short communications nature publishing group

Intervention and Prevention

Observations of Marketing on Food Packaging

Targeted to Youth in Retail Food Stores
Diana S. Grigsby-Toussaint1, Imelda K. Moise2 and Sarah D. Geiger3

There is growing evidence that exposure to food marketing influences dietary preferences among youth. Few studies
exploring this association, however, have focused on the retail food store environment where families negotiate the
influence of food and beverage marketing on purchasing practices. Consequently, we sought to examine: (i) the
extent to which foods marketed on the internet and television to youth are also available and marketed in retail food
stores, and (ii) whether differences exist in the marketing practices across store types and by neighborhood racial
composition. In 2008, a cross-sectional survey of 118 food stores was conducted in four Midwestern cities in the
United States. Results showed that 82% of stores assessed carried items commonly marketed to youth via television
or the internet. The items most likely to have some type of marketing technique were noncarbonated drinks (97.7%),
fruit and cereal bars (76.9%), and soda (62.2%). Grocery stores were significantly more likely than convenience
stores to have marketing for breads and pastries (34.6% vs. 17.9%), breakfast cereals (52.0% vs. 22.9%), cookies
and crackers (54.2% vs. 25.3%), dairy (70.8% vs. 42.7%), and ice cream (23.8% vs. 9.8%). Stores located in black
neighborhoods were significantly more likely to have marketing, in comparison to white neighborhoods, for breads
and pastries (35.7% vs. 17.1%), breakfast cereals (44.4% vs. 25.0%), and cookies and crackers (48.1% vs. 26.3%). Our
results highlight the importance of examining food marketing techniques in the retail food store environment, where
visual cues from television and the internet may be reinforced.

Obesity (2011) 19, 1898–1900. doi:10.1038/oby.2011.120

An emerging body of literature suggests an association between foods, and that the majority of these requests were for sweets or
exposure to food marketing and increases in childhood obes- snacks influenced by brand loyalty and marketing techniques.
ity (1). With notable exceptions, however, most of the empiri- Additionally, Ebster et al. (8) found that children are more per-
cal evidence supporting this association has focused on the suasive in their requests for food items in supermarkets if they
television as a vehicle of marketing to children in the home, are easily consumed (e.g., candy) or include giveaways such as
with limited attention to the broader nutrition environment toys. These studies illustrate the importance of the retail food
in which families are embedded (2–5). The focus on television store environment as a setting where families negotiate the
does not take into account the various social contexts in which influence of food and beverage marketing on purchasing prac-
children and families are exposed to food marketing, thus lim- tices that influence dietary behaviors. This also suggests that
iting the potential for effective interventions. retail food stores might be an important component of novel
The retail food store environment in the United States, where and systematic approaches for tackling childhood obesity in
major food and beverage companies spend ~$200M per year the United States.
on marketing and promotions, remains an understudied space To build upon examinations of neighborhood food store
(2,6). Given the importance of visual cues that may influence environment characteristics that influence obesity, the goal
children and families at the point-of-purchase, however, exam- of this study was to assess food marketing strategies targeted
inations of marketing techniques in retail food environments to youth in convenience/corner and grocery stores. Primary
are warranted. Moreover, several studies suggest an increase in study objectives were to examine the extent to which foods
the amount of time children spend shopping with their parents marketed to youth on the internet and television are also avail-
(~3 h per week for 3–8 year olds) (7) and the influence of chil- able and marketed in retail food stores; and determine whether
dren’s requests on family purchasing habits (7–9). A study by differences exist in the amount of marketing observed across
O’Dougherty et al. (7) found that 50% of children shopping in store types and by neighborhood racial composition. We also
supermarkets with their parents initiated a request for specific explored whether assessments of food marketing strategies
1
Department of Kinesiology and Community Health, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA; 2Department of Geography,
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA; 3Department of Community Medicine, School of Medicine, West Virginia University, Morgantown,
West Virginia, USA. Correspondence: Diana S. Grigsby-Toussaint (dgrigs1@illinois.edu)
Received 1 August 2010; accepted 30 March 2011; published online 12 May 2011. doi:10.1038/oby.2011.120

1898 VOLUME 19 NUMBER 9 | september 2011 | www.obesityjournal.org

 short communications
Intervention and Prevention

Table 1 Availability and marketing of foods targeted to youth by store type and neighborhood racial composition
Convenience stores Stores in black Stores in white All stores
Grocery stores (N = 33) (N = 85) neighborhoods (N = 30) neighborhoods (N = 88) (N = 118)
Aa Mb M:Ac Aa Mb M:Ac Aa Mb M:Ac Aa Mb M:Ac Mean
Item (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) M:Ac (%)
Breads and pastriesd,e 78.8 27.3 34.6 91.8 16.5 17.9 93.3 33.3 35.7 86.4 14.8 17.1 25.8
Breakfast cereals d,e
75.8 39.4 52.0 82.4 18.8 22.9 90.0 40.0 44.4 77.3 19.3 25.0 36.1
Candy and gum 81.8 39.4 48.1 94.1 47.1 50.0 90.0 53.3 59.3 90.9 42.0 46.3 50.9
Chips 81.8 45.5 55.6 96.5 40.0 41.5 93.3 50.0 53.6 92.0 38.6 42.0 48.1
Cookies and crackers d,e
72.7 39.4 54.2 92.9 23.5 25.3 90.0 43.3 48.1 86.4 22.7 26.3 38.5
Dairyd 72.7 51.5 70.8 88.2 37.6 42.7 83.3 53.3 64.0 84.1 37.5 44.6 55.5
Fruit and cereal Bars 75.8 63.6 84.0 89.4 62.4 69.7 86.7 73.3 84.6 85.2 59.1 69.3 76.9
Ice creamd,f 63.6 15.2 23.8 60.0 5.9 9.8 70.0 6.7 9.5 58.0 9.1 15.7 14.7
Noncarbonated drinks 69.7 69.7 100.0 76.5 72.9 95.4 66.7 66.7 100.0 77.3 73.9 95.6 97.7
Prepared foods 78.8 42.4 53.8 88.2 37.6 42.7 86.7 53.3 61.5 85.2 34.1 40.0 49.5
Soda 81.8 45.5 55.6 98.8 65.9 66.7 96.7 60.0 62.1 93.2 60.2 64.6 62.2
Total 75.8 43.5 57.5 87.2 38.9 44.0 86.1 48.5 56.6 83.3 37.4 44.2 50.6
a
Availability. bMarketing. cMarketing to availability ratio. dGrocery stores significantly more likely to have marketing for this item compared to convenience stores, P < 0.05.
e
Stores located in black neighborhoods significantly more likely to have marketing for this item compared to stores located in white neighborhoods, P < 0.05. fStores
located in white neighborhoods significantly more likely to have marketing for this item compared to stores located in black neighborhoods, P < 0.05.

could be easily incorporated as part of comprehensive retail
food store audits.
Methods and Procedures
Setting
This study was conducted as part of the STRONG (Synergistic Theory
and Research on Obesity and Nutrition Group) Kids Project, which
explores media effects on child obesity and health within family and
community contexts (10). The study area for the STRONG Kids project
includes four cities in Illinois with relatively high concentrations of
African Americans (Decatur: 20.7%, Champaign: 15.8%, Urbana: 15.2%,
Rantoul: 16.9%) compared to many small cities in the Midwestern
United States (11). These cities also have much higher rates of poverty
(e.g., Urbana: 27.4%) compared to the United States (12.4%) (11).
Sample
North American Industry Classification System codes were used to
identify 143 grocery stores, convenience stores, fruit and vegetable
markets, pharmacies and supercenters from a purchased InfoUSA data-
base. However, only 118 stores were included in the final analysis due
to refusals by store managers (N = 9) or stores not meeting our defini-
tions based on field observations (N = 16). Stores were classified either
as grocery stores (i.e., stores with both fresh produce and meat sec-
tions) or convenience/corner stores for data analysis. US 2000 census
estimates (11) were used to designate stores as being in black or white
neighborhoods (census block groups) if ≥40% of residents belonged
to one group. While the threshold used in a previous study to catego-
rize neighborhoods as black or white was ≥50% (12), 40% was used to
ensure adequate sample size for comparison. The mean concentration
of blacks in black neighborhoods was 53%, while the mean concentra-
tion of whites in white neighborhoods was 76%.
(iv) chips, (v) ­cookies and crackers, (vi) dairy, (vii) fruit and cereal bars,
(viii) ice cream, (ix) prepared foods, (x) sodas, and (xi) noncarbonated
drinks. These items were then integrated with a validated audit tool
that explores the availability and cultural relevance of fruits and veg-
etables for racial/ethnic minorities in food stores (12). Inter-rater reli-
ability on the food marketing section ranged from 0.6 (substantial) to
1.0 (almost perfect). For the entire instrument, however, the inter-rater
reliability was 0.81. Prior to data collection, store owners and managers
were mailed letters explaining the purpose of the study, and provided
the option to decline participation. The institutional review board at
the University of Illinois designated the procedures for this study as
exempt.
Measures
Availability was defined as the presence or absence of 78 items com-
monly marketed to youth on television or the internet. Marketing
techniques were evaluated by assessing the packaging on food items
for the presence of cartoon characters, nutrition claims, and tie-ins
for children’s movies and television shows. In addition, packaging
was also assessed for taste claims (e.g., “yummy”), statements regard-
ing convenience (e.g., “ready-to-eat pudding snacks”) and suggested
use (e.g., “great as a lunchbox treat”), as well as the inclusion of toys or
information on giveaways.
Data analysis
A marketing to availability (M:A) ratio was calculated to determine
how often any seven marketing techniques were utilized when an item
was available. χ2 tests were used to test for differences in the M:A ratio
between store types and neighborhoods. Intraclass correlations showed
no clustering to support multilevel analysis. SPSS version 16.0 (SPSS,
Chicago, IL)was used to run all analyses.

Audit instrument and data collection procedures Results

Adapted from an existing instrument by Chapman et al. (3), an audit
tool was developed and tested for use in the study area. Seventy-eight
items were included on the instrument, based on competitive media
reports and a literature review of items commonly advertised to
youth on television and the internet (4,6,13). Items were categorized
as: (i) breads and pastries, (ii) breakfast cereals, (iii) candy and gum,
Table 1 summarizes observations of availability and market-
ing of foods targeted to youth across store types and neigh-
borhoods in our study. Convenience stores had the highest
overall mean availability of items (87.2%), followed by stores
located in black neighborhoods (86.1%), stores located in

obesity | VOLUME 19 NUMBER 9 | september 2011 1899

short communications
Intervention and Prevention
white neighborhoods (83.3%), and grocery stores (75.8%).
Soda (92.6%) and ice cream (62.9%) were the most and least
commonly available items across all stores.
Grocery stores had the highest mean M:A ratio (57.5%),
followed by stores in black neighborhoods (56.6%), stores in
white neighborhoods (44.2%) and convenience stores (44.0%).
Noncarbonated drinks (97.7%), fruit and cereal bars (76.9%),
and soda (62.2%) were most likely to have some type of mar-
keting technique across all stores.
The M:A ratio also showed that compared to convenience
stores, grocery stores were significantly more likely to have
marketing and promotions for breads and pastries (34.6% vs.
17.9%), breakfast cereals (52.0% vs. 22.9%), cookies and crack-
ers (54.2% vs. 25.3%), dairy (70.8% vs. 42.7%), and ice cream
(23.8% vs. 9.8%). Additionally, compared to stores located in
white neighborhoods, stores located in black neighborhoods
were more likely to have marketing for breads and pastries
(35.7% vs. 17.1%), breakfast cereals (44.4% vs. 25.0%), and
cookies and crackers (48.1% vs. 26.3%).
Although not presented in Table 1, across all stores, nutri-
tion (92%) and taste (90%) claims were the most common.
Tie-ins for television shows (72%) were observed more often
than tie-ins for movies (63.5%), but this was not significantly
different between store types or neighborhoods.
Discussion
Foods commonly promoted to youth on television and the
internet were often available and marketed in food stores
examined for this study. Given estimates that some youth are
exposed to more than 4000 advertisements via television per
year, primarily for foods of poor nutritional content (1,14),
the retail food store environment may conceivably reinforce
preferences for energy dense foods. A study by Borradaille et
al. (2009) for example, showed that urban elementary school
children were most likely to purchase energy dense foods from
corner stores (15), further bolstering the importance of food
stores as sites for targeted childhood obesity interventions
(e.g., working with stores to change the placement of certain
items). Additionally, the observation that specific foods are
more commonly marketed in stores located in black neighbor-
hoods is also of particular concern. This finding suggests that
youth residing in these neighborhoods have increased expo-
sure to food marketing, in addition to limited healthy food
options (12), thus placing them at higher risk for obesity.
Our study represents one of the few investigations of food
marketing targeted to youth across various food store types
and neighborhoods in the United States. As such, we were
able to observe the influence of differences in store procure-
ment sources on food marketing. Our success with incorpo-
rating food marketing items as part of a more comprehensive
food store audit tool while still maintaining high inter-rater
1900
reliability, should encourage subsequent evaluations of the
retail food store environment that account for the availability
of healthful items in addition to food marketing cues.
Acknowledgments
We thank Amy Kunkel, Gerald Charleston, and Bala Mutyala for assistance
with data collection. We also thank Kathy Chapman from the Cancer
Council, Australia, for sharing her audit instrument. This study was
supported by a grant from the Illinois Council for Agricultural Research and
was conducted as part of the STRONG Kids project housed in the Family
Resiliency Center at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. This
study was also supported by grant #66952 from the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation Healthy Eating Research and New Connections programs. We
thank the reviewers for their comments.
Disclosure
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
© 2011 The Obesity Society
REFERENCES
1. Harris JL, Pomeranz JL, Lobstein T, Brownell KD. A crisis in the
marketplace: how food marketing contributes to childhood obesity and what
can be done. Annu Rev Public Health 2009;30:211–225.
2. Colby SE, Johnson L, Scheett A, Hoverson B. Nutrition marketing on food
labels. J Nutr Educ Behav 2010;42:92–98.
3. Chapman K, Nicholas P, Banovic D, Supramaniam R. The extent and nature
of food promotion directed to children in Australian supermarkets. Health
Promot Int 2006;21:331–339.
4. Institute of Medicine (U.S.), Committee on Health Food Marketing and the
Diets of Children and Youth. Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat
or Opportunity? National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2005.
5. Elliott C. Assessing ‘fun foods’: nutritional content and analysis of
supermarket foods targeted at children. Obes Rev 2008;9:368–377.
6. Federal Trade Commission. Marketing food to children and adolescents: a
review of industry expenditures, activities, and self-regulation. Federal Trade
Commission: Washington, DC, July 2008 <http://www.ftc.gov/os/2008/07/
P064504foodmktingreport.pdf>. Accessed 25 August 2008.
7. O’Dougherty M, Story M, Stang J. Observations of parent-child co-shoppers
in supermarkets: children’s involvement in food selections, parental yielding,
and refusal strategies. J Nutr Educ Behav 2006;38:183–188.
8. Ebster C, Wagner U, Neumueller D. Children’s influences on in-store
purchases. J Retailing Consum Serv 2009;16:145–154
9. Galst JP, White MA. The unhealthy persuader: the reinforcing value of
television and children’s purchase-influencing attempts at the supermarket.
Child Dev 1976;47:1089–1096.
10. Harrison K, Bost KK, McBride BA et al. Toward a developmental
conceptualization of contributors to weight imbalance in childhood: The Six-
Cs model. Child Dev Perspect 2011;5:50–58.
11. Population profile of the United States, US Census Bureau <http://www.
census.gov/> (2008). Accessed January 2010.
12. Grigsby-Toussaint DS, Zenk SN, Odoms-Young A, Ruggiero L, Moise I.
Availability of commonly consumed and culturally specific fruits and
vegetables in African-american and Latino neighborhoods. J Am Diet Assoc
2010;110:746–752.
13. Moore E. It’s Child Play: Advergaming and the Online Marketing of Food to
Children. Kaiser Family Foundation: Menlo Park, CA, July 2006 <http://www.
kff.org/entmedia/entmedia071906pkg.cfm>. Accessed 15 January 2008.
14. Children’s exposure to food advertising on television: A side-by-side
comparison of results from recent studies by the Federal Trade Commission
and the Kaiser Family Foundation. Kasier Family Foundation: Menlo Park,
CA, June 2007. <http://www.kff.org/entmedia/upload/7654.pdf>. Accessed
15 January 2008.
15. Borradaile KE, Sherman S, Vander Veur SS et al. Snacking in children: the
role of urban corner stores. Pediatrics 2009;124:1293–1298.
VOLUME 19 NUMBER 9 | september 2011 | www.obesityjournal.org