Differences in child and adolescent exposure to unhealthy food and beverage advertising on television in a self-regulatory environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Food and beverage promotion is a contributor to children’s dietary behaviours, and ultimately, downstream health consequences. Broadcast television remains an important source of such advertising. The objective of this study was to examine and compare children and adolescent’s exposure to food advertising on television in Canada over an entire year in a self-regulatory environment. Methods Television advertising data for 57 selected food and beverage categories were licensed from Numerator for 36 stations in Toronto, for 2019. The estimated average number of advertisements viewed by children aged 2–11 and adolescents aged 12–17 was determined overall, by food category, and by marketing technique. The healthfulness of advertisements was also assessed using Health Canada’s Nutrient Profile Model. Results Overall in 2019, children viewed 2234.4 food ads/person/yr while adolescents viewed 1631.7 ads, exposure for both groups stemmed primarily from stations with general appeal, and both age groups were exposed to a range of powerful marketing techniques. Exposure to advertising for restaurants, snacks, breakfast food and candy and chocolate was high among both age groups and the healthfulness of most advertised products was considered poor. Adolescents were exposed to 36.4% more food products classified as unhealthy, had higher exposure to all marketing techniques examined, and were exposed to substantially more child-related marketing techniques compared to children. Conclusion Children and adolescents were heavily exposed to food advertisements on television in 2019. Despite current self-regulatory policies, children’s exposure to unhealthy food and beverages remains high. Differences in exposure to food advertisements by food category and healthfulness may suggest that adolescents are being disproportionately targeted by food companies as a result of self-regulatory marketing restrictions.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".