marketing fun foods: a profile and analysis of supermarket food messages targeted at children

Canadian Public Policy

Marketing Fun Foods: A Profile and Analysis of Supermarket Food Messages Targeted atChildrenAuthor(s): Charlene ElliottSource: Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques, Vol. 34, No. 2 (Jun., 2008), pp. 259-273Published by: University of Toronto Press on behalf of Canadian Public PolicyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25463610 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 09:42

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Toronto Press and Canadian Public Policy are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.111 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 09:42:28 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=utp

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cpp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/25463610?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Marketing Fun Foods: A Profile and

Analysis of Supermarket Food

Messages Targeted at Children

Charlene Elliott

School of Journalism and Communication Carleton University, Ottawa

L'obSsite infantile est un problfcme important qui requiert des solutions novatrices. Dans cet article, je

suggere que, face I ce probleme, les chercheurs et les decideurs politiques ne se limitent pas a remettre en

question la malbouffe et la publicity t616vis6e qui s'adresse aux enfants, mais qu'ils se concentrent plutot sur les messages, destines aux enfants, qui sont associes a divers produits et aliments vendus dans les

supermarch^s. Aprfcs avoir presente une analyse de contenu de ces divers ? aliments amusants ?(? fun foods ?)

con9us pour attirer les enfants : a) j'explique comment le fait de ? transformer ? certains aliments qui ne

sont ni des confiseries ni de la malbouffe en ? aliments amusants ? contribue a la hausse de l'ob&jite' infantile ; et b) je suggfere que, au moment de concevoir des politiques publiques visant a lutter contre 1 'otesite' infantile, ces pratiques de marketing qui donnent un sens ? amusant ? aux aliments pourraient etre prises en compte.

Mots cles : obesit6 infantile, emballage alimentaire, supermarches, aliments amusants

Childhood obesity is a significant problem that requires innovative solutions. This article suggests that

researchers and policy-makers move beyond a scrutiny of junk food and televised advertisements to children to focus on the messages targeted to children in the supermarket. Following a content analysis of fun foods

marketed to children, the article (a) outlines why the recoding of "regular" food into "fun food" contributes to the childhood obesity crisis, and (b) suggests how the meaning-making practices of food can be

acknowledged in the policy-making process.

Keywords: childhood obesity, food packaging, supermarkets, fun foods

The

growing number of overweight and obese

children is a significant public health problem,

requiring preventative public health solutions. Ex cess body weight affects over 26 percent of children

in Canada (Canadian Institute for Health Informa

tion 2006; House of Commons 2007), 30 to 35

percent of children in the Americas, and approxi

mately 20 percent of children in Europe (Crawford and Jeffery 2005, 15). It is linked to a range of

comorbidities, including type 2 diabetes, hyperten sion, cardiovascular disease, and some forms of

cancer (Library of Parliament 2005; World Health

Organization 2003). Being overweight also carries

significant psychological and social consequences

(Berg 2004).

While a number of interventions in school and fam

ily settings seek to address the childhood overweight/

Canadian Public Policy -

Analyse de politiques, vol. xxxiv, no. 2 2008



260 Charlene Elliott

obesity problem, there is a weak evidence base as

to what actually works (Birch 2006; Crawford and

Jeffery 2005; Lobstein and Dibb 2005) and thus a

need to explore a range of solutions (Elliott 2005; Institute of Medicine 2005). Studies dealing with

the sociocultural aspects contributing to obesity, for

example, tend to focus on the same lineup of "sus

pects" when it comes to food?the sale and

consumption of sugary sodas (Malik, Schulze, and

Hu 2006; Murray, Frankowski, and Taras 2005;

Popkin 2006); the endless promotion of (and easy access to) junk foods; and the food-related media

messages, particularly on television, that encourage the consumption of high fat, high sugar foods

(Botterill and Kline 2006; Brownell and Horgen 2004; Chamberlain, Wang, and Robinson 2006; In

stitute of Medicine 2006; Schwartz and Brownell

2007; Schwartz and Puhl 2003; Wadden, Brownell, and Foster 2002).l Such studies pertain to what

Swinburn, Egger, and Raza (1999) christened the

"obesogenic environment"?referring to the fact that

the physical, social, and cultural environments of

most industrialized societies promote an excess of

calorie consumption over calorie expenditure. A re

cent review of biocultural and anthropological

perspectives called the obesity epidemic "a disor

der of convenience" and suggested that it stems from

"cultural and symbolic overvaluation of food" in a

world where "food-getting" is convenient (Ulijaszek

2007,185). Similarly, Brownell and Horgen (2004) coined the term "toxic environment" to refer to our

culture of promoting the overconsumption of fast

foods, high sugar snacks, and "unhealthful foods"

(see also Schwartz and Brownell 2007).

Overlooked in the current research related to the

sociocultural, obesogenic environment, however, is

an awareness of how the rapidly expanding category of "fun food" found in the Canadian supermarket

might fit into the complex problem of childhood

obesity. This paper provides such a probe. It draws

attention to the category of fun food and suggests that such an analysis might inform the development of a more robust policy framework to deal with the

childhood overweight/obesity problem in Canada.

Supermarket Food and the Packaging

of "Fun"

Largely missing from the scholarly discourse on food

messages and environmental cues is an awareness of

how food packaging and particular food products work

to target children and to encourage consumption. While

excellent and extensive research has been undertaken

regarding television advertising messages and mass

marketing campaigns, little research has focused on

the less "mediated" messages?those wrapped tightly around the product (i.e., through packaging) and those

inscribed in the product itself (i.e., through shape, size, and colour).2 Existing analyses routinely overlook a

basic mediascape that conveys food messages to all

children and to adults who have children: the super market.3 Social engineering remedies (Eagle et al.,

2004)?the attempt to combat childhood obesity by

applying "sin" taxes to junk food, restricting/banning soda sales in schools, or prohibiting the sale of fatty or sugary food in schools?tend to narrowly focus on

junk food. However, when we move beyond junk food, a clear knowledge gap exists. Researchers know very little about the types of foods (in the dairy, dry goods,

produce, meat, refrigerated and frozen, and beverage

categories) constituting children's fare. Yet most chil

dren make their first purchasing decisions in a food

store and wield tremendous influence over product selection. Children can influence up to 80 percent of a

family's food budget (Hunter 2002; Roy 2004), and

a similar degree of influence has been reported for

"tweens"4 (Reactorz Research 2003, 146).

Research Question and Paper Aims

This paper seeks to map the rapidly expanding cat

egory of fun food and fun food messages, and to

suggest how a careful focus on food packaging

brings some new and intriguing questions to the ta

ble when it comes to the social problem of childhood

obesity. Specifically, the study focuses on the mar

keting of fun foods in the Canadian supermarket: it

uses content analysis to create a profile of what con

stitutes children's fare in the supermarket retail





Marketing Fun Foods 261

environment, and then provides a detailed assess

ment of these foods and food messages. The research

question is thus multipronged. First, what foods are

targeted to children in the Canadian supermarket, and what kinds of messages are communicated

through food packaging and marketing? Second,

what questions do these foods and food messages raise concerning children's eating habits and the is

sue of childhood overweight/obesity in Canada?

Specific objectives of the study are as follows:

1. Identify criteria for and categorize products within the fun food theme. (The study deals with

foods within the dry goods, meat, dairy, and pro duce categories that have been symbolically or

semiotically identified as children's fare. It does

not address confectioneries or junk foods.)

2. Code the products according to their package

images, names, and claims (including health

claims), as well as the foods themselves (in terms

of colour and shape).

3. Rank product categories by their percentage of

fun foods (i.e., determine what product category has the highest percentage of fun foods, second

highest, lowest, etc.).

4. Assess fun foods conceptually and thematically; that is, analyze what meaning can be drawn from

the package images and claims, as well as from

the foods themselves.

In providing a profile and analysis of fun foods mar

keted to children in the Canadian supermarket, this

paper seeks to reveal what meaning and relevance the

messages communicated from food packages/food stuffs might have to those interested in both policy and

the problem of overweight and obese children.

Method

The research employs content analysis to identify what foods are targeted to children in the Canadian

supermarket and the messages communicated

through packaging and marketing. Content analysis works to document trends, practices, and concepts within a range of "texts," and therefore provides a

particularly appropriate method for analyzing the

presence, meanings, and relationships of fun food

messages. Canada's Weston-owned Loblaws

Superstore was selected as the site for food coding.

George Weston Limited and Loblaw Companies Limited is the largest player in the Canadian food

retail market, both in terms of revenue and number

of stores. As such, it can be considered representa tive of the grocery environment available to

Canadians. Moreover, Loblaws "market" stores (also

operating under the banner of The Real Canadian

Superstore in Western Canada) stock roughly 50,000 food and non-food items combined. The expansive

product offering within Loblaws ensures that the

study is comprehensive and also generalizable. Most

stores carry the same national brands, and so the

products in an Ontario-based Loblaws will be con

sistent with one based in Alberta.5

Fun foods were purchased by the lead researcher

in three separate trips made to a single Loblaws

Superstore in December 2005.6 Fun foods were se

lected according to their packaging. Products were

photographed, stored, and subsequently coded. A

fourth trip to the store was made with the list of

selected products to ensure that no products had been

missed.

Children's fare was identified according to spe cific criteria: the product/packaging had to pointedly

target children using a combination of shape, col

our, size, package iconography, graphics, and

language. By drawing on a variety of cues that

marked the product as children's fare, ambiguity in

distinguishing between regular food and fun food was avoided. A single attribute was considered in

sufficient to signify fun food; for example, the

cartoon images used to promote everything from

pancake mix to brussel sprouts (e.g., the Jolly Green

Giant, Betty Crocker, Aunt Jemima, and the

Pillsbury Dough Boy) did not alone suffice as an






indicator of fun food. Similarly, products were not

selected according to predetermined or presumed classification of what comprises children's food.

While adults may consider Kraft Macaroni and

Cheese or Chef Boyardee Mini Ravioli as typical foods for children, such products were not selected

as part of the sample unless the package explicitly

appealed to children. The fun foods selected in

cluded at least two of the following indicators:

direct claims or allusions to fun and play on the

package;

the use of cartoon iconography, often supported

by funky lettering, pointedly directed toward

children (e.g., Tony the Tiger, Toucan Sam, and

a range of anthropomorphized animals, charac

ters, and objects);

tie-ins with children's television programs, mer

chandise, or films (e.g., SpongeBob Square

Pants, Barbie, Buzz Lightyear, Winnie-the

Pooh);

puzzles, competitions, or games unambiguously

targeted at children; and

the foregrounding of strange shapes, unusual col

ours, and unconventional product names or

flavours.

The latter requires some elaboration. Criteria for

unusual shapes, colours, product names, and fla

vours were set against what the "normal" or expected

shape, colour, and so on might be, and whether the

product "flavour" was discernable as an actual

flavour. Decision making was not arbitrary, as the

product packaging frequently emphasized the un

conventional shape, colour, or taste as a unique

selling feature. In terms of shape, for example, Jane's Kids sells (as the front of the package states)

"fun-shaped" breaded chicken nuggets in Buzz

Lightyear-inspired shapes. The shape is a unique

selling proposition. President's Choice Mini Chefs

line markets "Jungle Buddies" chicken nuggets in

the shape of zoo animals. Chicken nuggets in

frequently come in the shape of giraffes, elephants, or spaceships, so these products were included in

the sample. Along the same lines, the packaging on

Kool-Aid Magic Switchin' Secret Crystals empha sizes that the beverage is a "secret colour!", while

the package of Kool-Aid Magic Changin' Cherry Drink Crystals foregrounds the "GREEN powder which turns BLUE, but tastes like CHERRY!" Un

conventional product names or product flavours

include Kellogg's Froot Twistables fruit snacks in

Tropical Storm flavour, Jell-0 King of the Lunch

Box pudding in Chocolate Splat flavour, and Black

Diamond Cheddarific cheestrings. While this list

ing provides instances, the point is that "tropical

storm," "chocolate splat," or "cheddarific" are not

discernable flavours per se.

Significant exclusions pertained to both the type and package size of the food. Since the research is

interested in creating a profile of children's food

outside the category of junk food, candies, chips, and sodas were excluded, along with the array of

snack cakes (e.g., Twinkies, Joe Louis). Frozen nov

elties such as fruit and ice pops, however, were

included in the study, as such products could not be

dismissed as mere junk food. As the sample was

culled from a Loblaws Superstore, all club-pack

products (bulk-sized versions of products) were ex

cluded. When the same product came in different

sizes, only one size was included in the sample.

A total of 367 products were purchased for cod

ing, and 36 variables were recorded for each product. Each item was identified in terms of brand, product

name, food category (i.e., dry goods, meat, dairy,

refrigerated and frozen, beverages, and produce), and food type (i.e., breakfast, lunch, dinner, snack,

beverage, or mixed/variable). Twenty-six variables

pertained to the packaging itself (i.e., the package

semiotics), focusing on both the graphics and lan

guage of the package. This included, among other

things, questions on the dominant package colour(s),

the use of cartoons to attract attention, cross

merchandising appeals, and verbal claims. Coders

Canadian Public Policy - Analyse de politiques, vol. xxxiv, no. 2 2008




noted whether nutrition claims were made on the

front of the package, identified any "unique" product

claims, and detailed whether a game or activity adorned the back of the package (and if so, what

type). Another series of variables pertained to the food

itself?whether, for example, the product is unusually coloured for the product (i.e., blue fries, rainbow fruit

roll-ups), unusually shaped (i.e., animals, letters), or

has other special/fun qualities?such as changing col

our, size, or shape (with the addition of milk/water), or even glowing in the dark. Nutritional information

was recorded for all products.

Two graduate students were involved in the prod uct coding. Following several training sessions, they

independently coded identical products until intercoder

reliability reached higher than .80. Sixteen products, or 4.4 percent of the sample, were randomly selected

and coded for the intercoder reliability test, showing a

.90 agreement level between coders.

Results

A total of 367 grocery store products were analyzed in light of both their package semiotics (verbal and

graphic) and the foods themselves. In the sample se

lected, Kellogg's, the maker of numerous cereals, fruit

snacks, Pop Tarts, and Rice Krispie Squares, was the

brand offering the largest number of products explic

itly targeted at children (34 products, and over 9 percent of the sample). Betty Crocker came second, due to its

vast lineup of fruit snacks targeted at kids, ranging from

Fruit Gushers, Fruit Winders, and Tongue Talk Tattoo

Fruit Roll-Ups to Disney Princess fruit snacks or those

labelled with Scooby Doo, Shrek, Teenage Mutant

Ninja Turtles, Looney Tunes, or Care Bears. Other

brands with a significant presence in the arena of kids

foods include Danone (dairy), Kool-Aid (Kraft), Presi

dent's Choice Mini Chefs, and Schneiders.7 These four

brands all have at least 20 products in the sample.

Not surprisingly, the most dominant representa tion of fun foods was found in the dry goods category, with 222 products or approximately 61

percent of the sample. Within this category, cereals

predominated (43 percent of the dry goods were

cereals), followed by fruit snacks (40 percent), and

drinks (29 percent). Dairy came second, with 53

products or 14.4 percent of the sample targeted at

children. Cheese (including stringable and fresh) was the most represented (53 percent of all dairy

products), followed by yogurt drinks (26 percent) and yogurt (19 percent). The category of refriger ated and frozen foods (excluding meat) also had a

number of products targeted at children, with pizza

pops/ pogos and packaged lunches comprising roughly 11 percent of the total sample (5.7 and 4.9 percent,

respectively). The produce category, however, was sig

nificantly underrepresented: fruits and vegetables

comprised roughly 1 percent of the sample, being pro moted under only two brands.8 Children's fare in the

world of produce boils down to small apples and baby carrots?no other fruits and vegetables were specifi

cally targeted toward children.

Historically, children's fare has been contained

within the cereal aisle of the supermarket.9 Today, however, cereal's dominance has been joined by other

food products/categories?only 11.4 percent of the

sample constituted breakfast foods, whereas 65 per cent of the products coded?240 items?were

classified as a snack or mixed/variable food (i.e., a food

that could span more than one category, such as lunch

and snack; see Table 1). Seventeen percent of the sam

ple fell under the beverage category, as marketers

promote to children everything from sports drinks

(Kool-Aid Sport) and punch (McCain Zwak) to water

(Naya Sponge Bob Squarepants Aqua Kids Water).

Package Semiotics

Colour. Children's food packaging is dominated by four colours: blue, yellow, red, and green (see Ta

ble 2). Packages were coded for both their dominant

and secondary colours. The preference for blue and

yellow in children's marketing might be explained

by several factors. Blue is most frequently cited as

the favourite colour by North Americans (Pastoreau

2001), but it is also a logical choice for connoting "coolness" (Birren 1961)?such as that of






Table 1 Type of Food

Food Type Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

Breakfast 42 11.4 11.4 Lunch 18 4.9 16.3 Dinner 4 1.1 17.4 Snack 139 37.9 55.3

Beverage 63 17.2 72.5 Mixed/variable 101 27.5 100.0

Total 367 100.0

Source: Author's compilation.

Table 2 Dominant Colour

Percent of Product

Colour Dominant Colour Secondary Colour

Blue 27.5 28.1 Yellow 18.5 20.1

Red 14.4 12.0 Green 10.4 9.0

Orange 8.4 6.8 Brown 6.3 5.1

Purple 4.9 4.9 Multicoloured 4.4 3.3 White 2.7 6.0 Black 0.5 2.5 Other 1.9 2.2

Total 100.0 100.0

Source: Author's compilation.

refrigerated dairy, refrigerated lunches, and non

meat frozen foods (which, combined, comprised 40

percent of the total sample of blue used as a domi

nant colour and 39 percent as a secondary colour).

Blue also dominated as a primary colour in the dry

goods category?primarily for cookies/biscuits

(36.7 percent), drink boxes (27.6 percent), and pud

dings/Jell-Os (53.8 percent). Yellow is the

second-highest ranking as both a primary and sec

ondary colour for packaging. Roughly 63 percent of the products in the dry goods category used yel low as the dominant colour, with cereals and fruit

snacks each making up 23.3 percent of the dry goods

sample. Yellow is a logical choice as both a primary and secondary package colour because it ranks high in conspicuity?that is, yellow has a high capacity to attract attention (Green 2001). Although the cell

sizes are small, there is a significant difference be

tween the dry food category and colour (Cramer's V = .272; p-value

= 0). This difference exists within

the other food categories as well.10 In sum, there are

overall statistically significant differences in colour

use in all fun foods. However, a larger study involv

ing non-fun food would be required to determine

whether the use of the culturally favoured "coolness"

of blue, combined with the conspicuity of yellow, rep resents a unique attribute of child-targeted food. It may

simply reflect broader patterns of colour use in food

marketing.

Assumed Target Audience. By definition, fun foods

are targeted primarily at children. Coders classified

products according to whether the package appealed to children (ages 5-12), teenagers (12-17), children

and teenagers, or children and parents/adults.

Roughly 75 percent of the products were directed

solely at children, 16 percent might appeal to both

children and teenagers, and only 12.8 percent made

a specific appeal to parents on the package.11

Kellogg's Rice Krispies Squares Chocolatey Marsh

mallow-flavoured cereal, for example, displays the

cartoon mascots of Snap! Crackle! and Pop! but also

has a bold red oval on the front of the box with the

word "MOM" in bright yellow caps. The oval has

an arrow pointing to the side panel, in which text

addressed to "Mom & Dad" explains that "Kellogg's

SQUARES cereal" contains whole grains, seven

essential nutrients and no trans fats, and "is a

GREAT TASTING way to provide children with ...

nutritional goodness." Parents are also informed that

"children who eat breakfast are more likely to adopt






other healthy lifestyle habits like being physically active." 12 President's Choice Mini Chefs brand?a

line of products developed specifically for children

ages five to ten?also uses pointed appeals to par ents on the packages. Yellow check marks on the

front of the packages indicate the product has no

hydrogenated oils and no artificial flavours or

colours. Some packages even display a cartoon mag

nifying glass on the front of the box, which explains to parents that the product "contains hidden vegeta bles." (These appeals will be discussed in greater

depth in the Discussion of Results.)

Font and Graphics. The signalling of fun food is

done largely through font and graphics?84 percent of coded products used either a cartoonish script or

a crayoned font (suggesting a child's handwriting) to identify itself as children's fare. Three out of four

products also had a cartoon image on the front of

the box?predominantly an anthropomorphized ani

mal or figure (37 percent) or the cartoon image of a

human boy or girl (19 percent). Interestingly, almost

one-quarter of the sample (23 percent) pictured the

cartoon image engaged in some type of sport, such as

skateboarding (3 percent), snowboarding (2.7 percent),

biking (0.8 percent), or soccer (1.4 percent). Twenty five percent of the sample also showed cartoon images

engaged in sports on the back or side of the box.

Appeals to Fun and Value Systems. Fun foods, as

mentioned, are explicitly coded as fun to children.

Beyond the use of cartoon graphics and fonts, some

packages (8.7 percent) directly reference fun with

descriptors such as "fun to eat" or claims that "when

ever you eat them, you'll agree they spell fun."

Connections to fun are most frequently linked di

rectly with the food, as in "fun fried potatoes," "fun,

smile-shaped potatoes," "fun shapes, colours and

fruit flavours," and "nutrition and fun, all in one."

Sometimes the names of the foods include the word

fun, as with President's Choice Mini Chefs

Funshines Biscuits and Schneider's line of Lunch

Mate Fun Kits, in which children "build" their own

"lunch" out of cookies, icing, and sprinkles. Fun is

also connoted by the use of unusual product names

and flavours (38 percent), such as Bug-A-Licious

pasta, Cha-Cha Cheezy macaroni and cheese,

Chocolate Splat pudding, and Screamin' Green Ap

ple Fruit Gushers fruit snacks. Finally, fun can be

indicated by direct, verbal claims to the product's

unique characteristics: 18.3 percent of the sample

verbally emphasized the food's interactive qualities

(e.g., food is stackable, stretchable, peelable,

shredable) or its transformative properties (e.g., food

changes colour, size, or shape).

Reinforcing this theme is the use of both cross

merchandising claims and games or activities. One

out of every ten products urges kids to "collect

points," "enter a contest," or use a code (on or in

side the package) for a free download. Three of every ten products offer a game or activity on the back of

the package. The standard mazes, word searches,

and find-an-item games are found not only on ce

real boxes (9 percent) but on yogurt tubes, lunch

kits, biscuits, and cookies. Packages also encour

age kids to interact with a web site (10.9 percent). Some even provide a game to play using the food

itself (3 percent). Remarkably, only 1.6 percent of

all products coded?6 out of 367 foods?had nutri

tion-related activities on the back of the package.13 This extremely low percentage affirms the weak

correlation between fun and nutrition. Fun, in the

world of food, is not about nutritional awareness.

Nutrition Claims. Despite the paucity of games or

activities related to nutrition, fun food still claims

to be nutritious food; 62.7 percent of all products make one or more nutrition claims on the front of

the box. Products contain a Smart Spot! or nutrition

seal (8.4 percent), claim to be low fat (10.6 percent), a source of calcium (10.8 percent), or to be made

with real fruit juice (9.2 percent).14 Almost 9 per cent (8.7 percent) of products emphasize that they are trans-fat free. What proves interesting about

these phenomena is the relationship between nutri

tion claims and actual product nutrition.15

Using criteria established by the Center for Sci ence in the Public Interest (n.d.) for identifying






foods of poor nutritional quality,16 it was found that

326 products or 89 percent of children's fun foods

could be classified as "of poor nutritional quality" due to high levels of sugar, fat, or sodium. Of these

products, 62.7 percent have one or more nutrition

claims on the front of the box. However, over 75

percent of products (22 out of 29) that have a Smart

Spot! or nutrition seal on the front of the package also contain over 10 grams of sugar per serving, a sugar level classified as high in Fitzhugh and Lobstein's

(2000) nutritional profile of children's food products. Almost all of the products (21 out of 22) that claim to

be low fat contain over 10 grams of sugar per serving. And 79 percent of products (19 out of 24) that claim

to be a source of calcium are an equal source of high

sugar. Made with "real fruit juice," in approximately 83 percent of cases (15 out of 18 products), equally

brings a high sugar content along with the claim. Simi

larly, products with nutrition claims may equally be

high in fat or high in sodium.17

Package and Food Observations. Fifty-five percent of products were packaged for portability, encour

aging children to take food with them. Some

packages were made for small hands (15 percent) or were unusually shaped (17 percent).18 Sometimes

the food itself was "child sized" (i.e., made for small

mouths; 26.7 percent) or unusually shaped. Over

one-quarter of the foods (28.3 percent) were in the

form of animals, fish, shapes, letters, or twisted or

rolled up. In a similar vein, one-quarter of the foods

(25.6 percent) had unique qualities; they were in

teractive (18.3 percent), changed colour (1.1

percent), or transformed in some fashion (1 percent).

Interactivity means that children could peel or

stretch?or were deliberately intended to engage

with?the food, as is the case of many fruit snacks

or portable cheese strings. Several products, such

as Kool-Aid Magic Changin' Cherry Drink Crys tals and Switchin' Secret Crystals, change colour

during the mixing process. And in the case of Quaker Dino Eggs' Instant Oatmeal, mini dinosaur eggs in

the oatmeal "hatch" into coloured sugar dinosaurs

with the addition of boiling water. Most noteworthy

is that one in five foods is unusually coloured for

the product itself. Interestingly, the two most popu lar hues?multicoloured (10 percent) and blue (3

percent)?rarely occur in nature.

Discussion of Results and Implications

This study breaks new ground in analyzing the food

messages available to children in the supermarket. It reveals that fun food is not localized in the cat

egory of junk food, and that the supermarket

provides a vibrant source of ideas about food and

children's relationship with food. The data analysis further reveals that "regular" food is marketed as

"fun" to children using a mixture of cartoons, unu

sual colours, strange shapes, interactivity, and

portable packaging. While researchers interested in

childhood obesity may question the nutritional com

position of such foods, I would like to suggest that

a strict look at calories, fat, or sugar grams misses

the point; it overlooks the ways that fun food mes

sages work to create a particular relationship with

food itself. The significance of such marketing is,

in fact, that these food messages create difficulties

in (a) children's relationship with food, (b) fairly

deciphering package semiotics, and (c) developing reasonable nutrition plans for children. These diffi

culties must be acknowledged in order to develop more

effective policies to combat childhood obesity.

Implications for Children's Relationship with Food It is quite clear that many supermarket foods tar

geted at children and symbolically positioned as

children's fare are defined in terms of their opposi tion to regular or adult food. Regular food is not

shaped into stars or castles; it is not wildly coloured

and does not magically change hue or shape. Chil

dren's fare, in contrast, is fun; by definition, it is

edible entertainment, to be consumed for reasons

that have little to do with sustenance or nutrition.

Consider, for instance, Yoplait's Kosmo Koolbery and Sourz Vortex Tubes?the package instructs






children to hold these yogurt tubes to the light for

two minutes and then "go into the dark to watch the

tubes glow." Betty Crocker's Tongue Talk Tattoo

Fruit Roll-Ups have "tattoos" painted on the fruit

snack with which kids can dye their tongues. Dare

Viva Puffs presents an equally entertaining vision

of its product, instructing, "There are many ways to

eat a Viva Puffs cookie. Peel it! Smash it! Bite it!"

Instances of this abound. The presentation of food

as entertainment is clearly problematic: consider

ing that behaviour modification programs for obese

adults pivot on the cardinal rule that food should

never be used as entertainment, sport, or distrac

tion?themes that form the core of children's foods.

This point must not be glossed over. Adult weight loss programs such as Weight Watchers emphasize that particular relationships with food?eating for

entertainment or distraction?work to make adults

fat. Recent academic research on food psychology

supports this view (Wansink 2006). Yet the very

eating practices that are widely acknowledged to

make adults fat are precisely the eating practices

being taught to children through the messages of

fun food. Fun food, regardless of the food's nutri

tional composition, presents and creates a

relationship between children and food that may be

problematic.

While the precise relationship between fun food

and childhood obesity has yet to be fully examined, current research has established a positive correla

tion between "exposure" and food preferences in

children (Horgen, Choate, and Brownell 2001;

Wadden, Brownell, and Foster 2002), and has shown

that early experiences with food direct future pat terns of food consumption (Birch 1996; Roy 2004). Since dietary practices begun during childhood of

ten produce lifelong patterns (Nader et al., 2006), it

is possible that fun foods work to create a space in

which children become accustomed to the "unnatu

ralness" of food and learn to appreciate the value of

food as fun, sport, or distraction, rather than as a

source of nutrition. This speculation is supported

by Eagle et al. (2004, 51), who note that "over 80

percent of obese adolescents sustain their obesity in adulthood . . . primarily because dietary habits

that are developed when young persist over time."

De-seasonalization of Food. That fun food poses a

problematic relationship with food is thrown into

high relief when one considers that fun food can

now be found throughout the supermarket. While

explicit packaged appeals to children were previ

ously contained within the cereal aisle, the research

revealed that breakfast foods comprised only 11.4

percent of the total sample. Almost 90 percent of

products coded fell outside the breakfast foods cat

egory. One might label this development the

"cerealization" of children's foods, but a more

nuanced understanding emerges by applying de

Cordova's (1994) concept of de-seasonalization to

the world of food. In his historical analysis of

Disney, de Cordova traced the rise of mass merchan

dising of Mickey Mouse to children throughout the

1930s. One of the key barriers to selling toys, de

Cordova revealed, was the fact that parents linked

the purchasing of toys to particular seasonal events, such as birthdays or Christmas. The marketing gen ius of Disney lay in its capacity to transform toy

purchasing into an everyday occurrence so that par ents did not need a special occasion to prompt a

purchase. Arguably, a similar transformation has

occurred with children's foods. While fun food pre

viously has been limited to a brightly frosted and

uniquely shaped birthday cake or a Saturday morn

ing ritual of creating peanut butter ladders on toast, it has now become de-seasonalized (and equally de

cerealized). Fun food can comprise every eating

experience?a breakfast of Post Strawberry Blasted

Honeycomb Cereal and McCain's Tropical Junior

Juice, a lunch of Heinz's Disney Winnie-the-Pooh

Pasta with blue raspberry Kool-Aid Jammers and

Jell-O's King of the Lunch Box Chocolate Splat

pudding, and dinner of Jane's Kids Buzz Lightyear Chicken Nuggets. Snacks might include Yoplait's Plutonic peach yogurt tubes, Black Diamond

Cheddarific Cheestrings, or Betty Crocker's Fruit

Gushers (Mystery Flavour). It is not the case that






food should be dull; however, when every eating

experience can be an entertainment experience, the

relationship with food assumes a very different com

plexion. Food becomes framed as entertainment, both premised on and emphasizing the artificiality of what is being consumed. Remarkably, it is only in the world of children's food that artificiality is

actually framed as a selling feature.

Food Portability. The high percentage of portable foods (55 percent) also implicates children's rela

tionship with food. Indeed, it proves helpful to

package foods that fit easily into a lunch bag or that

can be held in small hands. Many portable products within the sample, such as yogurt tubes, cheese

strings, baby carrots, and small containers of fresh

cheese, contribute to a healthy diet. However,

portability can also encourage the idea of eating

anywhere, any time, or all the time. Christie's box

of PT Barnum's Animal Crackers Snack Paks ex

claims "Snack Paks! Before play. Snack Paks! In

the park. Snack Paks! To share." Kellogg's box of

Chocolately Chip Eggo waffles similarly recommends

an "all the time" treatment of food: "Have you thought about Eggo Waffles on-the-go? You can take Eggo

Waffles with you in the car, to work, or on the bus to

school. Really, there's no place you can't say 'Leggo

my Eggo.'" The message that food is always avail

able, always consumable, is one that strongly

encourages constant eating (see Wansink 2006)19; it is

not a healthy message to be sending to children.

The Problems of Package Semiotics

One of the most problematic aspects of fun food

packaging is that, while fun food now spans the

nutritional spectrum?from healthy to decidedly

unhealthy?identical marketing techniques are used

to "cue" children. For example, President's Choice

Mini Chefs line of products, which targets children

ages five to ten, adheres to precise standards: each

product must be free of artificial colours, flavours,

sweeteners, and trans fats, and sugars must be 25

percent lower (at minimum) than the industry stand

ard. But this line uses the same iconography and

strategies as every other fun food product. Cartoon

images adorn the cover of every box, and the pack

age text is a combination of bubble font and childish

script. Even the names of the products?PC Mini

Chefs Bug-a-licious! pasta in tomato sauce, Zookies

animal crackers, Funshines biscuits and Wheelie

Dealies pasta with meat?prove as fun as (and not

particularly different from) Nestle's Bugz with

Gummi Bugz ice pops, Ritz Scuba crackers, Heinz

Zoodles pasta in tomato sauce, Dunkaroos, or Sch

neider's Lunch Mate Fun Kits. Techniques for

attracting children to the President's Choice Mini

Chefs Zippy Fruit! (with no added sugar, colour, or

artificial flavours) are identical to those of the sugar laden and wildly coloured Fruit Gushers, Fruit

Loops Twistables, and so forth, which sit on the

same grocery store shelves. Furthermore, the

healthier products?such as yogurts, cheese strings, and chicken nuggets?generally push the same

themes of interactivity, artificiality (in shape and

colour), and sport. Green yogurt in glow-in-the-dark

tubes, bug-shaped pasta, pink-and-brown-striped fresh cheese?semiotically, these prove no differ

ent from the high sugar, multicoloured Fruit Loops and Lucky Charms or trans-fat laden Magic Shell

topping and Dunkaroos.

The use of identical strategies to market healthy and unhealthy fun foods raises strong questions about the validity of media literacy programs as a

means of arming children against the persuasive

techniques of advertising in the context of decipher

ing package design. Referring specifically to

televised advertising to children, Hastings et al.

(2003) and Wilcox (2004) concluded that the effec

tiveness of media literacy for children is slim (and it is likely completely ineffective for young chil

dren). Healthy food can be fun?but if one cannot

distinguish between healthy or unhealthy, then how

are healthy choices to be made? Bill Jeffery, national

coordinator of the Center for Science in the Public

Interest (Canada), argues that "nutrition is a credence

attribute of food; it cannot be accurately estimated by consumers" (2006, Slide 22). If nutrition cannot be

estimated by parents using packaging cues, it most

certainly cannot be accurately estimated by children.






Remarkable about the apparently "healthy" fun

food products is that they, too, promote an unhealthy

rapport with food. President's Choice Mini Chefs

brand, which advertises itself as healthy (and fun) fare for children, not only uses the "food as distrac

tion" theme, but also prints a magnifying glass icon

on the front of select packages to tell parents that

the product "contains hidden vegetables." One might

reasonably wonder why vegetables should be hid

den, as well as the point at which one should break

down and inform children that vegetables do indeed

exist (and might actually be consumed on purpose rather than by accident).

Concluding Remarks

This paper addresses some pressing issues surround

ing the marketing of foods to children in the

supermarket. While much research has focused on

the relationship between television advertising, junk

food, and childhood obesity, a knowledge gap ex

ists when dealing with the question of packaging and other categories of food. In examining the con

temporary "foodscape" through supermarket

merchandising practices, Winson has coined the

term pseudo food to refer to edible products "that

are typically high in sugar and/or fat. .. [and] low

in other nutrients such as proteins, minerals, and

vitamins" (2004, 302). In this pseudo-food catego

rization, Winson includes such products as "salty snacks" (such as potato chips), chocolate bars, fruit

punches, and sugary cereals. But fun foods provide a

different kind of categorization?one not classified

primarily in nutritional terms, but according to par ticular package and product appeals to fun and play.

Knowledge of the messages in and around su

permarket fun foods will aid in developing a more

complex understanding of the social environment

contributing to childhood obesity. It will allow re

searchers and policy-makers to alert parents and

children to some of the less obvious messages that

comprise the mainstay of our consumption experi ence. Parents may vigilantly avoid buying junk food

and candy for their children, yet, apparently untrou

bled, purchase fruit snacks that contain equally high amounts of sugar. Second, fun food cues (embed ded in packaging, labelling, and foodstuffs) work

to identify children's foods to both children and

adults. While children respond positively to food

products that are created especially for them ("Green

Eggs" 2002,9; Howell 2003,18-19), parents equally

rely on signifiers of fun foods, since they try to "pro vide foods that they think their child will like"

(Schwartz and Puhl 2003). This reliance may result

in a less nutritious diet than parents realize.

Most critical is the finding that much of our cur

rent focus is misguided. While banning soda pop and confectionary products or reducing children's

exposure to sugary-food advertising on television

are good strategies, they fail to confront the crux of

the issue?the ways in which children are social

ized to play with and value the artificial in food from

a very young age.

Fun food is not merely a marketing technique; it

has become a set of meaning-making practices that

may have serious health consequences for children

and that pose serious challenges for parents, educa

tors, and policy-makers. Fun food speaks to issues

at the micro, meso, and macro levels: it pertains to

children's individual relationship with and under

standing of food and food messages (micro); corporate

practices, audience decoding strategies, and attempts at local regulation through school food policies (meso); and broader attempts to create policy on childhood

obesity (macro). Policy changes need to be made in

light of the fact that fun food is a unique category that

poses special challenges. For example,

Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating, updated in 2007, should acknowledge the expansive cat

egory of fun food (as well as make

recommendations on how parents might deal

with this);

Canada's new labelling guidelines do not con

tain provisions for multiple or contradictory






nutrition claims (e.g., foods that may be low in

fat but high in sugar); and

Canada's new labelling guidelines do not con

tain provisions for iconography and cartoons

(i.e., less nutritious food is coded in precisely the same fashion as healthy food).

Overall, it is critical to recognize that fun food en

gages the senses in a hyper-sensual way?valuing

interactivity, play, entertainment, novelty, and ar

tificiality. These meaning-making practices, while fun, can create an unhealthy rapport with food. It is this

rapport?the relationship presented to food?that re

quires more focus in the childhood obesity debate.

Notes

Funding for this research was generously provided by the

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The author would

like to thank graduate students Melissa Fennel I, Lee-Anne

Peluk, and Cathy Allison for coding assistance. Heather

Pyman, Andre Turcotte, and Anton Maslov provided ex

cellent support in the data analysis. The author is grateful

to professors Joshua Greenberg and Sheryl N. Hamilton

for suggestions on earlier drafts.

1 Note that the flagship report published by the Cana

dian Population Health Initiative, Overweight and Obesity in Canada: A Population Health Perspective, recom

mended that children's media restrict "advertising of

'junk* foods during peak viewing times for children"

(Raine 2004, 55).

2 As the US-based Institute of Medicine Committee

on Food Marketing and the Diets of Children and Youth

(2006) reports, "television advertising remains the domi

nant form of marketing reaching children ... that is

formally tracked" (xii). One key challenge the commit

tee identifies in its comprehensive review of studies

related to food marketing to children and youth is that

"virtually all of the published scientific research has fo

cused on advertising?and television advertising in

particular" (xiv).

3 One notable exception is the UK Food Commission

study titled Children's Food Examined: An Analysis of 358 Products Targeted at Children (Fitzhugh and Lobstein

2000). Winson (2004) also insightfully maps supermar ket merchandising practices more generally.

4 Over the last decade, the "tween" market has been

established as a clear category of consumers by market

ers and advertisers. The tween market (ages 8-12, and

sometimes defined as 10-12) is seen as straddling chil

dren and teenagers. There is a vast marketing, business,

and academic literature on this concept.

5 Moreover, the coding of an extensive product lineup

makes it possible to create profiles of different grocery chains or stores with smaller inventories. It is merely a

matter of acquiring an inventory list and calculating the

percentage of fun foods contained within that list.

6 Three extra items?newly launched President's

Choice Mini Chefs products?were added to the list in

February 2006. (The lead researcher was unable to ob

tain a list from Loblaws of all the products carried in the

particular store employed in the study. However, since

Loblaws inventories its products by a barcode or stock

keeping unit (SKU), this list would not have assisted in

the selection process.)

7 Both President's Choice and Schneiders are Cana

dian brands. President's Choice is the private label of

Loblaw Companies Limited, and Schneiders is part of

Maple Leaf Foods.

8 The two brands were President's Choice Mini Chefs

and Tanimura & Antle.

9 Snap, Crackle and Pop made their debut as brand

characters for Kellogg's Rice Krispies in 1933. The mar

keting of cereals to children, however, was largely a

post-war phenomenon: Kellogg's Sugar Smacks were in

troduced in 1952, Tony the Tiger appeared as a mascot

for Frosted Flakes in 1953, and General Mills' Trix in

1954. Kellogg's Fruit Loops, Quaker's Cap'n Crunch, and

General Mills' Lucky Charms were all launched in 1963.

10 Cramer's V and p-values for colour use within each

food category: Cramer's V p-value

Dairy .703 .000

Frozen foods .496 .000

Meat and seafood .745 .233

Produce .667 .329

11 Note that the mere use of a nutrition mark does not

constitute a specific appeal to parents or caregivers.






12 The "nutritional goodness" of this cereal might be

challenged given that it also contains 12 grams of sugar

per serving.

13 These activities include word finds and matching

games that teach about nutrition.

14 Other nutrition claims include no artificial flavours/ colours (7.4 percent), a source of "X" essential nutrients

(6.5 percent), preservative free (5.7 percent), peanut free

(3.2 percent), a source of whole wheat/fibre (3 percent), and organic (1 percent).

15 A full nutritional profile of the 367 fun foods is the

subject of a separate paper emerging from this study.

16 The Center for Science in the Public Interest (n.d.) has developed a set of guidelines entitled "Defining Foods

of Poor Nutritional Quality." Its nutrition standards were

adapted from those of the National Alliance for Nutrition

and Activity, a coalition of more than 300 organizations.

According to the Center's guidelines, foods of poor nu

tritional quality meet one or more of the following criteria:

> 35 percent of total calories from fat, excluding nuts,

seeds, and peanut or other nut butters (> 10 percent of

calories from saturated + trans fat)

> 35 percent added sugars by weight (Since most fruit

snacks contain some fruit juice, it is difficult from the

Nutrition Facts labels to distinguish fruit sugars from

added sugars. We assessed the nutritional quality of

fruit snacks using the amount of total sugars displayed

on the label.)

> 230 mg sodium per serving of chips, crackers,

cheeses, baked goods, French fries, and other snacks

> 480 mg sodium per serving for cereals, soups, pas

tas, and meats

> 600 mg sodium per serving for pizza, sandwiches,

and main dishes

> 770 mg sodium per serving for meals

Beverages of poor nutritional quality include soft drinks, sports

drinks, sweetened iced teas, and fruit-based drinks that contain

sweeteners and less than 50 percent real fruit juice.

17 While Health Canada under the Food and Drugs Act states that a low fat food contains less that 3 grams of fat

per serving, many children's foods have higher percent

ages. For instance, 87.5 percent of products that claim to

be trans-fat free also have over 3 grams of fat per serving.

Guidelines for classifying low fat can be found in the 2003 Guide to Food Labelling and Advertising at http://

www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/guide/

ch7ae.shtml#7.16. Also see Food and Drugs Act and Regu

lations [SOR/2003-11, s. 20] at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/ en/F-27/C.R.C.-c.870/232590.html. Health Canada iden

tifies as "healthy" products containing 480 mg of sodium or less per serving. Thirty percent of products claiming to be a source of calcium and 27.3 percent of products

claiming no artificial flavours/colours also had high levels

of sodium. Guidelines for high sodium were drawn from

the Center for Science in the Public Interest (n.d.).

18 Package shapes included an hourglass/pear-shaped

bottle (7.4 percent), tube (3.8 percent), triangular prism

drink pouch (3.5 percent), animal shape (1.1 percent), and

other (1.1 percent).

19 See also Tordoff's (2002) article "Obesity by Choice," which details an experimental study linking food

availability and obesity in rats.

References

Berg, F.M. 2004. Underage and Overweight: America's

Childhood Obesity Crisis. New York: Hatherleigh Press.

Birch, L. 1996. "Children's Food Acceptance Patterns."

Nutrition Today 31(6):234-40. ?

2006. "How Children Formulate Eating Behaviours."

Paper presented at the Think Tank on School Nutri

tion and Activity, Canadian Council of Food and

Nutrition. Toronto, 16 June.

Birren, F. 1961. Color Psychology and Color Therapy.

New York: University Books, Inc.

Botterill, J. and S. Kline. 2006. "Flow, Branding and

Media Saturation: Towards a Critical Analysis of Pro

motional Marketing in Children's Television." Paper

presented at the Child and Teen Consumption 2006 conference at the Copenhagen Business School, Co

penhagen, 27-28 April.

Brownell, K. and K.B. Horgen. 2004. Food Fight: The

Inside Story of the Food Industry, America's Obesity Crisis and What We Can Do about It. New York: Con

temporary Books.

Canadian Institute for Health Information. 2006. Improv

ing the Health of Canadians: Promoting Healthy Weights 2006. Ottawa: Canadian Population Health

Initiative of the Canadian Institute for Health Infor

mation. Available at http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/

products/healthy weights06_e.pdf






Center for Science in the Public Interest, n.d. "Defining

Foods of Poor Nutritional Quality." Available at http:/ /www. cspinet.org/new/pdf/foods_of_poor

_nutritional.pdf

Chamberlain, L., Y. Wang, and T. Robinson. 2006. "Does

Children's Screen Time Predict Requests for Adver

tised Products? Cross-Sectional and Prospective

Analyses." Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medi

cine 160(4):363-68. Crawford, D. and R. Jeffery, eds. 2005. Obesity Prevention

and Public Health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

De Cordova, R. 1994. "The Mickey in Macy's Window:

Childhood, Consumerism and Disney Animation." In

Disney Discourse: Producing the Magic Kingdom, ed.

E. Smoodin. New York: Routledge.

Eagle, L., S. Bulmer, A. De Bruin, and P. Kitchen. 2004.

"Exploring the Link between Obesity and Advertis

ing in New Zealand." Journal of Marketing Communications 10(l):49-67.

Elliott, C. 2005. "Childhood Obesity and Our Toxic Envi

ronment': Suggestions for Future Research." Journal of

Family and Consumer Sciences Education 23(1): 47-51.

Fitzhugh, K. and T. Lobstein. 2000. Children's Food Ex

amined: An Analysis of 358 Products Targeted at

Children. London: The Food Commission (UK) Ltd.

Available at http://www.foodcomm.org.uk/childrens

_food_examined.htm

Green, M. 2001. "The Science of Conspicuity." Brand

Packaging (Nov/Dec):38-42. "Green Eggs and What?" 2002. Consumer Reports

67(10):9.

Hastings, G., M. Stead, L. McDermott, A. Forsyth, A.M.

MacKintosh, M. Rayner, C. Godfrey, M. Caraher, and

K. Angus. 2003. Review of Research on the Effects of

Food Promotion to Children. [Prepared for the UK

Food Standards Authority.] London: UK Food Stand

ards Authority; and Glasgow, Scotland: Centre for

Social Marketing, University of Strathclyde. Available

at http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/food

promotiontochildren 1 .pdf

Horgen, K.B., M. Choate, and K.D. Brownell. 2001. "Tel

evision Food Advertising: Targeting Children in a

Toxic Environment." In Handbook of Children and the

Media, eds. D.G. Singer and J.L. Singer. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

House of Commons Canada. 2007. Healthy Weights for

Healthy Kids. Report of the Standing Committee on

Health, Rob Merrifield, MP (chair). Ottawa. Available

at http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication

.aspx?SourceId= 199309

Howell, D. 2003. "Wacky Colors, Unconventional Flavors

Appeal to the Savvy Younger Set." DSN Retailing To

day, 19May, 18-19.

Hunter, B.T. 2002. "Marketing Food to Kids: Using Fun

to Sell." Consumers' Research 85(3): 16-20.

Institute of Medicine. Committee on Prevention of Obes

ity in Children and Youth. 2005. Preventing Childhood

Obesity: Time for Action. Atlanta, GA: National Acad

emy Press.

Institute of Medicine. 2006. Food Marketing to Children

and Youth: Threat or Opportunity? Washington, DC:

National Academies Press.

Jeffery, B. 2006. "Commercializing Kids." PowerPoint

slide lecture at Carleton University, Ottawa, 6 March.

Library of Parliament. 2005. The Obesity Epidemic in

Canada. [Prepared by S. Starky]. Parliamentary In

formation and Research Service, Ottawa. Available at

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/

prb0511-e.htm#ll Lobstein, T. and S. Dibb. 2005. "Evidence of a Possible

Link between Obesogenic Food Advertising and Child

Overweight." Obesity Reviews 6:203-8.

Malik, V.S., M. Schulze, and F.B. Hu. 2006. "Intake of

Sugar-Sweetened Beverages and Weight Gain: A Sys tematic Review." American Journal of Clinical

Nutrition 84:274-88.

Murray, R., B. Frankowski, and H. Taras. 2005. "Are Soft

Drinks a Scapegoat for Childhood Obesity?" Journal

of Pediatrics 146(5):586-90. Nader, P.R., M. O'Brien, R. Houts, R. Bradley, J. Belsky,

R. Crosnoe, S. Friedman, Z. Mei, and E.J. Susman.

2006. "Identifying Risk for Obesity in Early Child

hood." Pediatrics 118(3):594-601.

Pastoreau, M. 2001. Blue: The History of a Color.

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Popkin, B.M. 2006. "Pour Better or Pour Worse." Nutri

tion Action Health Letter 33(5):3-7.

Raine, K. 2004. Overweight and Obesity in Canada: A

Population Health Perspective. Ottawa: Canadian

Population Health Initiative of the Canadian Institute

for Health Information.

Reactorz Research. 2003. "Checking In at the Grocery

Checkout." KidScreen Magazine 8(8): 146.

Roy, S. 2004. "The Littlest Consumers." Display & Design Ideas 16(7): 18.

Schwartz, M.B. and K.D. Brownell. 2007. "Actions






Necessary to Prevent Childhood Obesity: Creating the

Climate for Change." Journal of Law, Medicine &

Ethics 35:78-89.

Schwartz, M.B. and R. Puhl. 2003. "Childhood Obesity: A

Societal Problem to Solve." Obesity Reviews 4:57-71.

Swinburn, B.A., G. Egger, and F. Raza. 1999. "Dissect

ing the Obesogenic Environments: The Development and Application of a Framework for Identifying and

Prioritizing Environmental Interventions for Obesity."

Preventative Medicine 29:563-70.

Tordoff, M.G. 2002. "Obesity by Choice: The Powerful

Influence of Nutrient Availability on Nutrient Intake."

American Journal of Regulatory, Integrative and Com

parative Physiology 282: R1536-R1539.

Ulijaszek, S.J. 2007. "Obesity: A Disorder of Conven

ience." Obesity Reviews 8 (Supplement 1): 183-87.

Wadden, T.A., K.D. Brownell, and G.D. Foster. 2002. "Obes

ity: Responding to the Global Epidemic." Journal of

Consulting and Clinical Psychology 70(3):510-25. Wansink, B. 2006. Mindless Eating. New York: Bantam.

Wilcox, B. (Task Force Chair). 2004. Report of the APA

Task Force on Advertising to Children. Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association. Available at http://www.apa.org/pi/cyf/advertisingandchildren.pdf

Winson, A. 2004. "Bringing Political Economy into the

Debate on the Obesity Epidemic." Agriculture and

Human Values 21:299-312.

World Health Organization. 2003. Diet, Nutrition and the

Prevention of Chronic Diseases. Geneva, Switzerland:

World Health Organization.





marketing fun foods: a profile and analysis of supermarket food messages targeted at children

Documents