Food Marketing Targeting Children And Their Own Communities Across The Country

“Congress should ban advertising that preys upon children, it should stop subsidizing dead-end jobs, it should pass tougher food safety laws, it should protect American workers from serious harm, it should fight against dangerous concentrations of economic power (Schlosser). People must wonder how is it that a fast food company has so much customers. Advertising is the answer. The power advertisers have to be able to influence so many people 's decisions and affect people’s lives especially the lives of young children is incredible. Advertisers know just who to target and they research how too. In Eric Schlosser’s book Fast Food Nation, Schlosser explains to the readers how advertisers use techniques to draw in customers. A technique used is the “cradle-to-grave” which focuses on children to make them lifelong consumers. Like many researcher, Schlosser, has found that advertising to children when they are younger makes them be loyal to the company, and a child 's “brand loyalty” may begin as early as the age of two (43). Fast food advertising reaches out and harms families everywhere. This is why it is crucial that the people to make changes in their lives and change the way fast food is affected us.

The author is set out to target companies such as the fast food industry and its affiliation with child targeted advertisement. The article begins by

Congress as well. The Federal Trade Commission is the primary agency that enforces and regulations advertisements. However, Congress grants the authority to the FTC, and therefore, can update the laws and regulations regarding advertising. In 1990, Congress enacted the Children’s Television Act, and this authorized the FTC to limit the amount of advertising that children are exposed to. This law limited the advertising to 10.5 minutes per hour on weekends and 12 minutes per hour on weekdays (CDC, 2016). The FTC also prohibits the use of “unfair methods of completion” in advertising practices. However, three elements need to occur for action. The first is, there must be a representation, omission, or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer. Second, The FTC examines the reasonableness of the practice from the perspective of the intended audience. Lastly, the representation, omission, or practice must be likely to affect the consumer’s conduct or decision with regard to the product or service (CDC, 2016). This seems like it would be an effective process; however, the process used to create prohibitions can require up to 10 years to complete the entire process (CDC, 2016). Therefore, this process is not done very often, and as mentioned, childhood obesity is at an alarming rate. Congress needs to enhance the power of the FTC to act in order to protect children from marketing strategies used by the food and beverage industry. The current process used by the FTC is extremely long and completely ineffective. Congress needs to make an ethical decision if they want to effectively reduce childhood obesity. The research is very clear that advertising leads to overconsumption and this leads to obesity. The recommendation action would hurt corporate profits, but if corporate profits are more important than vulnerable children, then there are major issues with the Congress

Commercials through television and radio aimed towards children are ethical because it helps build healthy ideals. Through commercials, children can see that doing certain things are good for you! They can see that it is what they should do. “Advertising and marketing techniques could encourage children to eat

Advertisements are everywhere. They are a major part of modern day society. Whether it be a television commercial, an internet banner, or a billboard, advertisements influence people of all ages, but they affect a certain age group much more than others. Children ranging from toddlers to teenagers are exposed to thousands upon thousands of advertisements each year. Some of these advertisements are damaging to children, while others are a positive influence. Advertisements can either be used as a tool or a weapon. Food advertisements and manipulation strategies are both positive and negative, and how companies use them decides whether or not marketing to children is ethical.

Dawes reveals that the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood united with two parents made known their intent to sue the Kellogg’s corporation as well as Viacom, owner of Nickelodeon. The CCFC and their partnered parents declared that the two afore mentioned companies were deceitfully marketing nutritionally unsound foods to children under the age of eight. The litigants were seeking to end junk food advertisements aimed at children younger than eight-years-old during highly popular children’s programming on Nickelodeon’s station, while also seeking to terminate Kellogg’s advertising campaigns which targeted young children with the company’s fat and sugar laden products. Interestingly, the author points out that this distressing issue is not new, as identical concerns, of adverse health effects incited through advertising high-fat and high-sugar food products to children, were voiced at an FTC hearing at the end of the

Companies are continuously in search of innovative marketing techniques by encouragingly establishing individuals to purchase their advertised products. As intelligent as marketing companies are, they are indeed aware of the fact that adults are more likely to watch an advertisement and detect why they should or should not purchase such product. In such instances where the company cannot reach the focus of an adult, parent, or parental figure, marketers will target young children and teens in their advertising campaigns. Advertising campaigns targeting the youth have significantly impacted the ethical consideration in the children’s market through media, ethics, as well as food advertising to children.

The First Amendment does not only give the individuals the rights to free speech, but also gives the companies the protection to advertise their products. However, there are regulations in advertisements, such as that the information on the advertisements cannot be misguiding nor false. If companies are restricted on the way they use to advertise, individuals may not be as free as they think because they are regulated on what they want to say. For instance, tobacco companies are highly regulated in advertisements. The government required tobacco companies to inform the consumers that tobacco can cause bad health problems. This can support the argument that we are not as we as we believe we are because we need to follow the directions of the government. The government limited the people that tobacco companies can target. However, tobacco companies are indirectly targeting the youth because the style of their advertisements are most attractive to teenagers. This is an issue that is cause by the First Amendment because sellers have the rights of free speech. They may be limited to the ways they advertise, but they always find ways to sell their products to a wider group.

The author asserts that the food companies involved in the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative were hiding behind vague criteria that was loosely followed as they continued to advertise poor quality foods to youth and adolescents by finding loop holes in their established guidelines. One example the author points to involved junk food companies pledging to terminate marketing nutritionally deficit foods in schools, these companies, however, were sure to make an exception by allowing schools to use and promote their products in “fundraising activities, public service messaging, or items provided to school administrators” (Dawes 197) which accounted for the most significant portion of junk food advertising in schools in the first place. Notably, Dawes recognizes that the food company’s involvement in the initiative granted them the ability to hide behind the façade of proactively taking action to aid the plight of obese children as well as indicating that they could regulate themselves without

The advertisement is sponsored by The Child Health Foundation (TCHF) as shown by the logo that is on the bottom right of the image. The Child Health Foundation focuses on solving the health problems of children who are in low income households. The advertisement is based on anti-smoking. Germany created this ad and published it in 2007. This ad consists of a blonde haired girl who is prominent in the image, she is around age four. The setting of the image is a navy blue backdrop. A small caption to the right of her, that states, “Children of parents who smoke, get to heaven earlier.” The text is white and small, along with the Child Health Foundation logo. The text and the logo is not in an oversized font or a creative font style. In this image,

Fast food advertisement agencies take advantage of the ignorance of children to scam them into wanting unhealthy meals. Each year, the fast food industry spends over $3 million of advertising targeted towards children. Half of television advertisement is used during children’s shows and with cartoons. Out of all the factors

Marketing systems that target children are designed specifically to make children desire the product. McDonalds advertises toys and playhouses as a way to suck children into craving their product. This Is extremely profitable if done effectively. Although its not the most ethical approach to selling product its one that is used often. Fast food has become a meal for over fifty million customers a day. To put this in perspective thats equivalent to every citizen in New York and Texas only eating fast food. Children are among the largest consumers of fast food and the way they promote fast food in schools negatively influences these children to consume more chemicals. Restrictions should be placed on the amount of advertising directed at children as well as limitations on the

In today’s society, the food and beverage industry is faced with an ongoing ethical dilemma because they are far more concerned with making money than providing a good, safe, and healthy product for consumers. The biggest victims in this unethical marketing scheme are children. Children are the least informed and most influenced of all potential consumers (5). Although children usually don’t directly purchase these products themselves, their desires strongly influence their parent’s decision on what to buy and what the child will eat. Most products geared towards children are unhealthy, processed foods that are high in sugars and low in nutritional content (6). This has led to a rise in childhood

The use of food and beverage advertising in schools greatly impacts the purchasing behavior of youth. With the abundance of advertisements plastered around elementary, middle, and high schools, students believe that the foods and beverages advertised in their schools are what should be purchasing and consuming. Advertisements directed at children in schools are misleading. Children think it’s okay to eat these food and drink these beverages because they see the advertisements in a place of learning, a place where they believe whatever is taught to them is correct. During the Obama administration, food and beverage advertising was a controversial topic in regards to First Lady, Michelle Obama. Food and beverage promotion can be found almost everywhere on school grounds. Schools have food and beverage sponsors, like local restaurants and beverage companies that advertise in the lunchroom and even scoreboards in high schools (“Michelle”). According to a study completed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), “93% of marketing in schools, or $149 million, is related to beverages, and many soda companies already have started to transition their sales and advertising in schools from sugary sodas and sports drinks to their own healthier products (“Michelle”). Most people encompass the common misconception that most food marketing in schools are done through the lunch program; rather, most of food and beverage marketing is completed through athletic booster

The plaintiff, Monet Parham, a California mother of two, sued McDonald’s overly exploiting children market on Oct 2010 (Dan, 2011).She claimed that McDonald’s gave out alluring toys that come with the meals in order to lure kids into unhealthy diet. The mother also stated that “McDonald’s make it so much harder to say no to her kids when they are really want those toys” (York, 2010). The CSPI (Center for Science in the Public Interest) confirmed that “kids do not have the cognitive maturity to understand the persuasive intent of advertising” (York, 2010). Later on, the ban of serving Happy Meals