| Literature DB >> 33947436 |
Melissa L Jensen1,2,3, Francesca R Dillman Carpentier4, Linda Adair1, Camila Corvalán5, Barry M Popkin1,2, Lindsey Smith Taillie6,7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The first phase of a comprehensive marketing policy was implemented in Chile in 2016. The policy restricted child-directed marketing of foods and beverages considered high in energy, total sugars, sodium or saturated fat ("high-in"). The objective of this study was to examine the role of high-in TV food advertising as a mediator in the association between policy implementation and consumption of high-in foods and beverages between 2016 and 2017.Entities:
Keywords: Food advertising; Food environment; Food marketing
Year: 2021 PMID: 33947436 PMCID: PMC8097821 DOI: 10.1186/s12966-021-01126-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act ISSN: 1479-5868 Impact factor: 6.457
Fig. 1Mediation pathway between policy implementation, advertising exposure and dietary outcomes
Baseline sample characteristics of study participants and their mothers (n = 721)
| mean | sd | n | % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 13.6 | 0.4 | ||
| Female | 364 | 50.5 | ||
| TV viewing time (hours per week) | 14.8 | 10.9 | ||
| Exposure to high-in ads (minutes per week) | ||||
| Any “High In” ad | 7.5 | 6.6 | ||
| High calorie | 3.2 | 2.9 | ||
| High total sugar | 4.8 | 4.3 | ||
| High saturated fat | 1.8 | 1.7 | ||
| High sodium | 0.7 | 0.7 | ||
| Consumption of high-in food and beverages | ||||
| Per capita absolute intake (kcal) | 555 | 385 | ||
| Per capita energy adjusted intake (% kcal of total) | 29.7 | 18.5 | ||
| Percentage consuming | 709 | 98.3 | ||
| Per consumer absolute intake (kcal) | 572 | 434 | ||
| Per consumer energy adjusted intake (% kcal of total) | 30.7 | 18.5 | ||
| Education level (%) | ||||
| Less than high school | 213 | 29.5 | ||
| High school complete | 342 | 47.4 | ||
| More than high school | 166 | 23.0 | ||
| Married or living with partner | 391 | 54.2 | ||
| Family owns home | 410 | 56.9 |
Daily dietary intake by baseline levels of ad exposure (in tertiles)
| Low exposure ( | Medium exposure ( | High exposure ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.0-3.1 min | 3.1-9.5 min | 9.5-31.8 min | |
| Consumers: | |||
| Absolute energy (kcal) | 561 ± 28 | 527 ± 28 | 576 ± 28 |
| Energy adjusted (% kcal) | 31.4 ± 1.2 | 28.5 ± 1.2 | 29.3 ± 1.2 |
| Daily energy (kcal) | 1739 ± 41 | 1804 ± 40 | |
| Total sugars (grams) | 97.4 ± 3.6 | 98.7 ± 3.6 | 104.3 ± 3.6 |
| Total sugars (% energy) | 22.4 ± 0.6 | 22.0 ± 0.6 | 22.2 ± 0.6 |
| Saturated fat (grams) | 20.4 ± 0.7 | 20.6 ± 0.7 | 21.3 ± 0.7 |
| Saturated fat (% energy) | 10.4 ± 0.2 | 10.0 ± 0.2 | 10.0 ± 0.2 |
| Sodium (mg) | 2413 ± 73 | 2422 ± 73 | 2552 ± 73 |
| Sodium (mg/1000 kcal) | 1399 ± 30 | 1363 ± 30 | 1386 ± 30 |
| Consumers: | |||
| Absolute energy (kcal) | 32 ± 4 | ||
| Energy adjusted (% kcal) | 1.8 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.2 | |
| Consumers: | |||
| Absolute energy (kcal) | 64 ± 12 | 67 ± 12 | 68 ± 12 |
| Energy adjusted (% kcal) | 3.3 ± 0.6 | 3.4 ± 0.6 | 3.6 ± 0.6 |
| Consumers: | |||
| Absolute energy (kcal) | 218 ± 17 | 197 ± 17 | 216 ± 17 |
| Energy adjusted (% kcal) | 12.1 ± 0.9 | 10.7 ± 0.9 | 10.9 ± 0.9 |
| Consumers: | |||
| Absolute energy (kcal) | 107 ± 10 | 110 ± 10 | |
| Energy adjusted (% kcal) | 6.1 ± 0.5 | 5.9 ± 0.5 | 6.9 ± 0.5 |
| Consumers: | |||
| Absolute energy (kcal) | 29 ± 5 | 35 ± 5 | 28 ± 5 |
| Energy adjusted (% kcal) | 1.8 ± 0.3 | 2.1 ± 0.3 | 1.6 ± 0.3 |
1 Model adjusted for age (years) and sex of child, maternal education, home ownership, marital state, and day of week.
2 Values are mean ± SE, unless otherwise noted. *P < 0.05 for pairwise comparison with referent group (low exposure).
Mediation analyses displaying associations between policy implementation (2017 vs. 2016), advertising exposure, and consumption of overall high-in foods (n = 679; 1,358 observations)
| a-coefficient2 | b-coefficient | c’-coefficient | ab | Proportion of total variance accounted for by ab path 5 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (policy→ ads) | (ads→ intake) | (policy→ intake) | |||||||
| β3 | (99 % CI) | β | (99 % CI) | β | (99 % CI) | β | (99 % CI) | ||
| Any “High-in” ad | -4.6* | (-5.7, -3.5) | 4 | (-2, 10) | -37 | (-135, 61) | -16 | (-44, 12) | 30.4 % |
| High calorie | -2.3* | (-2.8, -1.8) | 8 | (-6, 22) | -35 | (-134, 64) | -18 | (-50, 14) | 34.2 % |
| High sugar | -3.0* | (-3.7, -2.3) | 5 | (-5, 14) | -39 | (-137, 59) | -14 | (-42, 15) | 26.1 % |
| High fat | -1.3* | (-1.6, -1.0) | 16 | (-14, 46) | -32 | (-133, 70) | -21 | (-61, 18) | 39.9 % |
| High sodium | -0.2* | (-0.3, 0.0) | 31 | (-18, 79) | -48 | (-142, 46) | -5 | (-14, 4) | 9.4 % |
| Any “High-in” ad | -4.6* | (-5.7, -3.5) | 0.0 | (-0.2, 0.3) | -3.6 | (-7.4, 0.3) | -0.1 | (-1.2, 1.0) | 3.0 % |
| High calorie | -2.3* | (-2.8, -1.8) | 0.1 | (-0.5, 0.6) | -3.5 | (-7.4, 0.4) | -0.2 | (-1.4, 1.1) | 4.9 % |
| High sugar | -3.0* | (-3.7, -2.3) | 0.0 | (-0.4, 0.4) | -3.7 | (-7.5, 0.2) | 0.0 | (-1.1, 1.1) | 0.1 % |
| High Fat | -1.3* | (-1.6, -1.0) | 0.1 | (-0.9, 1.1) | -3.6 | (-7.5, 0.4) | -0.1 | (-1.4, 1.2) | 3.0 % |
| High sodium | -0.2* | (-0.3, 0.0) | 0.4 | (-1.5, 2.3) | -3.6 | (-7.3, 0.1) | -0.1 | (-0.4, 0.3) | 1.7 % |
1Analyses adjusted for child’s sex and age, mother’s education level, marital state, home ownership, and day of recall
2 Expressed in minutes of advertising per week (a-coefficient reflects policy effect on advertising)
3 Total effect of policy on consumption of “high-in” products in kcal = -53 kcal [99CI: -147, 41] p = 0.146
4 Total effect of policy on energy adjusted consumption of high-in products = -3.7 % kcal [99CI: -7.4, 0.0] p = 0.011
5 ab/[(ab) + c’] *100
*p < 0.01.
Fig. 2Participants (n = 679; 1,358 observations) consumption of high-in foods pre- and post-policy by baseline levels of high-in TV advertising. Panel a: absolute intake in kcal. Panel b: energy adjusted (% kcal). Estimated using mixed model with individuals as a random effect, adjusting for study covariates. Wald test for interaction (year*baseline ad exposure)* indicates p < 0.05