Abusive advertising of food and drink products on Brazilian television
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brazil, any advertising strategies that take advantage of the child's judgment or induce consumers to make harmful health choices are considered abusive. However, the efficacy of restrictions on their use on television (TV) food advertising remains poorly understood. This study analysed the extent and nature of abusive techniques according to national regulations and patterns in their use in food-related ads. Cross-sectional studyrecorded the programming of the three most popular TV channels (6 am-12 am), during eight non-consecutive days, in April 2018. Data collection was based on the INFORMAS protocol and two national regulations. Descriptive analyses were used to describe the types of food ads and abusive techniques used in ultra-processed products (UPP) ads. Principal component analysis was applied to identify patterns of abusive marketing techniques and to relate them to specific food groups. More than 90% of food ads included at least one UPP. Overall, 10.1% of UPP ads targeted children and 57.7% used some kind of abusive technique directed to children and adolescents. Most ads contained messages inducing harmful health choices did not present adequate and clear information about the product and contained more than one type of abusive technique. Four out of five patterns in the use of abusive techniques in UPP ads were specifically directed to children, and fast-food meals were associated with three out of five patterns. The high abusiveness of food advertising in UPP ads should be considered a public health concern given their impact on children's food choices and health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".