Mothers’ Perceptions of Toddler Beverages

Rigo, Manuela; Willcox, Jane C; Spence, Alison C.; Worsley, Anthony

doi:10.3390/nu10030374

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One reason that caregivers may inappropriately serve toddler milk to infants and infant formula to toddlers could be due to confusion about the appropriate ages to serve each product and/or difficulty in distinguishing between the two categories, as identified in this research and previous qualitative studies (N. Berry et al, 2010; N. J. Berry, Jones, & Iverson, 2012;Rigo, Willcox, Spence, & Worsley, 2018). The FDA should establish a common name for toddler milks (i.e., statement of identity) and require that toddler milk labels clearly state the appropriate ages for the product and that they are not substitutes for infant formula (Pomeranz et al, 2018).…”

Section: Opportunities For Public Health Policymentioning

confidence: 77%

Infant formula and toddler milk marketing and caregiver's provision to young children

Romo-Palafox

Pomeranz

Harris

2020

Maternal & Child Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The World Health Organization International Code of Marketing of Breast‐milk Substitutes prohibits claims and other marketing that may confuse caregivers about benefits of formula and other milk‐based drinks for infants and toddlers, but such marketing is common in the United States. This study assessed caregivers' provision of milk‐based products to their infants and toddlers and potential confusion about product benefits and appropriate use. Online survey of 1,645 U.S. caregivers of infants (6–11 months) and toddlers (12–36 months). Respondents identified infant formula and toddler milk products they served their child (ren) and provided relative agreement with common marketing claims. Logistic regression assessed relationships between agreement and serving these products, controlling for individual characteristics. Over one‐half of caregivers of infants (52%) agreed that infant formula can be better for babies' digestion and brain development than breastmilk, and 62% agreed it can provide nutrition not present in breastmilk. Most caregivers of toddlers (60%) agreed that toddler milks provide nutrition toddlers do not get from other foods. Some caregivers of infants (11%) reported serving toddler milk to their child most often. Agreement with marketing claims increased the odds of serving infant formula and/or toddler milks. For caregivers of toddlers, odds were higher for college‐educated and lower for non‐Hispanic White caregivers. Common marketing messages promoting infant formula and toddler milks may mislead caregivers about benefits and appropriateness of serving to young children. These findings support calls for public health policies and increased regulation of infant formula and toddler milks.

show abstract

Section: Opportunities For Public Health Policymentioning

confidence: 77%

Infant formula and toddler milk marketing and caregiver's provision to young children

Romo-Palafox

Pomeranz

Harris

2020

Maternal & Child Nutrition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9,11,12 Research has shown that this marketing misleads consumers. [13][14][15][16][17][18] In a 2022 study, 18 parents who viewed fruit drinks with claims were more likely to incorrectly believe that these products did not contain added sugar or were 100% juice. Correcting these misperceptions could enhance parents' knowledge and encourage healthier beverage purchases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Front-of-Package Information, Fruit Imagery, and High–Added Sugar Warning Labels on Parent Beverage Choices for Children

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceFruit drinks are widely consumed by young children, and many parents mistakenly believe that these drinks are healthy, potentially due to front-of-package claims and imagery. Research is needed on the influence of this marketing and how labeling regulations could change behavior.ObjectiveTo assess the effects of a front-of-package 100% vitamin C claim, fruit imagery, percentage juice and teaspoons of added sugar disclosures, and high–added sugar warnings on parents’ choices, knowledge, and perceptions of beverages.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted May to July 2021 as a single-exposure (no follow-up) online survey of primary caregivers of children ages 0 to 5 years throughout the US.InterventionsParticipants were shown no–, low–, and high–added sugar beverages and asked to choose 1 for their child. Participants were randomized to see high–added sugar beverages with 1 of 7 front-of-package conditions: (1) claim and imagery (control); (2) no claim; (3) no imagery; (4) no claim or imagery; (5) claim, imagery, and percentage juice disclosure; (6) claim, imagery, and warning; or (7) claim, imagery, warning, and teaspoons of added sugar disclosure.Main Outcomes and MeasuresPrimary outcomes were type of beverage chosen (eg, high–added sugar beverage) and resulting calories and added sugar (in grams). Secondary outcomes were fruit drink knowledge (added sugar and percent juice) and perceptions.ResultsThere were 5005 participants included in the final analysis (mean [SD] age, 31.5 [8.3] years; 3587 female participants [71.7%]), including 714 participants in group 1, 717 participants in group 2, 710 participants in group 3, 717 participants in group 4, 708 participants in group 5, 729 participants in group 6, and 710 participants in group 7. Compared with participants in the control group, who had a mean (standard error [SE]) of 9.4 (0.5) g of added sugar and 81.9 (1.6) kcal in chosen beverages, only participants who saw warnings with teaspoons of added sugar disclosures had significantly reduced added sugar (−1.3 g; 95% CI, −2.6 to −0.1 g [−14.2%; 95% CI, −26.7% to −1.8%]; P = .04) and calories (−5.3 kcal; 95% CI, −9.8 to −0.9 kcal [−6.5%; 95% CI, −11.8% to −1.3%]; P = .02) in selected beverages. In warning conditions (ie, 6 and 7) compared with the control group (mean [SE] 41.0% [1.8%]), the proportion of participants choosing high–added sugar beverages was significantly reduced, by 5.5 percentage points (95% CI, 0.5 to 10.5 percentage points [13.4%; 95% CI, 1.2% to 25.6%]; P = .03) and 6.4 percentage points (95% CI, 1.4 to 11.4 percentage points [15.6%; 95% CI, 3.3% to 27.8%]; P = .01), respectively. The no claim or imagery condition (4) significantly reduced the proportion of parents choosing high–added sugar beverages (−7.6 percentage points; 95% CI, −12.6 to −2.6 percentage points [−18.4%; 95% CI, −30.6% to −6.3%]; P = .003). Percentage juice disclosures did not affect beverage choice.Conclusions and RelevanceThese findings suggest that added sugar warnings and prohibitions of front-of-package claims and imagery may reduce parents’ purchases of high–added sugar beverages for their young children but that percentage juice disclosures may not change behavior.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04811690

show abstract

“…Several research papers analyse the behaviour of children in supermarkets and discuss it as a health-problem. For the purposes of boosting the sales of the Orange Bubble Juice, this confirms that the parents of the children in the target group are likely to succumb to the tantrum, as in e.g., O’Dougherty et al (2006); Maubach et al (2009) , Carnell et al (2011) ; Henry and Borzekowski (2011) , Lesser et al (2012) ; Swinburn et al (2013) , Winston et al (2013) ; Haselhoff et al (2014) , Mason et al (2014) ; Tipton (2014) , and Rigo et al (2018) . For the placement strategy, in general, the diversity of product availability has broadened exponentially in the past decades, making choices effortful.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 56%

“…Regarding individual health, the product’s chemical composition (product design) induces children to ingest more sugar than what is healthy ( Harris et al, 2015 ). As is well-known, the building blocks of adult obesity are set in childhood ( Longacre et al, 2016 ; Hartmann et al, 2017 ; Rigo et al, 2018 ), and dental health is among the most painful and immediate consequences of surplus sugar ingestion ( Duijster et al, 2015 ; Mela and Woolner, 2018 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Choice Hygiene for “Consumer Neuroscientists”? Ethical Considerations and Proposals for Future Endeavours

Christensen

Farahi²,

Vartanian

et al. 2022

Front. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is the use of psychological and neuroscientific methods for neuromarketing research always aligned with the principles of ethical research practice? Some neuromarketing endeavours have passed from informing consumers about available options, to helping to market as many products to consumers as possible. Needs are being engineered, using knowledge about the human brain to increase consumption further, regardless of individual, societal and environmental needs and capacities. In principle, the ground ethical principle of any scientist is to further individual, societal and environmental health and well-being with their work. If their findings can be used for the opposite, this must be part of the scientist’s considerations before engaging in such research and to make sure that the risks for misuse are minimised. Against this backdrop, we provide a series of real-life examples and a non-exhaustive literature review, to discuss in what way some practices in the neuromarketing domain may violate the Helsinki Declaration of Experimentation with Human Subjects. This declaration was set out to regulate biomedical research, but has since its inception been applied internationally also to behavioural and social research. We illustrate, point by point, how these ground ethical principles should be applied also to the neuromarketing domain. Indisputably, the growth in consumption is required due to current prevalent economical models. Thus, in the final part of the paper, we discuss how alternative models may be promotable to a larger public, aided by more ethical marketing endeavours, based on neuroscientific discoveries about the human brain. We propose this as a philosophical question, a point of discussion for the future, to make neuromarketing as a discipline, fit for the future, respecting the ethical implications of this research.

show abstract

Mothers’ Perceptions of Toddler Beverages

Cited by 10 publications

References 66 publications

Infant formula and toddler milk marketing and caregiver's provision to young children

Infant formula and toddler milk marketing and caregiver's provision to young children

Effect of Front-of-Package Information, Fruit Imagery, and High–Added Sugar Warning Labels on Parent Beverage Choices for Children

Choice Hygiene for “Consumer Neuroscientists”? Ethical Considerations and Proposals for Future Endeavours

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About