The Lynch article is highly critical of parents trying to sneak healthy fruits and vegetables into food already accepted by their children. The author provides many examples and how they have gained popularity through cookbooks, television, and the internet. While she says this will accomplish short term goals of getting healthy foods into children's diets, it does not address the long term goal of establishing familiarity with healthy food. Lynch suggests increased visual familiarity from a young age with healthy food will will be effective for reducing food neophobia.
Although their research focused on unhealthy food advertisements toward children, Bayland and Halford also suggest a similar link between advertising healthy foods to children in similar ways that high fat, salt, and sugar (HFSS) foods are currently advertised. Further research needs to be done on the effects of advertising healthier foods on children but Bayland and Halford cite there is already a strong correlation between branding toward children and children preferences.
Both articles suggest that early exposure to healthy foods through media will increase children's familiarity with the foods and will lead to increased consumption. Who would pay for these "healthy" advertisements? There certainly is not as much profit to be had in advertising healthy alternatives. Should they be funded by non-profits, media broadcasting services, or possible certain government agencies. The Bayland and Halford article suggested that future research should be done on the effects of social media advertisements; do you believe that this research path is justified, especially in regards to younger generations watching less and less television?
No comments:
Post a Comment