Not So Grrreat : Ten Important Myths about Food Advertising Targeted to Children in Canada

Abstract

Rising rates of childhood obesity have led to a greater concern over the impact of food advertising on children's health. Although public policy interventions seek to mitigate the impact of advertising on children, several pervasive myths often sidetrack effective discussions. This Perspective outlines and responds to ten common myths.

The influence of advertising on child health has been the subject of increasing scrutiny due, in part, to the rising prevalence of childhood obesity and other indicators of poor diet.^1,2 A dramatic increase in the intensity and frequency of advertising to children has been documented,³ with the US Federal Trade Commission reporting that “food companies allocated $1.79 billion on marketing to youth ages 2–17 in 2009.”⁴ Child advocates were lamenting the pernicious effects of the “plug-in drug” (i.e., television) on young people in the 1970s,⁵ but today's children are more exposed to mass media messages than any previous generation. Marketing messages employ more sophisticated techniques, on more media platforms, than ever before.⁴

Public debates about the appropriateness of advertising to children have become more frequent; however, several myths have arisen related to the nature of today's marketing environment, the science behind children's cognitive development, and what can and should be done about the negative impacts of advertising on children's health. These myths can influence parents, health professionals, and policy makers, and their persistence undermines an effective public policy debate about the implications of child-targeted marketing in society. This Perspective summarizes and rebuts ten of the most common myths. Although our focus is mainly on Canada and the United States, it is important to underscore that many of these myths, and their associated rebuttals, could apply to many other jurisdictions.

The ten myths are as follows:

1. Children are more sophisticated these days and can interpret advertising messages in an adult way at a younger age.⁶ This is not the case according to the Institute of Medicine (IOM)³ or the American Psychological Association (APA).⁷ Research promoted by industry advocates claims to show that children are more media wise, but such advocates generally take a superficial view of what it means for children to understand advertising.^8,9 The APA notes that an essential cognitive task involved in a mature comprehension of advertising is the ability to be aware of the persuasive intent of advertising and then to be able to use that knowledge while being exposed to advertising messages.⁷ Children need to understand that the “sender” of the message has other interests than the receiver, that the sender intends to persuade, that persuasive messages are biased, and that biased messages demand different interpretive strategies. This deeper understanding develops over time, primarily as a result of cognitive growth and development, not as a result of prolonged exposure to advertising. The APA and IOM reviews both concluded that young children below 7–8 years lack an understanding of the persuasive intent of television advertising.^3,7

A second important consideration is that “advertising literacy” does not mean that children become immune to “advertising effects.” Livingstone's and Helsper's systematic review of the research evidence pertaining to children's food advertising and media literacy observes that the “evidence is consistent with the view that different processes of persuasion operate at different ages, precisely because literacy levels vary by age.”¹⁰ However, Livingstone and Helsper suggest, “children of all ages could be, more or less equivalently, affected by advertising because the levels of media (or advertising) literacy influence what children pay attention to.”¹⁰ As such, they hypothesize that younger children (aged 2–6), with lower advertising literacy, are “more likely to be persuaded by advertising that is based on celebrities, jingles, colorful images, and attractive physical features of a product. Older children, especially teenagers, whose media literacy is greater, are more likely to be persuaded by advertising strategies based on argumentation, especially those that contain high-quality arguments and responses to counterarguments.”¹⁰ For children in the middle, aged 7–11, Livingstone and Helsper explain that “children are gaining an understanding of the persuasive intent of advertising but they do not always use it.”¹⁰ Persuasion, in short, can operate on various levels of advertising literacy.

Finally, today's marketing environment extends far beyond television. The US Federal Trade Commission's Review of Food Marketing to Children and Adolescents: Follow-Up Report details the food and beverage marketing initiatives of the same 44 companies (plus an additional four) in 2009 compared to 2006. The report finds that, although spending on television advertising to children from 44 companies decreased 19.5% in 2009, “spending on new media, such as online and viral marketing, increased 50%.”⁴

Well-funded marketers now target children in multiple venues, using sophisticated techniques, including advergames (brand-integrated video games), product placement, and viral marketing (accessing interpersonal networks by persuading people to forward ads to friends, often through games, video clips, etc.). In light of the blurred line between advertising and nonadvertising content in today's sophisticated marketing environment, the IOM concluded that it may take longer for children to develop an understanding of the persuasive intent of advertising.³

2. A ban on children's advertising won't solve the obesity epidemic.⁹ Obesity is a complex, multifaceted problem.¹¹ It is bound up with a host of environmental, social, and political issues. Indeed, “the food industry is an oligopoly that has transformed not only what we eat but how we eat it, and what we think of food.”^12–14 Placing a restriction on promoting Kool-Aid or Marshmallow Pebbles directly to children does not address wider cultural norms around food, including the normalization of large portion sizes, the denormalization of cooking, and the promotion of all-the-time eating. However, to conclude it is unnecessary to ban advertising to children because it will not “solve” obesity is to miss the point (akin to suggesting that we need not recycle because it will not “solve” deforestation). One needs to start somewhere, including with steps that actually work to promote children's health.

3. Children's advertising bans don't work. The Quebec law proves it.⁹ Industry advocates often point to the Quebec experience to support this myth. While industry self-regulation characterizes the United States and most of Canada, the province of Quebec's Consumer Protection Act has prohibited commercial advertising targeted to children under 13 years since 1980.¹⁵ The argument is typically made that a ban won't solve obesity because the prevalence of overweight and obesity among those aged 2–17 in Quebec (22.6%) is higher than in Alberta (21.8%),¹⁶ which has no law prohibiting children's advertising. However, it is difficult to isolate the specific contribution of the province's children's advertising ban on overweight or obesity. One could argue that without the law the prevalence of obesity in Quebec could be substantially higher today. After all, Quebec residents report one of the lowest levels of physical activity of any province.¹⁷ Yet both claims about the impact of the ad ban are equally unsupported by research and don't help further public policy debates.

No regulation alone will solve rising obesity levels, but research shows that children's advertising restrictions could contribute to healthier weights at a population level. Chou et al. concluded that banning fast food and restaurant television ads could reduce the percentage of overweight youth.¹⁸ Veerman et al. reported that eliminating television advertising for unhealthy food could reduce rates of childhood obesity in the United States.¹⁹ Although research specifically on childhood obesity and the Quebec law does not exist, Dhar and Baylis concluded that the ad ban reduced fast food expenditures by 13% per week in French-speaking households, leading to 2.2–4.4 billion fewer calories consumed by children.²⁰

4. Advertising to children is justified because businesses are just trying to give children information about products that interest them.⁶ Children are not really consumers the same way that adults are. The fact that children sometimes make consumer purchases does not mean that they enjoy the same rights and responsibilities of adult consumers. Children are not permitted to enter into a contract, launch a formal consumer complaint through government, or participate on Advertising Standards Canada's Children's Advertising Clearance Committee (which approves broadcast advertising). Even the Competition Act itself requires citizens to be at least 18 years old to petition for an investigation of misleading advertising,²¹ while the Canada Evidence Act creates a presumption that children under the age of 14 are not reliable witnesses.²² All of this suggests that we should not view children as simply smaller versions of an adult consumer.

The children's marketing environment gives little support to the idea that the aim of advertisers is to convey critical product information to children or to appeal to their logic to make a product purchase. Children's food advertising today has little to do with conveying information about price, quality, or taste and much more about connecting the product or brand with fun, entertainment, and child-friendly spokescharacters.^23–25

There is a clear disconnect between the “right to information” defense for targeting children and the way that modern marketers advertise to young consumers today. In addition, companies cannot claim commercial free speech as a defense for marketing to children in Canada. In 1989, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the Quebec Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits advertising targeted to children, was a reasonable and justifiable limit on commercial free speech.²⁶

5. Industry has already made significant changes in how it advertises to children.^27,28 The Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative, adopted in the United States, Canada, and many other countries, is the food industry's response to the problem of childhood obesity. But a close examination of the promises made reveals very little substance. As part of the Canadian Children's Advertising Initiative (CAI), participating members have committed to either not advertise to children or to only promote “better-for-you” choices to children. Participating companies created their own nutrient criteria for what comprises a “better-for-you” choice. Up to this point, “better-for-you” or “healthy dietary choices” have included such products as Kool-Aid, Dunkaroos cookies, Froot Loops, Fruit Gushers, and Lucky Charms. Not only might many parents question the “healthy” designation of these products, but the Public Health Agency of Canada has assessed these products against nutrition standards developed by other national governments (United Kingdom, New Zealand, Brazil, Denmark). The review found that up to 58% of products would not qualify for advertising to children based on criteria from at least three of the four countries.²⁹

Not only would many products fail some national standards, a study of products promoted to children on Canadian television also found that “healthy dietary choices” were higher in fat, sugar, sodium, and calories than foods advertised by companies not participating in the CAI.³⁰

Beyond their nutritional value, advertising cookies and breakfast candy (e.g., cereals with marshmallows) as “better-for-you” does not help to prepare children “to make wise decisions about nutrition and health,”³¹ as the CAI affirms. Suggesting to children that cookies should be classified as a healthy dietary choice is problematic at best.

Flaws in the CAI are not unique to Canada. Some critics argue that the US Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI) “has been completely ineffective in shifting the landscape of food marketing to children away from its overwhelming emphasis on non-nutritious products that place children at risk of becoming obese.”³² The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) also concluded that “the overall picture of how marketers reach children…did not significantly change between 2006 and 2009. Companies continue to use a wide variety of techniques to reach young people.”⁴

6. Advertising healthier foods to children is the answer. This myth is circulated by the food industry itself, particularly through its Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiatives,^31,33 as well as by registered dietitians. For instance, the “position statement” of the Dietitians of Canada on food advertising to children states that “ads for ‘healthy’ foods and beverages should be encouraged.”³⁴ But what, exactly, constitutes “healthy”?

There is little historical evidence to suggest large food companies have a genuine interest in advertising healthier foods to children. Concerns about the negative influence of food advertising on child health have been raised in Canada since the early 1970s,³⁵ and companies have consistently resisted government regulations or dramatic changes to their advertising practices. In 1973, amid threats of legislation to prohibit TV advertising to children, Kellogg Canada warned that such a law would jeopardize children's health because their “advertising to children has contributed significantly to providing nutritional intake at the most important meal of the day.”³⁶ Four decades later, after a dramatic rise in childhood obesity³⁷ and numerous calls for industry to substantially improve the nutritional value of foods marketed to children, Kellogg promotes cereals such as Froot Loops and Frosted Flakes as “healthy dietary choices” for children.³⁸ Neither cereal meets nutrition standards evaluated by the Public Health Agency of Canada.²⁹

With the wide gap between the nutrient standards of children's food manufacturers and those of public health authorities, one also wonders how companies might be urged to effectively advertise products that are better for children's health. Furthermore, research has found that TV ads for healthier food have little influence on children with low tolerance for trying new foods.³⁹

7. When it comes to the Internet, it's the Wild West. You can't stop children from being targeted with online ads. Internet regulation is a dilemma facing governments worldwide. Online platforms have opened up numerous opportunities for children to be exposed to more marketing messages. A close look at the Canadian context, however, shows that online enforcement could be effective.

Although many Internet ads targeted to children are transmitted from outside Canada (primarily from the United States), this doesn't mean that Canadian legislation could not be enforced against companies transmitting them. Canada's Supreme Court ruled that an important criterion for applying Canadian regulation is not only the source of a message, but also whether the business transmitting the message has a “substantial connection” to Canada.⁴⁰ This conclusion is relevant to many children's marketers, especially transnational corporations that do business across multiple national boundaries. Consider a case brought against General Mills by the Quebec Consumer Protection Office. In 2009, the company was charged with targeting Quebec children with a French version of its Lucky Charms website,⁴¹ a violation of the province's Consumer Protection Act. The company was fined, even though the offending website was physically housed in the United States.

In terms of a national children's ad ban on the Internet, Canada already possesses many of the tools required for enforcement.⁴² Canada's Federal Competition Bureau, which investigates “false or misleading” advertising (among other issues), regularly works with authorities in the United States to pursue allegations of marketing violations on the Internet.⁴³ In 2008, the Bureau was recognized by the Community of Federal Regulators for its role in stopping almost 100 websites from promoting fraudulent cancer cures.⁴⁴

By comparison, children's marketing websites tend to be much higher profile than those selling questionable health treatments. If a national regulation were in place, large corporations might be more willing to voluntarily “geo-gate” Canadian households from their US-based children's websites. Geo-gating is a common practice already in use by copyright holders whereby online content, such as popular television programs, are available only to users within a predetermined geographic boundary.⁴⁵ Certainly there are no easy answers to Internet regulation, but various possibilities regarding children's online advertising do exist.

8. Public health advocates should quit wasting our time and tackle a real issue.⁴⁶ Childhood obesity is a real issue. The problem arising from advertising directly to children is not simply about promoting a particular “junk” food, but the way such advertising influences children's perception of food on a broader scale. Consider a recent study that asked “What is kids' food?” to 250 children in grades 1 through 6.⁴⁷ The top three answers children gave were “junk food”, sugar or sugary cereals, and foods with “fun” colors or shapes. When these same children were asked “What is adult food?”, the top three answers were fruits, vegetables, or protein (particularly meats). These children identified “kids' food” as packaged and highly processed food; they identified adult fare as not packaged and largely unprocessed fare. More significantly, the children identified foods “for them” as high-sugar, low-nutrient foods and identified food “for others” as the unprocessed fruits, vegetables, and meats that Canada's Food Guide recommends everyone should be consuming more of.⁴⁷

9. If consumers, young or old, paid no heed to advertising, it would disappear. Businesses that spent no money on advertising could offer their products at lower prices and put others out of business.⁴⁸ Food advertising to children typically appeals to the emotions while saying little about a product's features.⁴⁹ Emotional marketing has been found to be persuasive even when consumers pay little attention and may even be more effective under these low involvement conditions.^50,51 Researchers have documented that advertising can lead to decision processes that occur outside of conscious awareness.⁴⁵ This is not to suggest that individuals are not in control, although children certainly have fewer cognitive defenses than adults. Yet it does suggest that consumer choice is a mix of conscious and nonconscious influences.

For large corporations, those responsible for most child-targeted advertising today, advertising spending is core to their business model. When a product sector becomes dominated by a small number of large players, competition around price often recedes into the background, replaced by competition among firms through variation of the product's appearance and packaging. Mass advertising becomes a tool to reinforce product differentiation.⁵²

Targeting children early on is critical to creating and solidifying this emotional connection with one's brand. An invitation to a national children's marketing conference agrees: “Experts say a lifetime customer may be worth $100,000 to a retailer, making effective ‘cradle to grave’ strategies extremely valuable. For this reason, building brand loyalty is critical and marketing to kids is the best way to do so.”⁵³

10. A ban is just another way of letting lazy parents off the hook. The problem is parents who give in to children's requests and don't just turn off the TV. The notion that parents are responsible surfaces in newspaper columns, blog sites, comment sections of online newspapers, and in private conversations. As one mommy blogger affirms with respect to Disney's commitment to ban junk food advertisements on its children's programming: “Let us not blame our children's ill health on the ads on TV, but rather take responsibility over our own children's health. Change is in our hands, not the advertisers' hands.”⁵⁴ A media search of the keywords parent, responsible/responsibility, child*, and obesity yields 796 results over the past 2 years alone. Numerous articles promote the value of good parenting, which is laudable, but often positioned as a substitute for effective public policy (e.g., “Government regulations are no substitute for effective parenting”⁵⁵ and “It is time for parents to stand up and be good role models for their children when it comes to food”⁵⁶).

Yet the idea that parents are solely responsible for protecting their children from commercial influences is outdated amid today's highly sophisticated marketing environment. Parents need support.

Many forms of government intervention to promote children's health are not controversial. No campaigns oppose measures to support parents and protect children when it comes to traffic safety near schools—crossing guards, speed bumps, lower speed limits, and higher fines. This is true even though everyone agrees that it is ultimately a parent's responsibility to ensure that their child gets safely across the street to school. In this example, there is a clear societal benefit in creating a child-protective environment. Perhaps there is not similar support for better children's advertising “speed bumps” because the dangers of allowing sophisticated marketers unfettered access to our nation's children are less obvious. However, the goal of restricting child-targeted advertising is to get marketers out of parents' way. It allows parents to do their job without their child being constantly bombarded by marketing messages specifically designed to persuade them. This creates the space for parents to operate with less pressure from commercial marketers pushing toys, unhealthy foods, and video games.

Conclusion

The influence of advertising on children's dietary preferences and purchase requests and the predominance of unhealthy foods in child-targeted advertising have been documented for many years now.^3,57 Some of the common myths related to child-targeted advertising are voiced by industry advocates eager to stave off stricter advertising regulations. Others may arise from an incomplete understanding of the science related to children's cognitive development and their abilities to interpret advertising messages. All of the myths are problematic. Taken as a whole, they undermine a meaningful public debate about the appropriateness of child-targeted advertising and how to employ public policy tools to minimize the risks to their health and well-being. Given the gravity of diet-related health problems that future generations are expected to face, we need to voice these myths to encourage policy makers and the public not to accept the status quo.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The lead author would like to acknowledge the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Canada Research Chairs program, as well as The Calgary Institute for the Humanities (CIH) and the Alberta Children's Hospital BMO Financial Endowment in Healthy Living, which have all provided support for projects that pertain to the themes in this Perspective.

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

Lobstein

, Baur

, Uauy

. Obesity in children and young people: A crisis in public health. Obes Rev, 2004; 5:4–85.

Dehghan

, Akhtar-Danesh

, Merchant

. Childhood obesity, prevalence and prevention. Nutr J, 2005; 4:24.

McGinnis

, Gootman

, Kraak

. Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity? The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2006.

Leibowitz

, Rosch

, Ramirez

et al. A Review of Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Follow-Up Report. Federal Trade Commission. 2012. www.ftc.gov/os/2012/12/121221foodmarketingreport.pdf. 2013 April 30.

Winn

. The Plug in Drug: 25th Anniversary Edition. Penguin Books: New York, 2002.

Strachan

, Pavie-Latour

. Forum—Food for thought: Shouldn't we actually target food advertising more towards kids and not less? Int J Market Res, 2007; 50:13–27.

American Psychological Association. Report of the APA Task Force on Advertising and Children. APA: Washington, DC, 2004.

Lindstrom

. Brandchild. Kogan Page: London, UK, 2004.

Reaume

. Testimony of the Association of Canadian Advertisers to the Standing Committee on Health. 39th Parliament, 1st Session. October 19, 2006. www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Mode=1&Language=E&DocId=2421561&File=0. 2013 April 30.

10.

Livingstone

, Helsper

. Does advertising literacy mediate the effects of advertising on children? A critical examination of two linked research literatures in relation to obesity and food choice. J Commun, 2006; 56:560–584.

11.

Finegood

, Karanfil

, Matteson

. Getting from analysis to action: Framing obesity research, policy and practice with a solution-oriented complex systems lens. Healthc Pap, 2008; 9:36–41.

12.

Patel

. Abolish the food industry. The Atlantic, February 6, 2012.

13.

Moss

. Salt, Sugar, Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us. Signal: Toronto, ON, 2013.

14.

Kessler

. The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetite. McClelland & Stewart: Toronto, ON, 2009.

15.

Quebec. Consumer Protection Act, R.S.Q. (1980), c. P-40.1. www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/P_40_1/P40_1_A.html. 2013 April 15.

16.

Shields

, Tjepkema

. Regional differences in obesity. Health Rep, 2006; 17:61–67.

17.

Statistics Canada. Health Indicator Profile, Age-Standardized Rates Annual Estimates, by Sex, Canada, Provinces and Territories (CANSIM Table 105-0503) Ottawa: Statistics Canada, 2012.

18.

Chou

, Rashad

, Grossman

. Fast-food restaurant advertising on television and its influence on childhood obesity. J Law Econ, 2008; 51:599–618.

19.

Veerman

, Van Beeck

, Barendregt

et al.

By how much would limiting TV food advertising reduce childhood obesity?

Eur J Public Health, 2009; 19:365–369.

20.

Dhar

, Baylis

. Fast-food consumption and the ban on advertising targeting children: The Quebec experience. J Marketing Res, 2011; 48:799–813.

21.

Canada. Competition Act, R.S.C. (1985), c. C-34, subsection 9(1) laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-34/FullText.html. 2013 April 30.

22.

Canada. Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C., 1985c. C-5, section 16laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-5/FullText.html. 2013 April 30.

23.

Elliott

. Marketing fun foods: A profile and analysis of supermarket food messages targeted at children. Can Public Policy, 2008; 34:259–274.

24.

Elliott

. Packaging fun: Analysing supermarket food messages targeted at children. Can J Communic, 2012; 37:303–318.

25.

Elliott

. Packaging health: Examining “better-for-you” foods targeted at children. Can Public Policy, 2012; 38:265–281.

26.

Irwin Toy Ltd v. Québec (AG), 1989; 1SCR927. www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1989/1989canlii87/1989canlii87.html. 2013 April 15.

27.

Powell

. ASC lauds progress of kids advertising initiative. Marketing Magazine, September 30, 2011.

28.

Remarks by the First Lady to the Partnership for a Healthier America Summit. George Washington University: Washington DC, March 8, 2013. www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/08/remarks-first-lady-partnership-healthier-america-summit. 2013 April 15.

29.

Conrad

. Innovation in Policy Evaluation: Examining the Foods and Beverages Included in the Canadian Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. Public Health Agency of Canada: Ottawa, ON, 2010.

30.

Potvin Kent

, Dubois

, Wanless

. Self-regulation by industry of food marketing is having little impact during children's preferred television. Int J Pediatr Obes, 2011; 6:401–408.

31.

Canadian Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. www.adstandards.com/en/childrensinitiative/default.htm. 2013 April 15.

32.

Kunkel

, McKinley

, Wright

. The Impact of Industry Self-Regulation on the Nutritional Quality of Foods Advertised on Television to Children. Children Now. 2009. www.childrennow.org/index.php/learn/reports_and_research/article/576. 2013 April 15.

33.

Better Business Bureau. Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. www.bbb.org/us/childrens-food-and-beverage-advertising-initiative. 2013 April 15.

34.

Dietitians of Canada. Advertising of food and beverages to children. www.dietitians.ca/Dietitians-Views/Children-and-Teens/Advertising-of-food-and-beverages-to-children.aspx. 2013 April 15.

35.

Committee told to ban TV ads aimed at young. Toronto Star, June 12, 1973.

36.

Canada. Parliament. House of Commons. Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts29th Parliament, 1st Session16 June 21, 1973.

37.

Shields

. Overweight Canadian children and adolescents. Nutrition: Findings from the Canadian Community Health Survey, 2005; 1 www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-620-m/2005001/article/child-enfant/8061-eng.htm. 2013 May 1.

38.

Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative–Kellogg Canada Inc. www.adstandards.com/en/childrensinitiative/KCI_EN.pdf. 2013 April 15.

39.

Dovey

, Taylor

, Stow

et al. Responsiveness to healthy television (TV) food advertisements/commercials is only evident in children under the age of seven with low food neophobia. Appetite, 2011; 56:440–446.

40.

Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, 2004; 2SCR4272004 SCC 45.

41.

L'Office de la protection du consommateur (“Office of Consumer Protection”). General Mills plaide coupable d'avoir fait de la publicité commerciale destinée aux enfants sur le Web (“General Mills pleads guilty to commercial advertising to children on the Web”) Press Release, February 25, 2009. www.newswire.ca/en/story/523907/general-mills-plaide-coupable-d-avoir-fait-de-la-publicite-commerciale-destinee-aux-enfants-sur-le-web. 2013 April 15.

42.

Cook

. Policy Options to Improve the Children's Advertising Environment in Canada. Public Health Agency of Canada Health Portfolio Task Group on Obesity and Marketing: Ottawa, ON, 2009.

43.

Competition Bureau Canada. Annual Report of the Commissioner of Competition for the Year Ending March 31, 2010. http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/iccat.nsf/eng/07053_1.html. 2013 May 1.

44.

Competition Bureau Canada. Competition Bureau wins award for collaboration in combatting online health fraud. December 1, 2008. www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02755.html. 2013 April 15.

45.

Industry Canada. Regulating content on the Internet: A new technological perspective. 2011. www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09250.html. 2013 April 15.

46.

Bonokoski

. It's time to rain on Santa. Toronto Sun, October 24, 2008.

47.

Elliott

. “It's junk food and chicken nuggets”: Children's perspectives on ‘kids' food' and the question of food classification. J Consum Behav, 2011; 10:133–140.

48.

Kelly-Gagnon

. The Influence of Advertising on Consumption. Montreal Economic Institute. Economic Note. June 2011. www.iedm.org/files/note0611_en.pdf. 2013 April 15.

49.

Harris

, Brownell

, Bargh

. The food marketing defense model: Integrating psychological research to protect youth and inform public policy. Soc Issues Policy Rev, 2009; 3:211–271.

50.

Dijksterhuis

, Smith

, van Baaren

et al. The unconscious consumer: Effects of environment on consumer behavior. J Consum Psychol, 2005; 15:193–202.

51.

Fitzsimons

, Hutchinson

, Williams

et al. Non-conscious influences on consumer choice. Mark Lett, 2002; 13:269–279.

52.

Winson

. The Intimate Commodity: Food and the Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex in Canada. Garamond Press: Toronto, ON, 1993.

53.

Kid Power Xchange. Introducing The Kid Power Xchange's 6th Annual Kid Power Food and Beverage Marketing. 2005 Conference Brochure. Radisson Hotel Miami: Florida, January 31 February 2, 2005.

54.

Harris

. Disney's decision to ban junk food ads doesn't address root issues. Mother Nature Network. June 5, 2012. www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eating/blogs/disneys-decision-to-ban-junk-food-ads-doesnt-address-root-issues. 2013 May 1.

55.

Luciani

. Parents are the key if we want healthy kids; Government regulations are no substitute for effective parenting. The Toronto Star, March 2, 2013.

56.

Ponton

. Parental guidance needed to tackle weighty issue. Hobart Mercury, April 2, 2013.

57.

Kelly

, Halford

JCG

, Boyland

et al. Television food advertising to children: A global perspective. Am J Public Health, 2010; 100:1730–1736.