3.9 Article

Trends in the Nutritional Content of Television Food Advertisements Seen by Children in the United States

期刊

ARCHIVES OF PEDIATRICS & ADOLESCENT MEDICINE
卷 165, 期 12, 页码 1078-1086

出版社

AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2011.131

关键词

-

资金

  1. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
  2. National Cancer Institute [R01CA138456]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To examine trends in children's exposure to food-related advertising on television by age, product category, and company. Design: Nutritional content analysis using television ratings data for 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009 for children. Setting: Annual age-specific television ratings data captured children's exposure to broadcast network, cable network, syndicated, and spot television food advertising from all (except Spanish-language) programming. Participants: Children aged 2 to 5 and 6 to 11 years. Main Exposure: Television ratings. Main Outcome Measures: Children's exposure to food-related advertising on television with nutritional assessments for food and beverage products for grams of saturated fat, sugar, and fiber and milligrams of sodium. Results: Children aged 2 to 5 and 6 to 11 years saw, respectively, on average, 10.9 and 12.7 food-related television advertisements daily in 2009, down 17.8% and 6.9% from 2003. Exposure to food and beverage products high in saturated fat, sugar, or sodium fell 37.9% and 27.7% but fast-food advertising exposure increased by 21.1% and 30.8% among 2-to 5- and 6- to 11-year-olds, respectively, between 2003 and 2009. In 2009, 86% of ads seen by children were for products high in saturated fat, sugar, or sodium, down from 94% in 2003. Conclusions: Exposure to unhealthy food and beverage product advertisements has fallen, whereas exposure to fast-food ads increased from 2003 to 2009. By 2009, there was not a substantial improvement in the nutritional content of food and beverage advertisements that continued to be advertised and viewed on television by US children.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据