutritional quality (i.e. poor or not poor) is statistically
signicant. The relationship is of moderate-strong strength, as indicated
by the measure of Cramers V (equal to 0.39).
Table 9 Nutrition claims on products of poor
nutritional quality due to fat
Under 35% of calories
coming from fat
coming from fat
(poor nutrition)
No specic claim (83) 29.5 (52) 62.7
No articial avours/colours (11) 3.9
Low fat (22) 7.8 (2) 2.4
Wholewheat/bre (5) 1.8
No trans-fat (11) 3.9 (5) 6.0
Organic (3) 1.1
No preservative (8) 2.8
Peanut-free (3) 1.1 (5) 6.0
Other (53) 18.9 (8) 9.6
Total (281) (83)
*c
2
= 63.9 (r < 0.0001); Cramers V = 0.42 (r < 0.0001).
products of poor nutritional quality due to sodium
due to sodium
Not poor nutrition
No claim (41) 66.1 (94) 31.1
Total (62) (302)
*c
2
= 27.01 (r < 0.0001); Phi = -0.27(r < 0.0001).
2007 The Author
In terms of fat, almost an equal proportion of foods of
PNQ and not PNQ displayed cartoon images engaged in
physical activity on the front of the package (23.5% and
18.1%, respectively) (Table 13). This also holds true for
sugar, in which a similar proportion of foods of poor
and not poor nutritious quality owing to sugar displayed
cartoon images engaged in physical activity on the front of
the package (19.5 and 18.2, respectively). As a whole, then,
Table 11 Nutrition claims on products of
poor nutritional quality due to sodium
Low content of sodium High content of sodium
No specic claim (94) 31.1 (41) 66.1
No articial avours/colours (8) 2.6 (3) 4.8
Low fat (23) 7.6 (1) 1.6
Wholewheat/bre (5) 1.7
No trans-fat (10) 3.3 (6) 9.7
Organic (3) 1.0
No preservative (8) 2.6
Peanut-free (7) 2.3 (1) 1.6
Other (60) 19.9 (1) 1.6
Total (302) (62)
*c
2
= 51.8 (r < 0.0001); Cramers V = 0.38 (r < 0.0001).
Table 12 Active activity of cartoon image on
front of package (sodium)
Low content of sodium High content of sodium
Active activity of cartoon image Frequency/%* Frequency/%*
No activity (202) 82.4 (22) 68.8
Some kind of activity (43) 17.6 (10) 31.3
Total (245) (32)
*c
2
= 3.43 (r < 0.1); Phi = 0.11 (r < 0.1).
front of package (fat)
Under 35% of calories
coming from fat
coming from fat
(poor nutrition)
Active activity of cartoon image Frequency/% Frequency/%
No activity (185) 81.9 (39) 76.5
Total (226) (51)
c
2
= 0.81 (r < 0.5); Phi = 0.05 (r < 0.4).
front of package (sugar)
Less than 20%
calories from sugar
More than 20%
calories from sugar
Active activity of cartoon image Frequency/% Frequency/%
No activity (63) 81.8 (161) 80.5
Total (77) (200)
c
2
= 0.06 (r < 0.9); Phi = -0.02 (r < 0.8).
2007 The Author
one cannot be certain that an image of activity on the
package corresponds to a food product that is of good
nutritional quality. High levels of sodium, fat or sugar are
sometimes packaged along with the active image displayed
on the box.
Appeals to fun and value systems
Fun foods, as noted, are explicitly coded as fun to chil-
dren. Beyond the use of cartoon graphics and fonts, pack-
ages may directly reference fun on the box (7.4%), with
descriptors such as fun to eat or claims that whenever you
eat them, youll agree they spell fun. Connections to fun
are most frequently linked directly with the food, as in fun
fried potatoes, fun, smile-shaped potatoes or nutrition
and fun, all in one. Sometimes the very names of the foods
are fun, as with Presidents Choice Mini Chefs Funshines
Biscuits. Fun is equally connoted by the use of unusual
product names or avours (38%) such as Bug-A-Licious
pasta, Cha-Cha Cheezy macaroni and cheese or Choco-
late Splat pudding. Finally, fun can be indicated by direct
claims to the products unique characteristics: 18.3% of
the sample verbally emphasized qualities including the
foods interactivity (e.g. food is stackable, stretchable, peel-
able, shred-able) or its transformative properties (e.g.
food changes colour, size or shape or even glows in the
dark). Reinforcing this theme is the use of both cross-
merchandising claims and games/activities. One of every 10
products urges kids to collect points, enter a contest or
use a code for a free download. Three of every 10 products
display a game or activity on the package. Packages also
encourage kids to interact with a web site (10.9%), while
some products even provide a game to play using the food
itself (3%). Remarkably, only 1.6% of all products coded
had nutrition-related activities (such as games, word nds
or matching exercises that have to do with teaching nutri-
tion) on the back of the package. This low percentage of
packages explicitly addressing nutrition afrms the weak
correlation between fun and nutrition. Fun, in the
world of food, is not about nutritional awareness.
Comment
Fun food is a rapidly category of foods that needs to be
scrutinized in order to create a full picture of the food
environment that can contribute to childhood health (and
conversely, childhood obesity). Fun food products are no
longer contained within the cereal aisle; they pervade the
entire supermarket and are available for every eating expe-
rience (breakfasts, snacks, lunches, dinners). Fun food mar-
keting suggests that children should be served special foods
made uniquely for them, that family meals should be recon-
gured into foods for children and foods for adults, and that
childrens fare should be more interactive, more colourful,
increasingly removed fromthe natural. All of these sugges-
tions can create a problematic relationship between food
and children, working to create a space in which children
become accustomed to the unnaturalness of food and learn
to appreciate the value of food as fun, sport or distraction
(instead of focusing on nutrition). As I discuss elsewhere
(26), in consistently emphasizing a foods play factor, arti-
ciality and general distance from regular foods, fun food
marketing can work to create a particularly unnatural rela-
tionship with food in children. Food becomes framed as
entertainment, and this entertainment is both premised on
and emphasizes the articiality of what is being consumed.
(Remarkably, it is only in the world of childrens food that
articiality is actually framed as a selling feature.)
This study reveals that less than 1% of the foods speci-
cally targeted at children in a Canadian supermarket are
fruits and vegetables and that 89% of fun food products
can be classied as of PNQowing to high levels of fat, sugar
or sodium. Of these products, almost a quarter had a high
proportion of calories from fat, seven out of 10 had a high
proportion of calories fromsugar, and almost two out of 10
had high levels of sodium. As such, fun food is not neces-
sarily nutritious food and this proves signicant as the
obvious category of junk food was excluded from the
sample. While caregivers are likely to purchase products that
they hope their children will like, it clearly can result in a less
nutritious diet than they might realize. More signicant,
perhaps, is the fact that 63%of fun food products make one
or more nutrition claims on the front of the package and
that 62%of the foods classied as of PNQ(according to the
specied criteria) have nutrition claims on the front of the
package. Health Canada has strict regulations regarding
the Nutrition Facts table; beyond this, it allows ve health
claims to be used on food labels and is currently expanding
its regulatory framework for other health claims (specically
regarding whole grains and folic acid).
However, policy attention needs to be directed towards
the fact that the very existence of a nutrition claim (or
claims) might be misleading. A nutrition claim (whether for
low fat, source of iron, etc.) might also reasonably lead
consumers to believe that the product as a whole is nutri-
tious. However, this is not necessarily the case. Products
claiming low fat might be of PNQ owing to high levels of
sugar. Products claiming no trans-fats might be of PNQ
owing to a high proportion of fat or high levels of sodium.
Even the package images may create contradictory
impressions regarding the product nutrition. While all
foods provide a source of energy, not all foods are best
choices for fuelling an active lifestyle. Products that display
cartoon images engaged in activity on the front of the
package create an association between activity and the
particular food in question. When two in 10 products with
active images on the front of the package prove to be of
PNQ, there is a clear difculty. Consumers are left in a
2007 The Author
situation of communicative ambiguity in which certain
fun food products displaying active images are healthy
selections, while others are not.
On 5 February 2007, Health Canada unveiled its newly
revised food guide, Eating Well with Canadas Food Guide.
This six-page booklet provides recommendations on food
choices according to age and gender, and suggests a diet
based largely on vegetables, fruits and grain products. It
recommends that consumers read product labels, but it does
not ag some of the perils of eating packaged goods. It does
not, for instance, acknowledge the disjunct that might exist
between nutrition claims and actual product nutrition. And
while the guide recognizes the unique nutritional needs of
children, it fails to acknowledge the expansive category of
fun foods or to provide guidance for navigating through
this selection of foods. All of these issues require redress, so
as to help consumers make more informed choices in pur-
chasing and assessing food products targeted at children.
Conict of Interest Statement
No conict of interest was declared.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this research was generously provided from the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The author would
like to thank Anton Maslov for his exceptional work in
providing the statistical analysis. Dr. Andre Turcotte gra-
ciously assisted in double-checking the results. Thanks,
also, to graduate students Melissa Fennell, Lee-Anne Peluk
and Cathy Allison for coding assistance.
References
1. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Improving the
Health of Canadians: Promoting Healthy Weights 2006. Canadian
Population Health Initiative of the Canadian Institute for Health
Information: Ottawa, 2006.
2. Crawford D, Jeffery R (eds). Obesity Prevention and Public
Health. Oxford University Press: New York, 2005.
3. World Health Organization. Diet, Nutrition and the Preven-
tion of Chronic Diseases. World Health Organization: Geneva,
2003.
4. Library of Parliament. The Obesity Epidemic in Canada. (Pre-
pared by Starky S). PIRS: Ottawa, 2005. [WWW document]. URL
http: / / www.parl.gc.ca/ information/ library/ PRBpubs/prb0511-e.
htm#11 (accessed March 2007).
5. Berg FM. Underage and Overweight: Americas Childhood
Obesity Crisis. Hatherleigh Press: New York, 2004.
6. Lobstein T, Baur L, Uauy R. Obesity in children and young
people: a crisis in public health. Obes Rev 2004; 5: 4104.
7. Brownell KD, Puhl R, Schwartz MB, Rudd L (eds). Weight Bias:
Nature, Consequences, and Remedies. Guilford: New York, 2005.
8. Lobstein T, Dibb S. Evidence of a possible link between obe-
sogenic food advertising and child overweight. Obes Rev 2005; 6:
203208.
9. Mendelson R. Think tank on school-aged children: nutrition
and physical activity to prevent the rise in obesity. Appl Physiol
Nutr Metab 2007; 32: 495499.
10. Elliott C. Childhood obesity and our toxic environment:
suggestions for future research. J Fam Consum Sci Educ 2005; 23:
4751.
11. Elliott C. The strange, the bizarre and the edible. Articiality
and fun in the world of childrens food. In: Greenberg J, Elliott C
(eds). Communication in Question: Competing Perspectives on
Controversial Issues in Communication Studies. Thomson-Nelson:
Toronto, 2007, pp. 8188.
12. Committee on Prevention of Obesity in Children and Youth/
Institute of Medicine. Preventing Childhood Obesity: Time for
Action. National Academy Press: Atlanta, 2005.
13. Malik VS, Schulze M, Hu FB. Intake of sugar-sweetened
beverages and weight gain: a systematic review. Am J Clin Nutr
2006; 84: 274288.
14. McGinnis JM, Gootman J, Kraak V (eds). Food Marketing to
Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity? National Academies
Press: Washington. DC, 2006.
15. Botterill J, Kline S. Flow, branding and media saturation:
towards a critical analysis of promotional marketing in childrens
television. Paper Presented at Child and Teen Consumption,
2006. Copenhagen Business School, Copenhagen, April 2728,
2006.
16. Chamberlain L, Wang Y, Robinson T. Does childrens screen
time predict requests for advertised products? Cross-sectional and
prospective analyses. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2006; 160: 363
368.
17. Harrison K, Marske A. Nutritional content of foods adver-
tised during the television programs children watch most. Am J
Public Health 2005; 95: 15681574.
18. Wilcox B, Kunkel D, Cantor J, Dorwick P, Linn S, Palmer E.
American Psychological Association. Report of the APA Task
Force on Advertising and Children. 2004. [WWW document].
URL http://www.apa.org/pi/cyf/advertisingandchildren.pdf (ac-
cessed March 2007).
19. Consumers International. A Spoonful of Sugar: Television
food advertising aimed at children, an international comparative
survey. Consumers International Programme for Developed
Economics: London, 1996.
20. Gantz W, Schwartz N, Angelini JR, Rideout V. Food for
thought: television food advertising to children in the United
States. Kaiser Family Foundation Report. 2007. [WWW
document]. URL http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/7618.pdf
(accessed May 2007).
21. Nestle M. What to Eat. North Point Press: New York, 2006.
22. Fitzhugh K, Lobstein T. Childrens food examined. an analysis
of 358 products targeted at children. The Food Commission.
2000. [WWW document]. URL http://www.foodcomm.org.uk/
childrens_food_examined.htm (accessed March 2007).
23. Center for Science in the Public Interest. Dening
foods of poor nutritional quality. [WWW document]. URL
http: / / www.cspinet.org/ new/ pdf/ foods_of_poor_nutritional . pdf
(accessed March 2007).
24. Health Canada. Guide to food labelling and advertising.
[WWW document]. URL http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/
bureau/labeti/guide/7-0-63.html (accessed March 2007).
25. Health Canada. Food and drugs act and regulations (SOR/
2003-11, s. 20). [WWW document]. URL http://laws.justice.gc.ca/
en/F-27/C.R.C.-c.870/232590.html (accessed March 2007).
26. Elliott C. Marketing fun foods: a prole and analysis of
supermarket food messages targeted at children. Can Public Policy
(in press).
2007 The Author

Nutrition N Targeted Items

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Nutrition N Targeted Items

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Assessing fun foods: nutritional content and

analysis of supermarket foods targeted at children

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen