In a country founded upon the belief that business drives growth and prosperity, are food manufacturers bound by a moral obligation to contribute to the health and wellness of their customers? When are food marketing techniques considered predatory and recognized for their intent to mislead their target audience? At what point does the greater good concern our collective health and not our collective wealth?
When economic activity interferes with the physical, emotional and spiritual wellbeing of a generation, measures must be taken in order to eliminate the potential harm caused by aggressive marketing in order to create a food environment that affords everyone the opportunity to live long, happy and healthy lives.
To help illustrate my point, a recent study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition has found that playing ‘advergames’, which promote the consumption of energy-dense, nutrient deficient ‘junk’ foods, increase the energy intake in children. This seems fairly intuitive considering this tricky marketing technique is a way for large food manufacturers (a.k.a. Big Food) to influence the consumption of their products while establishing brand loyalty in legions of kids. Honestly, if I were to spend even a marginal amount of my free time running around Bedrock trying to collect Pebbles cereal (courtesy of our friends at Post) I would most certainly entertain similar activities in the real world and would definitely pester my folks into purchasing a few similarly questionable food products.
Products so questionable, in fact, that the fine folks at the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity published a lengthy analysis on the limited progress in nutritional quality of children’s cereals in spite of growing concern over their contribution to adolescent ill health and obesity. Although this report does recognize the incremental improvements cereal manufacturers have made in the nutrient value of their products (the average nutrition score for childes cereals improved from 40 to 43 on a 100 point scale), the slight improvements are overshadowed by the shift in marketing techniques used by said companies that emphasize the consumption of their least nutritious products over those that have been improved. The simple fact is that the continued production of low-quality foods and the relentless advertising activity specifically geared towards children continue to poison youth around the world.
So, at what point are food manufacturers responsible for the physical harm caused by their continued production and relentless marketing of their nutrient deficient foods? How about when roughly 30% of children are considered overweight or obese and we when we must redefine a disease, type II (adult onset) diabetes, to include a generation formerly thought to be exempt?
Wanna know more? Here are a few articles that also discuss food marketing and childhood obesity:
- Big Food, Big Marketing and Big Children
- Is Diet Soda the Answer to Childhood Obesity?
- Weighing In on Marion Nestle’s Food Politics Predictions [Part II]
Image Credit: Creative Commons photo by laffy4k