Parents' reactions to unhealthy food v. pro-health sponsorship options for children's sport: an experimental study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore parents' responses to sponsorship of children's sport by unhealthy food brands and two alternative pro-health sponsorship options. DESIGN: Between-subjects online experiment with four sponsorship conditions: (i) non-food branding (control); (ii) unhealthy food branding; (iii) healthier food branding; (iv) public health nutrition campaign branding. Participants were shown a short video and a promotional flyer for a fictional junior sports programme, with sponsor content representing their assigned brand. Afterwards, participants were asked a series of questions assessing their brand awareness, brand attitudes and preference for food sponsor branded products. SETTING: Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Australian parents (n 1331) of children aged 6-9 years. RESULTS: Compared with the control condition, unhealthy food sponsorship promoted increased awareness, branded product preferences and favourable attitudes towards unhealthy food sponsor brands. Healthier food sponsorship promoted similar effects for healthier food sponsor brands, except there was no significant increase in positive attitudes towards these brands. Sponsorship by public health nutrition campaigns promoted more negative attitudes towards unhealthy food sponsor brands and increased preference for healthier food sponsor branded products. Overall, healthier food sponsors and public health campaign sponsors were perceived to have better programme-sponsor fit and to be more appropriate sponsors of children's sport than unhealthy food sponsors. CONCLUSIONS: Restrictions on unhealthy food sponsorship of children's sport are needed to prevent unhealthy food brands from exploiting junior sport sponsorship to enhance their appeal. Sponsorship of children's sport by healthier food brands or public health nutrition campaigns could help promote healthier food choices among parents.

Association of the LiveLighter mass media campaign with consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages: Cohort study.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: Evaluation of the behavioural impact of Western Australia's LiveLighter healthy weight and lifestyle campaign focussed on decreasing consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) using graphic imagery, as well as monitoring unintended consequences. METHODS: A cohort design with pre-campaign telephone survey of Western Australian adults aged 25-49 (Time 1 May/Jun 2013: N = 1504) undertaken and repeated following the campaign (Time 2 Aug/Sep 2013: N = 822). RESULTS: Post-campaign awareness was 67% with respondents in low socio-economic areas most likely to report viewing the campaign frequently. There was evidence of reduced SSB intake from baseline to follow-up among frequent (4+/week) SSB consumers (22% cf. 16%; P = 0.003) and some evidence among overweight (BMI 25+) weekly SSB consumers (56% cf. 48%; P = 0.013). There was also some evidence consumption of sweet food decreased (3+/week: 53% cf. 48%; P = 0.035) while fruit, vegetable and fast food consumption remained stable. Knowledge of potential health consequences of SSBs increased (70% cf. 82%; P < 0.001) with no change in knowledge of potential health consequences of overweight generally (86% cf. 89%). Importantly, there was no increase in endorsement of overweight stereotypes. CONCLUSIONS: The LiveLighter "Sugary Drinks" campaign positively impacted adults' knowledge and behaviour with regard to SSB consumption in a pattern specific to the campaign messaging and without adverse impact on weight-related stereotypes. SO WHAT?: Findings support the use of mass media for healthy lifestyle change. They suggest the public are receptive to undertaking the campaign's simple concrete lifestyle recommendation and provide an indication of the campaign dose required to achieve positive behaviour change.

A randomized trial assessing the effects of health claims on choice of foods in the presence of front-of-pack labels.

Background: As a public health intervention, front-of-pack labels (FoPLs) have the potential to reach large numbers of consumers and promote healthier food choices. Of the different FoPLs, those that summarize a product's overall nutritional profile tend to be most effective in guiding healthier choices. However, information is lacking as to whether FoPLs are as effective when nutrient or health claims also appear on-pack. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine how the choice of foods of varying levels of healthfulness (less healthy, moderately healthy, and healthier) is affected by the appearance of various FoPLs (Daily Intake Guide, Multiple Traffic Lights, Health Star Rating) when shown in combination with different claim conditions (no claim, nutrient claim, general-level health claim, and higher-level health claim). Design: Adults and children (n = 2069) completed a discrete-choice experiment online. Respondents were shown 8 choice sets, each containing 4 alternatives of the same food type (cookies, cornflakes, pizza, or yogurt) of varying levels of healthfulness and were asked which product they would likely purchase (or they could select none). Respondents were randomly assigned to view 1 of the 3 FoPLs across all choice sets. Claim type and healthfulness varied within choice sets in accordance with a D-efficient design. Results: The probability of choosing a healthy product and avoiding an unhealthy product was greatest when only an FoPL (especially the Health Star Rating) appeared on-pack. The addition of a nutrient or health claim did not affect the likelihood of picking healthier products but did increase the likelihood of selecting less healthy foods across all FoPL conditions. Conclusions: FoPLs are most effective in helping consumers make better food choices when nutrient and health claims are not present. Policies are required to control how nutrient and health claims are applied to less healthy foods. This trial was registered as ACTRN12617000015347 (www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Resgistration/TrialReview.aspx?id=372055&isReview=true).

Parent's responses to nutrient claims and sports celebrity endorsements on energy-dense and nutrient-poor foods: an experimental study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess parents' responses to common, potentially misleading strategies for marketing energy-dense and nutrient-poor (EDNP) child-oriented foods. DESIGN: Between-subjects online experiment to test whether nutrient claims and sports celebrity endorsements on the front of packs of EDNP products lead parents to prefer and rate these foods more favourably. SETTING: Australia. SUBJECTS: A total of 1551 parents of children aged 5-12 years, who were the main household grocery buyers. RESULTS: Inclusion of nutrient claims or sports celebrity endorsements on EDNP products led parents to perceive these products to be more nutritious than if they did not include such promotions. When asked to choose between a pair of different products (EDNP v. healthier), 56 % of parents did not read a nutrition information panel (NIP) before making their choice and this did not differ by promotion condition. These parents were more likely to choose an EDNP product if it included a nutrient claim (OR = 1.83, 95 % CI 1.31, 2.56; P < 0.001) or sports celebrity endorsement (OR = 2.37, 95 % CI 1.70, 3.32; P < 0.001). Sports celebrity endorsements also enhanced parent's perceptions of typical consumers of the product, perceptions of product healthiness and quality, as well as purchase intentions. CONCLUSIONS: Nutrient claims and sports celebrity endorsements tip consumer preferences towards EDNP products bearing such promotions, especially among the majority who do not read the NIP. As parents largely determine what foods are available to children at home, it is critical that initiatives aimed at reducing the persuasive impact of food marketing include this target group.