The Influence of Brand-Equity Mascots Used by Food, Beverage and Restaurant Companies on the Diet of Children and Parents

The influence of brand-equity mascots used by food, beverage and restaurant companies on the diet of children and parents

Taylor Brownell

Thesis to be submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Master of Science In

Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise

Vivica I. Kraak (committee chair) Adrienne Holz Ivory Valisa Hedrick Sarah Misyak

May 9, 2017 Blacksburg, VA

Keywords: brand-equity mascots, food and beverage marketing, dietary behaviors, children, parents, Q methodology

The influence of brand-equity mascots used by food, beverage and restaurant companies on the diet of children and parents

Taylor Reed Brownell

ABSTRACT

Researchers have examined the influence of entertainment companies’ licensed media characters on children’s diet and health. Conversely, limited empirical research exists on how food, beverage and restaurant companies use brand mascots to influence the dietary preferences and choices of children and their parents. This M.S. thesis is comprised of two studies that address this knowledge gap. The first study conducted a nutrient-profile analysis of 20 food, beverage, and restaurant products that use brand mascot marketing to children, whose companies are members of the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI), an industry self- regulatory program. Products were evaluated using seven nutrient-profile models or nutrition guidelines. Results showed that all twenty products that used brand mascots failed to meet one or more of the guidelines, especially for candy/sweets, children’s meals, and snack foods. The second pilot study used Q methodology to explore the views of five child-parent dyads concerning the influence of brand mascots on their diet-related cognitive outcomes. Each child and one parent independently completed a demographic survey, a brand mascot and product association survey, and a card-sort with 48 brand mascot images to determine “most-liked” versus “most-disliked” mascots. Factor analysis identified three unique viewpoints that were shared by participants including: 1) Breakfast Cereal Animal Lovers; lover of mascots with eyes/hands of approval; and 3) human, hat-wearing mascot lovers. Participants associated 66 percent of products with the correct brand mascots. These results may inform policy-relevant

recommendations to strengthen industry self-regulatory programs to create a more healthful childhood marketing atmosphere.

The influence of brand-equity mascots used by food, beverage and restaurant companies on the diet of children and parents

Taylor Reed Brownell

General Audience ABSTRACT

Researchers have examined the influence of entertainment companies’ cartoon media characters on children’s diet and health. Conversely, limited experimental research exists on how food, beverage and restaurant companies use brand mascots to influence the diets of children and their parents. This M.S. thesis comprises two studies that address this knowledge gap. The first study consists of an analysis of 20 food, beverage, and restaurant products that use unique brand mascots marketed to children, whose companies are members of the Children’s Food and

Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI), an industry self-regulatory program. Products were measured up to seven voluntary and/or mandatory nutrition guidelines. All twenty products that used brand mascots failed to meet one or more of the nutrition guidelines, and especially for candy/sweets, children’s meals, and snack foods. The second study used Q methodology to explore the views of five children and their parents (n=10) concerning how brand mascots influence their diet-related cognitive and behavioral outcomes. Children and one of their parents were asked to independently complete three activities: 1) demographic survey; 2) brand mascot and product association survey; and 3) a card-sort with 48 brand mascot images to determine

“most-liked” versus “most-disliked” mascots. Factor analysis identified three unique viewpoints shared by participants regarding how brand mascots influence their dietary preferences, dislikes, and intergenerational marketing. Additionally, participants correctly associated 66 percent of

products and their respected brand mascots. Results from both studies may be used to inform policy-relevant recommendations to strengthen industry self-regulatory programs such as the

CFBAI.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr. Kraak who has challenged and pushed me to go above and beyond my personal expectations. She has helped me to be a more competent writer and has shown me the value and importance of food and nutrition policy research. I also thank my other committee members including Dr. Hedrick, Dr. Misyak, and Dr. Holz Ivory, for their time and dedication they have put forth into my learning. Their thoughtful feedback and questions have been important during my time at Virginia Tech as a graduate student.

Additionally, I am thankful for the friends and faculty members in the Department of Human

Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise who have helped and guided me through my BS/MS program.

Table of Contents

ABSTRACT ...... vii General Audience ABSTRACT ...... ix Acknowledgements ...... iv List of Tables ...... vii List of Figures ...... viii Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... ix Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1 I. Background and rationale for the research ...... 1 II. Research question, context, scope, and contribution ...... 2 III. Thesis structure ...... 3 Chapter 1: References ...... 5 Chapter 2: Literature Review ...... 8 U.S. Childhood Obesity and Overweight Rates ...... 8 U.S. Adult Obesity and Overweight Rates ...... 8 Diet Quality of U.S. Children and Adults ...... 9 Influence of Brand Mascots and Licensed Media Characters on Children’s Diet and Health ...... 11 The History of Brand Mascots ...... 12 Defining Marketing to Kids and the Role of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) ...... 14 An Overview of the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative ...... 15 An Overview of Nutrient-Profile Models and Nutrition Recommendations to Guide Child Food Marketing ...... 17 Progress Made and Potential Issues with the CFBAI’s Category-Specific Uniform Nutrition Criteria ...... 19 A Timeline of Authoritative Recommendations to Address Food Marketing to Children ...... 20 Food, Beverage, and Restaurant Marketing Practices to Children and Adolescents ...... 22 Food, Beverage, and Restaurant Marketing to US Teenagers and Its Impact on their Health ..... 25 The Relationship between BMI, Preferences for Unhealthy Food, and Brand Logo Recognition 26 Brand Recall and Brand Preferences of Young Children ...... 28 Relationship Between Food and Beverage Advertising and the Eating Habits of Children and Adolescents ...... 29 Effects of Licensed Media Characters’ on Children’s Diet-related Cognitive and Behavioral Outcomes ...... 30 Effects of Licensed Media Characters on Children’s Diet-related Health Outcomes ...... 34 Brand Mascot Marketing and Practices by the Tobacco Industry and Food, Beverage, and Restaurant Companies ...... 35 Parasocial Relationships with Brand Mascots and Licensed Media Characters ...... 37 Benefits of Using Media Characters: Fruit and Vegetable Company Partnerships with Entertainment Companies’ Licensed Media Characters ...... 39 v

Chapter 2: References ...... 41 Chapter 3 ...... 54 Study 1: Brand mascot marketing of food and beverage products to children: A nutrient- profile analysis and industry marketing policy recommendations ...... 54 Abstract ...... 55 INTRODUCTION ...... 57 METHODS ...... 59 RESULTS ...... 61 DISCUSSION ...... 64 CONCLUSIONS ...... 66 Tables and Figures ...... 68 Chapter 3 References ...... 77 Chapter 4 ...... 85 Study 2: Exploring children and their parents’ views about the use of brand mascots to market food and beverage products to young people: A pilot Q methodology study ...... 85 Abstract ...... 86 Introduction ...... 87 Methods ...... 88 Results ...... 93 Discussion ...... 99 Conclusions ...... 104 Tables and Figures ...... 106 Chapter 4 References ...... 122 Chapter 5: Conclusions and Future Directions ...... 125 Chapter 5 References ...... 129 Appendix ...... 132 Appendix A: Supplemental Evidence Tables (Study 1) ...... 132 Appendix B: Institutional Review Board Approval Letter (Study #2) ...... 175 Appendix C: Participant Recruitment Flyer ...... 177 Appendix D: Parent Consent Form ...... 179 Appendix E: Child Assent Form ...... 182 Appendix F: Demographic Survey for Participants ...... 185 Appendix G: Recruitment Strategy for Participants ...... 188 Appendix H: Card-sorting Instructions for Parents ...... 190 Appendix I: Brand Mascot and Product Association Survey ...... 193

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Description of Brand Mascots and Associated Products……………………67

Table 3.2 Comparative Nutrient Standards Across Seven Nutrient Profile Models/Nutrition

Guidelines…………………………………………………………………………...... 70

Table 3.3 Product Compliance Across All Seven Nutrient Profile Models/Nutrition

Guidelines………………………………………………………………………...... 73

Table 4.1 List of Brand Mascots and Factor Arrays Used to Produce the Crib Sheets for Factor

Interpretation………………………………………………………………………….109

Table 4.2 Crib Sheet for Factors 1-3………………………………………………….110

Table 4.3 Demographic Profile of the Study Participants…………………………….115

Table 4.4 Summary of Factor Interpretations…………………………………………117

vii

List of Figures

Figure 4.1 Images of the 48 Brand Mascots Used in the Product Association Survey and Card-

Sort………………………………………………………………………………………...105

Figure 4.2…………………………………………………………………………………108

Figure 4.3 Brand Mascot and Product Association Survey Results……………...... 120

viii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

BMI body mass index CBBB Council of Better Business Bureaus CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CFBAI Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative CSPI Center for Science of the Public Interest DCPI Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media DGA Dietary Guidelines for Americans DNI Dole Nutrition Institute FDA Food and Drug Administration FTC Federal Trade Commission HEI-2010 Healthy Eating Index 2010 HER Healthy Eating Research IWG Interagency Working Group KFC Kentucky Fried Chicken NHANES National Health and Examination Survey NSBP National School Breakfast Program NSLP National School Lunch Program PHA Partnership for Healthier America PMA Produce Marketing Association RACC reference amount customarily consumed RTE ready-to-eat RWJF Robert Wood Johnson Foundation SES socioeconomic status SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program UK United Kingdom US United States USDA United States Department of Agriculture WHA World Health Assembly WHO World Health Organization

WIC Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children

Chapter 1: Introduction

I. Background and rationale for the research

Brand-equity mascots (brand mascots) and licensed media characters are colorful, anthropomorphic, real or fictional figures that are commonly used by leading food, beverage and restaurant companies to market food and beverage products to children, teens, and parents in the United States (U.S.) and worldwide.1-4 This marketing practice dates back as far as the late 1890s with the use of the Quaker Oats Man to promote oatmeal cereal.1 Many of the products that use brand mascots and media characters contain high levels of energy, dietary fat, sodium, and added sugars that exceed the recommended targets in the U.S. government’s Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGAs).5-7 The most popular food and beverage product categories that use these characters to market to children and teens include: ready-to-eat (RTE) cereals, salty and sugary snack foods, sugar-sweetened beverages, candy, and children’s meals.5-7

Children under 10 years of age have been shown to develop personal “parasocial” relationships and emotional ties with brand mascots and cartoon media characters.8,9 These emotional bonds influence children to purchase, or ask their caregivers to purchase, food and beverage products that use these promotional characters. 4,10

Children’s exposure to energy-dense and nutrient-poor products through industry food marketing practices is a contributing factor to the increased rates of overweight, obesity, and diet-related chronic diseases, such as diabetes and cardiovascular diseases, among young people in the U.S.10- 12 About one third (32.4 percent) of American children and adolescents, ages 2 to 19 years, are overweight or obese.13 The World Obesity Federation predicts that obesity will affect over 2.7 billion adults in the U.S.14

Several industry, public health, and government advisory bodies have issued voluntary nutrition guidelines for U.S. food, beverage and restaurant companies to reduce the marketing of unhealthy food and beverage products to American children and adolescents.15-22 The Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB) established the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI) in 2006, which included 18 food, beverage, and restaurant companies. These companies voluntarily pledged in 2014 to adopt universal nutrition criteria for products marketed to children under 12 years of age.23 Although some progress has been made to improve the nutrient-profile of products marketed to children, there are several weaknesses in the CFBAI’s policies and principles,12,23 including an exclusion of the use of brand mascots from the CFBAI’s policies for responsible marketing and advertising of foods and beverages to children. Moreover, the pledge for licensed media characters does not apply to in-store, point-of-sale, food packaging and/or toy premiums. Therefore, there is a need to examine the collective actions that can be taken by the food, beverage, and restaurant industries; public health and civil society groups; and government agencies to create a healthy food environment for children and adolescents to prevent obesity and diet-related diseases.

II. Research question, context, scope, and contribution

A substantial body of research has been conducted on the use of licensed media characters and how they are used to influence the diet and health outcomes of children.4 However, more information is needed on the influence of brand mascots on children’s diet and health. Therefore, this M.S. thesis focuses on the following research questions: “How do brand-equity mascots used by U.S. food, beverage, and restaurant companies influence the diet-related cognitive outcomes of children and their parents?” Additionally, this research addresses the question of, “Do food, beverage, and restaurant products that come from members of the CFBAI program engage in responsible and healthful marketing to children and adolescents?” Two studies were conducted to address this research gap. The first study conducted a nutrient- profile analysis of CFBAI member companies’ products that use brand-mascot marketing on food and beverage products targeted to children. The second pilot study used Q-methodology to explore the views of five child-parent dyads concerning the influence of brand mascots on their diet-related cognitive and behavioral outcomes. 2

More specifically, this research examines the following sub-questions: 1. What proportion of company products that use brand mascots meet existing industry, government, and public health nutrition guidelines and standards? 2. What features of brand mascots are more appealing or disliked by children and their parents? 3. If the CFBAI company members were to apply their 2014 category-specific uniform nutrition criteria to brand mascots, what changes would be required in their pledges and the CFBAI program?

This research will build on the existing body of research and conceptual framework used by Kraak et al. (2015)24 to understand how children and young teens (ages 6 to 14 years) and their parents develop parasocial relationships with brand mascots, and how this relationship may influence their diet-related cognitive and behavioral outcomes.4

III. Thesis structure

This M.S. thesis includes two studies summarized as draft publications that will help inform the policies of industry, public health, and government stakeholders about the influence of brand mascots on children and their parent’s dietary behaviors. Chapter 2 contains a review of the literature regarding the primary research question. Chapter 3 includes the first draft publication titled, “Brand-mascot marketing of food and beverage products to children: A nutrient-profile analysis and industry marketing policy recommendations.” Chapter 4 includes the second draft publication titled, “A Q methodology study exploring children and their parents’ views about the use of brand mascots to market food and beverage products to children: A pilot study.” Both publications may contribute to the current body of knowledge and inform public policy in several ways including:

1) To motivate the food, beverage, and restaurant industry to use responsible food marketing practices to children by reformulating products that use brand mascots to reduce the amount of fat, sugar, and salt to meet government-recommended targets;

2) To create food, beverage, and restaurant products that align with the 2015-2020 DGAs whose products use brand mascots; 3) To encourage the CFBAI to amend its policies and core principles to include the use of brand mascots and licensed media characters for in-store, and point-of-sale products and packages; and 4) To encourage government agencies and public health advocacy groups to apply an accountability framework for food, beverage, and restaurant companies that encourages them to take, share, hold, and respond to the account. This process includes developing penalties and remedial actions for noncompliant companies that do not adhere to responsible food marketing guidelines that use brand mascots and licensed media characters.

This work will help bring awareness to how well company members of the CFBAI are adhering to the company’s nutrition criteria and compare the stringency of the company’s nutrition criteria to other U.S. nutrient-profile models and guidelines. Additionally, it will shed light on the importance of a product’s packaging and advertisement strategies, such as the use of brand mascots, when marketing and selling products to young people.

Chapter 5 includes the conclusion for the general findings from the draft publications. The Appendices include all supplemental evidence tables for Study #1, the Institutional Review Board (IRB) Approval letter for Study #2, assent and consent forms for Study #2, and card- sorting instructions and focus group questions for children and parents in Study #2.

Chapter 1: References

1. Dotz W, Morton J, Lund JW. What a Character!: 20th Century American Advertising Icons.

Chronicle Books LLC; 1996.

2. Phillips, BJ. Defining trade characters and their role in American popular culture. J Popular

Culture. 1996;29(4):143-158.

3. Callcot MF, Lee WN. Establishing the spokes-character in academic inquiry: historical overview and framework for definition. Adv Consumer Res. 1995;22:144-151.

4. Kraak VI. Story M. Influence of food companies’ brand mascots and entertainment companies’ cartoon media characters on children’s diet and health: a systematic review and research needs. Obesity Reviews. 2015;16:107-126.

5. Castonguay J, Kunkel D, Wright P, Duff C. Healthy characters? An investigation of marketing practices in children’s food advertising. J Nutr. Educ. Behav.2013;45(6):571-577.

6. Harris JL, Sarda V, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD. Redefining “Child-Directed Advertising” to

Reduce Unhealthy Television Food Advertising. Am J Prev Med. 2013;44(4):358-364.

7. Powell LM, Schermbeck RM, Chaloupka FJ. Nutritional content of food and beverage products in television advertisements seen on children’s programming. Child Obes.

2013;9(6):524-531.

8. Brunick KL, Putnam MM, McGarry LE, Richards MN, Calvert SL. Children’s future

Parasocial relationships with media characters: the age of the intelligent characters. Journal of

Children and Media. 2016;10(2):181-190.

9. Bond BJ, Calvert SL. A Model and Measure of US Parents’ Perceptions of Young Children’s

Parasocial Relationships. Journal of Children and Media. 2014;8(3): 286-304.

10. Institute of Medicine. Food Marketing to children and youth: Threat or opportunity?

Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006. Accessed August 2016.

11. Federal Trade Commission. A Review of Food Marketing to Children and Adolescents.

Federal Trade Commission. 2012. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/review-food-marketing-children-and- adolescents-follow-report/121221foodmarketingreport.pdf. Accessed November 6, 2016.

12. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Recommendations for Responsible Food Marketing to

Children. Healthy Eating Research. January 2015. http://healthyeatingresearch.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/01/HER_Food-Marketing-Recomm_1-2015.pdf.

13. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Lawman HG, et al. Trends in Obesity Prevalence Among Children and Adolescents in the United States, 1988-1994, Through 2013-2014. JAMA.

2016;315(21):2292-2299. Accessed September 2016.

14. World Obesity Federation. About Obesity. World Obesity. http://www.worldobesity.org/resources/aboutobesity/. Updated October 10, 2015. Accessed

March 2017.

15. World Health Organization. Set of Recommendations on the Marketing of Food and Non-

Alcoholic Beverages to Children. May 2010. Accessed October 2016.

16. Interagency Working Group. Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_events/food-marketed-children-forum- interagency-working-group-proposal/110428foodmarketproposedguide.pdf. Published April

2011.

17. National Restaurant Association. Industry Impact. http://www.restaurant.org/Industry-

Impact/Food-Healthy-Living/Kids-LiveWell-Program. Updated 2015.

18. The Walt Disney Company. Disney Nutrition Guideline Criteria. 2006. http://cdn.media.thewaltdisneycompany.com/cdnmedia/photos/corporatecitizenship/programs/N

Gexternal121412.pdf. Accessed August 2016.

19. United States Department of Agriculture. Smart Snacks in School. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/allfoods_infographic.pdf. Published 2013.

20. United States Department of Agriculture. National School Lunch Program. http://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/national-school-lunch-program-nslp. Updated 2016.

21. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Recommendations for Healthier Beverages. Healthy

Eating Research. Available at: http://healthyeatingresearch.org/research/recommendations-for- healthier-beverages/. Published March 2013. Accessed March 2017.

22. Council of Better Business Bureaus. CFBAI’s Category-Specific Uniform Nutrition Criteria. http://www.bbb.org/storage/16/documents/cfbai/CFBAI%20Uniform%20Nutrition%20Criteria%

20Fact%20Sheet%20-FINAL.pdf. Published June 2013.

23. Council of Better Business Bureaus. Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. https://www.bbb.org/council/the-national-partner-program/national-advertising-review- services/childrens-food-and-beverage-advertising-initiative/. Updated 2017.

24. Kraak VI, Story M. An accountability evaluation for the industry’s responsible use of brand mascots and licensed media characters to market a healthy diet to American children. Obes. Rev.

2015;16(6):433-453.

Chapter 2: Literature Review

U.S. Childhood Obesity and Overweight Rates

Obesity and overweight among children and adolescents is a major public health issue in the

U.S1 where 17 percent of children, teens, and adolescents between 2 to 19 years of age are obese, and 5.8 percent of this population are “extremely” obese.2 Obesity is defined as a child having a body mass index (BMI) greater than the 95th percentile according to the Centers for Disease

Control (CDC) growth-charts. 3 “Extreme obesity” was defined as being 120 percent or greater than the 95th percentile for obesity.2-3 Between 2011 to 2014, obesity has decreased in children ages 2 to 5 years, has remained relatively stable in children and adolescents ages 6 to 11 years, and has increased in adolescents ages 12 to 19 years.2

Disparities exist between race and ethnicities for obesity among this population. According to

Ogden et al. (2016), 14.7 percent of non-Hispanic white girls and boys are classified as obese compared to 19.5 percent of non-Hispanic black, 8.6 percent of non-Hispanic Asian, and 21.9 percent of Hispanic young people ages 2 to 19 years. More specifically, the highest rates of obesity occur in non-Hispanic black females ages 12 to 19 years (24.4 percent) and Hispanic boys ages 6 to 11 years (25.8 percent).2

U.S. Adult Obesity and Overweight Rates According to the 2013-2014 National Health and Examination Survey (NHANES) data, approximately 35 percent of men and about 40 percent of women are classified as obese in the

U.S.4 Between 2005 and 2014, there has been a significant increase in the rates of obesity among

U.S. women.4 Conversely, obesity rates in men have remained relatively stable during this time period.4 More specifically, the highest rates of obesity in both men and women are seen in non-

Hispanic black and Hispanic populations.4

Diet Quality of U.S. Children and Adults

The most updated literature regarding the diet quality of individuals in the U.S. still lags behind the recommendations of the 2010-2015 DGA and the objectives set in the Healthy People 2020.5-

8 Wilson et. al. (2016) used 24-hour recalls to examine the diet quality of individuals ages two years and older taken from the NHANES data from 1999 to 2000 until 2011 to 2012, which was the most recent NHANES data available at this time.5 Researchers used the Healthy Eating Index

20107 (HEI-2010) and the Healthy People 202010 objectives to quantify individuals’ diet quality and to categorize their food and beverage intake into twelve components: total fruit, whole fruit, total vegetables, greens and beans, whole grains, dairy, total protein foods, seafood and plant proteins, fatty acids, refined grains, sodium, and empty calories.5 A score of 100 indicated compliance with the 2010 DGA for all twelve components.5,7

The results showed that the diet quality score increased from 49 in 1999 and 2000, to 59 in 2011 and 2012. This was equivalent to about a 1.6-point increase in score between every two years of the study.5 Whole fruit and empty calorie scores were the only two components that met the targets for the Healthy People 2020 objectives.5 All other component scores increased except for sodium. Although some positive progress has been made for most components, almost all failed to meet the 2010 DGA recommendations for a healthy diet.5

Gu and Tucker (2016) studied the diet quality of children and adolescents in the U.S. ages two to

18 years using 24-hour recalls from NHANES data from 1999 to 2012.8 These researchers also used the HEI-2010 to measure the participants’ diet quality.8 In addition, they looked at the relationships between the participants’ socioeconomic status (SES) and whether they were part of any federal nutrition assistance programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance

Program (SNAP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children

(WIC), the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), and the National School Breakfast Program

(NSBP).8

In summary, the findings showed that the overall diet quality increased from 42.5 points in 1999 to 2000, to 50.9 points in 2011 to 2012.8 This was largely due to the decrease in empty calorie consumption, which was attributed to about one-third of this increase in diet quality score.8

Overall, the non-Hispanic Black population had the lowest diet quality scores, and the Mexican-

American population had the highest scores.8 Younger children had higher scores than older children, and children and adolescents who participated in the NSLP and the NSBP had lower scores than those who did not participate.8 Additionally, WIC participants had greater overall scores than non-WIC participants and SNAP participants had lower scores than non-SNAP participants after the 2003 to 2004 data cycle.8 Although scores improved, most components were still at less than 50 percent of the 2010 DGA recommendations.8 These data suggests that certain populations may benefit from targeted nutrition programs and tighter regulations on certain federal nutrition assistance programs, such as SNAP, the NSLP, and the NSBP.8

Influence of Brand Mascots and Licensed Media Characters on Children’s Diet and Health

One popular marketing and advertising strategy used in the U.S. to promote children’s food, beverage, and restaurant products is the use of brand mascots and licensed media characters.10-13

These anthropomorphic, colorful, fictional and/or human characters and celebrities are often used to advertise and market RTE cereals, snack foods, candy and confectionary, children’s meals, and beverages.10-13 The use of brand mascots are policy relevant because they are used on many food, beverage, and restaurant products that are high in calories, fat, sugar, and sodium, and low in important nutrients such as dietary fiber, vitamins, and minerals.15-16, 52

Brand mascots have been utilized since the late 1800’s, and became increasingly popular when televisions were a part of many households in the United States.10-11 Brand mascots and media characters appear to be similar, yet they differ in many ways. Brand mascots (i.e., Tony the Tiger and Buzz Bee) are owned entirely by food, beverage, and restaurant companies and are used to create brand loyalty and ensure trust with consumers.13-14 Licensed media characters (i.e.,

Spongebob Squarepants and Dora the Explorer) are owned by entertainment companies and are used by food, beverage, and restaurants companies for entertainment purposes.13-14 The entertainment companies receive 100 percent of the profits from purchases that use their media characters.13-14 Entertainment companies obtain royalties from other companies that use their characters in advertising and marketing campaigns.13-14

Both brand mascots and media characters are often used to promote products that are energy- dense and nutrient-poor that foster children’s natural preference for salty and sweet foods.15-17

The Health and Medical Division of the National Academy of Medicine, previously called the 11

Institute of Medicine, found that the use of brand mascots and media characters in addition to other child-marketing strategies influenced many factors of children’s diet quality.17

Kraak and Story (2014) published a systematic review between 2004 to 2015 on the effects of brand mascots and media characters on children’s diet and health.13 A total of 11 experimental studies on the use of licensed media characters on children’s cognitive (seven), behavioral (four), and health outcomes (one) were discovered, yet no studies were found on the influence of brand mascots on children’s diet-related outcomes.13 Below, the results are explained and separated into the cognitive, behavioral, and health outcomes found in this systematic review.13

To summarize these results, Kraak and Story (2015)13 found three important findings:

1) Unfamiliar media characters may be an effective strategy to increase children’s appetite,

preference for, purchase request, and intake of healthy foods versus using no media

characters.

2) Media character usage may be an effective strategy to increase children’s appetite,

preference for, purchase request, and intake of fruits and vegetables compared to no

media characters.

3) The use of media characters is more effective at increasing children’s appetite, preference

for, purchase request, and intake for unhealthy foods (candy, cookies, or chocolate)

compared to healthy foods (fruits or vegetables).

The History of Brand Mascots The use of brand-mascot advertising for food and beverage products began during the industrial era, which occurred during the 1860s to the early 1900s, when packaging food and beverages

started to become more accessible.10-12 Transportation became more accessible and food and beverages could be transported over long distances, while still being preserved and safe for consumption.1 Companies used brand mascots to create identities and give brands “personalities” and became a way for many companies to make an impression with consumers as a way to remember their products.10-12,18-19

Brand mascots are also heavily influenced by the time period in which they are created.10,18-19

The first trademarked brand mascot used to advertise a food or beverage product was the Quaker

Oats Man, which was established in the late 1870s. The Quaker Oats Man was created to represent honesty and “good value”.18-19

The first brand mascots were depicted as human characters and lacked the cartoon-like personality many characters have today.10,18-19 During the early 1900s, the Cream of Wheat chef was created to attract consumers to purchase “Cream of Wheat hot cereal”, which was created in

1893 by Tom Amidon.10,18-19

Aunt Jemima, the mascot used to advertise Quaker Oats Company’s pancake mix, syrup, and other breakfast foods, was first trademarked in 1937.10,18-19 After literal figures, came the creation of brand mascots as animals. Many food and beverage companies chose animals for no such reason at all, such as the Nesquik Bunny that was created during the 1930s.10

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, many brand mascots depicted elves, pixies, fairies, and other magical creatures.10 These characters were influenced by the Art Nouveau movement, or the “Glasgow style,” where fashion, style, and interior design took a modern approach18 and were

influenced by “the unruly aspects of the natural world.”20 Mascots such as Lucky the Leprechaun, the Keebler elves, and the Jolly Green Giant are examples. Clowns were also popular during this time, such as McDonald’s brand mascot, Ronald McDonald.10

Between the early 1900s to the late 1970s, brand mascots became more cartoon-like, especially when television became a popular American household item and commercials allowed brand mascots to take a new form of life.10 During the 1950s, brand mascots were often created to portray “nasties”, “losers”, and “cool-cats.”10,18 For example, Trix the Rabbit is thought of as a

“loser” because he is always turned down by children in commercials for his request of a bowl of

Trix cereal.10,18 (i.e., “Silly rabbit, Trix are for Kids!”) Other examples include: Sonny the

Cuckoo Bird, who goes “crazy” because he loves the cereal “Cocoa Puffs” and Lucky the

Leprechaun, who is always faced by obstacles in commercials and never gets to eat his “Lucky

Charms” cereal.10,18Additionally, one of the “nasties” that came about during this time includes the brand mascot, Punchy who was created to advertise Hawaiian Punch beverages and whose famous slogan includes, “Would you like a Hawaiian punch?”10,18-19

Defining Marketing to Kids and the Role of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Research on the effects of food marketing to children first began in the 1960s and 1970s.21 In

1972, the U.S. Surgeon General’s Report on Television and Social Behavior was one of the first publications on this topic, although the report mainly focused on television violence.22

The U.S. FTC is responsible for protecting the nation from misleading and deceptive marketing practices targeted to American children and adults.23 In 1978, the FTC proposed a rulemaking called “kidvid” that proposed to ban all television advertisements to youth “too young to understand the selling purpose of advertising” as well as advertisements for food and beverage products high in sugar.24 The rule also called for products that were high in sugar, but not included in the ban, to have “nutritional claims or health disclosures.24” At the time, dental carries were a serious issue among children and adolescents, and the relationship between added sugar intake and childhood obesity was beginning to be established.24 The supporters of the Act included Action for Children’s Television, CSPI, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

Commissioner at the time, and Consumers Union.24 Public comment was requested for the Act, but three years later it was not adopted.24 Many stakeholders criticized the Act, including

Congress, and believed that the U.S. government should not violate the First Amendment of

Freedom of Speech.24 They argued instead this was a role reserved for parents, who had the authority to control what their children viewed on television.24 The FTC received backlash for the Act, and in 1978, Congress effectively shut down the agency by not renewing their funding for several weeks.24

An Overview of the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative The Council of Better Business Bureaus (CBBB) created the CFBAI in 2006.25 This voluntary industry self-regulatory program stated with 10 founding companies and currently involves 18 food, beverage, and restaurant companies who have voluntarily pledged to market more healthful products to children under age 12 years and to “encourage healthier dietary choices and healthy lifestyles.”25 Two of the companies are (i.e., Burger King Corporation and McDonald’s USA)

and the remainder are leading food and beverage manufacturers.26 In July 2011 the CBBB created the “Category-Specific Uniform Nutrition Criteria” to encourage its members to adopt its food and beverage products to be lower in calories, saturated fat, sodium, total sugar, and include more whole grains and lean protein sources that were adopted starting January 2014.27

The CFBAI developed a set of recommendations based on the FTC’s definitions for marketing to children.28 They defined child marketing as any form of marketing directed towards children and youth that constitutes 35 percent of the audience for children under 12 years.25 They consider television, radio, print, mobile media, DVD’s, video and computer games, word-of-mouth, third- party and company-owned websites under their child-directed marketing policy.25As of January

2014, company members were required to adopt the program’s nutrition criteria to stay in the program.25 It is notable that the use of brand mascots and licensed media characters are not included in the CFBAI’s food marketing policies.25

Certain companies, such as The Coca-Cola Company, The Hershey Company, and Mars

Incorporated have pledged to not use their advertising efforts to market their products to children under 12 years in a child-directed television audience of 35 percent or greater.26

Additionally, many of these companies’ products fail to meet authoritative nutrition guidelines, such as the proposed federal Interagency Working Group criteria.16,29-33 Yet, these companies, as well as several other members of the CFBAI, use brand mascots on their products may be attractive to children, such as The Coca-Cola Polar Bears and the Mars Inc.’s M&M characters.

Nevertheless, no companies can be penalized nor held accountable for failing to meet marketing standards due to the voluntary nature of the self-regulatory program. This illustrates just one of

the many weaknesses or loopholes of the CFBAI program. Most companies join the CFBAI program to appeal to the public so that they “appear” to making some progress in the child food and beverage marketing arena.

An Overview of Nutrient-Profile Models and Nutrition Recommendations to Guide Child Food Marketing Several other industry, expert public health bodies, and government agencies have created both voluntary and mandatory nutrition guidelines and nutrient-profile models to create a more responsible marketing atmosphere for youth than provided through the CFBAI self-regulatory program.34-38 These include the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on Food Marketed to

Children’s Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles to Guide Self-Regulatory Efforts34; The

National Restaurant Association’s Kids LiveWell Program35; The Walt Disney Company’s

Nutrition Criteria36; the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Smart Snacks in

Schools37 and National School Lunch and Breakfast Program guidelines,38 and the Robert Wood

Johnson Foundation’s (RWJF) Healthier Beverage Recommendations39. These models are used for multiple purposes including the guidance for food quality indices and food and nutritional health claims, in addition to setting standards for companies engaged in food, beverage, and restaurant marketing to children and adolescents.40

Although efforts have been made by companies to improve the nutritional profiles of their products41-42, the U.S. still lacks a national nutrient-profile model to guide and encourage companies to create food and beverage products that are nutrient-dense and health conscious for young people.43 The creation of a mandatory, nutrient-profile model with both incentives for companies who follow these guidelines, and penalties for companies that fail to meet them,

would hold food, beverage, and restaurant companies accountable for their child-marketing practices and ensure that fewer children are exposed to nutrient-poor food and beverages.43

The Healthy Eating Research (HER) national program under the RWJF developed a set of recommendations in January 2015 to guide the CFBAI and other industry voluntary self- regulatory programs to create a more healthful child-marketing landscape and to lower the prevalence of childhood obesity in the U.S.44 They recommend that the CFBAI change their definition of what constitutes a child-directed television viewing audience to 25 percent or less.44

Additionally, they suggest that the CFBAI raise their definition of what they consider to be a child to 14 years and younger, compared to their current definition of under 12 years.44 The

CFBAI’s policies do not cover prime-time or adult television programs where a small percentage of children may be watching with their parents, older friends, or siblings.27 By expanding the child-directed range to 25 percent, HER’s policies would protect a greater percentage of children from potential advertisements of nutrient-poor and energy-dense food, beverage, and restaurant products.44

In 2011, the IWG, comprised of the FTC, USDA, CDC, and the FDA developed a draft set of voluntary nutrition principles for stakeholders to use as a guide for voluntary industry self- regulatory programs, such as the CFBAI.34 The IWG expanded the child-directed marketing age audience to children ages 2 to 17 years, but kept the FTC’s past policy for marketing and advertising platforms covering child audiences of 35 percent or greater.34 The guidelines included “Nutrition Principles A and B.”34 “Nutrition Principle A” focuses on including entire foods groups as recommended by the 2010-2020 DGA, such as fruits and vegetables, whole 18

grains, lean protein sources, and fat-free or low-fat dairy.34 Conversely, “Nutrition Principle B” focuses on reducing nutrients of concern, including saturated fat, trans fat, sodium, and added sugars.34 The IWG requested public comments on these guidelines, but have not been approved by Congress.45

Progress Made and Potential Issues with the CFBAI’s Category-Specific Uniform Nutrition

Criteria

According to the FTC, companies who participated in the CFBAI program were responsible for

82 percent and 89 percent of marketing efforts towards children and teens for years 2006 and

2009, respectively.41 Most companies improved the nutritional profiles of their products between

2006 to 2009, although these changes differed according to the platform type used for advertising.41 For example, more improvements were made from 2006 to 2009 for television advertisements compared to front-of-package advertisements and in-store displays.41 In addition, the FTC also noted that in 2009, about 64 percent of these companies needed to lower at least one nutrient in order to meet the CFBAI’s nutrition criteria.41 The FTC also made note of some other limitations with the current CFBAI nutrition criteria. They concluded that certain “nutrients to limit” set for some food and beverage categories will have “little to no impact on the nutritional quality of foods.”41

Powell and colleagues (2013) showed that about 95.8 percent of all advertisements children viewed between the ages of 2 and 5 years and 97.3 percent of children between the ages of 6 and

11 years, were for food and beverage products high in saturated fat, trans fat, added sugar, and sodium and exceeded the proposed IWG nutrition criteria for these particular nutrients. In

addition, they found that 97.1 percent of food and beverage advertisements, which belonged to companies that were members of the CFBAI, seen by children ages 2 to 5 years, and 98.1 percent of children ages 6 and 11 years, exceeded IWG recommendations for the “nutrients of concern.”

In contrast, non-CFBAI member advertisements only exceeded IWG limits about 80.5 percent and 89.9 percent of the time for children ages 2 and 5 and 6 and 11, respectively. In addition, the researchers used the CFBAI definition threshold of child-directed marketing audience of 35 percent and found that less than half of the advertisements viewed by children were covered by the CFBAI’s self-regulatory efforts.34 This demonstrates an additional loophole in the CFBAI program guidelines.

A Timeline of Authoritative Recommendations to Address Food Marketing to Children

In 2006, The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM), Committee on Food Marketing and the Diets of

Children and Youth, released an executive report titled, “Food Marketing to Children and Youth:

Threat or Opportunity?” that provided an extensive review of the effects of food marketing to children and adolescents and provides a list of future recommendations for all involved stakeholders.17 The authors recommended that brand mascots and licensed media characters only be used on nutrient-dense food and beverage products.17

In July of 2008, the FTC published an executive report to Congress that includes information on the food and beverage industry’s marketing practices aimed at children during the year 2006.41

The FTC recommended that entertainment companies use their licensed media characters to promote the sale of healthy foods, “adopt uniform, objective standards that limit advertising

placements on programs” for children, and “consider the feasibility of instituting a self- regulatory initiative to facilitate the implementation of the recommendations.”41

In May 2010, The White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity published a report to former

President of the United States, Barack Obama, to address recommendations for stakeholders to help reduce the rates of childhood obesity in the United States and addressed the former First

Lady Michelle Obama’s four areas of concern.46 Some of the recommendations included the need for licensed media characters to be strictly used to promote healthy food and beverages; the food, beverage, restaurant, and entertainment industries to adopt uniform nutrition standards; and that the food and beverage industries “extend its self-regulatory program to cover all forms of marketing to children.”46

In 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Health Assembly called on stakeholders to limit the marketing of unhealthful food and beverage products to young people at the global level.40 They encouraged all stakeholders to reduce the amount of saturated fat, trans fat, sodium, and “free” sugars in their products by limiting the exposure to, and establishing uniform recommendations for, all products marketed to youth.40 The report also emphasized the importance of having a monitoring and evaluation of stakeholders’ progress in creating a more healthful environment for young people.40 They released this information in their report titled,

“Set of recommendations on the marketing of foods and non-alcoholic beverages to children.”40

In 2012, the FTC published a follow-up report to their 2008 review of food marketing to children and adolescents. This report compared data from 2006 to 2009 for all stakeholders involved in

marketing food, beverage, and restaurant products to youth.41 On September 18, 2013, the former

First Lady Michelle Obama and other stakeholders, including the food, beverage, restaurant, and entertainment industries came together for the first White House Convening on Food Marketing to Children.47 The First Lady announced to these stakeholders that the use of licensed media characters marketing the sale of unhealthy food and beverages should be limited in addition to television program advertisements using these characters.47

Food, Beverage, and Restaurant Marketing Practices to Children and Adolescents According to the FTC, in 2006, 44 food, beverage, and restaurant companies together spent a total of $2.1 billion on marketing products to children.48 In a second, follow-up report by the

FTC, data from the same 44 companies were analyzed between 2006 to 2009.41 In 2009, food marketing to children fell about 19.5 percent ($1.79 billion) but other forms of marketing including media and online advertisements increased 50 percent from 2006.41 There are several forms of “new media” marketing strategies that companies utilized between 2006 to 2009; two of these include advergames and viral marketing. Advergames are online games that promote a specific brand or product.49 Food, beverage, and restaurant companies utilize their own brand mascots in these games as well as their food and beverage products to make their products seem

“fun” to children.50 Viral marketing increased by 50 percent between 2006 to 2009. This form of marketing uses social media websites, such as Facebook or Twitter, to promote a product or service.51

Breakfast cereals, quick-service restaurants, and snack foods were the most advertised product categories included in the “new media” forms of advertisements (i.e., advergames, viral

marketing, and social media) directed towards children.41 For teens, carbonated beverages, candy, and frozen desserts were the most advertised products for new media forms.41Between

2006 to 2009, about one third of all marketing directed towards youth included the use of cross- promotions.41 In 2009, companies used over 120 cross-promotions compared to 80 in 2006.41

Additionally, character and cross-promotion licensing fees increased from $7 million to $80.6 million in 2006 and 2009, respectively.41 Breakfast cereal, carbonated beverages, and snack foods were the top food and beverage categories used to promote child-directed products for cross-promotions.41 The top teen-directed categories for cross-promotions included: carbonated beverages, breakfast cereals, and quick-service restaurants.41 Popular forms of media used for cross-promotions included Nickelodeon’s Spongebob Squarepants, Neopets.com, the Night at the Museum movie, and the Madagascar movie.41 Furthermore, marketing in schools totaled approximately $186 million in 2008, or about one-third of the total marketing expenditure.3

A total of $395 million dollars was spent by carbonated beverage companies for teen-directed advertisements.41 About 35 percent of the marketing efforts between 2006 to 2009 was spent on television marketing.41 In 2009, at least 90 percent of the companies used online forms of marketing strategies for children and teens.41 Restaurants spent about 24 percent more on advertisements to teenagers from 2006 to 2009, but spent less on targeting their ads to children

(approximately nine percent less).41

The FTC also compared the nutrition content of food and beverage categories (breakfast cereals, drinks, dairy products, snack foods, prepared foods, and frozen desserts) between 2006 to 2009.41

Overall, child-directed products were higher in sodium, calories, fiber, whole grains, Vitamin D, 23

and calcium compared to teen-directed products between 2006 to 2009.41 Teen-directed products were higher in sugar compared to child-directed products.41 There were “modest” improvements between 2006 to 2009 for nutrients of concern for child-directed products.41 Additionally, for teen-directed products, improvements were made for all nutrients except for saturated fat and sodium.41

Harris and colleagues (2013) showed that only 45 to 48 percent of food advertisements seen by children between the ages of 2 and 11 years from 2009 were covered under the CFBAI’s definition of a child-directed television viewing audience of 35 percent or greater.52 When this threshold was expanded to 20 percent, the number of viewers increased to 70 and 71 percent of all food advertisements viewed by children that year.52 Additionally, data showed that television programs such as, “Shrek the Halls” and “A Charlie Brown Christmas” were not covered under the 35 percent child-directed threshold.52

A report by the CSPI conducted in March 2009 that examined the progress of 128 food, beverage, restaurant, and entertainment companies’ policies for marketing to children under 12 years in elementary, middle, and high schools.53 Sixty-eight percent of companies had no policies for child-directed food and beverage marketing.53 The greatest number of these policies were found from food and beverage companies, who made up 64 percent of this total.53 Twenty-four percent of restaurants and 22 percent of entertainment companies had child-marketing policies.53

No company received an “A” for their child marketing policies, and only one company, Mars, received a B+ (although this company pledges to use none of their food and beverage advertising efforts to children, yet they use child-directed media platforms and brand mascots).53 Of the 64 24

percent of restaurants who had child-marketing policies, 94 percent of these companies had nutrition standards or pledges to use no marketing strategies to children.53

Conversely, of the 24 percent of chain restaurants with these policies, only 50 percent had nutrition standards or used no food or beverage child-marketing practices.53 Lastly, of the 22 percent of entertainment companies with these policies, only 46 percent had nutrition standards or claimed to use no food or beverage marketing to youth.53 More than half (56 percent) of companies had policies for licensed characters and cross-promotions, but did not include their companies’ own brand mascots and other on-package marketing.53 Social media marketing policies were the lowest form of advertising that companies used, with only 40 percent of companies having “good” policies for platforms such as social networking sites and text messaging.53 Seventy-nine, 46, and 46 percent of companies had child food marketing policies in elementary, middle, and high schools, respectively.53 Yet, “good” policies were found to be 29,

25, and 21 percent for elementary, middle, and high schools, respectively.53 This was found to be true for those companies who were members of the CFBAI, which requires companies to limit child-directed marketing of food and beverages in elementary schools, yet not middle and high schools.53

Food, Beverage, and Restaurant Marketing to US Teenagers and Its Impact on their

Health

Research has shown that teenagers (between the ages of 13 and 17 years) are a heavy target for food, beverage, and restaurant companies’ marketing and advertising practices.54 Each year, over

$1 billion is spent on unhealthy food and beverage products to teens, with sugar sweetened

beverages and fast food products consisting of two-thirds of this $1 billion.54 Between 2006 to

2009, social media and digital marketing increased 45 percent and celebrity endorsements rose by 98 percent for this population.41 In addition, television advertisements for food and beverage products increased by 23 percent between 2007 to 2011.41 Many food, beverage, and restaurant products from companies such as: McDonalds, Red Bull, and Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) are marketed on social media, where children ages 12 to 14 years spend a greater percentage of time using social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter.55 The FTC noted that between 2006 to 2009, children and adolescents between the ages of 11 and 14 years used more social media and networking websites 18 percent to 42 percent respectively.41

Children enter middle and high school, they are more likely to purchase food, beverage, and restaurant products with their own money and become less dependent on their parents for purchasing these products.54 In 2012, teens spent about 20 percent of their income on food, beverage, and restaurant products.54 In addition, children and teens between 12 and 18 years consume about 40 percent of their calories from solid fats and added sugar, which constitutes to about 800 calories a day coming from these categories.56 Grain-based desserts, pizza, and soda represented the top three sources of calories for this population between 2005 to 2006.56

The Relationship between BMI, Preferences for Unhealthy Food, and Brand Logo

Recognition

Several studies have demonstrated relationships between children’s BMI scores and their ability to recognize food, beverage, and restaurant brand logos.57-59 Arredondo and colleagues (2009) showed how older Hispanic children (between 7 and 8 year of age) were able to recognize fast- 26

food restaurant logos 11 times more than younger children (between 4 and 6 years of age).57

Additionally, kids with greater BMI scores had higher recognition rates of fast-food than children with lower BMI scores.57 They also found a positive relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and brand logo recognition of healthy food products.57 Children from low SES families had higher recognition rates of fast-food products while children from high SES families had high recognition rates for healthy food products.57 Another study from

Ueda et al. (2012) found some contrasting findings.58 They found that cultural differences among older children who had high recognition rates of unhealthy foods (i.e. high in salt, sugar, and fat) also had higher BMI scores and were from families with higher SES.58

Cornwell and McAlister (2011) used data from two studies to show how there was a relationship between children with high brand logo recognition skills for soda and fast-food products (i.e., foods high in sugar, salt, and fat) and those who have a “palate” for foods high in sugar, salt, and fat.59 Later, Cornwell and colleagues (2014) demonstrated that brand recognition in children ages

3 and 6 years was a strong predictor of BMI and that this measure can be used as a surrogate marker for food and beverage consumption and overall exposure to products high in sugar, salt, and fat.60

Robinson and colleagues (2007) tested whether branding food items with McDonald’s logos would increase young children’s (between 3 and 5 years of age) preferences for branded food compared to the same food and beverage products but with no branding.61 Some of the food items used in this study were purchased from McDonald’s (i.e., fries and 1 percent milk) but others were not

(i.e., carrots).61 Results showed that children who consumed McDonald’s more often and who had 27

televisions at home were more likely to prefer the taste of the McDonalds’s branded foods.61 Four out of the five foods, that were considered healthy and unhealthy, branded with McDonald’s logos were preferred compared to their non-branded counterparts.61 This study demonstrated the power that branded food items can have on the taste preferences of young children.61

Kelly et al. (2016) studied adolescents ages 10 to 16 years’ perceptions and preferences of various food brands and their associated logos.62 They demonstrated that most of these adolescents had strong preferences for certain brands and that many unhealthy (i.e., high in salt, sugar, and/or fat) brands were shown to have desirable or positive attributes.62 Healthy brands had much lower preferences and were often associated with “sporty” or “smart” perceptions.62 This study added to the notion that food advertisements can often sway young peoples’ perceptions of healthfulness.62

Brand Recall and Brand Preferences of Young Children

Advertising and marketing strategies have been shown to strongly influence children and adolescents from a very young age.63-65 Haynes et al. (1993) showed how 41 percent of children between 3 to 6 years of age, who were not yet able to read, preferred licensed characters on products at least half the time.63 Additionally, preschoolers were more likely to prefer these characters than the kindergarteners.63 Another study showed how children ages 2 to 5 years of age were able to recognize and prefer symbols and/or characters on clothing items, such as Lion King,

Barney, Aladdin, and two brand logos (Chicago Bulls and the Chicago Bears).64 The researchers determined that young children are affected by environmental and developmental aspects of consumer socialization.64 Macklin (1996) showed that preschool children (ages 3 to 5 years of age) could recall brand names of imaginary food products, especially when visual cues (pictures and 28

colors) were applied to help them remember the products.65 The results from this study also showed that older children were able to recall more brand logos than younger children.65 These studies helped to reveal how characters, symbols, and other visual cues can help draw the attention of brands to young children.

Relationship Between Food and Beverage Advertising and the Eating Habits of Children and Adolescents

Food and beverage advertisements play a role in children and adolescents’ food consumption.66-68

For example, one study conducted in the United Kingdom (UK) showed how children ages 5 to 7 years of age increased their total caloric expenditure by 17 percent in children at healthy weights and 14 percent in overweight and obese children, after watching food advertisements before eating.66 Another study conducted in the UK with children ages 9 to 11 years of age demonstrated a positive correlation between the number of food advertisements viewed and the amount of food consumed after viewing the commercials.67 Additionally, overweight and obese children recognized more advertisements than the children at healthy weights in this study.67 Harris et al.

(2009) studied children between the ages of 7 to 11 years and found that children who viewed food advertisements versus advertisements for other non-food related products consumed 45 percent more Goldfish crackers than the children who watched non-food advertisements.68 Children were given the crackers during and after watching advertisements.68

Effects of Licensed Media Characters’ on Children’s Diet-related Cognitive and Behavioral

Outcomes

The cognitive outcomes examined in the Kraak et al. (2015) systematic review include: character or brand recognition, character trust, character and brand association, character preference, and taste or snack preference and appetite.13 Behavioral outcomes include: purchase request; food choice; food intake; and diet quality.13 No studies examined the influence of character trust.13

Droog et al. (2012) conducted a study that used children ages 4 to 6 years of age with different combinations of familiar characters (Dora and Diego), unfamiliar characters (rabbit or rhino) and a healthy food (carrot).69 Results showed that children preferred familiar product-combinations

(Dora/Diego and carrot) versus unfamiliar combinations (rhino/rabbit and carrot).69 They also preferred “conceptually-congruent” combinations (rabbit and carrot) over “incongruent” product combinations (rhino and carrot).69 This study demonstrated how entertainment companies’ licensed media characters can be used on healthy foods, such as fruits and vegetables to increase children’s purchase requests and preferences for these products.

Kotler et al. (2012) used two studies to test whether children between the ages of 2 and 6 years would prefer familiar characters (Sesame Workshop’s Elmo, Grover, and/or Oscar) or unfamiliar anthropomorphic characters (various dinosaurs) with different combinations of healthy (fruits and vegetables) and unhealthy foods (sweets and chips).70 Sesame Street characters influenced children to try more of both the healthy and unhealthy foods and increased their preference for both of these foods.70 Children preferred familiar characters with unhealthy foods the greatest out of all the combinations.70 In addition, when fruits and vegetables were paired with a Sesame 30

Street character that “competed” against a Sesame Street character with sweets or chips, the latter was chosen.70 Lastly, when two foods of the same category competed side-by-side, the food with the character (both familiar and unfamiliar) was chosen.70 These two studies add to the notion that young children prefer the taste of unhealthy foods, especially when branded with familiar media characters.

Letona et al. (2014) tested whether three familiar characters (Spongebob Squarepants, El Chavo, and Pink Panther) were recognized by children ages 4 to 11 years, as well as whether using these characters on potato chips, crackers, and baby carrot packages would increase their preferences for these foods.71 Children recognized the characters about 92 to 98 percent of the time.71

Younger children (ages 4 to 6 years) were more likely to choose foods with these characters compared to the older children (ages 7 to 11 years).71

Neeley and Schumann (2016) tested for seven cognitive outcomes (character versus product trust; character and brand association; character, brand or message recall; character preference; taste or snack preference and appetite; purchase request; and food choice) in their two studies.72

One study exposed children ages 2 to 5 years of age to a series of three “mock” commercials with an unfamiliar cartoon mouse eating cheese while watching a television show along with other common commercials (i.e., Cap’n Crunch, etc.).72 The second study used children of the same ages to determine whether auditory messages of two characters’ voices versus no voices in fruit snack commercials affected the information they retained and paid attention to.72 Seventy- eight percent of the children could remember the mouse, but only 52 percent remembered it was eating cheese.72 In addition, the auditory messages did not have a positive statistically significant 31

effect on the children.72 This study shows the effects that cartoon characters have on young children’s memories for food products.

Roberto et al. (2010) tested for three cognitive outcomes using three popular cartoon media characters (Shrek, Dora the Explorer, and Scooby Doo) paired with graham crackers, carrots, and fruit snacks.73 Most children preferred the taste of foods paired with a character, and the greatest preference was for fruit snacks and graham crackers.73 Children recognized the popular characters from 60 to 90 percent of the time, with no differences found between children’s race, age, sex, or ethnicity.73

Lapierre et al. (2011) researched whether children ages 4 to 6 years of age preferred an identical cereal that was placed into boxes of unhealthy (Sugar Bits cereal) versus a healthy cereal

(Healthy Bits cereal) with popular media characters (Mumble and Gloria from Happy Feet) or no characters present.74 Children preferred cereals with Happy Feet characters versus no characters present.74 When children did not see the cereal box, they were told whether the cereal they were eating was Healthy Bits or Sugar Bits.74 Children preferred the taste of Healthy Bits during this experiment, but when shown the box, they preferred the Happy Feet characters on Sugar Bits compared to Healthy Bits characters.74 This study illustrates children’s preferences for media characters, especially for those that are familiar, and the dominant effect that advertising plays on children’s taste preferences for food and beverage products.

Smits and Vanderbosch (2012) tested whether a familiar media character (i.e., Kabouter Plop) or an unfamiliar character (i.e., gnome) would increase children ages 6 and 7 years’ appetite, consumption, and purchase requests for a variety of foods.75 The researchers used self-reported food frequency questionnaires at baseline and again for their intended appetite, consumption, and purchase requests for a variety of foods with these characters.75 These outcomes increased with the presence of both familiar and unfamiliar characters, but the presence of Kabouter Pop had a greater effect than the gnome.75 This shows how both familiar and unfamiliar characters can be an effective advertisement strategy in children, but especially familiar characters.

Ulger et al. (2009) studied the effects of children’s message recall and product choice.76 This study showed the first group of children ages 6 years a Looney Toons cartoon show with commercials advertising a chocolate wafer.76 The second group of children watched the same cartoon without the commercials.76 Children were then asked whether they preferred the chocolate wafer (seen by half of the children) in the commercials or a different chocolate wafer with pictures of Walt Disney characters (i.e., Donald Duck, Minnie Mouse, Tina Russo Duck, and

Mickey).76 Seventy-four percent of children preferred the chocolate wafer with the Walt Disney characters compared to the wafer advertised with Looney Toons characters, but those children who watched the chocolate wafer commercials could recall the advertisement for the wafer well

(72 percent).76 This study demonstrates the effectiveness of using media characters in food and beverage advertisements on children’s food and product recall abilities.

Wansink et al. (2012) studied whether food intake and food choice influenced children ages 8 to

11 years of age using a familiar character sticker (Elmo), an unfamiliar character sticker, or no 33

character sticker paired with either an apple or cookie over five consecutive days.77 Children chose the unbranded cookie 90 percent of the time compared to the unbranded apple.77 Children also chose the branded apple more often than the apple with no sticker.77 This study illustrates that when healthy food and beverages are branded compared to an unbranded unhealthy food or beverages, children prefer the former (healthy) product.

Lastly, Droog et al. (2011) examined the effects of using familiar media characters (Spongebob

Squarepants and Dora the Explorer), an unfamiliar character (monkey), and no characters at all with children ages 4 to 6 years of age.78 The researchers asked the children to choose whether they preferred the banana candy or the chopped bananas.78 The results showed that the chopped bananas with both familiar and unfamiliar characters on the packages were preferred more often than no characters present.78 There were no significant differences between candy and chopped bananas with characters, but when both snacks did not have characters, the candy was much more preferred by the children.78 This shows how characters can be a powerful influence on young children, but especially when used to advertise nutrient-poor food and beverage products.

Effects of Licensed Media Characters on Children’s Diet-related Health Outcomes

Keller et al. (2012) used a randomized control trial design over seven weeks with children ages 4 and 5 years and their parents that used one of two groups: 1) an intervention group with children who received fruits and vegetables with Elmo branding sticker and nutrition counseling; and 2) a control group where children received only fruits and vegetables.79 Children in the intervention group decreased their BMI scores, whereas the children in the control group increased their BMI scores.79 34

In contrast to many of these findings60,73-75,77-78, a recent study published by Ogle et al. (2016) showed that children ages 6 to 9 years of age chose unhealthy and healthy products without media characters most of the time (62 percent) compared to products with media characters.80

Similar to other research findings70-71,73,76-78, younger children (ages 6 to 7 years of age) chose products with characters more often than older children (8 to 9 years) and children chose the unhealthy products more often than the healthy products (with or without characters present).80

Additionally, significant differences existed for the types of characters children chose according to their age and sex.80 For example, younger boys chose Spongebob Squarepants and Lightning

McQueen and younger girls were more likely to choose products with Dora the Explorer.80

Brand Mascot Marketing and Practices by the Tobacco Industry and Food, Beverage, and

Restaurant Companies

Brand mascots used by food, beverage, and restaurant companies can be traced back the strategies utilized by the tobacco industry in the 1900s.81 In 1988, R.J. Reynolds, one of the nation’s leading tobacco companies, created the smooth character, “Joe the Camel” designed after James Bond and Don Johnson, in order to compete with mascots such as Philip Morris’s

Marlboro Man.81 The character represented what the typical school-age child tried to achieve; being bold, smooth, and “cool”.81

Fischer et al. (1991) used children between the ages of 3 to 6 years to see how well they matched adult, children, and tobacco product logos with their respected products.82 Two popular cigarette companies at the time were also used (Marlboro and Camel) with their respected brand mascots (Old Joe and Marlboro Man). Old Joe and the Disney Channel logo were the highest 35

recognized in all age groups.82 The researchers found a significant association between the children’s ages and their ability to match logos with their respected products.82 For example, 30 percent of three-year-old children correctly paired Old Joe with the cigarette compared to 91.3 percent of six-year-olds.82 This was one of the first studies to show how advertising can influence children’s ability to recognize product brands and logos.82 This is similar to other research conducted on licensed media characters and brand mascots, which found that older children have higher brand logo recognition skills than younger children.57,65

DiFranza et al. (1991) determined that children, specifically those in grades 9 to 12, were better able to recognize Camel’s Old Joe cartoon character than adults (ages 21 and greater) in the

United States.83 Like brand mascots used to advertise food, beverage, and restaurant products,

Old Joe and Marlboro Man can lead to the formation of parasocial relationships between character and child. These relationships can influence children to prefer food and beverages that are associated with brand mascots. This becomes an issue when these products are energy-dense and lack vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber that are necessary for children’s growth and development.

Research on the effects of tobacco advertisements to children and teens helped bring about The

Master Settlement Agreement in November 1998.84 This major litigation settlement required major tobacco manufacturers to halt all forms of advertisement and marketing strategies aimed at young people, including the use of their cartoon characters (i.e. Joe the Camel and Marlboro

Man) and required the companies to pay “Settling States” up to $9 billion dollars each year after

2018.84 36

Like tobacco products, many food and beverages that use cartoon media characters and brand mascots can lead to detrimental effects on children’s health because of their low nutrient-density and high energy-density profiles. Perhaps a similar strategy as what occurred during the Master

Settlement Agreement could be used for food, beverage, and restaurant companies who engage in brand mascot marketing to youth?

Parasocial Relationships with Brand Mascots and Licensed Media Characters

There are several ways in which young people can form attractions to brand mascots and media characters. One of these ways is through the formation of parasocial relationships between children and media characters and/or brand mascots.85,86 Parasocial relationships are

“emotionally-tinged relationships that people develop with media characters.”85 Parasocial relationships are formed first through repeated instances of parasocial interactions, which occur when individuals interact with media characters and form personal, conversational, and two- sided experiences.85 These repeated interactions may develop into parasocial relationships, where individuals form special bonds that are “emotionally-tinged” with characters and children think of them as real-life friends.86

Children and adolescents ages 5 to 12 have been shown to form the strongest parasocial relationships with these characters.85 These relationships are strengthened when children find characters of the same sex and feel they are “realistic with positive, prosocial qualities.”85

Brunick and Putnam et al. (2016) describe three factors that affect the formation of these relationships, which include attachment, character personification, and social realism.86 Brand mascots and media characters who have the ability to form attachments with young people can 37

foster the feelings of belongingness and safety.86 Additionally, characters who possess human- like qualities and behaviors are more relatable to children and have similar attributes to young people.86

Moreover, the development of parasocial relationships in education and interactive learning games have shown to be beneficial.86 Using popular media characters in interactive games whom children have had exposure to, can aid in the development of children’s learning.86 Intelligent characters are a popular technique used in many of these games, where characters are interactive, can talk, and can reply to children. These games are especially beneficial when characters are empathetic and sensitive to children.86 Over time, these characters can help foster the development of parasocial relationships, where kids learn to trust and form attachments to these characters because of the timing and conversational responses in the games.86

Despite the benefits of children’s engagement in parasocial relationships with media characters86, issues arise when these relationships are formed between children and brand mascots and/or media characters that are used to promote energy-dense and nutrient-poor food and beverages.

Children may begin to form friendships with these characters, which could influence their desire for purchase requests and consumption of these products.

Benefits of Using Media Characters: Fruit and Vegetable Company Partnerships with

Entertainment Companies’ Licensed Media Characters

The Partnership for a Healthier America (PHA) is led by the former First Lady Michelle Obama, and was founded in 2010 in addition to the “Let’s Move!” program to help reduce childhood obesity in America.87 Sesame Street Workshop and the Produce Marketing Association (PMA) joined forces in 2013 to a provide a royalty-free licensing agreement for two years by placing

Sesame Street characters, such as Big Bird and Elmo on fresh fruits and vegetables.87 This agreement was created in order to attract young people to healthy foods, similar to how licensed media characters are used to promote foods high in salt, sugar, and fat.88Also known as “The eat brighter!” campaign, this agreement has proven to be very successful and now has over 69 participating retail stores in the U.S., has increased fresh produce sales by over three percent, and the partners have agreed to extend their royalty-free licensing contract until 2018.89

In October 2016, Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media (DCPI) and Dole Food

Company created a licensing contract agreement to place characters from various entertainment companies and movies such as, Star Wars, Pixar, Disney, and Marvel on fresh fruits and vegetables in food retail settings.90 The companies have pledged to provide additional nutrition education materials, such as healthy recipes utilizing Dole’s fresh produce.90 Both companies share similar missions of creating and marketing healthy food and beverages to children.90 The

Dole Nutrition Institute (DNI) was created in 2003 to research the effects and benefits of consuming fruits and vegetables and is one of the nation’s leading and validated resources for plant-based research.90 The Walt Disney Company created the Walt Disney Healthy Living

Commitment and their own Nutrition Guideline Policy in 2006.36

Similar to licensed media characters, many fruit and vegetable companies have created their own brand mascots to create an image and brand for their products.891-93 Some of these popular brand mascots include The Sun-Maid Girl91, Miss Chiquita92, and the Jolly Green Giant93. Other companies who sell products that are rich in vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber that currently do not own mascots should consider creating their own characters to increase children and adolescents’ consumption of these foods.

Chapter 2: References

1. World Health Organization. Obesity and overweight. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/. Updated June 2016. Accessed March

2017.

2. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Lawman HG, et al. Trends in Obesity Prevalence Among Children and Adolescents in the United States, 1988-1994, Through 2013-2014. JAMA. 2016; 315

(21):2292-2299. Accessed September 2016.

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2000 CDC Growth Charts for the United States:

Methods and Development. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_246.pdf. Published May 2002. Accessed March

2017.

4. Flegal KM, Kruszon-Moran D, Carroll MD. Trends in Obesity Among Adults in the United

States, 2005 to 2014. JAMA. 2016;315(21):2284-2291. Accessed February 2017.

5. Wilson MM, Reedy J, Krebs-Smith SM. American Diet Quality: Where it is, where it is heading, and what it could be. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2016; 116(2): 203-10. Accessed January 18,

2017.

6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary

Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020. 8th Edition. Available at: https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/. Published February 2015.

7. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. 2020 Topics and Objectives.

HealthyPeople.gov. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topics-objectives. Updated March 28,

2017. Accessed March 29, 2017.

8. Gu X, Tucker KL. Dietary quality of the US child and adolescent population: trends from

1999 to 2012 and associations with the use of federal nutrition assistance programs. American

Society for Nutrition. 2016. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.116.135095. Accessed February 2017.

9. United States Department of Agriculture. Healthy Eating Index. https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/healthyeatingindex. Accessed March 2017.

10. Dotz W, Morton J, Lund JW. What a Character!: 20th Century American Advertising Icons.

Chronicle Books LLC; 1996.

11. Phillips, BJ. Defining trade characters and their role in American popular culture. J Popular

Culture. 1996:29(4):143-158. Accessed August 2016.

12. Callcot MF, Lee WN. Establishing the spokes-character in academic inquiry: historical overview and framework for definition. Adv Consumer Res. 1995;22:144-151. Accessed August

2016.

13. Kraak VI. Story M. Influence of food companies’ brand mascots and entertainment companies’ cartoon media characters on children’s diet and health: a systematic review and research needs. Obesity Reviews. 2015;16:107-126. Accessed June 2016.

14. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Recommendations for Responsible Food Marketing to

Children. Healthy Eating Research. http://healthyeatingresearch.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/01/HER_Food-Marketing-Recomm_1-2015.pdf. Published January 2015.

15. Castonguay J, Kunkel D, Wright P, Duff C. Healthy characters? An investigation of marketing practices in children’s food advertising. J Nutr. Educ. Behav.2013;45(6):571-577.

Accessed September 2016.

16. Powell LM, Schermbeck RM, Chaloupka FJ, Braunschweig CL. Nutritional content of food and beverage products in television advertisements seen on children’s programming. Child Obes.

2013;9(6):524-531. Accessed October 28, 2016.

17. Institute of Medicine. Food Marketing to children and youth: Threat or opportunity?

Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006. Accessed August 2016.

18. Gitlin M, Ellis T. The Great American Cereal Book: How Breakfast Got Its Crunch. Abrams

Image; 2012.

19. Hollis T. Part of a Complete Breakfast. Florida: University Press of Florida; 2012.

20. The Art Story Foundation. Art Nouveau. Updated 2016. Accessed October 2016.

21. John DR. Consumer socialization of children: A retrospective look at twenty-five years of research. Journal of Consumer Research. 1999;26: 183-213. Accessed November 2016.

22. Surgeon General’s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior.

Television and Growing Up: The Impact of Televised Violence. United States Department of

Health, Education, and Welfare. https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBCGX.pdf. Published

1971. Accessed November 2016.

23. Federal Trade Commission. What we do. https://www.ftc.gov/about-ftc/what-we-do.

Accessed January 12, 2017.

24. Beales JH. Advertising to Kids and the FTC: A Regulatory Retrospective That Advises the

Present. Federal Trade Commission. https://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2004/03/advertising-

kids-and-ftc-regulatory-retrospective-advises-present. Published March 2004. Accessed

November 12, 2016.

25. Council of Better Business Bureaus. Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative.

Council of Better Business Bureaus. https://www.bbb.org/globalassets/shared/media/cfbai/program-and-core-principles-2015.pdf.

Published May 2015. Accessed July 2016.

26. Council of Better Business Bureaus. Foods and Beverages that Meet the CFBAI Category-

Specific Uniform Nutrition Criteria that May Be in Child-Directed Advertising. The Children’s

Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. http://www.bbb.org/globalassets/shared/media/cfbai/cfbai-product-list-jan-2017_final.pdf.

Published January 2017. Accessed April 2017.

27.Council of Better Business Bureaus. CFBAI’s Category-Specific Uniform Nutrition Criteria. http://www.bbb.org/storage/16/documents/cfbai/CFBAI%20Uniform%20Nutrition%20Criteria%

20Fact%20Sheet%20-FINAL.pdf. Published June 2013.

28. Federal Trade Commission. Food Marketing to Children and Adolescents. https://www.ftc.gov/food-marketing-to-children-and-adolescents. Accessed April 2017.

29. Harris JL, LoDolce M, Dembek C, Schwartz MB. Sweet promises: candy advertising to children and implications for industry self-regulation. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2015;95:585-592.

Accessed February 2017.

30. Hingle MD, Castonguay JS, Ambuel DA, Smith RM, Kunkel D. Alignment of children’s food advertising with proposed federal guidelines. Am J Prev Med. 2015;48(6):707-713.

Accessed September 2016.

31. Kunkel D, McKinley C, Wright P. The impact of industry self-regulation on the nutritional quality of foods advertised to children. Oakland CA: Children Now. December 2009. http://www.childrensaidsociety.org/files/upload-docs/adstudy_2009.pdf. Accessed February

2016.

32. Powell LM, Schermbeck RM, Szyczypka G, Chaloupka FJ, Braunschweig CL. Trends in the nutritional content of television food advertisements seen by children in the United States. Arch

Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 2011;165(12):1078-1086. Accessed February 2017.

33. Powell LM, Harris JL, Fox T. Food marketing expenditures aimed at youth: putting the numbers in context. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45(4):453-461. Accessed November 2016.

34. Interagency Working Group. Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_events/food-marketed-children-forum- interagency-working-group-proposal/110428foodmarketproposedguide.pdf. Published April

2011.

35. National Restaurant Association. Industry Impact. http://www.restaurant.org/Industry-

Impact/Food-Healthy-Living/Kids-LiveWell-Program. Updated 2015. Accessed August 2016.

36. The Walt Disney Company. Disney Nutrition Guideline Criteria. http://cdn.media.thewaltdisneycompany.com/cdnmedia/photos/corporatecitizenship/programs/N

Gexternal121412.pdf. Published 2006. Accessed July 2016.

37. United States Department of Agriculture. Smart Snacks in School. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/allfoods_infographic.pdf. Published 2013. Accessed

July 2016.

38. United States Department of Agriculture. National School Lunch Program. http://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/national-school-lunch-program-nslp. Updated 2016. Accessed

July 2016.

39. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Recommendations for Healthier Beverages. Healthy

Eating Research. Available at: http://healthyeatingresearch.org/research/recommendations-for- healthier-beverages/. Published March 2013. Accessed March 2017.

40. World Health Organization. Nutrient profiling: report of a technical meeting. London, United

Kingdom, 4-6 October 2010. Geneva: WHO, 2011.

41. Federal Trade Commission. A Review of Food Marketing to Children and Adolescents.

Federal Trade Commission. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/review- food-marketing-children-and-adolescents-follow-report/121221foodmarketingreport.pdf.

Published December 2012. Accessed November 6, 2016.

42. Kraak VI, Story M, Wartella EA, Ginter J. Industry progress to market a healthful diet to

American children and adolescents. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41(3):322-333. Accessed July 2016.

43. Kraak VI, Story M. An accountability evaluation for the industry’s responsible use of brand mascots and licensed media characters to market a healthy diet to American children. Obes. Rev.

2015;16(6):433-453. Accessed June 2016.

44. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Recommendations for Responsible Food Marketing to

Children. Healthy Eating Research. 2015. http://healthyeatingresearch.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/01/HER_Food-Marketing-Recomm_1-2015.pdf. Accessed March 19,

2016.

45. Association of National Advertisers. 2016 Compendium of Legislative, Regulatory, and

Legal Issues Affecting Advertising. Published January 2017. Accessed April 2017.

46. Task Force on Childhood Obesity. White House Task Force on Childhood Obesity Report to the President. Let’s Move! http://www.letsmove.gov/white-house-task-force-childhood-obesity- report-president. Published May 2011. Accessed October 16, 2016.

47. First Lady Michelle Obama. Remarks by First Lady During White House Convening on

Food Marketing to Children. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press- office/2013/09/18/remarks-first-lady-during-white-house-convening-food-marketing-children.

Published September 18, 2013. Accessed October 16, 2016.

48. Federal Trade Commission. Marketing Food to Children and Adolescents: A Review of

Industry Expenditures, Activities, and Self-Regulation: A Federal Trade Commission Report to

Congress. Published July 2008. Accessed October 2016.

49. Calvart SL. Children as consumers: advertising and marketing. The Future of Children.

2008;18(1):205-234. Accessed April 2017.

50. The Kellogg Company. Kellogg’s Froot Loops. http://www.frootloops.com/games/.

Accessed April 2017.

51. Marketing-Schools.org. Viral Marketing. http://www.marketing-schools.org/types-of- marketing/viral-marketing.html#link1. Accessed April 2017.

52. Harris JL, Sarda V, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD. Redefining “Child-Directed Advertising” to Reduce Unhealthy Television Food Advertising. Am J Prev Med. 2013;44(4):358-364.

53. Center for Science in the Public Interest. Report Card on food marketing policies. https://cspinet.org/resource/report-card-food-marketing-policies. Published April 1, 2010.

Accessed April 2017.

54. Harris JL, Heard A, Schwartz MB. Older but still vulnerable: All children need protection from unhealthy food marketing. 2014. Accessed October 20, 2016.

55. Fan Page List. Top Corporate Brands on Facebook. Fan Page List. http://fanpagelist.com/category/corporate_brands/. Published 2015. Accessed November 6, 2016.

56. Reedy J, Krebs-Smith SM. Dietary Sources of energy, solid fats, and added sugars among children and adolescents in the United States. J Am Diet Assoc. 2010;110(10):1447-1484.

Accessed November 2016.

57. Arredondo E, Castaneda D, Elder JP, Slymen D, Dozier D. Brand name logo recognition of fast food and healthy food among children. J Community Health. 2009;34(1):73-78. Accessed

October 2016.

58. Ueda P, Tong L, Chandy SJ, et al. Food marketing towards children: brand logo recognition, food-related behavior and BMI among 3-13 year-olds in a south Indian town. PloS One.

2012;7(10). Accessed October 2016.

59. Cornwell TB, McAlister AR. Alternative thinking about starting points of obesity.

Development of child taste preferences. Appetite. 2011;56(2):428-439. Accessed November

2016.

60. Cornwell BT, McAlister AR, Polmear-Swandris N. Children’s knowledge of packaged and fast food brands and their BMI. Why the relationship matters for policy makers. Appetite.

2014;81(1):277-283. Accessed October 2016.

61. Robinson TM, Borzekowski DLG, Matheson DM et al. Effects of fast food on young children’s taste preferences. JAMA. 2007;161(8): 792-797. Accessed October 2016.

62. Kelly B, Freeman B, King L, Chapman K, Baur LA, Gill T. The normative power of food: promotions: Australian children’s attachment to unhealthy food brands. Public Health Nutr.

2016;19(16): 2940-2948. Accessed October 2016.

63. Haynes JL, Burts DC, Dukes A, Cloud R. Consumer socialization of preschoolers and kindergartners as related to clothing consumption. Psychology and Marketing. 1993;10(2): 151-

166. Accessed October 2016.

64. Dersheid LE, Kwon Y, Fang S. Preschoolers’ socialization as consumers of clothing and recognition of symbols. Perceptual and Motor Skills. 1996;82: 1171-1181. Accessed October

2016.

65. Macklin MC. Preschoolers’ learning of brand names from visual cues. Journal of Consumer

Research. 1996;23: 251-261. Accessed October 2016.

66. Halford JC, Boyland EJ. Hughes G, Oliveira LP, Dovey TM. Beyond-brand effect of television

(TV) food advertisements/commercials on caloric intake and food choice of 5-7 year-old children.

Appetite. 2007;49(1): 263-267. Accessed October 2016.

67. Halford JC, Gillespie J, Brown V, Pontin EE, Dovey TM. Effect of television advertisements for foods on food consumption in children. Appetite. 2004;42(2): 221-225. Accessed October

2016.

68. Harris JL, Bargh JA, Brownell KD. Priming effects of television food advertising on eating behavior. Health Psychol. 2009;28(4): 404-413. Accessed October 2016.

69. Droog SM, Valkenburg PM, Buijzen M. Using brand characters to promote young children’s liking of and purchase requests for fruit. Journal of Health Communication. 2012; 16(1):79-89.

Accessed October 2016.

70. Kotler JA, Schiffman JM, Hanson KG. The influence of media characters on children’s food choices. Journal of Health Communication. 2012;17(8):886-898. Accessed October 2016.

71. Letona P, Chacon C, Barnoya J. Effects of licensed characters on children’s taste and snack preferences in Guatemala, a low/middle income country. International Journal of Obesity.

2014;38:1466-1469. Accessed October 2016.

72. Neeley SM, Schuman DW. Using animated spokes-characters in advertising to young children:

Does increasing attention to advertising necessarily lead to product preference? Journal of

Advertising. 2004;33(3):7-23. Accessed October 2016.

73. Roberto CA, Baik J, Harris JL, Brownell KD. Influence of licensed characters on children’s taste and snack preferences. Pediatrics. 2010;126(1):89-93. Accessed October 2016.

74. Lapierre MA, Vaala SE, Linebarger DL. Influence of licensed spokes-characters and health cues on children’s ratings of cereal taste. Arch Pediatr Adolsc Med. 2011;165: 229-234. Accessed

October 2016.

75. Smits T, Vandebosch H. Endorsing children’s appetite for healthy foods: celebrity versus non- celebrity spokes-characters. Communication. 2012;37:371-391. Accessed November 1, 2016.

76. Ulger B. Packages with cartoon trade characters versus advertising: An empirical examination of preschoolers’ food preferences. Journal of Food Products Marketing. 2008;15(1):104-117.

Accessed September 2016.

77. Wansink B, Just DR, Payne CR. Can branding improve school lunches? Arch Pediatr Adolsc

Med. 2012;166:967-968. Accessed September 2016.

78. Droog SM, Buijzen M, Valkenburg PM. Use a rabbit or a to sell a carrot? The effect of character-product congruence on children’s liking of healthy foods. J Health Commun.

2012;17:1068-1080. Accessed September 2016.

79. Keller KL, Kuilema LG, Lee Nm, et al. The impact of food branding on children’s eating behavior and obesity. Physiology and Behavior. 2012;106(3):379-386. Accessed September 2016.

80. Ogle AD, Graham DJ, Lucas-Thompson RG, Roberto CA. Influence of Cartoon Media

Characters on Children’ Attention to and Preference for Food and Beverage Products. 2016;16.

Accessed September 2016.

81. World Health Organization. Tobacco Explained: The truth about the tobacco industry... in its own words. http://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf. Published 1998.

Accessed November 2016.

82. Fischer PM, Schwartz MP, Richards JW, Goldstein AO, Rojas TH. Brand logo recognition by children aged 3 to 6 years. Mickey Mouse and Old Joe the Camel. JAMA. 1991;266(22):145-148.

Accessed September 30, 2016.

83. DiFranza JR, Richards JW, Paulman PM, et al. RJR Nabisco’s cartoon camel promotes camel cigarettes to children. JAMA. 1991;266(22):3149-3153. Accessed September 30, 2016.

84. Mitchell Hamline School of Law. Master Settlement Agreement. Public Health Law Center at

Mitchel Hamline School of Law. http://publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/tobacco-control/tobacco- control-litigation/master-settlement-agreement. Updated 2016. Accessed September 30, 2016.

85. Bond BJ, Calvert SL. A model and measure of US parents’ perceptions of young children’s parasocial relationships. Journal of Children and Media. 2014;8(3): 286-304. Accessed September

5, 2016.

86. Brunick KL, Putnam MM, McGarry LE, Richards MN, Calvert SL. Children’s future parasocial relationships with media characters: the age of the intelligent characters. Journal of

Children and Media. 2016;10(2): 181-190. Accessed September 3, 2016.

87. Partnership for a Healthier America. About the Partnership. Partnership for a Healthier

America. http://ahealthieramerica.org/about/about-the-partnership/. Accessed October 22, 2016.

88. Sesame Workshop. Beloved Sesame Street Characters to Promote Fresh Fruit and Vegetable

Consumption to Kids. Sesame Workshop. http://www.sesameworkshop.org/press- releases/beloved-sesame-street-characters-promote-fresh-fruit-vegetable-consumption-kids/.

Accessed October 22, 2016.

89. Partnership for a Healthier America. 2015 Annual Progress Report Executive Brief.

Published May 2016. Accessed October 22, 2016.

90. Sustainable Brands. Disney, Dole Launch Character-Clad Produce to Promote Healthy

Eating. Sustainable Life Media Inc. http://www.sustainablebrands.com/news_and_views/behavior_change/sustainable_brands/disney

_dole_launch_character-clad_produce_promote. Published October 20, 2016. Accessed October

22, 2016.

91. Sun-Maid. The Sun-Maid Girl. http://www.sunmaid.com/cp_sm_subm/the-sun-maid-girl.

Accessed January 2017.

92. Chiquita Brands LLC. Miss Chiquita: Get to know our First Lady of Fruit. http://dev.chiquita.com/Our-Company/The-Chiquita-Story/Miss-Chiquita.aspx. Accessed

February 2017.

93. General Mills. The Green Giant Story. http://www.greengiant.eu/en/story. Accessed

February 2017.

Chapter 3

Study 1: Brand mascot marketing of food and beverage products to children: A nutrient-profile analysis and industry marketing policy recommendations

Abstract

Background: Brand mascots are a popular marketing strategy used by food, beverage and restaurant companies to market consumable products to children in the United States (U.S.). The

Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative’s (CFBAI) 18 member companies’ pledges for responsible food marketing do not cover brand mascots used for on-package marketing in retail settings.

Objective: Evaluate the nutritional profile of a sample of food, beverage, and restaurant products manufactured and marketed by CFBAI companies that use brand mascots on in-store packaging and other marketing activities targeted to children < 12 years.

Design: We identified seven nutrient-profile models or voluntary nutritional guidelines issued by industry, government, and expert public health bodies for responsible food marketing to U.S. children through a gray-literature search. We selected and analyzed 20 products across five food and beverage categories (i.e., beverages and dairy, sweets and candy, snacks, ready-to-eat cereals and children’s meals) that used 20 unique brand mascots on in-store packaging.

Results: All twenty products that used brand mascots failed to meet one or more of the nutrient- profile models or voluntary guidelines for responsible marketing to children, especially for candy/sweets, children’s meals, and snack foods. Product compliance across all seven nutrient- profile models or nutrition guidelines were: CFBAI (60%), United States Department of

Agriculture (USDA) School Lunch and Breakfast (0%), USDA Smart Snacks (25%),

Interagency Working Group (15%), Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (0%), National

Restaurant Association (5%), and Walt Disney (30%).

Conclusion: Most CFBAI companies that use brand mascots failed to comply with authoritative nutrient-profile models and nutrition guidelines on the selected items. CFBAI companies should accelerate stealth reformulation to align brand-mascot marketing with their own uniform nutrition criteria and the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. The CFBAI should amend existing principles to include brand mascots and apply guidelines to children ≤ 14 years.

INTRODUCTION

In the United States (U.S.), nearly one third (32.4 percent) of children and adolescents, ages 2 to

19 years, are overweight or obese.1 While rates have decreased in very young children between the ages of 2 and 5 years, rates have been stable in adolescents ages 6 to 11 years, and have increased in teens ages of 12 to 19.1 One potential contributor to the obesity epidemic is the marketing of nutrient-poor and energy-dense food, beverage, and restaurant products.2

Many companies use brand mascots and licensed media characters to market food and beverage products to children and their parents.3 Brand mascots are anthropomorphic, colorful, fictional and/or human characters that have been used by companies since the late 1800s.5,6 Brand mascots are owned by food, beverage and restaurant companies who retain the intellectual property rights and full revenue generated from their use on products and brands.3-5 Conversely, media characters are owned by entertainment companies and are licensed to other companies to market food, beverage and restaurant products to children.3-5 Both brand mascots and media characters are used by companies to create an identifiable and recognizable brand and establish consumer trust.4,5,6 Evidence suggests that brand mascots and media characters are especially appealing to children and influence their diet-related preferences and choices.3,5-8

In 2006, the Council of the Better Business Bureaus established the Children’s Food and

Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI), a voluntary industry self-regulatory program, with 10 companies. The CFBAI is a voluntary industry self-regulatory program.9 Effective 2014, 18

companies voluntarily adopted uniform nutrition criteria for responsible food and beverage marketing to children under 12 years for certain marketing practices, and circumstances when there is a 35 percent or greater child television viewing audience.9-10 These criteria were developed to increase the uniformity of the program’s existing nutrition criteria, improve nutritional quality, and be more comprehensible compared to each company using its own nutrition standards.10 The CFBAI’s category-specific uniform nutrition criteria describe calorie limits for 12 categories and nutrient components to limit (i.e., calories, saturated fat, sodium, and total sugars) and encourage (i.e., vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber).10 However, the CFBAI’s core principles and guidelines do not address the use of brand mascots used on products to influence children’s diet-related preferences and choices.10,11

Several expert bodies, including National Academy of Medicine (formerly known as the Institute of Medicine), have recommended that licensed media characters only be used to promote nutrient-dense foods and beverages and that a set of universal nutrition and food marketing guidelines be developed for children ages 14 years and younger that align with the Dietary

Guidelines for Americans.2,11-12

Adolescents between the ages of 12 to 17 years are targeted by food, beverage, and restaurant marketing due to their increased level of independence from their parents and larger amount of discretionary income and spending power outside of the home.13 Expanding the child-directed marketing age range from birth to 14 years (as opposed to the CFBAI’s current policy of children under 12 years) would protect older children from exposure to unhealthy food and beverage products promoted to them through integrated marketing communication strategies.2,11,13-14

Additionally, lowering the child-directed television audience to 25 percent or lower would allow fewer children to see advertisements for nutrient-poor food and beverage products.14 58

In response to expert recommendations combined with research on the harmful effects of marketing energy-dense and nutrient-poor products to children, different nutrient-profile models, defined by the World Health Organization as the ‘science of classifying or ranking food and beverages according to their nutritional composition to prevent disease and promote health,’22 to limit unhealthy food and beverage marketing practices to young people.10,15-21

There is a substantial body of evidence is known on the effects of licensed media characters on children’s diet and health,3 but limited empirical research on the influence of brand mascots on children’s dietary preferences and whether products that use brand mascots align with recommended nutritional guidelines. Therefore, this study addresses a knowledge gap by examining the nutrient profile of 20 food, beverage, and restaurant products marketed by CFBAI member companies that use brand mascots using seven different nutrient-profile models and nutritional guidelines, including the CFBAI’s own guidelines.

METHODS

Selection of Products and Nutrient-Profile Models/Nutrition Guidelines

A literature search was conducted between January 1, 2006 and February 28, 2016 to identify a list of nutrient-profile models or voluntary nutrition guidelines that were issued by various government, industry, and public health bodies to guide food, beverage, and restaurant companies to create more healthful, nutrient-dense products marketed towards young people.

Seven different sets of models or nutrition guidelines were identified including: The National

Restaurant Association’s, Kids LiveWell program17 The Walt Disney Company’s, Nutrition 59

Guideline Criteria18 and the CFBAI’s, category-specific uniform nutrition criteria10.Government guidelines included: the Interagency Working Group on Foods Marketed to Children16, the

United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA), Smart Snacks in Schools Standards19, and the National School Meals Program guidelines.20 Expert public health guidelines were issued by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Healthy Eating Research panel recommendations for healthier beverages.21

Twenty products were selected for analysis that: 1) came from a company that was a member of the CFBAI self-regulatory program, 2) contained brand mascot marketing, 3) were created and marketed primarily for children, and 4) fit within one of the five product categories of beverages/dairy, sweets/candy, children’s meals, ready-to-eat cereals, or snack foods. The final product list came from a total of 12 food, beverage, and restaurant companies that voluntarily participated in the CFBAI program (Table 3.1). Nine products were chosen that met the

CFBAI’s category-specific uniform nutrition criteria and also the program’s guiding principles to market to children under twelve years of age.23-31 The remaining eleven products were selected from CFBAI member companies, but do not meet the program’s nutrient criteria and/or guiding principles.32-42

The nutrition information for all products was obtained from the twelve companies’ websites.23-

42 Six nutrients (e.g., calories, total fat, saturated fat, trans fat, total/added sugar, and sodium) were recorded from each of the Nutrition Facts Labels as well as the products’ serving sizes and weights (in grams). The reference amount customarily consumed (RACC) was also determined for products using the United States Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) guidelines.43 Each set of guidelines contained various nutrient targets, units of measurement for companies to measure their products’ compliance, and/or acceptable serving sizes for certain food and

beverage categories. The six nutrient targets were used as the main objective to determine a product’s compliance with each nutrient-profile model/guidelines. In some instances, other criteria were used for some models/guidelines that was deemed appropriate and important for that specific model. For example, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s, Healthier Beverage

Recommendations did not contain objective measurements for nutrient targets, but contained recommendations for added sugar, sodium, and other additives found in child-directed beverages. Table 3.2 contains the final criteria that were included for all models/nutrition guidelines.

Calculating Product Compliance

Products were considered compliant if all relevant nutrient targets were met for a nutrient profile model. Products were considered noncompliant if they failed to meet one or more nutrient targets. Some food and beverage categories were excluded when calculating product compliance for individual models/guidelines if they were not relevant for a given mode such as food products for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s, Healthier Beverage Recommendations.

The average compliance for each nutrient-profile model/guidelines was determined using a denominator depicting the number of products that were relevant or measured for that specific model.

RESULTS

Table 3 represents the product compliances for all twenty food, beverage, and restaurant products across the seven nutrient-profile models/nutrition guidelines. The average product compliance across all seven nutrient-profile models or nutrition guidelines were: Children’s

Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (60%), United States Department of Agriculture’s

School Lunch and Breakfast (0%), United States Department of Agriculture’s Smart Snacks

(25%), Interagency Working Group (15%), Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (0%), National

Restaurant Association (5%), and Walt Disney (30%).

Beverages and Dairy

Out of the three beverages analyzed (Coca-Cola, Kool-Aid Jammers, and Nesquik), Nesquik complied with the most nutrient-profile models (CFBAI and Walt Disney). Coca-Cola complied with none of the models, and Kool-Aid Jammers only met the Interagency Working Group criteria. Kool-Aid was on the CFBAI’s list of qualifying products that met this program’s criteria, but it exceeded the total/added sugar limits for these guidelines.

Sweets and Candy

Two candy/sweets products were analyzed (M&M’s and Hershey Kisses). M&M’s complied with none of the seven models/guidelines and Hershey Kisses only complied with the CFBAI criteria.

Children’s Meals

Three children’s meals were analyzed (McDonald’s Happy Meal, Kid Cuisine Chicken Nuggets

Meal, and Kraft Mac & Cheese.) McDonald’s Happy Meal and Kid Cuisine both complied with the CFBAI criteria, yet failed to comply with all other models/guidelines. Kraft Mac & Cheese complied with none of the models.

Ready-to-Eat Cereals

Five ready-to-eat cereals were analyzed (Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes, Kellogg’s Froot Loops,

Cinnamon Toast Crunch, Honey Nut Cheerios, and Lucky Charms). All cereals were listed on the CFBAI’s qualifying list of products that meet the program’s nutrition criteria. All five cereals complied with the CFBAI’s guidelines in this analysis. However, Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes,

Kellogg’s Froot Loops, and Lucky Charms failed to comply with all other models. Cinnamon

Toast Crunch and Honey Nut Cheerios both complied with the Interagency Working Group and

Walt Disney models/guidelines.

Snacks

Five snack foods were analyzed (Chips Ahoy! Cookies, Keebler Frosted Animal Cookies,

Cheetos Crunchy Cheese Flavored Snack, Pillsbury Apple Toaster Strudel, and Pop-Tarts

Frosted Strawberry Pastry). Chips Ahoy!, Keebler Frosted Animal Cookies, and Pillsbury Apple

Toaster Strudel failed to comply with all models/guidelines. Cheetos complied with the CFBAI criteria, but failed to comply with all other models. Pop-Tarts Strawberry pastry complied with

the most models/guidelines in this product category (The United States Department of

Agriculture’s Smart Snacks, the National Restaurant Association, and Walt Disney guidelines.)

DISCUSSION

The findings from this study revealed that all twenty products failed to meet at least one of the authoritative nutrient-profile models or nutrition guideline. More specifically, six products did not comply with any of the models/guidelines, and represented a range of different product categories (Coca-Cola, M&M’s, Kraft Mac & Cheese, Chips Ahoy!, Keebler Animal Cookies, and Pillsbury Toaster Strudel). Of the nine products that were on the CFBAI’s qualifying list of products that meet the program’s nutrition criteria, five failed to comply with all other models/guidelines. Interestingly, Kool-Aid Jammers, a product that was found on the CFBAI’s list of qualifying products that meet the program’s nutrition criteria, was found to be noncompliant with the CFBAI’s criteria due to the added/total sugar component exceeding the criteria’s limits.

These findings show that the stringency across all seven nutrient-profile models/guidelines is variable. The Children’s Food Beverage Advertising Initiative model was found to have the greatest percent of product compliance (60%) compared to other models that were found to have very low or no product compliance (The United States Department of Agriculture’s National

School Lunch/Breakfast: 0%, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: 0%, and the National

Restaurant Association: 5%). Although all products used in this analysis were produced by

CFBAI member organizations, many of their products still do not meet program’s nutrition criteria and other guiding principles.

Additionally, there were discrepancies across food, beverage, and restaurant product categories.

Only one of the five snack foods (Cheetos) complied with a single model; all other snack foods failed to comply with any of the seven models. Conversely, ready-to-eat cereals complied much higher as a whole category; all five cereals complied with the CFBAI model, and two cereals

(Cinnamon Toast Crunch and Honey Nut Cheerios) complied with two additional models

(Interagency Working Group and Walt Disney models). The CFBAI program should consider strengthening their nutrition criteria to reflect the stringencies of the other six models and guidelines that were used in this analysis.

Unlike other studies that have analyzed the nutritional profile of food, beverage, and restaurant products that are marketed by CFBAI member companies,44-46 this is the first study to analyze products that use brand-mascot marketing compared to seven different US nutrient-profile models. Although companies have made progress to reduce the amount of sugar, salt, and fat in food, beverage, and restaurant products47-48, the current food environment still lags behind authoritative governmental and public health recommendations for a healthful diet for children and adolescents.50-52

A possible explanation for low compliance is the existence of loopholes in industry self- regulatory programs, and especially for those in the sweetened beverages, sweets/candy, and snack foods industries. Many CFBAI member organizations agreed to use no child-directed advertising to children under 12, but continue to use brand mascot marketing for their sugar-

sweetened beverages, candy/sweets, and snack food products. In relation to these findings, a

2015 report from Harris and colleagues found that the 77% of CFBAI company member advertisements from 2011 used at least one child-targeted advertising strategy, and 15% of those used brand mascots or licensed media characters.44 In this analysis, five products (M&M’s,

Hershey Kisses, Chips Ahoy!, Nesquik, and Coca-Cola) whose companies have agreed to use no forms of marketing to children under 12 in a television-viewing audience of 35% or greater and use brand mascot marketing were analyzed. Three of these products (M&M’s, Chips Ahoy!, and

Coca-Cola) did not comply with any of the seven nutrient-profile models/guidelines. Nesquik complied the CFBAI and Walt Disney models/guidelines, and Hershey Kisses only complied with the CFBAI guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of CFBAI company members marketed child-directed food, beverage, and restaurant products did not align with one or more of the seven authoritative nutrient-profile models/nutrition guidelines. Many loopholes exist within the CFBAI self-regulatory program, such as the use of brand mascots and licensed media characters, the current age definition of a child-directed audience during television programming, and the designation of what constitutes a child in the marketing atmosphere. The CFBAI should consider doing the following to create a more healthful marketing landscape for young people: 1) including the use of brand mascots, licensed media characters, and other in-store and product packaging marketing strategies in their pledges, 2) increase the child-directed audience share from 35% and greater to less than 25%, 3) expand the definition of a child from under 12 years to 14 years and younger, and 4) 66

strengthening their nutrition criteria to reflect current government recommendations.

Additionally, companies should consider reformulating existing products to create more nutrient- dense, and health-conscious food and beverages for children and adolescents. The CFBAI program should consider strengthening their nutrition criteria to reflect the stringencies of the other six models and guidelines that were used in this analysis.49 Furthermore, nutrition guidelines should be harmonized to establish one nutrient-profile model based on recommendations from the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Tables and Figures

Table 3.1

Description of Brand Mascots and Associated Products

Food, Beverage, or Brand Mascot Company Company Restaurant Category Name Name Engaging in Child-Directed Product Name Advertising to Children Under 12? Beverages and Dairy Products Nesquik Nesquik Bunny Nestle USA Chocolate Low-fat Milk Coca-Cola Coca-Cola The Coca- Polar Bears Cola Company Kool-Aid Jammers- Kool-Aid Man The Kraft- Cherry flavor* Heinz Company Yoplait Trix Yogurt: Trix Rabbit General Triple Cherry Mills, Inc.

Danimals Smoothie: Bongo the The Dannon Swingin’ Strawberry Monkey Company Banana*

Candy/Confectionary M&M’S M&M’s Mars, Characters Incorporated Hershey Kisses Hershey Kisses Nestle USA Children’s Meals Hamburger Happy Happy, Ronald McDonald’s Meal* McDonald USA Kid Cuisine Fun- K.C. Penguin ConAgra Shaped Chicken Foods, Inc. Nuggets Meal* Kraft Mac n Cheese Cheesaurus Rex The Kraft Original Bluebox Heinz Company Snack Foods Chips Ahoy! Original Cookie Guy Mondelez Chocolate Cookies Global Keebler Frosted Ernie Keebler Kellogg Animal Cookies and the Elves Company Cheetos Crunchy Chester Cheetah PepsiCo, Inc. Cheese Flavored Snack Pop-Tarts Crazy-Good Kellogg Kids Company Pillsbury Apple Pillsbury General Mills Toaster Strudel Doughboy Inc. Ready-to-Eat Cereals 69

Kellogg’s Frosted Tony the Tiger Kellogg Flakes* Company Kellogg’s Froot Toucan Sam Kellogg Loops* Company Cinnamon Toast Chef Wendell General Crunch* Mills, Inc. Honey Nut Cheerios* Buzz Bee General Mills, Inc. Lucky Charms* Lucky the General Leprechaun Mills, Inc.

*Products that are on the CFBAI’s qualifying list of products that meet the program’s Category-Specific Uniform Nutrition Criteria.

Table 3.2

Comparative Nutrient Standards Across Seven Nutrient Profile Models/Nutrition Guidelines

Name of Calories Total Saturated Trans Total/Added Sodium Guideline- Units Used Food and Nutrient Profile Fat Fat Fat Sugar Specific to Beverages Model/Nutrition Criteria Used Determine Categories Guidelines to Determine Product Excluded Product Compliance Compliance Children’s Food All beverages Guidelines’ None and Beverage must be 100% suggested Advertising Fruit or serving sizes Initiative Vegetable Juice Products’ labeled serving sizes Interagency Only Principle Reference None Working Group B criteria were amount used customarily consumed Principle A (RACC) criteria were excluded Guidelines’ suggested serving sizes

Products’ labeled serving sizes

Walt Disney Soda not an Guidelines’ None approved suggested beverage serving sizes

Candy not an approved beverage National Only 100 % Guidelines’ Ready-to- Restaurant fruit/vegetable suggested eat cereals Association allowed serving sizes

Soda not an approved beverage

Robert Wood Only 100 % Serving sizes Candy/ Johnson fruit/vegetable not used for sweets Foundation allowed with this set of no added sugar guidelines Children’s meals Soda not an approved Ready-to- beverage eat cereals

Milk must be Snack foods unflavored fat- free/unflavored low-fat

United States Only 100 % Guidelines’ Children’s Department of fruit/vegetable suggested meals Agriculture Smart allowed with serving sizes Snacks no added sugar Ready-to eat cereals Soda not an approved beverage

Only unflavored low-fat milk/unflavore d or flavored fat-free milk or milk alternatives allowed United States Sodium targets Guidelines’ Beverages/ Department of based on the suggested dairy Agriculture “Target 1” serving sizes School Meals 2013-2014 Candy/ school year sweets criteria Snack foods Calories and sodium targets separated into ranges for grades K-5, 6- 8, and 9-12

Table 3.3

Product Compliance Across All Seven Nutrient Profile Models/Nutrition Guidelines

Product Children’s USDA USDA Interagency Robert National Walt Is Product Name Food and School Smart Working Wood Restaurant Disney Compliant Beverage Lunch Snacks Group Johnson Association with CFBAI Advertising and Foundation nutrition Initiative Breakfast criteria? Beverages and Dairy Products Nesquik (Chocolate, Low-fat)1 Coca-Cola1 Kool-Aid

Jammers * (Cherry flavor)2 Yoplait Trix Yogurt (Triple Cherry) Danimals Smoothie (Swingin’ Strawberry Banana)2

Candy and Confectionary M&M’s1 Hershey Kisses1 Children’s Meals Hamburger Happy Meal2 Kid Cuisine (Fun-Shaped Chicken Nuggets Meal)2 Kraft Mac & Cheese (Original Bluebox) Snack Foods Chips Ahoy! Original Chocolate Cookies1 Keebler Frosted Animal Cookies Cheetos Crunchy Cheese Flavored Snack 75

Pillsbury Apple Toaster Strudel Pop-Tarts (Frosted Strawberry) Ready-to-Eat Cereals Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes2 Kellogg’s Froot Loops2 Cinnamon Toast Crunch2 Honey Nut Cheerios2 Lucky Charms2

1 Names of companies used in this analysis who are members of the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative and who use brand mascot marketing, but have agreed to use no forms of child-directed marketing to children under 12 in a 35% television viewing audience: The Coca-Cola Company; Mars, Incorporated; Nestle USA; and Mondelez Global. 2 Product is listed on the CFBAI’s qualifying list that meets the program’s Category-Specific Uniform Nutrition Criteria * Product is on the CFBAI’s qualifying list that meets the program’s Category-Specific Uniform Nutrition Criteria, yet failed to meet the total/added sugar criteria for this study’s analysis.

Chapter 3 References

1. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Lawman HG, et al. Trends in Obesity Prevalence Among Children

and Adolescents in the United States, 1988-1994, Through 2013-2014. JAMA.

2016;315(21):2292-2299. Accessed October 2016.

2. Institute of Medicine. Food marketing to children and youth: threat or opportunity?

Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006. Accessed August 2016.

3. Kraak VI. Story, M. Influence of food companies’ brand mascots and entertainment

companies’ cartoon media characters on children’s diet and health: a systematic review and

research needs. Obesity Reviews. 2015;16(2):107-126. Accessed June 2016.

4. Dotz W, Morton J, Lund JW. What a Character!: 20th Century American Advertising Icons.

Chronicle Books LLC; 1996.

5. Phillips, BJ. Defining trade characters and their role in American popular culture. J

Popular Culture. 1996:29(4):143-158. Accessed January 2017.

6. Callcot MF, Lee WN. Establishing the spokes-character in academic inquiry: historical

overview and framework for definition. Adv Consumer Res. 1995;22:144-151. Accessed

November 2016.

7. Castonguay J, Kunkel D, Wright P, Duff C. Healthy characters? An investigation of

marketing practices in children’s food advertising. J Nutr. Educ. Behav.2013;45(6):571-

577. Accessed November 2016.

8. Gosliner W, Madsen KA. Marketing foods and beverages: why licensed commercial

characters should not be used to sell healthy products to children. Pediatrics.

2007;119(6):1255-1256. Accessed February 2017. 77

9. Council of Better Business Bureaus. Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative.

https://www.bbb.org/council/the-national-partner-program/national-advertising-review-

services/childrens-food-and-beverage-advertising-initiative/. Updated 2017.

10. Council of Better Business Bureaus. CFBAI’s Category-Specific Uniform Nutrition

Criteria.

http://www.bbb.org/storage/16/documents/cfbai/CFBAI%20Uniform%20Nutrition%20Crit

eria%20Fact%20Sheet%20-FINAL.pdf. Published June 2013.

11. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Recommendations for Responsible Food Marketing to

Children. Healthy Eating Research. 2015. http://healthyeatingresearch.org/wp-

content/uploads/2015/01/HER_Food-Marketing-Recomm_1-2015.pdf. Accessed March 19,

2016.

12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary

Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020. 8th Edition. Available at:

https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/. Published February 2015.

13. Harris JL, Heard A, Schwartz MB. Older but still vulnerable: All children need protection

from unhealthy food marketing. 2014. Accessed October 20, 2016.

14. Harris JL, Sarda V, Schwartz MB, Brownell KD. Redefining “Child-Directed Advertising”

to Reduce Unhealthy Television Food Advertising. Am J Prev Med. 2013;44(4):358-364.

Accessed November 2016.

15. World Health Organization. Set of Recommendations on the Marketing of Food and Non-

Alcoholic Beverages to Children. Published May 2010. Accessed October 2016.

16. Interagency Working Group. Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children

Published April 2011.

17. National Restaurant Association. Industry Impact. http://www.restaurant.org/Industry-

Impact/Food-Healthy-Living/Kids-LiveWell-Program. Updated 2015.

18. The Walt Disney Company. Disney Nutrition Guideline Criteria.

http://cdn.media.thewaltdisneycompany.com/cdnmedia/photos/corporatecitizenship/progra

ms/NGexternal121412.pdf. Published 2006.

19. United States Department of Agriculture. Smart Snacks in School.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/allfoods_infographic.pdf. Published 2013.

20. United States Department of Agriculture. National School Lunch Program.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/national-school-lunch-program-nslp. Updated 2016.

21. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Recommendations for Healthier Beverages.

Healthy Eating Research. Available at:

http://healthyeatingresearch.org/research/recommendations-for-healthier-beverages/.

Published March 2013. Accessed March 2017.

22. World Health Organization. Nutrient profiling: report of a technical meeting. London,

United Kingdom, 4-6 October 2010. Geneva: WHO, 2011.

23. Kraft Foods. Kool-Aid Jammers Cherry 10-6 fl. Oz. Pouches. Kraft. Available at:

http://www.kraftrecipes.com/products/kool-aid-jammers-cherry-10-6-fl-4905.aspx.

Accessed March 16, 2017.

24. The Dannon Company, Inc. Danimals Smoothie. Dannon Danimals. Available at:

http://danimals.com/kids-yogurt/smoothies-for-kids/strawberry-

banana/?httpreferer=google.. Accessed March 16, 2017.

25. McDonald’s. Nutrition Calculator. McDonald’s Nutrition Calculator. Available at:

https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/about-our-food/nutrition-calculator.html. Accessed

March 16, 2017.

26. Conagra Brands. Fun Shaped Chicken Breast Nuggets. Kid Cuisine. Available at:

http://www.kidcuisine.com/products/fun-shaped-chicken-breast-nuggets. Accessed March

16, 2017.

27. Kellogg NA Co. Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes cereal. Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes. Available at:

https://www.frostedflakes.com/en_US/products/kellogg-s-frosted-flakes-

cereal.html#nutrition-modal. Accessed March 16, 2017.

28. Kellogg NA Co. Kellogg’s Froot Loops cereal. Kellogg’s. Available at:

https://www.kelloggs.com/en_US/products/kellogg-s-froot-loops-cereal-

product.html#nutrition-modal. Accessed March 16, 2017.

29. General Mills, Inc. Honey Nut Cheerios. Cheerios. Available at:

http://www.cheerios.com/en/products/Honey%20Nut%20Cheerios.aspx. Accessed March

16, 2017.

30. General Mills, Inc. Cinnamon Toast Crunch Product List. General Mills. Available at:

https://www.generalmills.com/en/Brands/Cereals/cinnamon-toast-crunch/brand-product-

list. Accessed March 16, 2017.

31. General Mills, Inc. Lucky Charms Product List. General Mills. Available at:

https://www.generalmills.com/en/Brands/Cereals/lucky-charms/brand-product-list.

Accessed March 16, 2017.

32. General Mills, Inc. Pillsbury Apple Toaster Strudel. Pillsbury. Available at:

https://www.pillsbury.com/products/breakfast/toaster-strudel/apple. Accessed March 16,

2017.

33. Nestle USA. Nesquik Lowfat Chocolate Milk 8 oz. Nestle Nesquik. Available at:

https://www.nesquik.com/products/ready-to-drink/lowfat-chocolate/8-oz/. Published

August 2014. Accessed March 16, 2017.

34. The Coca-Cola Company. Coca-Cola. Coca-Cola Product Facts. Available at:

http://www.coca-colaproductfacts.com/en/coca-cola-products/coca-cola/. Accessed March

16, 2017.

35. General Mills, Inc. Yoplait Trix Yogurt Triple Cherry 4 oz. General Mills Convenience &

Foodservice. Available at:

https://www.generalmillscf.com/products/category/yogurt/single-serve/yoplait-trix/triple-

cherry. Accessed March 16, 2017.

36. The Hershey Company. Hershey’s Kisses Milk Chocolate, 12-ounce bags. Hershey’s.

Available at: https://www.hersheys.com/en_us/products/product/kisses/hersheys-kisses-

milk-chocolate-12-ounce-bags.html/. Accessed March 16, 2017.

37. Mars, Incorporated. Healthy, active lifestyles. M&M’s Nutrition. Available at:

http://www.mms.com/us/nutrition. Accessed March 16, 2017.

38. The Campbell Soup Company. Tomato Soup. Campbell’s Soups. Available at:

https://www.campbells.com/campbell-soup/condensed/tomato-soup/. Accessed March 16,

2017.

39. Kellogg NA Co. Frosted Strawberry. Pop-Tarts. Available at:

https://www.poptarts.com/en_US/flavors/fruit/strawberry.html.

40. Kellogg NA Co. Keebler Animals Frosted Cookies. Keebler. Available at:

https://www.keebler.com/en_US/cookies-and-more/animals/frosted-

cookies.html#nutrition-modal.

41. Mendelez Global LLC. Nabisco Chips Ahoy! Original Chocolate Chip. Snack Works.

Available at: http://www.snackworks.com/products/product-

detail.aspx?product=4400003219.

42. Frito-Lay North America, Inc. Cheetos Crunchy Cheese Flavored Snacks. Frito Lay.

Available at: http://www.fritolay.com/snacks/product-page/cheetos/cheetos-crunchy-

cheese-flavored-snacks.

43. United States Food and Drug Administration. Code of Federal Regulations Title 21. US

Food and Drug Administration. Available at:

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=101.12.

Published April 1, 2016. Accessed March 16, 2017.

44. Harris JL, LoDolce M, Dembek C, Schwartz MB. Sweet promises: candy advertising to

children and implications for industry self-regulation. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2015;95:585-

592. Accessed February 2017.

45. Powell LM, Schermbeck RM, Chaloupka FJ. Nutritional content of food and beverage

products in television advertisements seen on children’s programming. Child Obes.

2013;9(6):524-531. Accessed October 2016.

46. Hingle MD, Castonguay JS, Ambuel DA, Smith RM, Kunkel D. Alignment of children’s

food advertising with proposed federal guidelines. Am J Prev Med. 2015;48(6):707-713.

Accessed October 2016.

47. Federal Trade Commission. A Review of Food Marketing to Children and Adolescents.

Federal Trade Commission.

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/review-food-marketing-children-

and-adolescents-follow-report/121221foodmarketingreport.pdf. Published December 2012.

Accessed November 6, 2016.

48. Kraak VI, Story M, Wartella EA, Ginter J. Industry progress to market a healthful diet to

American children and adolescents. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41(3):322-333. Accessed July

2016.

49. Kraak VI, Story M. An accountability evaluation for the industry’s responsible use of brand

mascots and licensed media characters to market a healthy diet to American children. Obes.

Rev. 2015;16(6):433-453. Accessed July 2016.

50. Kunkel D, McKinley C, Wright P. The impact of industry self-regulation on the nutritional

quality of foods advertised to children. Oakland CA: Children Now. December 2009.

http://www.childrensaidsociety.org/files/upload-docs/adstudy_2009.pdf. Accessed

February 2017.

51. Powell LM, Schermbeck RM, Szyczypka G, Chaloupka FJ, Braunschweig CL. Trends in

the nutritional content of television food advertisements seen by children in the United

States. Arch Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 2011;165(12):1078-1086. Accessed November 2016.

52. Powell LM, Harris JL, Fox T. Food marketing expenditures aimed at youth: putting the

numbers in context. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45(4):453-461. Accessed November 2016.

53. Savage JS, Fisher JO, Birch LL. Parental influence on eating behavior: conception to

adolescence. J Law Med. Ethics. 2007;35(1):22-34. Accessed October 2016.

54. Harris JL, Weinberg ME, Schwartz MB, Ross C, Ostroff J, Brownell KD. Yale Rudd

Center. Trends in television food advertising: progress in reducing unhealthy marketing to

young people? 2010.

http://www.uconnruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/reports/RuddReport_TVFood

Advertising_2.10.pdf. Accessed March 16, 2017.

Chapter 4

Study 2: Exploring children and their parents’ views about the use of brand mascots to market food and beverage products to young people: A pilot Q methodology study

Abstract

There is limited empirical research on how the use of brand-equity mascots used by food, beverage and restaurant companies may influence the diet-related cognitive outcomes (i.e., mascot and product associations and preferences) and behavioral outcomes (food and beverage purchase requests and choices) of children and their parents. This pilot study used Q methodology to explore the views of five child-parent dyads concerning how brand mascots are used to market food and beverage products, and the role of brand mascots in nostalgic and intergenerational marketing. Children (ages 6 to 14 years) and one of their parents were recruited via email and printed flyers in Richmond and Blacksburg, Virginia. Participants were asked to complete three activities including: 1) demographic survey; 2) brand-mascot and product association survey; and 3) a card sort with 48 brand-mascot images to determine “most-liked” versus “most-disliked” mascot. Factor analysis was used to identify three unique viewpoints among child/parent dyads including preferences for: 1) breakfast cereal animals; 2) mascots with eyes/hands of approval; and 3) human, hat-wearing mascots. Participants correctly associated 66 percent of all brand mascots and related products from the recognition survey. Results may inform policy-relevant recommendations to strengthen industry self-regulatory programs to use brand mascots for responsible food marketing practices.

Introduction

About one third of American children and adolescents, ages 2 and 19 years, are overweight or obese in the United States (U.S.).1 Although overweight and obesity rates have declined in young children ages 2 to 5 years, these rates have remained stable for children ages 6 to 11 years, and have increased in teenagers ages 12 to 19 years.1 The marketing of energy-dense and nutrient- poor food and beverage products is one of many contributing factors to the obesity epidemic in the U.S.2 Brand-equity mascots are one strategy used by food, beverage, and restaurant companies to market food and beverage products to children and their parents. Brand mascots, which have been used since the late 1800s, are the intellectual property of food, beverage, and restaurant companies to create a brand’s identity and establish product trust in consumers.3-5

Although these often colorful, fictional, anthropomorphic, and/or cartoon characters have existed for more than 200 years3-5, there is limited empirical research available in the public domain to understand the influence of these characters on the diet-related cognitive and behavioral outcomes of children and their parents.

Few actions have been taken by companies to limit the use of brand mascots for the promotion of only healthy food and beverage products to young people despite recommendations to do so by reputable stakeholders.2,7-9

There is no mandatory nutrient-profile model or guidelines in the U.S. for food, beverage, and restaurant companies to limit the marketing of branded products. The Children’s Food and

Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI) does have a voluntary self-regulatory program with 18

participating food, beverage, and restaurant companies since January 2014.10,11 Loopholes exists in the CFBAI program allowing companies to advertise and market their products to children ages 12 years and older and within a child-directed television viewing audience of 35 percent or less.10 Moreover, the use of brand mascots and media characters on in-store, on- package advertising and as toy premiums are not covered by the CFBAI’s voluntary pledges and core principles.10

Therefore, this pilot study hopes to address this research question: “How do children and their parents view the use of brand mascots to promote food and beverage products?” This study also explores children and their parents’ brand mascot preferences, their ability to identify and associate brand mascots with specific food and beverage brands and product categories, and the role of brand mascots in nostalgic and intergenerational marketing.

Methods

Explanation and Motive for Using Q Methodology

Q methodology is an exploratory mixed-methods research approach developed by William

Stephenson in the 1930s to identify unique viewpoints, also known as factors, and inter- individual differences among a group of participants to explore their viewpoints and beliefs on subjective issues.13-14

Q methodology is useful to study complex, value-laden topics that may be difficult to address with children using surveys or in-depth interviews that require advanced reading and vocabulary

skills.15-18 Images, rather than statements, can be used in the sorting procedure, which is beneficial for working with young children.15-18 Q methodology can also be used to study novel research questions for which there is limited experimental evidence before developing a hypothesis to test in the future.13-14

There are several general steps that are followed in a Q methodology study: (1) a research question is chosen to develop the concourse of statements or images13-14; (2) the concourse of statements or images, known as the “volume of discussion for a topic” is developed14; (2) a Q- set is determined, or the finer-tuned set of statements or images from the concourse that will be sorted by participants13-14; (3) participants sort all finalized statements or images (also known as the Q-sort) in a distribution score sheet13-14; (4) data are entered into a computerized software system and factors are extracted and rotated13-14; and 5) data are analyzed and interpreted into distinct factors or viewpoints that best describe the studied population13-14.

Research Question, Q-Set, and Participant Selection (P-Set)

The research question chosen for this study was: “How do children and their parents view the use of brand mascots to promote food and beverage products?” Brand mascots (n=75) were identified through a literature search.3-6 to find a list of brand mascots that promoted a variety of food, beverage, and restaurant product catgories.3-6 Forty-eight brand mascot images owned by

19 food, beverage, and restaurant companies were selected that market products from nine food and beverage categories, including: beverages, dairy products, snack foods, sweets, candy and confectionary, children’s meals, breakfast foods, dried fruits, and canned vegetables. The 48 brand mascot images made up the Q-set (Figure 4.1). Of the 48 products, 43 were owned by

companies who participate in the CFBAI industry self-regulatory program. Numbers were randomly assigned to each brand mascot image in order for the researcher to record each participant’s sorting pattern.

The brand mascot images were selected to avoid any reading comprehension barriers that may have been experienced with some of the young children. Based on the HER expert panel recommendations that the CFBAI extend the age for its pledges and commitments to 14 years and younger7 participants ages 6 to 14 years were recruited with one of their parents from both

Richmond and Blacksburg, Virginia between December 20, 2016 and January 20, 2017.

However, a Healthy Eating Research expert panel under the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation recommended that the CFBAI extend the age for its pledges and commitments to 14 years and younger.7 There were no age specifications for parents to participate. Participants were recruited using a flyer that was posted to the lead researcher’s Facebook page, as well as via email and word-of-mouth in both communities. A total of five child-parent dyads, or 10 participants, were recruited and completed all parts of the study. This followed the general rule stated by Watts and

Stenner of having the number of participants be less than half the number of images used in the

Q-set (i.e., less than 24 participants).13 The Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board for the

Protection of Human Subjects in Research approved all aspects of this study.

Study Activities

All participants completed three study activities after the parents signed a consent form for themselves and their child, and the child completed an assent form. These activities included: (1) an online demographic survey, (2) an online brand mascot and product association survey, and

(3) a card-sorting activity of 48 brand mascot images on a board. Both surveys were administered using the Qualtrics Survey Software.

Study IDs were assigned to all participants to protect their identities. Parents were asked to complete their child’s demographic survey as well as a separate, but identical survey to record their own demographic information. The researcher assisted children with the brand mascot association survey if they could not comprehend the words or understand the instructions to complete this survey. Parents and children were asked to separate themselves from one another while participating in these activities to avoid influencing each other during the process.

The brand mascot and product association survey consisted of 48 questions asking participants to match 48 brand mascot images with the correct food, beverage, or restaurant product category.

The images used in this survey were identical to the images used in the card-sorting activity that followed. Categories consisted of: beverages/drinks, ready-to-eat cereals, snack foods, sweets or candy, children’s meals, and “other,” (meaning that the product was associated with a category not listed.)

The sorting activity was prepared using a large laminated board with an image of a fixed, normal distribution sorting grid with columns labeled from -4 to +4 (Figure 4.2) labeled from “most disliked brand mascots” to “most liked brand mascots.” All 48 images were printed onto card stock and attached with double-sided adhesive for participants to place into designated boxes on the laminated board.

Participants were first asked to sort the images into three piles: (1) brand mascots they liked the most; (2) brand mascots they liked the least; and (3) brand mascots they did not recognize or had mixed feelings about. Next, participants placed the images they “liked the most” starting with the

+4 column on the right side of the board until they placed all of their cards from that pile on the board. They followed the same pattern with the mascots they “liked the least” and finished with the pile they were unsure about. Once the participant was satisfied with their selections, the researcher recorded each of the numbers assigned to the images on a printed sheet of a blank card sorting sheet that was identical to the image on the laminated board (Figure 4.2). Each participant received a $20.00 Walmart gift card following completion of the study.

Analysis and Interpretation of the Surveys and Q-Sorts

Averages percentages were determined for responses for the brand mascot and product association survey per product category the brand mascot to be associated with. Average percentages were determined for each brand mascot that was associated correctly. The mean

(average) of these percentages was taken from all brand mascots that belonged to the same product category to determine the total number of products from each category that were correctly identified by participants.

Each participant’s sorting data, or Q-sort, was entered into the PQMethod 2.35 data software system.19 One of the researchers also completed their own Q-sort and entered this into the software with the other ten Q-sorts. This was done to remove any biases the researcher may have experienced during the interpretation phase of the study. Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to extract three factors using a varimax rotation. The following criteria were selected to

determine the number of extracted factors chosen for the analysis: (1) factors whose Eigenvalues were greater than 1.013-14; (2) the total variance explained more than 40 percent of the data20; and

(3) factors with three or more defining sorts13-14. Four factors contained Eigenvalues that were greater than 1.0, which satisfied the Kaiser-Guttman criterion.21-22 Therefore, two, three, and four extracted factor solutions were performed. After analyzing all available solutions, the three factor solution met all required criteria and explained 56 percent of the total variance of the study data.

Interpretation of the data focused on the analysis of the factor arrays (Table 4.1) produced for all three factors. A factor array is a typical or estimated Q-sort that summarizes all of the data from an entire factor, or viewpoint. A “crib sheet” was created for each factor by using data from the factor arrays for all three factors13 (Table 4.2). Starting with Factor 1, brand mascots that were ranked on the +4 column by participants on the Factor Array for Factor 1 were first recorded.

Next, mascots that ranked higher in Factor 1 than the other two Factor Arrays were recorded.

The next step involved recording mascots that participants ranked on the -4 column for Factor 1.

Finally, the mascots that were ranked lower in Factor 1 than all other factor arrays were recorded. This same procedure was followed for the Factors 2 and 3. These crib sheets were used as the basis for interpretation and analysis of the data.

Results

Demographic Questionnaire/Brand Mascot and Product Association Survey

Participants’ responses to the demographic questionnaire were summarized into Table 4.3.

Responses from the brand mascot and product association survey were depicted (Figure 4.3) to show the percent of products and mascots from each category that were associated correctly.

Overall, the 10 participants correctly associated 66 percent of all brand mascots and related products. Mascots and product associations were calculated according to product category: beverages/drinks (90 percent); ready-to-eat cereals (62 percent); snack foods (77 percent); sweets/candy (47 percent); children’s meals (58 percent); and “other category not listed” (60 percent). Brand Mascots (i.e., The Coca-Cola Company’s Polar Bears, Nestle’s Nesquik Bunny,

Mars Inc.’s M&M’s Characters, and Mondelez International’s Teddy Bear) were mascots used by CFBAI-member companies that had pledged to use no other advertising strategies to children under 12 years. Of these brand mascots, the child and adult participants associated the mascots with the correct brands or product categories by nearly three quarters (73 percent).

Explanation of Viewpoints (Factor Arrays)

The Q methodology analysis identified three distinct viewpoints or factors that represented 56 percent of the variance. A summary of all factor interpretations are presented in Table 4. “Strong preferences” and “strong dislikes” were mascots that were ranked on either the +4 or -4 column on the card-sorting grid. “Milder preferences” and “milder dislikes” were mascots that were ranked on all other columns on the card-sorting grid (-3 to +3).

Viewpoint 1: The Breakfast Cereal Animal Lovers

Three participants loaded significantly on Factor 1 that accounted for 19 percent of the total variance. Two of the participants were children from Richmond, Virginia who belonged to the

same family and were between the ages of 5 and 10 years. The third participant was one of the adult researchers who grew up in Richmond, Virginia.

Participants had strong preferences for anthropomorphic mascots that were animals and/or non- human, and especially for those that were smiling and looking directly at the consumer (i.e.,

Nesquik Bunny, Buzz Bee, and Teddy Bear). These strongly preferred mascots were trademarked between 1940 to 1980. They also showed strong and mild preferences for seven mascots advertising RTE cereals, and especially those owned by General Mills (Buzz Bee, Lucky the

Leprechaun, Trix Rabbit, and Chip the Wolf). Two mascots that were strongly preferred (Teddy

Bear and Nesquik Bunny) were owned by companies (Nestle USA and Mondelez Global) that are members of the CFBAI and pledge to use no forms of child-directed marketing to children under

12 years. Four mascots that were preferred less strongly (i.e., Crazy Craving Craver, K.C.

Penguin, Crazy-Good Kids, and Chip the Wolf) were trademarked between the 1990s to 2000s as well as the 1960s (i.e., Trix Rabbit, Sunny, Lucky the Leprechaun, and Sugar Bear). Out of the nine mascots that were mildly preferred, only two brand mascots were human or human-like

(i.e., Jolly Green Giant and Lucky the Leprechaun).

Participants had strong dislikes for “abnormal” or “scary” human mascots that were smiling (i.e.,

Franken Berry Frankenstein, Ronald McDonald, and Caesar’s pizza man). These mascots were trademarked between 1959 to 1970. Some of these disliked mascots consisted of a clown, a monster, a ghost, a Greek-Roman cartoon man holding a pitchfork, a cheetah with sunglasses, and an anthropomorphic smiling meal box. In general, these participants tended to dislike mascots (i.e., Wendy, Happy, Ronald McDonald, Colonel Sanders, and Caesar) used to advertise

children’s meals. Additionally, they had strong dislikes for mascots used to advertise

McDonald’s children’s meals (i.e., Ronald McDonald and Happy for the Happy Meals).

Viewpoint 2: Lover of Mascots with Eyes/Hands of Approval

Four participants, two children and two parents, loaded on Factor 2, which accounted for 18 percent of the total variance. All participants belonged to the same family. Both parents, husband and wife, were between the ages of 35 and 44 years. Both children were male and were between the ages of 5 and 14 years.

Participants had both strong and mild preferences for anthropomorphic cartoon mascots that took the shape of the food they were representing (i.e., Finn the Goldfish, M&M’s Characters,

Cinnamon and Bad Apple, and Kool-Aid Man). Strongly preferred mascots were trademarked between 1940 and the 1990s. Six mascots that were mildly preferred were trademarked between the 1990s and 2014. Additionally, eleven mascots were trademarked between 1940 and 1970.

Participants preferred a mix of human and animal mascots. Participants had preferences for brand mascots representing foods sold by the Kellogg Company (i.e., Cornelius “Corny”

Rooster, Tony the Tiger, Cinnamon and Bad Apple, Toucan Sam, Ernie Keebler and the Keebler

Elves, and Julius Pringles). Several mascots were preferred that showed “thumbs up” (i.e., Tony the Tiger, Ernie Keebler, Cornelius “Corny” Rooster) or had “active” hands/wings (i.e., Chester

Cheetah, M&M’s Characters, Bongo the Monkey, Toucan Sam, Frankenberry Frankenstein,

Kool-Aid Man, Happy, and Cinnamon and Bad Apple). Furthermore, 16 out of 17 mascots that were strongly and mildly preferred had fixed eyes that looked directly at the consumer.

Participants had strong and mild dislikes for mascots wearing chefs’ hats and/or bonnets (i.e.,

Chef Boyardee, The Sun-Maid Girl, Pillsbury Doughboy, Chef Wendell, and Snap Crackle, and

Pop). Strongly disliked mascots were trademarked between 1916 and 2005. Eight mildly disliked mascots were trademarked between 1960 and 1990. An additional eight mascots were trademarked between 1900 and 1950. Additionally, many mascots who represented products sold by General Mills were disliked (i.e., Chef Wendell, Buzz Bee, Count Chocula Vampire, Pillsbury

Doughboy, Trix Rabbit, Jolly Green Giant, and Chip the Wolf.) Five of these mascots represent

RTE cereals owned by this company. Several disliked mascots also contained props and/or food items that the mascot was holding or consuming (i.e., Chef Wendell, Buzz Bee, Mr. Peanut,

Chuck E., The Campbell’s Soup Kids, The Sun-Maid Girl, Chip the Wolf, and Sunny.) Many disliked mascots wore scarves or ties around their necks (Pillsbury Doughboy; Chef Boyardee;

The Sun-Maid Girl; The Campbell’s Soup Kids; Snap, Crackle, and Pop; and Coca-Cola Polar

Bears.)

Viewpoint 3: Human, Hat-Wearing Mascot Lovers

Four participants loaded on Factor 3, which accounted for 18 percent of the total variance. Two participants were husband and wife, and were between the ages of 35 and 64 years. The remaining two participants were a mother-daughter dyad. The child, a female, was between the ages of 11 and 14 years and the mother was between the ages of 35 and 44 years.

Participants who loaded on this factor had strong preferences for human and human-like mascots wearing hats (i.e., Chef Wendell, Pillsbury Doughboy, and the Quaker Oats Man). Additionally, two other mascots that were mildly preferred also wore hats (Sun-Maid Girl; and Snap, Crackle,

and Pop). Mascots that were strongly preferred were trademarked between the 1870s to the

1990s. Seven mascots preferred mildly were trademarked between the 1900s to the 2000s. No mascots were strongly or mildly preferred between the 1980s to the 1990s. Eight out of the ten mascots that were preferred higher in Factor 3 than all other factor arrays were human and human-like mascots. Many of these mascots were also holding types of food or other objects

(The Sun-Maid Girl; The Campbell’s Soup Kids; Chef Wendell; and Caesar.)

Mascots that were disliked included mostly animals, and more specifically, different species of birds (K.C. Penguin, Cornelius Rooster, and Toucan Sam), two of which were owned by the

Kellogg Company. Mascots that were strongly disliked were trademarked between 1926 and the

2000s. Four mascots that were mildly disliked were trademarked between the 1990s to the 2000s, and five mascots were trademarked in 1960. The remaining three mascots were trademarked between 1913 and 1950. Participants had strong dislikes for two animals with objects (i.e.,

Bongo the Monkey and Sugar Bear) and one human mascot (Aunt Jemima). Human and human- like mascots that were disliked included two “fairy-tale” mascots, including a leprechaun and an elf (Lucky the Leprechaun and Ernie Keebler and the Elves). The remaining human-like mascot that was disliked was Cap’n Horatio Magellan Crunch. Both Cap’n Horatio Magellan Crunch and Aunt Jemima were owned by PepsiCo Incorporated. Two mascots that were disliked, Finn the Goldfish and Crazy Good Kids, were anthropomorphic mascots that took the shape of the foods they represented (i.e., Goldfish crackers and Pop Tarts).

Consensus and Disagreement Among Brand Mascots

The four mascots that had the highest degree of consensus across all factors were: Count

Chocula Vampire (-3, -2, -1), Kool-Aid Man (0, 0, 1), Sonny the Cuckoo Bird (0, 0, 0) and

Cinnamon and Bad Apple (-1, 0, -1). Three of these mascots (Count Chocula Vampire, Sonny the

Cuckoo Bird, and Cinnamon and Bad Apple) represent RTE cereals and one represents a sugar- sweetened beverage (Kool-Aid Man). The creations of these mascots range between the 1950s

(Kool-Aid Man) to 2004 (Cinnamon and Bad Apple).

In contrast, the four mascots that had the highest level of disagreement were: The Sun-Maid Girl

(-1, -4, +3), Wendy Thomas (-2, +4, 0), Chef Wendell (-1, -2, +4), and Ernie Keebler and the

Keebler Elves (-2, +2, -3). These mascots come from four different food and beverage categories: snack foods (The Sun-Maid Girl); RTE cereals (Chef Wendell); children’s meals

(Wendy Thomas); and sweets (Ernie Keebler and the Keebler Elves) and were created between

1916 (The Sun-Maid Girl) and the 1990s (Chef Wendell).

Discussion

Not only were there three distinct viewpoints between participants’ dislikes and preferences for brand mascots, but there were also trends in the relationships shared between participants in each factor. These findings reveal how members of the same family can share similar viewpoints for food, beverage, and restaurant products and the ways in which these products are advertised and marketed to consumers. Many of these brand mascots are intergenerational.3,4,5

These findings may be partly due to the fact that parents are the primary purchasers of food and beverages for the household, and especially when children are still young.23 The children in this study were between 6 and 14 years, and most likely were not purchasing most of their own food and beverage products, but were likely to be influenced by parental purchase. Therefore, it makes sense that members of the same families shared similar viewpoints, since they most likely consume many of the same food, beverage, and restaurant products at home and at restaurants.

Moreover, parents have a unique and important opportunity to model healthy eating habits and behaviors at home for their children to prevent obesity and other diet-related diseases.23

Participants were able to correctly associate 66 percent of brand mascots and related products.

Participants scored very highly for beverages (90 percent) and snack foods (77 percent). Other categories, such as sweets/candy (47 percent) and children’s meals (58 percent) scored slightly lower. Furthermore, companies who were members of the CFBAI and use brand mascot marketing but have agreed to use none of their advertising efforts to children under 12, were associated very highly, with an overall score of 73 percent.

The two children who loaded on Factor 1 (Breakfast Cereal Animal Lovers) were between 5 and

10 years of age and preferred mostly animal mascots that were friendly and smiling and many of which, are mascots that represented RTE cereals marketed by General Mills. Conversely, they tended to dislike mascots that may be perceived as scary (i.e., ghosts, vampires, and clowns) to young children. Even more interesting was that they disliked both mascots used to advertise

McDonald’s children’s meals. They preferred many mascots created in the 1990s and 2000s, close to the period of time in which they were growing up. Additionally, they also preferred

100

mascots created in the year 1960, which was the period of time where their parents were exposed to these many of these mascots growing up.

The viewpoints from the family of four that loaded on Factor 2 (Lover of Mascots with

Eyes/Hands of Approval) were also very interesting. Children who loaded on this factor were slightly older than those who loaded on Factor 1 (between 5 and 14 years). This family preferred a mix of both human and animal mascots, and many were anthropomorphic foods that depicted the food or beverage they represented. The mascots that were strongly preferred were trademarked between the 1940s to the 1990s, which was the era that both parents grew up. Many of the other preferred mascots were created between 1990 and 2014; the era in which both children were born. Another interesting finding was that these participants tended to prefer mascots owned by the Kellogg Company, and disliked those owned by General Mills. They disliked mascots wearing chef’s hats or bonnets and those that held food and other items.

In Factor 3 (Human, Hat-Wearing Mascot Lovers) participants preferred mostly human mascots, and especially those wearing hats and holding food and other items. There was a wide range of years for mascots that were preferred both strongly and mildly; these ranged from the 1870s to the 1990s, and between the 1900s to the 2000s, respectively. Interestingly, there were no mascots preferred that were created between the 1980s to the 1990s.

Participants tended to dislike animal mascots, fairy-tale mascots, and human mascots owned by

PepsiCo. They also tended to dislike anthropomorphic mascots that were depicted as the foods they represented. Many mascots created in 1960, around the era in which most adults in this

101

factor grew up, were disliked. Moreover, there were several mascots in which participants from all three factors had similar viewpoints on. These included three mascots representing RTE cereals and one representing a beverage. Participants tended to have mixed feelings or perhaps did not recognize some of these mascots based on their sorting patterns. Additionally, one of these mascots tended to be viewed more negatively by participants. Conversely, participants from all factors tended to disagree over several mascots from a variety of product categories and companies. Some mascots were both well liked and extremely disliked by participants of different factors.

Current Implications and Future Directions

Food, beverage, and restaurant companies have many opportunities to use brand mascots marketing in ways that benefit and promote the health of individuals of all ages, but especially children. Young children are especially at risk for developing parasocial relationships, where they form human-like friendships and special bonds with these characters.24-25 On the other hand, many fruit and vegetable companies have created their own brand mascots to market their products, such as the Jolly Green Giant and The Sun-Maid Girl. Other companies selling nutrient-dense products should do their own part to create brand mascots that are appealing to children in order to increase their consumption of these foods. Additionally, industry self- regulatory companies, such as the CFBAI member organizations, should consider addressing the use of brand mascot marketing, that many of their company members utilize, and include it in their policies and pledges.

102

Future studies should consider including a greater number of participants and including post-sort interviews or focus groups to address participants’ thoughts about the card-sorting activity.

Additionally, future research should explore the differences in brand mascot preferences between participants’ household income, and especially between low-income, Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program-eligible (SNAP) participants and those who do not qualify for this program.

These individuals are often exposed to a large number of brand mascots and packaged food and beverage products, and especially when large grocery stores are in close proximity to the household. Future studies should address the use of participants’ preferences of brand mascots primarily found in convenience stores and gas stations and in areas with low food security.

Study Strengths and Limitations

One strength that this study employs is a non-invasive, exploratory method to understand the participants’ unique viewpoints about brand mascots. Q methodology was useful working with young children who have not yet developed advanced vocabulary and reading comprehension skills that are necessary for in-depth interviews, lengthy surveys, and other methods of data collection. Additionally, these participants, and especially the children, enjoyed the sorting activity and loved identifying mascots they had seen before and who were on products that they often consume.

Conversely, there were also several limitations in this study. First, the sample population was not well diversified. A sample including a variety of race and ethnic groups will be important to identify differences in brand mascots preferences in these populations. Second, a strategy that is important, yet not obligatory, is the use of interviews or focus groups at the completion of the Q-

103

sorts. This strategy can provide important clarifications and supplement the findings in the distinct viewpoints, or factors that are discovered.13-14 Additionally, although the number of participants (n=10) met Watts’ and Stenner’s definition for having less than half the number of participants (n=24) than the number of statements or images in the concourse (n=48), recruiting additional participants would have been beneficial and should be employed in forthcoming studies.13 This would allow the study results to have greater validity.

Furthermore, the brand mascot and product association survey contained several mascots that represent a variety of product categories. Additionally, when creating this survey, there was no question asking participants for their Study I.D. Therefore, there was no way to identify which participants answered each survey. This was a major limitation because we could not identify differences in responses between children and parents. Participants may have been confused about which category to choose when answering these questions. Future studies should address this issue and include mascots that only represent one main product category.

Conclusions

Three distinct viewpoints on participants’ preferences and dislikes for a variety of brand mascots owned by food, beverage, and restaurant companies were discovered. These viewpoints shared participants’ preferences for brand mascot appearance, product category, product companies, and the year in which the brand mascots were created. The brand mascot and product association survey showed that participants associated more than half (66 percent) of all mascots and related products correctly, and especially for beverages (90 percent) and snack foods (77 percent). Food,

104

beverage, and restaurant companies that use brand mascot marketing have opportunities to create products that align with authoritative nutrition guidelines, such as the 2015-2020 Dietary

Guidelines for Americans.26 The CFBAI self-regulatory program should also consider including the use of both brand mascots and media characters in their policies and principles. Additionally, companies that sell nutrient-dense products, such as fruits and vegetables, that currently do not use brand mascot marketing, should consider using this strategy to increase consumption of these foods in young people.

105

Tables and Figures

Figure 4.1

Images of the 48 Brand Mascots Used in the Product Association Survey and Card-Sort

106

107

108

Figure 4.2

Image of the Card-Sorting Score Sheet Used in the Q-Sort

109

Table 4.1

List of Brand Mascots and Factor Arrays Used to Produce the Crib Sheets for Factor

Interpretation

Factor Arrays for Factors 1-3 Factor Number

Brand Mascot Name 1 2 3 1. Dino Danonino 0 -1 -1 2. Coca-Cola Polar Bears 2 1 2 3. Nesquik Bunny 4 2 0 4. Kool-Aid Man 0 1 0 5. Happy -3 1 0 6. Chuck E. 1 -3 1 7. Wendy Thomas -2 4 0 8. K.C. Penguin 3 0 -3 9. Chef Wendell -1 -2 4 10. Snap, Crackle, and Pop -1 -2 0 11. Cap’n Horatio Magellan Crunch 0 1 -2 12. Cornelius (Corny) Rooster -2 -1 -3 13. Sonny the Cuckoo Bird 0 0 0 14. Tony the Tiger -1 2 0 15. Cinnamon and Bad Apple -1 0 -1 16. Buzz Bee 4 2 3 17. Boo Berry Ghost -3 -2 -2 18. Count Chocula Ghost -2 -3 -1 19. Franken Berry Frankenstein -4 -1 -2 20. Quaker Oats Man 1 1 4 21. Pillsbury Doughboy 3 0 4 22. Toucan Sam 2 3 -1 23. Chester Cheetah -2 3 -1 24. Cookie Guy 0 0 1 25. Jolly Green Giant 2 0 1 26. Mr. Peanut 3 1 3 27. M&M’s Characters 1 4 2 28. Crazy Craving Craver 1 -1 -1 110

29. Ernie Keebler and the Keebler Elves -2 2 -3 30. Bongo the Monkey -1 2 -4 31. Ronald McDonald -4 0 1 32. Trix Rabbit 1 -2 0 33. Sunny 2 -3 1 34. Chip the Wolf 0 -4 -2 35. Sugar Bear 0 -1 -4 36. Finn the Goldfish 3 4 2 37. Lucky the Leprechaun 2 1 -2 38. Dig Em’ Frog -3 -1 -1 39. Caesar -4 -2 2 40. Colonel Sanders -3 3 2 41. Julius Pringles 2 3 2 42. Little Debbie 1 2 -2 43. Chef Boyardee 1 -4 1 44. Teddy Bear 4 0 1 45. Campbell’s Soup Kids -2 -3 3 46. The Sun-Maid Girl -1 -4 3 47. Aunt Jemima -1 -1 -4 48. Crazy-Good Kids 0 -2 -3

Table 4.2

Crib Sheet for Factors 1-3

Factor 1 Crib Sheet

Items Ranked at +4 • Nesquik Bunny • Buzz Bee • Teddy Bear

Items Ranked Higher in Factor 1 Array Than All Other Factor Arrays • Coca-Cola Polar Bears +2 (also ranked +2 in Factor 3) • Nesquik Bunny +4 • Chuck E +1 (Also ranked +1 in Factor 3) 111

• K.C. Penguin +3 • Sunny the Cuckoo Bird 0 (Ranked 0 in all sorts) • Buzz Bee +4 • Jolly Green Giant +2 • Mr. Peanut +3 (Also ranked +3 in Factor 3) • Crazy Craving Craver +1 • Trix Rabbit +1 • Sunny + 2 • Chip the Wolf 0 • Sugar Bear 0 • Lucky the Leprechaun +2 • Chef Boyardee +1 (also ranked +1 in factor 3) • Teddy Bear +4

Items Ranked Lower in Factor 1 Array Than All Other Factor Arrays • Kool-Aid Man 0 (also ranked 0 in factor 3) • Happy -3 • Wendy Thomas -2 • Sonny the Cuckoo Bird 0 (ranked 0 in all other factors) • Tony the Tiger -1 • Cinnamon and Bad Apple -1 (also ranked -1 in factor 3) • Boo Berry Ghost -3 • Franken Berry Frankenstein -4 • Quaker Oats Man 1 (also ranked 1 in factor 2) • Chester Cheetah -2 • Cookie Guy 0 (also ranked 0 in factor 2) • M&M’s characters +1 • Ronald McDonald -4 • Dig em’ frog -3 • Caesar -4 • Colonel Sanders -3 • Julius Pringles +2 (also ranked +2 in factor 3)

Items ranked at -4 • Franken Berry Frankenstein

112

• Caesar • Ronald McDonald

Factor 2 Crib Sheet

Items Ranked at +4 • Wendy Thomas • M&M’s characters • Finn the Goldfish

Items Ranked Higher in Factor 2 Array than Any Other Factor Arrays • Kool-Aid Man +1 • Happy +1 • Wendy Thomas +4 • Cap n Horatio Crunch +1 • Cornelius Corny Rooster +1 • Sonny the Cuckoo Bird 0 (ranked 0 for all factors) • Tony the Tiger +2 • Cinnamon and Bad Apple 0 • Boo Berry Ghost -2 (also ranked -2 for factor 3) • Franken Berry Frankenstein -1 • Toucan Sam +3 • Chester Cheetah +3 • M&M’s characters +4 • Ernie Keebler and the Keebler Elves +2 • Bongo the Monkey +2 • Finn the Goldfish +4 • Dig Em’ Frog -1 (also ranked -1 for factor 3) • Colonel Sanders +3 • Julius Pringles +3 • Little Debbie +2

Items Ranked Lower in Factor 2 than All Other Factor Arrays 113

• Dino Danonino -1 (also ranked -1 in factor 3) • Coca-Cola Polar Bears +1 • Chuck E -3 • Chef Wendell -2 • Snap, Crackle, and Pop -2 • Sonny the Cuckoo Bird 0 (ranked 0 for all factors) • Buzz Bee +2 • Count Chocula Vampire -3 • Quaker Oats Man +1 (also ranked +1 for factor 1) • Pillsbury Doughboy 0 • Cookie Guy 0 (also ranked 0 for factor 1) • Jolly Green Giant 0 • Mr. Peanut +1 • Crazy Craving Craver -1 (also ranked -1 for factor 3) • Trix Rabbit -2 • Sunny -3 • Chip the Wolf -4 • Chef Boyardee -4 • Teddy Bear 0

Items Ranked -4 • Chip the Wolf • Chef Boyardee

Factor 3 Crib Sheet

Items Ranked +4 • Chef Wendell • Quaker Oats Man • Pillsbury Doughboy

Items Ranked Higher in Factor 3 than All Other Factor Arrays • Coca-Cola Polar Bears +2 (also ranked +2 in factor 1)

114

• Chuck E. +1 (also ranked +1 in factor 1) • Chef Wendell +4 • Snack, Crackle, and Pop 0 • Sonny the Cuckoo Bird 0 (ranked 0 in all factors) • Boo Berry Ghost -2 (also ranked -2 in factor 2) • Count Chocula Vampire -1 • Quaker Oats Man +4 • Pillsbury Doughboy +4 • Cookie Guy +1 • Mr. Peanut +3 (also ranked +3 in factor 1) • Ronald McDonald +1 • Dig Em’ Frog -1 (also ranked -1 in factor 2) • Caesar +2 • Chef Boyardee +1 (also ranked +1 in factor 1)

Items Ranked in Lower in Factor 3 than in Any Other Factor Arrays • Dino Daninino -1 (also ranked -1 in factor 2) • Nesquik Bunny 0 • Kool-Aid Man 0 (also ranked 0 in factor 1) • K.C. Penguin -3 • Cap’n Horatio Crunch -2 • Cornelius Corny Rooster -3 • Sonny the Cuckoo Bird 0 (ranked 0 for all factors) • Cinnamon and Bad Apple -1 (also ranked -1 for factor 1) • Toucan Sam -1 • Crazy Craving Craver -1 (also ranked -1 for factor 2) • Ernie Keebler and the Keebler Elves -3 • Bongo the Monkey -4 • Sugar Bear -4 • Finn the Goldfish +2 • Lucky the Leprechaun -2 • Julius Pringles +2 (also ranked +2 for factor 1) • Little Debbie -2

Items Ranked -4

115

• Bongo the Monkey • Sugar Bear

Table 4.3

Demographic Profile of the Study Participants

Demographic Survey Response Data (n=10)

Gender n (%) Female 5 (50) Male 5 (50)

Age 5-10 years 3 (30) 11-14 years 2 (20) 35-44 4 (40) 45-64 1 (10)

Ethnicity Hispanic or Latino 0 (0) Not Hispanic or Latino 10(100)

Race American Indian of Alaskan Native 0 (0) Asian 4 (40) White 6 (60) Black or African American 0 (0) Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander 0 (0)

116

Other 0 (0)

Highest Level of Education Completed No level education completed 1 (10) Elementary School (K-5) 3 (30) Middle School (6-8) 1 (10) High School (9-12) 0 (0) Associate degree 0 (0) Bachelor’s degree 3 (30) Master’s degree 2 (20) Doctorate 0 (0) Professional Degree 0 (0)

Occupation Full-time working 4 (40) Part-time working 1 (10) Stay at home parent 0 (0)

Student 5 (50) Unemployed 0 (0)

Participation in Food Assistance Programs Yes 0 (0) No 10 (100)

117

Table 4.4

Summary of Factor Interpretations

Factor 1: Breakfast Cereal Animal Lovers

Preferences -Anthropomorphic animals/non-human mascots -Smiling mascots -Mascots representing RTE cereals by General Mills -Strong preferences for three mascots trademarked between 1940 to 1980 -Milder preferences for four mascots trademarked between 1990s to 2000s and 1960s -Overall, milder preferences range for eight mascots trademarked between 1925 to 1980

Dislikes -abnormal/scary human mascots that smile -mascots representing children’s meals -mascots representing McDonald’s USA children’s meals -Strong dislikes for three mascots trademarked between 1959 to 1970 -Majority of mascots trademarked from 1940 to 1970

Factor 2: Lover of Mascots with Eyes/Hands of Approval

Preferences

118

-Anthropomorphic mascots depicting foods they represent -Good mix of human, animal, and non-human mascots -Mascots representing foods sold by the Kellogg Company -Mascots who show a “thumbs up” or who have “active” hands -Strong preferences for three mascots trademarked between 1940 to the 1990s -Milder preferences for six mascots trademarked between 1990s to 2014 -Milder preferences for 11 mascots trademarked between 1940 to 1970

Dislikes: -Mascots wearing chefs’ hats or bonnets -Mascots representing products sold by General Mills -Mascots holding props or foods -Mascots wearing scarves or ties around their necks -Strong dislikes for three mascots trademarked between 1916 to 2005 -Milder dislikes for 8 mascots trademarked between 1960 to 1990 -Milder dislikes for 8 mascots trademarked between 1900 to 1950

Factor 3: Human, Hat-Wearing Mascot Lovers

Preferences -Mostly Human mascots -Human mascots wearing hats -Mascots holding objects or foods -Strong preferences for three mascots trademarked between the 1870s to the 1990s -Large range of milder preferences: seven mascots trademarked between the 1900s to 2000s; no mascots preferred between 1980s to the1990s

Dislikes: -Mostly animal mascots -Mascots that are birds (two out of three owned by the Kellogg Company) -Fairy-tale mascots -Human mascots owned by PepsiCo -Anthropomorphic mascots depicting foods they represent -Strong dislikes for three mascots trademarked between 1926 and the 2000s -Milder dislikes for four mascots trademarked in between the 1900s to 2000s -Milder dislikes for five mascots trademarked in the 1960s

119

-Wide range of milder dislikes for three mascots trade marketed between 1913 to 1950

120

Figure 4.3

Brand Mascot and Product Association Survey Results (n=10) participants (five children and five parents)

121

Chapter 4 References

1. Ogden CL, Carroll MD, Lawman HG, Fryar CD, Kruszon-Moran D, Kit BK, Flegal KM.

Trends in Obesity Prevalence Among Children and Adolescents in the United States, 1988-1994,

Through 2013-2014. JAMA. 2016; 315 (21):2292-2299. Accessed March 2017.

2. Institute of Medicine. Food Marketing to children and youth: Threat or opportunity?

Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006. Accessed March 2017.

3. Dotz W, Morton J, Lund JW. What a Character! 20th Century American Advertising Icons.

Chronicle Books LLC; 1996.

4. Callcot MF, Lee WN. Establishing the spokes-character in academic inquiry: historical overview and framework for definition. Adv Consumer Res. 1995;22:144-151. Accessed

September 2016.

5. Phillips, BJ. Defining trade characters and their role in American popular culture. J Popular

Culture. 1996:29(4):143-158. Accessed November 2016.

6. Kraak VI. Story, M. Influence of food companies’ brand mascots and entertainment companies’ cartoon media characters on children’s diet and health: a systematic review and research needs. Obesity Reviews. 2015;16(2):107-126. Accessed June 2016.

7. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Recommendations for Responsible Food Marketing to

Children. Healthy Eating Research. http://healthyeatingresearch.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/01/HER_Food-Marketing-Recomm_1-2015.pdf. Published January 2015.

8. First Lady Michelle Obama. Remarks by First Lady during White House Convening on Food

Marketing to Children. The White House. September 18, 2013 [media release]. 122

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/09/18/remarks-first-lady-during-white-house- convening-food-marketing-children. March 19, 2016.

9. World Health Organization. Set of Recommendations on the Marketing of Food and Non-

Alcoholic Beverages to Children. Published May 2010. Accessed March 2017.

10. Council of Better Business Bureaus. Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. https://www.bbb.org/council/the-national-partner-program/national-advertising-review- services/childrens-food-and-beverage-advertising-initiative/. Updated 2017.

11. Council of Better Business Bureaus. CFBAI’s Category-Specific Uniform Nutrition Criteria. http://www.bbb.org/storage/16/documents/cfbai/CFBAI%20Uniform%20Nutrition%20Criteria%

20Fact%20Sheet%20-FINAL.pdf. Published June 2013.

12. Harris JL, Heard A, Schwartz MB. Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. Older but still vulnerable: All children need protection from unhealthy food marketing. 2014. http://www.uconnruddcenter.org/files/Pdfs/Protecting_Older_Children_3_14.pdf.

13. Watts S, Stenner P. Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method, and Interpretation.

London, California, New Delhi, Singapore. Sage Publications; 2012.

14. McKeown B, Thomas DB. Q Methodology: Second Edition. London, California, New Delhi,

Singapore. Sage Publications; 2013.

15. Ellingson IT, Thorsen AA, Storksen I. Revealing children’s experiences and emotions through

Q methodology. Child Development Research. 2014. Accessed January 22, 2017.

16. Verela P, Salvador A. Structured sorting using pictures as a way to study nutritional and hedonic perception in children. Food Quality and Preference. 2013;37:27-34. Accessed January

22, 2017.

123

17. Guinard J. Sensory and consumer testing with children. Trends in Food Science and

Technology. 2001;11:273-283. Accessed November 2016.

18. Kimmel S, Sigman-Grant M, Guinard J. Sensory testing with young children. Food

Technology. 1994;48:92-99. Accessed November 2016.

19. PQMethod. [computer program]. Version 2.35. Atkinson J, Schmolck, P. November 2014.

20. Kline, P. An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. London: Routledge; 1994.

21. Kaiser HF. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educ Psychol Meas.

1960;20(1):401-417. Accessed January 2017.

22. Guttman L. Some necessary conditions for common factor analysis. Psychometrika.

1954;19(2):149-161. Accessed January 2017.

23. Rosenkranz RR, Dzewaltowski DA. Model of the home food environment pertaining to childhood obesity. Nutr Rev. 2008;66(3):123-140. Accessed December 2016.

24. Brunick KL, Putnam MM, McGarry LE, Richards MN, Calvert SL. Children’s future

Parasocial relationships with media characters: the age of the intelligent characters. Journal of

Children and Media. 2016;10(2): 181-190. Accessed August 2016.

25. Bond BJ, Calvert SL. A Model and Measure of US Parents’ Perceptions of Young Children’s

Parasocial Relationships. Journal of Children and Media. 2014;8(3): 286-304. Accessed

September 5, 2016.

26. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary

Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020. 8th Edition. Available at: https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/. Published February 2015.

124

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Future Directions

Childhood and adolescent obesity is a not only a multi-faceted problem in the U.S.; it is a worldwide pandemic.1 One contributor to the obesity epidemic in the U.S. is the marketing of nutrient-poor, energy-dense food and beverages to children and adolescents.2 Food, beverage, and restaurant companies have utilized brand mascots on their products since the late 1800s in order to create an image and face for consumers to identify their food and beverages.3-5 In addition to brand mascots, many companies also utilize entertainment companies’ licensed media characters for the purpose of entertaining young children to purchase and/or asking their caregivers to purchase food, beverage, and restaurant products.6

To date, there is a significant amount of evidence known on the effects that licensed media characters have on the diet-related cognitive (character and product preferences and associations), behavioral (food and beverage purchase requests and choices) and health (BMI) influences on young children.6 Media characters that are placed on healthy foods such as fruits and vegetables have been shown to increase children’s purchase requests for and consumption of these products.6 Additionally, because children have an innate and biological preference for salty and sweet foods7, evidence shows that when children are asked to choose between foods such as fruits and vegetables or cookies and candy that all contain media characters, children most often choose the latter.6

In addition to these behavioral influences, young children can develop parasocial relationships with media characters; real-life, emotional friendships.8-9 These relationships occur when children are frequently exposed to media characters, and are especially strong when exposed

125

through interactive computer and video games.8-9 These types of exposures are common today through the development of advergames and viral marketing.10-11

Conversely, little empirical research has been performed to determine the diet-related cognitive, behavioral, and health influences that brand mascots have on young children. Therefore, the purpose of this Master’s thesis was to address this knowledge gap because both media characters and brand mascots are often used interchangeably on similar food, beverage, and restaurant products.

To address the problem of nutrient-poor, child-directed food, beverage, and restaurant advertising, many governmental agencies, public health bodies, and industry trade associations have created both voluntary and mandatory nutrient-profile models or nutrition guidelines to enhance the nutrient profiles of food and beverage products by lowering certain nutrients, such as calories, saturated and trans fat, sodium, and total/added sugar.12-17 Additionally, the CFBAI, an industry self-regulatory program created in 2006 currently has 18 food, beverage, and restaurant company members who pledge to use the program’s nutrition criteria and other policies and principles for one or more of their products.18 Despite this program’s progress to

“improve the children’s food advertising landscape18,” many loopholes exist. One loophole most relevant to this thesis is that brand mascots and media characters for in-store, on-package advertising are not included the program’s voluntary core principles.18

The purpose of Study 1 was to address these concerns with the CFBAI program and to determine the nutrient quality of products sold by food, beverage, and restaurant companies who are

126

members of this program. The results from this study showed that all twenty products failed to meet one or more of the authoritative nutrient-profile models or nutrition guidelines, and especially for children’s meals, snack foods, and candy/sweets. Additionally, models/guidelines varied in stringency. The CFBAI guidelines were the most lenient, or the least stringent out of all seven of the models or guidelines. The CFBAI should consider strengthening their nutrition criteria to align with the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans19 and other models analyzed in this study that were more stringent, such as the proposed federal Interagency

Working Group nutrition criteria12.

Study 2 explored the diet-related, cognitive influences of brand mascots on children ages 6 to 14 years and their parents. This study utilized Q methodology, a unique mixed-methods research approach20, in order to more deeply understand how ten participants viewed the use of brand mascots owned by food, beverage, and restaurant companies. Using factor analysis, three unique factors emerged (Breakfast Cereal Animal Lovers; Lover of Mascots with Eyes/Hands of

Approval; and Human, Hat-Wearing Mascot Lovers) that showed participants’ preferences for brand mascot appearance, specific companies, and the periods of time in which the mascots were created. Companies should be mindful of their marketing and advertising strategies, especially the use of brand mascots, when selling their food, beverage, and restaurant products to children.

This study demonstrated how members of the same family share similar viewpoints on brand mascots. Parents have an especially important role in modeling healthy eating behaviors and practices of the home.

127

Future studies should conduct more in-depth, nutrient-profile analyses using a greater number of

CFBAI member food, beverage, and restaurant products to discover how well products that use brand mascot marketing measure up to certain nutrition criteria, including the 2015-2020 Dietary

Guidelines for Americans19.

Additionally, future studies should consider using Q methodology to explore similar research questions used in Study 2, but with a more diverse and larger sample size. More specifically, these studies should explore differences in brand mascot preferences in individuals with various income levels, and especially those qualify for food assistance programs, such as SNAP and

WIC. These studies could also explore differences between individuals living in food deserts and those who have greater access to a variety of fresh foods at large grocery stores or supermarkets.21

128

Chapter 5 References

1. World Health Organization. Obesity and overweight. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs311/en/. Updated June 2016. Accessed March

2017.

2. Institute of Medicine. Food Marketing to children and youth: Threat or opportunity?

Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006. Accessed August 2016.

3. Dotz W, Morton J, Lund JW. What a Character!: 20th Century American Advertising Icons.

Chronicle Books LLC; 1996.

4. Phillips, BJ. Defining trade characters and their role in American popular culture. J Popular

Culture. 1996:29(4):143-158. Accessed December 2016.

5. Callcot MF, Lee WN. Establishing the spokes-character in academic inquiry: historical overview and framework for definition. Adv Consumer Res. 1995;22:144-151. Accessed

December 2016.

6. Kraak VI. Story M. Influence of food companies’ brand mascots and entertainment companies’ cartoon media characters on children’s diet and health: a systematic review and research needs. Obesity Reviews. 2015;16:107-126. Accessed July 2016.

7. Savage JS, Fisher JO, Birch LL. Parental influence on eating behavior: conception to adolescence. J Law Med. Ethics. 2007;35(1):22-34. Accessed January 2017.

8. Brunick KL, Putnam MM, McGarry LE, Richards MN, Calvert SL. Children’s future

Parasocial relationships with media characters: the age of the intelligent characters. Journal of

Children and Media. 2016;10(2): 181-190. Accessed September 2016.

129

9. Bond BJ, Calvert SL. A Model and Measure of US Parents’ Perceptions of Young Children’s

Parasocial Relationships. Journal of Children and Media. 2014;8(3): 286-304. Accessed

September 5, 2016.

10. Calvart SL. Children as consumers: advertising and marketing. The Future of Children.

2008;18(1):205-234. Accessed April 2017.

11. Marketing-Schools.org. Viral Marketing. http://www.marketing-schools.org/types-of- marketing/viral-marketing.html#link1. Accessed April 2017.

12. Interagency Working Group. Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children. https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_events/food-marketed-children-forum- interagency-working-group-proposal/110428foodmarketproposedguide.pdf. Published April

2011.

13. National Restaurant Association. Industry Impact. http://www.restaurant.org/Industry-

Impact/Food-Healthy-Living/Kids-LiveWell-Program. Updated 2015. Accessed August 2016.

14. The Walt Disney Company. Disney Nutrition Guideline Criteria. http://cdn.media.thewaltdisneycompany.com/cdnmedia/photos/corporatecitizenship/programs/N

Gexternal121412.pdf. Published 2006. Accessed July 2016.

15. United States Department of Agriculture. Smart Snacks in School. http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/allfoods_infographic.pdf. Published 2013. Accessed

July 2016.

16. United States Department of Agriculture. National School Lunch Program. http://www.fns.usda.gov/nslp/national-school-lunch-program-nslp. Updated 2016. Accessed

July 2016.

130

17. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Recommendations for Healthier Beverages. Healthy

Eating Research. Available at: http://healthyeatingresearch.org/research/recommendations-for- healthier-beverages/. Published March 2013. Accessed March 2017.

18. Council of Better Business Bureaus. Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative. https://www.bbb.org/council/the-national-partner-program/national-advertising-review- services/childrens-food-and-beverage-advertising-initiative/. Updated 2017.

19. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dietary

Guidelines for Americans 2015-2020. 8th Edition. Available at: https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/. Published February 2015.

20. Watts S, Stenner P. Doing Q Methodological Research: Theory, Method, and Interpretation.

London, California, New Delhi, Singapore. Sage Publications; 2012.

14. American Nutrition Association. USDA Defines Food Deserts. http://americannutritionassociation.org/newsletter/usda-defines-food-deserts. Accessed April

2017.

131

Appendix

Appendix A: Supplemental Evidence Tables (Study 1)

Nutrient Profile of the Brand or Product Line compared to

The Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative’s Category-Specific Uniform Nutrition Criteria

Food Mascot Comments Calories Fat (g) Sat Fat (g) Trans Fat Total Sodium (mg) Category Regarding (g) sugar (g) Brand/Product Category’s Criteria Company Line

Beverages Fat not a 0 g Trans fat not No added < or equal to 140 & Dairy “nutrient to a NTL for sugars mg < or equal to limit” this set of 160 (NTL) for criteria this set of criteria

132

Kraft Foods Kool-Aid Man -Calculated based on 30 0 g 0 g 0 g 8 g 15 mg Group, Inc. “Juices” product Kool-Aid category Jammers Reduced Sugar- -Not 100% (Cherry flavored) fruit/vegetables juice

6 fl oz. -Contains added sugars not naturally found

< or equal to Fat not a < or equal Trans fat not < or equal < or equal to 200 150 “nutrient to to 2 g a NTL for to 24 g mg limit” this set of (NTL) for criteria this set of criteria

Nestle USA Nesquik Bunny -Calculated based on 150 2.5 g 1.5 g 0 g 22 g 160 mg “Milks and milk Nesquik Low-Fat substitutes” product Chocolate Milk category 8 oz.

The Coca- Polar bears -Soda not included in 140 0 g 0 g 0 g 39 g 45 mg Cola list of acceptable Company Coca-Cola product categories

12 oz. -Cannot be used to advertise to children

133

< or equal to Fat not a < or equal Trans fat not < or equal < or equal to 140 170 “nutrient to to 2 g a NTL for to 23 g mg limit” this set of (NTL) for criteria this set of criteria

The Dannon Bongo the -Calculated based on 60 0.5 0g 0g 10g 40 mg Company Monkey “Yogurts and yogurt- type products” Danimals product category Smoothie: Swingin’ -3.1 oz serving size Strawberry adjusted to standard 6 Banana oz serving size to calculate NTL 3.1 fl oz.

General Trix Rabbit -Calculated based on 100 0.5 g 0.5 g 0g 13 g 50 mg Mills, Inc. “Yogurts and yogurt- Yoplait Trix type products” Yogurt -4 oz serving size Triple Cherry adusted to meet standard 6 oz. serving 4 oz. size to calculate NTL

Sweets and < or equal to Fat not a < or equal Trans fat not < or equal < or equal to 110 Candy 120 “nutrient to to 2 g a NTL for to 20 g mg limit”

134

(NTL) for this set of this set of criteria criteria Hershey Hershey Kiss -Calculated based on 200 12 g 7 g 0 g 23 g 35 mg Company dairy-based desserts” Hershey Kisses product category (9 pieces) -Standard serving size Adjusted: 57 Adjusted: Adjusted: Adjusted: 10 mg is limited to ½ cup 2 g 7 g

-9 pieces is equivalent to 1.75 cups

-Adjusted to ½ cup criteria for all NTL

Mars, Inc. M&M characters -Calculated based on 240 10 g 6 g 0 g 30 g 30 mg dairy-based desserts”

M&Ms, 1 pack product category

-Standard serving size Adjusted: Adjusted: Adjusted: Adjusted: 72 mg is limited to 0.5 cup 569 14 g 72 g

-1 pack is equivalent to 0.211 cups per

Children’s < or equal to Fat not a < 10% Trans fat not < or equal < or equal to 600 Meals 450 “nutrient to kcals a NTL for to 17 g mg limit” this set of (NTL) for criteria this set of criteria

135

Kraft Heinz Cheesasaurus -Calculated based on 350 13 g 4.5 g 0 g 7 g 720 mg Company Rex “small meal” product category since no Kraft Macaroni beverage is included & Cheese, Blue in product Box Original Cheese -Calculations based on labeled serving 2.5 oz, 70 g, 1 size (LSS) cup per serving as prepared

ConAgra K.C. Penguin -Calculated based on 430 19 g 4 g 0 g 5 g 540 mg Foods, Inc. “Small meal” product Kid Cuisine (Fun category since no Shaped Chicken beverage is included Breast Nuggets) in product

Per 1 meal -Calculated based on LSS

-Saturated fat calculation: 4 x9=36 g<43 grams

< or equal to Fat not a < 10% Trans fat not < or equal < or equal to 740 600 “nutrient to kcals a NTL for to 15 for mg limit” this set of hamburger (NTL) for criteria and fries this set of criteria

136

McDonald’s Happy -Calculated based on 13 g 4 g 0.5 g 31 g 700 mg USA, LLC “Meal” since product (Hamburger, contains a beverage 510 Kids Size Fries, Apple Slices, -Calculated based on Fat-Free NTL info for each Chocolate Milk) meal component in total Per meal -Sugar from chocolate milk and apple slices not counted towards total sugar calculation

Ready-to- < or equal to Fat not a < or equal Trans fat not < or equal < or equal to 290 Eat Cereals 150 “nutrient to to 1.5 g a NTL for to 10 g mg limit” this set of (NTL) for criteria this set of criteria Kellogg Tony the Tiger -Calculated based on 110 0 g 0g 0g 10 g 150 mg Company the “Grain, fruit and Kellogg’s vegetable products, Frosted Flakes and items not in other Per ¾ cup categories” category -Calculated based on LSS

137

Toucan Sam -Calculated based on 110 1 g 0.5 0 g 10 150 mg the “Grain, fruit and Kellogg’s Fruit vegetable products, Loops and items not in other categories” category Per 1 cup -Calculated based on LSS

General Buzz Bee -Calculated based on 110 1.5 g 0 g 0 g 9 g 160 mg Mills, Inc. the “Grain, fruit and Honey Nut vegetable products, Cheerios and items not in other Per 3/4 cup categories” category -Calculated based on LSS

Chef Wendell -Calculated based on 130 3 g 0.5 g 0 g 9 g 180 mg the “Grain, fruit and Cinnamon Toast vegetable products, Crunch and items not in other Per ¾ cup categories” category

138

-Calculated based on LSS

Lucky the -Calculated based on 110 1 g 0 g 0 g 10 g 170 mg Leprechaun the “Grain, fruit and vegetable products, Lucky Charms and items not in other Per ¾ cup categories” category -Calculated based on LSS

Snack < or equal to Fat not a < or equal Trans fat not < or equal < or equal to 540 Foods 280 “nutrient to to 2.5 g a NTL for to 10 g mg limit” this set of (NTL) for criteria this set of criteria General Pillsbury -Calculate based on 180 7 g 3 g 0 g 8 g 180 mg Mills, Inc. Doughboy “Mixed dishes” category Pillsbury Apple Toaster Strudel -Calculated based on LSS Per 1 pastry with icing

139

>150-200 Fat not a Trans fat not < or equal < or equal to 360 nutrient to a NTL for to 12 g mg limit” this set of < or equal (NTL) for criteria to 2 g this set of criteria

Kellogg Crazy-Good Kids -Calculated based on 200 5 g 1.5 g 0 g 16 g 170 mg Company the “Grain, fruit and Pop-Tarts vegetable products, Frosted and items not in other Strawberry categories” category

Per 1 pastry -Calculated based on LSS

< or equal to Fat not a < or equal Trans fat not < or equal < or equal to 290 150 nutrient to to 1.5 g a NTL for to 10 g mg limit” this set of (NTL) for criteria this set of criteria

Ernie Keebler -Calculated based on 160 7 g 5 g 0 g 13 g 80 mg and the Keebler the “Grain, fruit and Elves vegetable products, and items not in other Keebler Animals categories” category Frosted Cookies

140

Per 8 cookies -Calculated based on LSS

Kraft Foods Cookie Guy -Calculated based on 160 8 g 2.5 g 0 g 11 g 110 mg Group, Inc. the “Grain, fruit and Nabisco Chips vegetable products, Ahoy! Original and items not in other Chocolate Chip categories” category

Per 3 cookies (33 -Calculated based on g) LSS

PepsiCo, Chester Cheetah -Calculated based on 150 10 g 1.5 g 0 g 1 g 250 mg Inc. the “Grain, fruit and Frito Lay vegetable products, Cheetos Crunchy and items not in other Cheese Flavored categories” category Snack -Calculated based on LSS Per 1 oz, 28 g, about 21 pieces

141

Nutrient Profile of the Brand or Product Line: The Interagency Working Group on Food Marketed to Children’s (IWG)

Preliminary Proposed Nutrition Principles to Guide Industry Self-Regulatory Efforts

Food Mascot Comments Calories Fat (g) Sat Fat (g) Trans Fat (g) Total Sugars (g) Sodium (mg) Category Regarding Brand/Product Product/Category Company Line Criteria

Beverages & Not a Not a 1 g or less per <0.5 g per < or equal to 13 g < or equal to 210 Dairy nutrient of nutrient of RACC and less than RACC per RACC mg per serving concern for concern for 15% of kcals this set of this set of guidelines guidelines

Kraft Foods Kool-Aid Man -Calculated based on 30 0 g 0 g 0 g 8 g 15 mg Group, Inc. Principle B Kool-Aid -RACC: 8 fl. Oz. or 240 Jammers ml Reduced Sugar- Adjusted: 11 g (Cherry flavored)

6 fl oz.

Nestle USA Nesquik Bunny -Calculated based on 2.5 g 1.5 g 0 g 22 g 160 mg Principle B 150

142

Nesquik Low- -RACC: 8 fl. oz. or 240 Fat Chocolate ml Milk

8 oz.

The Coca- Polar bears -Calculated based on 140 0 g 0 g 0 g 39 g 45 mg Cola Principle B Coca-Cola Company -RACC: 360 ml or 12 fl. 12 oz. oz.

The Dannon Bongo the -Calculated based on 60 0.5 g 0 g 0g 10g 40mg Company Monkey Principle B

Danimals -RACC: 170 g Smoothie: Adjusted: 19 g Swingin’ Strawberry Banana

3.1 fl oz.

General Trix Rabbit -Calculated based on 100 0.5 g 0.5 g 0 g 13 g 50 mg Mills, Inc. Principle B Yoplait Trix Yogurt -RACC: 170 g Adjusted: 0.75 Adjusted: 20 g Triple Cherry

4 oz.

143

Candy Not a Not a 1 g or less per <0.5 g per < or equal to 13 g < or equal to 210 nutrient of nutrient of RACC and less than RACC per RACC mg per serving concern for concern for 15% of kcals this set of this set of guidelines guidelines Hershey Hershey Kiss -Calculated based on 200 12 g 7 g 0 g 23 g 35 mg Company Principle B Hershey Kisses -RACC: 30 g Per 9 pieces Adjusted: 5g Adjusted: 17 g

41.11 g per serving

Mars, Inc. M&M -Calculated based on 240 10 g 6 g 0 g 30 g 30 mg characters Principle B

M&Ms, -RACC: 30 g Adjusted: 4 g Adjusted: 19 g Per 1 pack

47.9 g per serving

Children’s Not a Not a < or equal to 1 g per <0.5 g per < or equal to 13 per < or equal to 450 Meals nutrient of nutrient of 100 g and less than Labeled Serving serving mg per serving concern for concern for 10% of kcals Size this set of this set of guidelines guidelines

144

Kraft Heinz Cheesasaurus -Calculated based on 350 13 g 4.5 g 0 g 7 g 720 mg Company Rex Principle B

Kraft Macaroni -RACC: 245 g & Cheese, Blue Box Original Cheese

2.5 oz, 70 g, 1 cup per serving as prepared

ConAgra K.C. Penguin -Calculated based on 430 19 g 4 g 0 g 5 g 540 mg Foods, Inc. Principle B Kid Cuisine (Fun Shaped Chicken Breast Nuggets)

Per 1 meal

Per 227 g

McDonald’s Happy -Calculated based on 510 13 g 4 g 0.5 g 31 g 700 mg USA, LLC Principle B (Hamburger, Kids Size Fries, -Grams per serving not Apple Slices, listed on company Fat-Free website Chocolate Milk) -Calculations for sat fat Per 1 meal based on 10% of kc

145

RTE Cereals Not a Not a 1 g or less per <0.5 g per < or equal to 13 g < or equal to 210 nutrient of nutrient of RACC and less than RACC per RACC mg per serving concern for concern for 15% of kcals this set of this set of guidelines guidelines Kellogg Tony the Tiger -Calculated based on 110 0 g 0 g 0 g 10 g 150 mg Company Principle B Frosted Flakes -RACC: 40 g Per ¾ cup Adjusted: 13.8 g

Per 29 g

Toucan Sam -Calculated based on 110 1 g 0.5 g 0 g 10 g 150 mg Principle B – Fruit Loops RACC: 40 g Per 1 cup Adjusted: 0.7 g Adjusted: 13.8 g

Per 29 g

General Buzz Bee -Calculated based on 110 1.5 g 0 g 0 g 9 g 160 mg Mills, Inc. Principle B Honey Nut Cheerios -RACC: 40 g Adjusted: 12.9 g Per 3/4 cup

Per 28 g

146

Chef Wendell -Calculated based on 130 3 g 0.5 g 0 g 9 g 180 mg Principle B Cinnamon Toast Crunch -RACC: 40 g Adjusted: 0.6 g Adjusted: 11.6 g Per ¾ cup

Per 31 g

Lucky the -Calculated based on 110 1 g 0 g 0 g 10 g 170 mg Leprechaun Principle B

Lucky Charms -RACC: 40 g Adjusted: 14.8 g Per ¾ cup

Per 27 g

Snack Foods Not a Not a 1 g or less per <0.5 g pr < or equal to 13 g < or equal to 210 nutrient of nutrient of RACC and 15 of RACC per RACC mg per serving concern for concern for kcals this set of this set of guidelines guidelines General Pillsbury -Calculated based on 180 7 g 3 g 0 g 8 g 180 mg Mills, Inc. Doughboy Principle B

Pillsbury Apple -RACC: 110 g Toaster Strudel Adjusted: 6 g Adjusted: 16 g

Per 1 pastry with icing

Per 54 g

147

Kellogg Crazy-Good -Calculated based on 200 5 g 1.5 g 0 g 16 g 170 mg Company Kids Principle B

Pop-Tarts -RACC: 110 g Frosted Adjusted: 3 g Adjusted: 34 g Strawberry

Per 1 pastry

Per 52 g

Ernie Keebler -Calculated based on 160 7 g 5 g 0 g 13 g 80 mg and the Keebler Principle B Elves -RACC: 30 g Keebler Animals Adjusted: 4.8 g Adjusted: 12.6 g Frosted Cookies

Per 8 cookies

Per 31 g

Kraft Foods Cookie Guy -Calculated based on 160 8 g 2.5 g 0 g 11 g 110 mg Group, Inc. Principle B Nabisco Chips Ahoy! Original -RACC: 30 g Chocolate Chip Adjusted: 2.3 g Adjusted: 10 g

Per 3 cookies

Per 33 g

148

PepsiCo, Inc. Chester Cheetah -Calculated based on 150 10 g 1.5 g 0 g 1 g 250 mg Principle B Frito Lay -RACC: 30 g Cheetos Adjusted: 1.6 g Adjusted: 1.1 g Crunchy Cheese Flavored Snack

Per 1 oz, 28 g, about 21 pieces

149

Nutrient Profile of the Brand or Product Line United States Department of Agriculture’s National School Lunch Program (NSLP) and the National School Breakfast Program (NSBP)

Food Mascot Comments Calories Fat (g) Sat Trans Total Sodium (mg) Category Regarding Fat Fat Sugar (g) Brand/Product Product/Category (g) (g) Company Line Criteria

Children’s Grades K-5: 550- Grades 6- Grades 9- Not a <10% <0.5 g Not a Grades K- Grade Grad Meals 600 8: 600- 12: 750- nutrient of kcals nutrient 5: < or s 6-8: es 9- 700 850 concern for of equal to < or 12: < this set of concern 1230 mg equal or guidelines for this to equal set of 1360 to guideline 1420 s Kraft Cheesasaurus -Calories too few 13 g 4.5 g 0 g 7 g 720 mg Heinz Rex for average daily Company requirements to be 350 Kraft considered full meal Macaroni & Cheese, Blue -Sodium targets Box Original based on the Target Cheese 1 2013-2014 school year criteria 2.5 oz, 70 g, 1 cup per serving as prepared

150

ConAgra K.C. Penguin -Calories too few 430 19 g 4 g 0 g 5 g 540 mg Foods, Inc. for average daily Kid Cuisine requirements to be Not met for all grade levels Met for all grade levels (Fun Shaped considered full meal Chicken Breast -Sodium targets Nuggets) based on the Target 1 2013-2014 school Per 1 meal year criteria

McDonald Happy -Calories too few 510 13 g 4 g 0.5 g 31 g 700 mg ’s USA, for average daily LLC (Hamburger, requirements to be Not met for all grade levels Met for all grade levels Kids Size considered full meal Fries, Apple Slices, Fat- -Sodium targets Free based on the Target Chocolate 1 2013-2014 school Milk) year criteria

Per 1 meal

Ready-to- Grades K-5: Grades 6- Grades 9- Not a <10% <0.5 g Not a Grades Grades Grades eat Minimum- 350 8 12 nutrient of of nutrient K-5: < 6-8: < 9-12: < Cereals Maximum-500 Minimum Minimum concern for kcals of or equal or equal or -400 : 450 this set of concern to 430 to 470 equal Maximim- Maximu guidelines for this mg mg to 500 550 m: 600 set of mg guideline s

151

Kellogg Tony the Tiger -Calculated based 110 0 g 0 g 0g 10 g 150 mg Company on Breakfast meal Frosted pattern criteria Not met for all grade levels Met for every grade level Flakes -Sodium targets Per ¾ cup based on the Target 1 2013-2014 school year criteria

Toucan Sam -Calculated based 110 1 g 0.5 g 0 g 10 g 150 mg on Breakfast meal Fruit Loops pattern criteria Not met for all grade levels Met for every grade level

Per 1 cup -Sodium targets based on the Target 1 2013-2014 school year criteria

General Buzz Bee -Calculated based 110 1.5 g 0 g 0 g 9 g 160 mg Mills, Inc. on Breakfast meal Honey Nut pattern criteria Not met for all grade levels Met for every grade level Cheerios -Sodium targets Per 3/4 cup based on the Target 1 2013-2014 school year criteria

Chef Wendell -Calculated based 130 3 g 0.5 g 0 g 9 g 180 mg on Breakfast meal pattern criteria Not met for all grade levels Met for every grade level

152

Cinnamon -Sodium targets Toast Crunch based on the Target 1 2013-2014 school Per ¾ cup year criteria

Lucky the -Calculated based 110 1 g 0 g 0 g 10 g 170 mg Leprechaun on Breakfast meal pattern criteria Not met for all grade levels Met for every grade level Lucky Charms -Sodium targets Per ¾ cup based on the Target 1 2013-2014 school year criteria

153

Nutrient Profile of the Brand or Product Line United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)

”All foods Sold in Schools” Standards (Smart Snacks in School)

Food Category Mascot Comments Calories Fat (g) Sat Fat (g) Trans Fat (g) Total Sugar (g) Sodium (mg) Regarding Company Brand/Product Line Category’s Criteria

Beverages & Dairy

Kraft Foods Kool-Aid Man -Not 30 0 g 0 g 0 g 8 g 25 mg Group, Inc. approved due Kool-Aid Jammers to product Reduced Sugar- containing (Cherry flavored) added sugars

6 fl oz. -Only 100% fruit juice accepted

154

Nestle USA Nesquik Bunny Acceptable 50, 150 0.5 g 0 g 0 g 11 g 30 mg beverages: Nesquik Low-Fat Chocolate Milk -Unflavored Low-fat Milk 8 oz. -Unflavored or flavored fat free milk/milk alternative

-Not approved due to product being flavored and low-fat

The Coca-Cola Coca-Cola Polar -Soda not an 140 0 g 0 g 0 g 39 g 45 mg Company bears acceptable beverage Coca-Cola

12 oz

155

Total Fat: Saturated Fat: Trans Fat: 0g Sugar Limit: Sodium: <200 <35% total <10% calories <35% weight of mg Calories: kcals food from sugar <200

The Dannon Bongo the Monkey -Calculated 60 0.5 g 0g 0g 10g 40 mg Company based on Danimals Smoothie: “Snack Swingin’ Strawberry items’ Banana nutrient requirement 3.1 fl oz. or 91.68 g criteria after July 1, 2016

General Mills, Trix Rabbit -Calculated 100 0.5 g 0.5 g 0 g 13 g 50 mg Inc. based on Yoplait Trix Yogurt “Snack Triple Cherry items’ nutrient 4 oz. or requirement criteria after 118.29 g July 1, 2016

Candy Calories: Total Fat: Saturated Fat: Trans Fat: 0g Sugar Limit: Sodium: <200 <200 <35% total <10% calories <35% weight of mg kcals food from sugar

156

Hershey Hershey Kiss -Calculated 200 12 g 7 g 0 g 23 g 35 mg Company based on Hershey Kisses “Snack items’ Per 9 pieces nutrient 41.11 per serving requirement criteria after July 1, 2016

Mars, Inc. M&M characters -Calculated 240 10 g 6 g 0 g 30 g 30 mg based on M&Ms, 1 pack “Snack 47.9 g per pack items’ nutrient requirement criteria after July 1, 2016

Snack Foods Calories: Total Fat: Saturated Fat: Trans Fat: 0g Sugar Limit: Sodium: <200 <200 <35% total <10% calories <35% weight of mg kcals food from sugar

General Mills, Pillsbury Doughboy -Calculated 180 7 g 3 g 0 g 8 g 180 mg Inc. based on Pillsbury Apple “Snack Toaster Strudel items’ Per 1 pastry with nutrient requirement icing

157

54 g per 1 pastry criteria after July 1, 2016

Kellogg Crazy-Good Kids -Calculated 200 5 g 1.5 g 0 g 16 g 170 mg Company based on Pop-Tarts Frosted “Snack Strawberry items’ nutrient Per 1 pastry requirement 52 grams per 1 criteria after pastry July 1, 2016

Ernie Keebler and -Calculated 160 7 g 5 g 0 g 13 g 80 mg the Keebler Elves based on “Snack Keebler Animals items’ Frosted Cookies nutrient requirement Per 8 cookies criteria after 31 g per serving July 1, 2016

158

Kraft Foods Cookie Guy -Calculated 160 8 g 2.5 g 0 g 11 g 110 mg Group, Inc. based on Nabisco Chips Ahoy! “Snack Original Chocolate items’ Chip nutrient requirement Per 3 cookies criteria after 33 g per serving July 1, 2016

PepsiCo, Inc. Chester Cheetah -Calculated 150 10 g 1.5 g 0 g 1 g 250 mg based on Frito Lay “Snack Cheetos Crunchy items’ Cheese Flavored nutrient requirement Snack criteria after Per 1 oz, 28 g, about July 1, 2016 21 pieces

159

Nutrient Profile of the Brand or Product Line Disney Nutrition Guideline Criteria

Food Mascot Comments Calories Fat (g) Saturated Fat Trans Fat (g) Total sugar (g) Sodium Category Regarding (g) (mg) Brand/Product Product’s Company Line Criteria

Beverages & Not a Nutrient to Sat fat: 0 g 0 g No added No Dairy Limit in this set sugar added < or equal to of guidelines sodium 140 kcals

Kraft Foods Kool-Aid Man -Calculated 30 0 g 0 g 0 g 8 g 25 mg Group, Inc. based on Kool-Aid Jammers standard 8 oz Reduced Sugar- portion size (Cherry flavored) under “Juices” 6 fl oz. category

< or equal to Not a Nutrient to < or equal to 2 0 g < or equal to 3 g N/A 150 kcals Limit in this set g per ounce of guidelines

Nestle USA Nesquik Bunny -Calculated 2.5 g 1.5 g 0 g 22 g 160 mg based on standard 8 oz 150 portion size

160

Nesquik Low-Fat under “Milk” Chocolate Milk 8 category oz.

The Coca- Polar bears -Calculated 140 0 g 0 g 0 g 39 g 45 mg Cola based on Company Coca-Cola (12 oz.) standard 8 oz portion size

-Soda not an approved beverage choice

< or equal to Not a Nutrient to 1 g or less 0 g <4 g per ounce N/A 30 kcals per Limit in this set ounce of guidelines

The Dannon Bongo the Monkey Calculated 60 0.5 g 0g 0 g 10 g 40 mg Company based on <4 Danimals oz.. yogurt or Smoothie: Swingin’ “yogurt-based Strawberry Banana drinks” product 3.1 fl oz. category

< or equal to Not a Nutrient to 1.5 g or less 0 g < or equal to 15 g N/A 120 calories Limit in this set of guidelines

161

General Mills, Trix Rabbit Calculated 100 0.5 g 0.5 g 0 g 13 g 50 mg Inc. based on 4 oz. Yoplait Trix Yogurt yogurt or “yogurt-based Triple Cherry 4 oz. drinks” product category

Candy

Hershey Hershey Kiss Candy not an 200 12 g 7 g 0 g 23 g 35 mg Company approved Hershey Kisses product category Per 9 pieces

Mars, Inc. M&M characters Candy not an 240 10 g 6 g 0 g 30 g 30 mg approved M&Ms, 1 pack product category

Children’s < or equal to Not a Nutrient to < or equal to 0 g < or equal to 10% < or Meals 350 kcals Limit in this set 10% kcals of kcals (Added equal to of guidelines sugar only) 300 mg

Kraft Heinz Cheesasaurus Rex -Calculated 350 13 g 4.5 g 0 g 7 g 720 mg Company based on Kraft Macaroni & “Main Dish” Cheese, Blue Box category Original Cheese

162

2.5 oz, 70 g, 1 cup per serving as prepared

< or equal to Not a Nutrient to < or equal to 0 g < or equal to 10% < or 600 kcals Limit in this set 10% of kcals or of kcals or 2.5 g equal to of guidelines 1.1 g per 100 per 100 kcals 740 mg kcals

ConAgra K.C. Penguin -Calculated 430 19 g 4 g 0 g 5 g 540 mg Foods, Inc. based on Kid Cuisine “Complete Meal” Fun Shaped category Chicken Breast Nuggets

Per 1 meal

McDonald’s Happy -Calculated 510 13 g 4 g 0.5 g 31 g 700 mg USA, LLC based on (Hamburger, Kids “Complete Size Fries, Apple Meal” Slices, Fat-Free category Chocolate Milk)

Per 1 meal

163

RTE Cereals < or equal to Not a Nutrient to < or equal to 0 g < 10 g < or 130 kcals Limit in this set 10% kcals equal to of guidelines 200 mg

Kellogg Tony the Tiger -Calculated 110 0 g 0 g 0 g 10 g 150 mg Company based on Frosted Flakes “Breakfast Cereal” Per ¾ cup category per 1 29 g per serving oz or 30 g

Toucan Sam -Calculated 110 1 g 0.5 g 0 g 10 g 150 mg based on Fruit Loops “Breakfast Cereal” Per 1 cup category per 1 29 g per serving oz or 30 g

General Mills, Buzz Bee -Calculated 110 1.5 g 0 g 0 g 9 g 160 mg Inc. based on Honey Nut “Breakfast Cheerios Cereal” ca per 1 oz or 30 g Per 3/4 cup

28 g per serving

Chef Wendell -Calculated 130 3 g 0.5 g 0 g 9 g based on Cinnamon Toast “Breakfast 180 mg Crunch Cereal” Per ¾ cup

164

31 g per serving category per 1 oz or 30 g

Lucky the -Calculated 110 1 g 0 g 0 g 10 g Leprechaun based on “Breakfast 170 mg Lucky Charms Cereal” category per 1 Per ¾ cup oz or 30 g 27 g per serving

Snack Foods < or equal to Not a Nutrient to <10 % of kcals 0 g <25% of kcals 150 kcals Limit in this set

220 mg

General Mills, Pillsbury Doughboy -Calculated 180 7 g 3 g 0 g 8 g 180 mg Inc. based on Pillsbury Apple “snacks” Toaster Strudel product Adjusted: Adjusted: 1.67 Adjusted: 4.4 g Adjusted: category and Per 1 pastry with 100 g 100 mg adjusted to 30 icing g serving size 54 g per serving -Serving size too big

165

Kellogg Crazy-Good Kids -Calculated 200 5 g 1.5 g 0 g 16 g 170 mg Company based on Pop-Tarts Frosted “snacks” Strawberry product Adjusted: 115 Adjusted: 0.86 Adjusted: 9.2 g Adjusted: category and Per 1 pastry g 98 mg adjusted to 30 52 g per serving g serving size

-Serving size too big

Ernie Keebler and -Calculated 160 7 g 5 g 0 g 13 g 80 mg the Keebler Elves based on “snacks” Keebler Animals product Adjusted: 155 Adjusted: 4.8 g Adjusted: 12.6 g Adjusted: Frosted Cookies category and 77 mg adjusted to 30 Per 8 cookies g serving size 31 g per serving -Serving size too big

Kraft Foods Cookie Guy -Calculated 160 8 g 2.5 g 0 g 11 g 110 mg Group, Inc. based on Nabisco Chips “snacks” Ahoy! Original product Adjusted: 145 Adjusted: 1.4 g Adjusted: 10 g Adjusted: Chocolate Chip category and 100 mg adjusted to 30 Per 3 cookies g serving size Per 33 g -Serving size too big

166

PepsiCo, Inc. Chester Cheetah -Calculated 150 10 g 1.5 g 0 g 1 g 250 mg based on Frito Lay “snacks” product Cheetos Crunchy Adjusted: 161 Adjusted: 1.6 g Adjusted: 1.07 g Adjusted: category and Cheese Flavored 268 mg adjusted to 30 Snack g serving size Per 1 oz, 28 g, -Serving size about 21 pieces too big

167

Nutrient Profile of the Brand or Product Line The National Restaurant Association’s, “Kids LiveWell Nutritional Criteria”

Food Mascot Comments Calories Fat (g) Sat Fat (g) Trans Total Sodium (mg) Category Regarding Fat (g) Sugar (g) Brand/Product Category’s Company Line Criteria

Beverages 200 calories < or equal to < or equal to 10% kcals <0.5 g < or equal < or equal to & Dairy or less 35% kcals to 35% 250 mg kcals

Kraft Foods Kool-Aid Man -Only 100% 0 g 0 g 0 g 8 g 25 mg Group, Inc. juice Kool-Aid allowed 30 Jammers Reduced Sugar- -Product not (Cherry approved flavored)

6 fl oz.

Nestle USA Nesquik Bunny -Calculated 150 2.5 g 1.5 g 0 g 22 g 160 mg based on Nesquik Low- “Side Item” Fat Chocolate nutrition Milk criteria

8 fl oz.

168

The Coca- Coca-Cola -Soda not an 140 0 g 0 g 0 g 39 g 45 mg Cola Polar bears approved

Company category Coca-Cola -Product not 12 oz. approved

The Dannon Bongo the -Calculated 60 0.5 g 0 g 0 g 10 g 40 mg Company Monkey based on “Side Item” Danimals nutrition Smoothie: criteria Swingin’ Strawberry Banana

3.1 fl oz.

General Trix Rabbit -Calculated 100 0.5 g 0.5 g 0 g 13 g 50 mg Mills, Inc. based on Yoplait Trix “Side Item” Yogurt nutrition criteria Triple Cherry

4 oz.

Sweets and 200 calories < or equal to < or equal to 10% kcals <0.5 g < or equal < or equal to Candy or less 35% kcals to 35% 250 mg kcals

169

Hershey Hershey Kisses -Calculated 200 12 g 7 g 0 g 23 g 35 mg Company based on Per 9 pieces “Side Item” nutrition criteria

Mars, Inc. M&M -Calculated 240 10 g 6 g 0 g 30 g 30 mg characters based on “Side Item” M&Ms nutrition criteria Per 1 pack

Children’s 600 calories < or equal to < or equal to 10% kcals <0.5 g < or equal < or equal to Meals or less 35% kcals to 35% 770 mg kcals

Kraft Heinz Cheesasaurus -Calculated 350 13 g 4.5 g 0 g 7 g 720 mg Company Rex based on “Full Kids’ Kraft Macaroni Meal” & Cheese, Blue nutrition Box Original criteria Cheese

2.5 oz, 70 g, 1 cup per serving as prepared

ConAgra K.C. Penguin -Calculated 430 19 g 4 g 0 g 5 g 540 mg Foods, Inc. based on Kid Cuisine “Full Kids’ (Fun Shaped Meal”

170

Chicken Breast nutrition Nuggets) criteria

Per 1 meal

McDonald’s Happy -Calculated 4 g 0.5 g 31 g USA, LLC based on (Hamburger, “Full Kids’ 510 13 g 700 mg Kids Size Fries, Meal” Apple Slices, nutrition Fat-Free criteria Chocolate Milk)

Per 1 meal

Snack 200 calories < or equal to < or equal to 10% kcals <0.5 g < or equal < or equal to Foods or less 35% kcals to 35% 250 mg kcals

General Pillsbury -Calculated 180 7 g 3 g 0 g 8 g 180 mg Mills, Inc. Doughboy based on “Side Item” Pillsbury Apple nutrition Toaster Strudel criteria

Per 1 pastry with icing

Kellogg Crazy-Good -Calculated 200 5 g 1.5 g 0 g 16 g 170 mg Company Kids based on “Side Item”

171

Pop-Tarts nutrition Frosted criteria Strawberry

Per 1 pastry

Ernie Keebler -Calculated 160 7 g 5 g 0 g 13 g 80 mg and the Keebler based on Elves Keebler “Side Item” Animals nutrition Frosted criteria Cookies

Per 8 cookies

Kraft Foods Cookie Guy -Calculated 160 8 g 2.5 g 0 g 11 g 110 mg Group, Inc. based on Chips Ahoy “Side Item” Original nutrition Chocolate Chip criteria

Per 3 cookies, 33 g

PepsiCo, Chester -Calculated 150 10 g 1.5 g 0 g 1 g 250 mgT Inc. Cheetah based on “Side Item” Cheetos nutrition criteria Frito Lay (Crunchy Cheese flavored snack)

172

Per 1 oz, 28 g, about 21 pieces

Nutrient Profile of the Brand or Product Line Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s

Healthy Eating Research

Recommendations for Healthier Beverages (March 2013)

Food Mascot Comments Calories Fat (g) Sat Fat (g) Trans Fat (g) Total Sugar Sodium Category Regarding (g) (mg) Brand/Product Product/Category Company Line Criteria

Beverages & Dairy

Kraft Foods Kool-Aid Man -Juice must 30 0 g 0 g 0 g 8 g 25 mg Group, Inc. contain 100% Kool-Aid fruit/vegetable Jammers Reduced juice Sugar

(Cherry flavored)

173

6 fl oz. -Product contains added sugar so is not approved

Nestle USA Nesquik Bunny -Milk must be 150 2.5 g 1.5 g 0 g 22 g 160 mg unflavored fat- Nesquik Low-Fat free or unflavored Chocolate Milk low-fat

8 oz. -Product is flavored so is not approved

The Coca- Polar bears -Soda is not an 140 0 g 0 g 0 g 39 g 45 mg Cola approved Company Coca-Cola beverage choice

12 oz. -Product is not approved

174

Appendix B: Institutional Review Board Approval Letter (Study #2)

175

176

Appendix C: Participant Recruitment Flyer

What Do You Think about Brand Mascots that are Used to Promote Food, Beverage, and Restaurant Products?

We want to learn about your views regarding brand mascots that are used to promote food, beverage, and restaurant products. If you are a parent and have a child between the ages of 6 and 14 years, and you live in Richmond, Virginia, you are eligible to participate in this study. The study is conducted by researchers in the Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise at Virginia Tech located in Blacksburg, Virginia. The study involves four activities (i.e., demographic survey, brand mascot recognition survey, picture card sort and a focus group discussion) that will take no more than two hours to complete. After completing all of the study activities, each participant (parent and child) will receive a $20.00 dollar Walmart gift card. If you would like more information or are ready to participate in this study, please contact 177

Taylor Brownell, graduate research coordinator and MS student, at [email protected] (email) or (804) 551-3877 (phone). We look forward to hearing from you soon!

178

Appendix D: Parent Consent Form

Brand Mascot Q Study Consent Form

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY

Informed Consent for Participants in Research Projects Involving Human Subjects

Project Title: A Q methodology study exploring children’s and parents’ views about the use of brand mascots to market food and beverage products to children: how this impacts their cognitive and behavioral outcomes

Principal Investigator: Vivica Kraak, PhD, RD Assistant Professor Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise 223 Wallace Hall 295 West Campus Drive Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061 Email: [email protected]; phone: (540) 231-9638

Co-Investigator: Taylor Brownell, MS Student Department of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061 Email: [email protected]; phone: (804) 551-3877

I. Purpose of this Research Project The purpose of this study is to explore children’s and parents’ unique viewpoints regarding 48 brand mascots used to promote food, beverage, and restaurant products.

The research findings obtained from participants will be used to encourage members of the Children’s Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI), a voluntary self-regulatory program that promotes the use of safe and healthy child-marketing practices in food, beverage, and restaurant companies.

These findings will also help encourage these companies who use brand mascots to promote the sale of their products to consider reformulation strategies to align their products with authoritative nutrition guidelines, such as the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

The results may be summarized in one or more publications and included in a Master’s of Science (MS) thesis.

II. Procedures A. Procedure for Your Participation 179

Should you agree to participate, recruited participants will be asked to:

(1) Sign the informed consent form;

(2) Complete a brief demographic questionnaire that will take about 5 minutes to complete; (3) Complete a brand recognition survey that will take about 10 minutes to complete;

(4) Participate in a Q-sort of 48 images of brand mascots in order of the mascots you “like the most” to the mascots you “dislike the most” that will take about 30 minutes to complete and;

III. Risks There are minimal risks associated with your participation in this project. Your responses to the brief questionnaire will obtain basic information about you including your name, age, race/ethnicity, and employment. The study has been reviewed and approved by the Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board. Your participation in this study is not required, and you may choose to end any part of the study at any time. You have the right to remain anonymous in the reporting of the results in scholarly publications and conferences.

IV. Benefits and Compensation Each participant will receive a $20.00 dollar Walmart gift card after the completion of the study. Participants who choose to end the study early, or refrain from participating in certain parts of the study will still be compensated for participating and will receive full benefits (i.e. $20.00 Walmart gift card). Each parent-child dyad will receive a total of $40 Walmart gift card after the completion of the study.

V. Extent of Anonymity and Confidentiality You have the right to remain anonymous for this study and your information will be kept confidential at all times and will be known only to the research team. This form will be stored separately from your demographic survey, brand recognition survey, and Q-sort responses and will be coded and kept confidential. Only trained researchers involved in this study will have access to identifiable information about you. At no time will the researchers release identifiable results of the study to anyone other than individuals working on the project without your written consent. It is possible that the Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (IRB) may view the study’s data for auditing purposes. The IRB is responsible for the oversight of the protection of human subjects involved in research.

VI. Freedom to Withdraw Your participation in this study is entirely voluntary, and you are free to withdraw from this study at any time without penalty. You are not obligated to answer all of the questions. If you choose not answer a question, you will not be penalized.

VII. Subject's Consent I have read the consent form and conditions related to this research project. I have had all my questions answered. I hereby acknowledge the above and give my voluntary written consent to 180

participate.

______Date______Participant signature

______Participant’s printed name

Should I have any questions about this study, I understand that I may contact the people below:

Vivica Kraak, PhD, RD Principal Investigator and Assistant Professor Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise 223 Wallace Hall, 295 West Campus Drive Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061 Email: [email protected]; Phone: (540) 231-9638

Taylor Brownell Co-Investigator and MS Candidate Department of Human Nutrition, Foods, and Exercise 338 Wallace Hall, 295 West Campus Drive Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24601 Email: [email protected]; Phone: (804) 551-3877

Should you have any questions or concerns about the study's conduct or your rights as a research subject, or need to report a research-related injury or event, you may contact:

David M. Moore, PhD Chair, Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board For the Protection of Human Subjects Office of Research Compliance Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061 Email: [email protected]; Phone: (540) 231-4991 IRB# 15-1110

As required, the IRB for Research Involving Human Subjects at Virginia Tech has approved this research project.

IRB Approval Date: November 28, 2016 IRB Approval Expiration Date: January 29, 2021

181

Appendix E: Child Assent Form

Brand Mascot Q Study Child Assent Form

VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY

Informed Assent for Participants in Research Projects Involving Human Subjects

Project Title: A Q methodology study exploring children’s and parents’ views about the use of brand mascots to market food and beverage products to children: How this impacts their cognitive and behavioral outcomes

Co-Investigator: Taylor Brownell, MS Student Department of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061 Email: [email protected]; phone: (804) 551-3877

I. Purpose of this Research Project The purpose of this study is to explore you and your and parents’ unique thoughts and feelings regarding 48 brand mascots used to promote food, beverage, and restaurant products.

The information from this study may help encourage food, beverage, and restaurant companies who use brand mascots to make their products healthier.

This information from this study will also be used to write papers and give presentations about what we find from these results of the study activities.

II. Procedures Should you agree to participate in this research study, you will be asked to:

182

(1) Read and sign this form to tell us that you want to participate in this study;

(2) Answer a few questions about yourself that will take about 5 minutes to complete;

(3) Answer some questions about which brand mascots you know or recognize that will take about 10 minutes to complete and;

(4) Complete a sort of 48 pictures of brand mascots in order of the mascots you “like the most” to the mascots you “dislike the most” that will take about 30 minutes to complete.

III. Risks There are very few dangers, or risks, associated with your participation in this project. Your answers to the short questions in the beginning of the study will ask you some basic information about you including your name, age, race/ethnicity, and how many grades of school you have completed. Then a researcher will ask you if you want to continue with the other activities of the study. The study has been reviewed and approved the by the Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board. You do not have to participate in this study, and you may choose to quit any part of the study at any time.

IV. Benefits and Compensation Each participant will receive a $20.00 dollar Walmart gift card after the study has ended. If you choose to end the study early, or choose to not take part in certain parts of the study, you will still receive the $20.00 dollar Walmart giftcard. You and your parent will receive a total of $40.00 Walmart gift card after the study has ended.

VI. Freedom to Withdraw All the information from the activities you complete will be kept secret at all times and will be known only to the research team. This form will be stored separately from your demographic survey, brand recognition survey, Q-sort, and focus group responses and will be coded and kept secret. Only trained researchers involved in this study will have access to information that may help recognize you.

VII. Subject's Assent I have read this form, or the researchers has read the form to me, and I have had all my questions answered. I understand why this study is taking place and I want to participate in this study.

183

I, ______, want to be in this research study. Participant’s printed name

______Your signature Date

I know that my parent, or myself can contact the people below if I have any questions:

Should you have any questions or concerns about the study's conduct or your rights as a research subject, or need to report a research-related injury or event, you may contact:

As required, the IRB for Research Involving Human Subjects at Virginia Tech has approved this research project.

IRB Approval Date: November 28, 2016 IRB Approval Expiration Date: January 29, 2021

184

Appendix F: Demographic Survey for Participants

Brand Mascot Q Study Demographic Survey

Survey Link: https://virginiatech.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_a4oShz3MIBZ6N37

Q1 Study ID: ______

Q2 What is your age? m 5-10 years m 11-14 years m 15-20 years m 21-34 years m 35-44 years m 45-64 years m 65 years or older

Q3 What is your sex? m Male m Female

Q4 What is your ethnicity? m Hispanic or Latino m Not Hispanic or Latino

185

Q5 What is your race? q American Indian or Alaskan Native q Asian q Black or African American q Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander q White q Other

Q6 What is your zip code? ______

Q7 What is your highest level of education completed? m I have not completed any level of education m Elementary school (K-5) m Middle school (grades 6-8) m High school (grades 9-12) m Associate degree m Bachelor's degree m Master's degree m Doctoral degree m Professional degree

186

Q8 Which best describes your occupation? m Full-time working m Part-time working m Stay-at-home parent m Student m Unemployed m Other

Q9 Does your family receive or participate in any food assistance programs? m Yes m No

Q10 If you answered yes to Q9, please check all of the boxes that apply to your household. q Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) q Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) q Free or Reduced National School Lunch Program (NSLP) q Free or Reduced School Breakfast Program (SBP) q Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP) q Other q I prefer not to answer this question

187

Appendix G: Recruitment Strategy for Participants

Brand Mascot Q Study Recruitment Strategy

November 2016

Between December 2016- January 2017, we plan to recruit participants and collect data in Richmond, Virginia with the help of the Virginia Cooperative Extension offices located in Blacksburg and Richmond, Virginia. Parents (male or female) (n=5) and one of their children (n=5), between the ages of 6 and 14 years will be recruited for this study. We will seek out eight participants using social media and recruitment flyers that will be placed in areas such as, food- retail stores, laundromats, food pantries, food banks, and convenience stores in the community. We hope to capture an audience who are eligible to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits. Interested participants will contact Taylor Brownell, Recruitment Coordinator, via email or cell phone to ask any questions about the study and inquire information about the date, time, and location where they will participate in all parts of the study. The contacts we will work with for the study recruitment include:

BLACKSBURG, VIRGINIA CONTACTS

Meredith Ledlie Johnson Project Associate, Family Nutrition Program Virginia Cooperative Extension Blacksburg, Virginia [email protected] (540) 231-1704

Lynn Margheim Trainer, Family Nutrition Program Virginia Cooperative Extension Blacksburg, Virginia [email protected] (540) 231-4900

RICHMOND, VIRGINIA CONTACTS

Kristen Yates Family Nutrition Program Assistant, SNAP-Ed Virginia Cooperative Extension, Richmond office [email protected] 804-786-4180

188

Ann Vargo FCS SNAP-Ed Agent Virginia Cooperative Extension, Richmond office [email protected] 804-433-2556

Norma B. Harris Family Nutrition Program Assistant Virginia Cooperative Extension, Richmond office [email protected] 804-786-4150

189

Appendix H: Card-sorting Instructions for Parents

Study on Brand Mascot Marketing of Food, Beverage, and Restaurant Products Parent Card-Sorting Instructions

November 2016

Terms Used in this Study A brand mascot is a fictional or human character that is owned by a food, beverage, or restaurant company used for advertising purposes in order to create a lasting brand image for customers. Brand mascots are colorful cartoon characters or animals that have human features. They are often used to promote child-directed products such as cereals, snack foods, beverages, children’s meals and candy.

Study Procedure This study will focus on exploring what you think about brand mascots that are owned by food, beverage, and restaurant companies. There is no one right or wrong answer. We want to learn about your point of view. The card-sorting activity will take about 30 minutes to complete.

You will be given 48 cards, each card containing a picture of a cartoon brand mascot. Please look over all the cards before sorting the pictures by the ones you “like the most” to the ones you “dislike the most” on a large score sheet that has 48 boxes. You must put one image in one box to fill all of the 48 boxes. The card sort should take 30 minutes to complete.

After you finish, a researcher will ask you some questions about your thoughts and feelings during the card sort with other participants in a focus group. She will also ask you how you think about brand mascots owned by food, beverage, and restaurant companies that are used to market food and beverage products to children. This part of the study should last about 60 minutes.

190

Card-sorting instructions

1. Take the deck of 48 cards with the pictures brand mascots and sit at the table with the large board and a paper copy of a scoring grid. Each card has an image of a different brand mascot. In your view, sort each card by the brand mascots who you “like the most” in the “+4” column on the right and those who you “dislike the most” in the “-4” column on the left. The numbers on each card are random and do not mean anything special.

2. Flip through the 48 cards and sort them into three different piles: • Pile 1 for brand mascots you like the most • Pile 2 for brand mascots you do not know or recognize, or are not sure if you like them or dislike them • Pile 3 for brand mascots you dislike the most

3. Take the pile of cards with your “most liked” brand mascots and select the top three that you “like the most” represented in the picture. Place three cards under the +4 box on the right side of the board. Continue to sort your “most liked” brand mascots by placing four pictures under the +3 box, six pictures under the +2 box, and 7 pictures under the +1 box until you have placed one card in each box on the right side of the board with the scoring sheet. You do not need to rank the cards in each column.

4. Next take the pile of cards of brand mascots that you “dislike the most” and select the top three brand mascots. Place three cards under the -4 box on the left side of the board. Continue to sort the brand mascots you “dislike the most” by placing four pictures under the -3 box, six pictures under the -2 box, and 7 pictures under the -1 box until you have placed one card in each box on the left side of the board with the scoring sheet. You do not need to rank the cards in each column.

5. Take the cards you have not yet sorted and look over them. These are the brand mascots that you do not know or that you do not have any strong views about whether you like them or

191

dislike them. Place eight cards in the 0 pile. Keep working until you have put a picture in each box. You do not need to rank the cards in each column.

6. When you have placed one card with a picture in each box on the board, make sure you are happy with where you placed all of the pictures. You can change your mind and switch the pictures until you feel good about how you have sorted the cards.

7. After you finish the card sort, the researcher will take a photo of the board, and write down the random numbers in the corner of each brand mascot picture on a paper score sheet.

8. Please ask questions if something is not clear. You may stop the study at any time because you have volunteered to participate and you do not have to finish.

9. After you finish the card sort, a researcher will join you with other children in a small focus group to ask you some questions about brand mascots. When you finish, she will give your parent a $20.00 dollar Walmart gift card for you being in this study.

Thank you for participating! You will now receive your $20 Walmart gift card.

192

Appendix I: Brand Mascot and Product Association Survey

Link to Survey: https://virginiatech.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_6f1GgJnzCsOFK1T

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217