WEBVTT - Shelf deception: How does marketing on packaged foods influence us? 0:00:00.009 --> 0:00:02.990 This podcast was made on the lands of the Wurundjeri people, 0:00:03.240 --> 0:00:06.109 the Woi Wurrung and the Bunurong. We'd like to pay 0:00:06.110 --> 0:00:09.238 respects to their elders, past and present, and emerging. 0:00:14.550 --> 0:00:17.870 From the Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences at the University 0:00:17.870 --> 0:00:20.350 of Melbourne, this is PsychTalks. 0:00:22.020 --> 0:00:24.559 Hello, I'm Nick Haslam, and welcome to our last episode 0:00:24.559 --> 0:00:28.290 of PsychTalks, for this season anyway. And as always, I'm 0:00:28.290 --> 0:00:32.159 joined by my enigmatic, charismatic co-host, Cassie Hayward. 0:00:32.409 --> 0:00:35.810 Hi, Nick. Thank you for that introduction. Yes, we're winding 0:00:35.810 --> 0:00:38.439 up the season for now, but what fascinating areas of 0:00:38.439 --> 0:00:41.610 research we've covered. We've looked at everything from how languages 0:00:41.610 --> 0:00:44.519 shape our thoughts in our episode with Dr Frank Mollica, 0:00:44.729 --> 0:00:46.889 to what's the best tactic to ask for a pay 0:00:46.889 --> 0:00:49.849 increase at work with our colleague, Professor Jen Overbeck. 0:00:50.360 --> 0:00:52.598 It's been a real pleasure, and we've got one more 0:00:52.598 --> 0:00:56.159 topic ahead today. We're asking, are we really making smart 0:00:56.159 --> 0:00:57.409 choices in the supermarket? 0:00:58.240 --> 0:01:01.159 Associate Professor Helen Dixon and Jane Martin join us to 0:01:01.159 --> 0:01:04.879 unpack the psychology, policy and packaging that influence what ends 0:01:04.879 --> 0:01:05.878 up in our trolleys. 0:01:11.589 --> 0:01:15.378 Welcome to PsychTalks, Helen and Jane. So onto today's topic, 0:01:15.459 --> 0:01:18.059 I think we can all relate to the scenario of 0:01:18.059 --> 0:01:21.290 shopping for food and just being bombarded with on pack 0:01:21.290 --> 0:01:24.980 imagery and claims. I've got 3 little kids. I walk 0:01:24.980 --> 0:01:28.019 down those aisles and used to see a lot. Can 0:01:28.019 --> 0:01:30.220 we start with just the lay of the land in 0:01:30.220 --> 0:01:34.769 terms of the regulations around what manufacturers can say on 0:01:34.769 --> 0:01:38.419 the packs? Are there rules around the text and the 0:01:38.419 --> 0:01:40.610 imagery and the claims that they can make? 0:01:41.690 --> 0:01:46.449 So there are some legislated requirements and rules around um 0:01:46.449 --> 0:01:49.089 elements such as the nutrition information panel, and that's why 0:01:49.089 --> 0:01:51.639 it always looks the same on the back of the pack, 0:01:51.769 --> 0:01:54.169 and there are other requirements on other information on the pack, 0:01:54.250 --> 0:01:57.809 so health claims and high-level health claims, um. 0:01:57.949 --> 0:02:01.230 When you're talking about something like high in sugar or 0:02:01.230 --> 0:02:05.309 low in sugar, high in calcium, they're regulated. But the 0:02:05.309 --> 0:02:10.940 vast majority of what's appearing on the pack is basically unregulated, 0:02:10.990 --> 0:02:14.220 and they're the most influential elements that we'll go into. 0:02:14.550 --> 0:02:17.270 Um, and, and, and basically, there's not a lot of 0:02:17.270 --> 0:02:20.100 regulation on many of the, the packet space. 0:02:20.550 --> 0:02:23.109 So that's what the rules say, and that's what the 0:02:23.110 --> 0:02:26.779 regulations are, but do people respond rationally to this information, 0:02:26.889 --> 0:02:29.940 so you give accurate information about nutrition, let's say on 0:02:29.940 --> 0:02:30.630 food packaging. 0:02:31.240 --> 0:02:32.619 Are people paying attention to that? 0:02:32.830 --> 0:02:36.789 Well, we know that many shoppers, when they're shopping, just 0:02:36.788 --> 0:02:39.429 refer to the front of the pack, and they might 0:02:39.429 --> 0:02:42.470 be shopping with crying kids in the trolley or tired 0:02:42.470 --> 0:02:46.459 and rushed after work. And so they're making quick decisions, 0:02:46.788 --> 0:02:50.869 and they often rely on heuristics to appraise products. And 0:02:50.869 --> 0:02:55.429 we've done some quite fun research looking at how, if 0:02:55.429 --> 0:02:59.119 front of pack marketing claim highlights an isolated 0:02:59.163 --> 0:03:03.695 positive attribute of a, an otherwise unhealthy product. People will 0:03:03.695 --> 0:03:07.115 generalise and it effectively serves to put a health halo 0:03:07.115 --> 0:03:11.875 over the product. So a classic example is marshmallows, 98% 0:03:11.875 --> 0:03:16.475 fat free, but not mentioning, you know, 98% sugar, sugar 0:03:16.475 --> 0:03:17.144 or whatever. 0:03:17.315 --> 0:03:19.705 Um, Helen, I'm sure a lot of our listeners know 0:03:19.705 --> 0:03:21.714 the term heuristics, but just so we're all on the 0:03:21.714 --> 0:03:23.434 same page. What do you mean by that? 0:03:23.554 --> 0:03:26.414 It's really just a quick rule of thumb, a quick 0:03:26.413 --> 0:03:33.029 kind of cognitive strategy, and, um, it's often applying generalisations 0:03:33.029 --> 0:03:37.300 to things, but it can lead to inaccurate assessments of things. 0:03:37.710 --> 0:03:42.729 So people, um, do make these quick thinking decisions. Uh, 0:03:42.869 --> 0:03:46.910 we do know though, that consumers who do slow down 0:03:46.910 --> 0:03:49.750 and read the back of the pack, that can almost 0:03:49.750 --> 0:03:52.389 empower them to be not as sucked in by what's 0:03:52.389 --> 0:03:54.789 happening on the front of the pack. So there's little 0:03:54.789 --> 0:03:56.860 simple rules of thumb with the 0:03:56.945 --> 0:04:00.294 the ingredients listed is meant to, uh, list the ingredients 0:04:00.294 --> 0:04:04.175 in order of weight. And so those ingredients that appear 0:04:04.175 --> 0:04:07.255 first are the bulk of the products. And, and in 0:04:07.255 --> 0:04:09.535 the NIP, a good way if you're wanting to compare 0:04:09.535 --> 0:04:13.654 products is compare the per 100 gram column, you know, 0:04:13.785 --> 0:04:16.325 and you might see, it might make you work out 0:04:16.325 --> 0:04:19.804 that the iced coffee you thought was a good option 0:04:19.803 --> 0:04:25.350 actually has 16 teaspoons of sugar or something. So, Uh, yes. 0:04:25.519 --> 0:04:28.119 And the, the NIP is the nutrition information panel. 0:04:28.238 --> 0:04:28.980 That's right. 0:04:29.200 --> 0:04:31.329 And Helen, not just to blatantly plug the work you 0:04:31.329 --> 0:04:34.279 and I did together, but I will. Um, we did 0:04:34.279 --> 0:04:39.510 some work looking at parents evaluating children's snack food packaging, 0:04:39.678 --> 0:04:41.679 and it was interesting to see that even if rationally 0:04:41.678 --> 0:04:45.880 they knew that this quote unquote, health fruit snack wasn't 0:04:45.880 --> 0:04:49.320 actually healthy, if it had imagery of fruits on the front, 0:04:49.399 --> 0:04:51.159 it kind of prompted them just to think. 0:04:51.296 --> 0:04:53.807 Oh, this is healthy. Are we that gullible when it 0:04:53.807 --> 0:04:55.755 comes to these packaging things? 0:04:56.127 --> 0:04:57.846 First, I've got to say, I think that was one 0:04:57.846 --> 0:05:01.247 of the most fun studies for last year. But yeah, 0:05:01.407 --> 0:05:05.687 it was fascinating. So in this study, we, we had 0:05:05.687 --> 0:05:09.916 a graphic designer prepare these mock packs of, of processed 0:05:09.916 --> 0:05:14.766 snack foods, and we varied whether they had just a 0:05:14.766 --> 0:05:17.486 picture of the actual snack that looked a bit like 0:05:17.486 --> 0:05:18.166 the veggie one looked. 0:05:18.264 --> 0:05:20.174 Bit like a cheese all and the fruit one looked 0:05:20.174 --> 0:05:24.373 a bit lolly-ish. And then we had some packs which 0:05:24.373 --> 0:05:28.414 had pictures of fresh produce, so photos of fruit or 0:05:28.414 --> 0:05:31.204 in the case of the veggie one, photos of corn cobs. 0:05:31.454 --> 0:05:35.283 Then we had cartoons with, you know, produce with eyes 0:05:35.283 --> 0:05:39.092 and legs and things, possibly a child targeted marketing strategy. 0:05:39.144 --> 0:05:42.854 And then we had this kind of idyllic setting with 0:05:42.854 --> 0:05:45.174 kids in a veggie garden with a basket of fresh 0:05:45.230 --> 0:05:50.930 produce. And interestingly, we found that the photos of fresh 0:05:50.930 --> 0:05:55.661 produce were the most persuasive, and parents appraised the equivalent 0:05:55.661 --> 0:06:00.380 product as healthier when they, uh, saw that imagery. And 0:06:00.380 --> 0:06:03.580 also the cartoons and the photos, they perceived the product 0:06:03.580 --> 0:06:06.820 as more attractive. And we actually found when we did 0:06:06.821 --> 0:06:10.101 a bit of an analysis of what predicted their intentions 0:06:10.101 --> 0:06:12.101 to purchase a given product, 0:06:12.540 --> 0:06:16.279 That it was how appealing or attractive they thought the 0:06:16.279 --> 0:06:19.919 product was that was important. And I think that's interesting too, 0:06:20.040 --> 0:06:23.390 because in the area of health psychology and health communication, 0:06:23.480 --> 0:06:25.709 it's easy for us to get caught up and think 0:06:25.709 --> 0:06:28.359 that everyone's preoccupied with health, and if we tell them 0:06:28.359 --> 0:06:32.269 something's healthy, they'll want to eat it. But the reality is, 0:06:32.320 --> 0:06:34.010 we know from our research that 0:06:34.820 --> 0:06:41.540 taste, cost, convenience, and health concerns are key considerations, and 0:06:41.540 --> 0:06:45.299 for some consumers, you know, cost and taste is way 0:06:45.299 --> 0:06:48.260 ahead of health concerns. So, um, 0:06:48.480 --> 0:06:50.829 Yeah, it's important to be realistic about that. 0:06:50.950 --> 0:06:53.140 Out of curiosity, has there ever been a food product 0:06:53.140 --> 0:06:56.260 that's fooled you with its claims or with its marketing? 0:06:56.428 --> 0:07:02.200 One that got me relatively recently is these dried pea snacks. 0:07:02.209 --> 0:07:05.630 And I actually thought they were sort of roasted whole 0:07:05.630 --> 0:07:06.630 pea pods. 0:07:07.220 --> 0:07:12.100 And I bought them thinking they're an OK option, but 0:07:12.100 --> 0:07:16.660 they are actually kind of pea-shaped things that might be 0:07:16.660 --> 0:07:19.690 like a chip or a twisty moulded into a shape 0:07:19.690 --> 0:07:20.459 of a pea. 0:07:20.950 --> 0:07:26.420 And, um, I think they're highly processed and highly deceptive. 0:07:26.420 --> 0:07:29.029 So they're as much as a pea is a potato chip is a potato. 0:07:29.190 --> 0:07:32.299 Yeah. And look, it's possible I got tricked too because 0:07:32.299 --> 0:07:34.700 in the manner that people in our study did, because 0:07:34.700 --> 0:07:37.350 there are photos of happy little green pea pods on 0:07:37.350 --> 0:07:38.279 the front of the pack. 0:07:38.529 --> 0:07:41.109 So, so there are cases like that where you just 0:07:41.109 --> 0:07:43.739 don't know where there's no way of knowing and the, uh, 0:07:43.750 --> 0:07:45.670 marketing might be a bit deceptive. Are there cases where 0:07:45.670 --> 0:07:48.070 the marketing is not that deceptive, but you just don't 0:07:48.070 --> 0:07:48.989 see what you don't want to see? 0:07:49.369 --> 0:07:52.029 So you sort of know it's unhealthy, but you just 0:07:52.029 --> 0:07:54.160 want the product so much that you'll just overlook it. 0:07:54.910 --> 0:07:57.989 Well, that's a really interesting point, Nick, because we did 0:07:57.989 --> 0:08:03.109 a study last year where we tested parents' responses to 0:08:03.109 --> 0:08:07.880 different types of marketing claims that commonly appear on, on 0:08:07.880 --> 0:08:10.470 commercial baby and toddler food products. 0:08:10.980 --> 0:08:16.480 And what we found was the claims that talk about 0:08:16.480 --> 0:08:22.239 free from were the most persuasive. And interestingly, we, in 0:08:22.239 --> 0:08:25.519 some of the audits we've done of products, we find 0:08:25.519 --> 0:08:29.109 they're the most prevalent claims. So perhaps industry knows they work. 0:08:29.359 --> 0:08:30.179 But if you 0:08:30.225 --> 0:08:33.695 you think about sort of psych theory and motivation, they're 0:08:33.695 --> 0:08:37.375 really appealing to a risk avoidance motivation or a kind 0:08:37.375 --> 0:08:40.205 of first do no harm. And I think parents want 0:08:40.205 --> 0:08:43.135 to do the right thing by kids, but they're time 0:08:43.135 --> 0:08:45.494 poor or they want a convenient option, you know, that 0:08:45.494 --> 0:08:48.015 the kids are not gonna spill yoghurt all over the 0:08:48.015 --> 0:08:49.544 car seat in the car or whatever. 0:08:50.109 --> 0:08:54.200 But, um, they kind of might know sometimes these foods 0:08:54.200 --> 0:08:56.840 aren't great, but at least if it's got no nasties 0:08:56.840 --> 0:09:00.250 in it, they think that's quite a persuasive sort of claim. 0:09:00.520 --> 0:09:01.968 No asbestos. I'll eat that. 0:09:03.309 --> 0:09:05.869 So in the tobacco space, uh, we've seen a move 0:09:05.869 --> 0:09:06.919 to plain packaging. 0:09:07.349 --> 0:09:10.109 Uh, and the inclusion of more and more public health 0:09:10.109 --> 0:09:12.919 information about smoking's risks. Where do you sit on the 0:09:12.919 --> 0:09:15.559 marketing of packaged foods? Are you looking for stricter rules 0:09:15.559 --> 0:09:18.199 about how they're packaged as well? Yeah, 0:09:18.400 --> 0:09:20.799 definitely. I mean, we've spent, you know, the first part 0:09:20.799 --> 0:09:24.840 of this podcast talking about the influence of these claims 0:09:24.840 --> 0:09:27.400 and the packaging, even the colours of the packets. It, 0:09:27.479 --> 0:09:30.880 it's all, you know, combined. There's a lot of synergies 0:09:30.880 --> 0:09:33.390 around the, you know, to create the biggest impact to 0:09:33.390 --> 0:09:34.510 sell the product. So, 0:09:34.969 --> 0:09:37.929 I mean, my sort of best case scenario would be 0:09:37.929 --> 0:09:41.130 to own health, to own the pack. I mean, we've 0:09:41.130 --> 0:09:47.598 seen in Chile these hexagonal warnings, um, around high in sugar, salt, fat, energy, 0:09:47.849 --> 0:09:50.169 and that's had a huge impact, and it's worked in 0:09:50.169 --> 0:09:52.049 two ways, which I think is exactly what we want 0:09:52.049 --> 0:09:56.650 to see in Australia. It's shifted people to healthier foods 0:09:56.890 --> 0:09:59.770 and more sort of traditional diets. So it's not just 0:09:59.770 --> 0:10:03.049 moving people around the processed food space, which isn't really 0:10:03.049 --> 0:10:04.609 where you want to go. It's moving 0:10:04.835 --> 0:10:08.614 people to less processed, more natural foods, foods that are, 0:10:08.775 --> 0:10:12.534 you know, supporting local farmers, which is a good thing. 0:10:12.575 --> 0:10:15.405 It's going back into that local economy. So I think, 0:10:15.414 --> 0:10:17.974 you know, that's very attractive to government. For example, if 0:10:17.974 --> 0:10:21.924 you're just not talking about shifting the processed packaged food demand, 0:10:22.015 --> 0:10:25.335 but that you are moving people into these healthier products. 0:10:25.455 --> 0:10:27.215 And there's certainly a lot more that we can do. 0:10:27.294 --> 0:10:30.335 We can take things off, and we can make sure 0:10:30.335 --> 0:10:33.684 that we get more sort of honest, truthful labelling. So 0:10:33.684 --> 0:10:34.465 people aren't, 0:10:34.679 --> 0:10:36.919 you know, they just get slightly confused by lots of 0:10:36.919 --> 0:10:40.989 different things. Um, and we can start to cut through that, 0:10:41.119 --> 0:10:44.919 but by removing some of these persuasive elements, um, we 0:10:44.919 --> 0:10:47.359 can give people a, a, a better picture of what 0:10:47.359 --> 0:10:49.770 the food actually is. Mm. 0:10:50.479 --> 0:10:53.510 The name should reflect the bulk of the ingredients, but 0:10:53.510 --> 0:10:56.719 we know there are instances where, for example, there might 0:10:56.719 --> 0:10:58.450 be a baby food called 0:10:59.479 --> 0:11:02.919 Broccoli, pumpkin, and apple, but when you look at the 0:11:02.919 --> 0:11:06.468 back of the pack, it's 80% apple or something like that. 0:11:06.679 --> 0:11:09.400 So I think, yes, that would be my wish that 0:11:09.400 --> 0:11:13.760 the text and the imagery honestly represents the products, because 0:11:13.760 --> 0:11:16.919 we know they're both really important and that consumers rely on 0:11:17.215 --> 0:11:22.015 them to make decisions, but also to think about pro-health 0:11:22.015 --> 0:11:24.885 front of pack nutrition labelling schemes, like, we know the 0:11:24.885 --> 0:11:29.604 Health Star rating, it's currently voluntary, but when we've done studies, 0:11:29.655 --> 0:11:32.655 if you apply that, if it was made mandatory to 0:11:32.655 --> 0:11:37.334 all products, it does facilitate healthier choices. And we've recently 0:11:37.335 --> 0:11:42.354 done some studies testing labelling schemes similar to the 0:11:42.809 --> 0:11:46.859 high in, um, labelling that some of the South American 0:11:46.859 --> 0:11:50.520 countries are using with Australian consumers. And we found that 0:11:50.559 --> 0:11:55.530 that helps parents identify products higher in added sugars and 0:11:55.530 --> 0:11:59.049 reorients their preferences towards healthier options. 0:11:59.909 --> 0:12:02.309 Baby food. I mean, are there any specific regulations or 0:12:02.309 --> 0:12:05.419 rules in relation to baby and toddler food in particular? 0:12:05.669 --> 0:12:07.228 Yeah, so this is an area we've done a lot 0:12:07.229 --> 0:12:10.659 of research to fill in the gap, so policymakers understand 0:12:10.659 --> 0:12:13.669 what the market's like. So it's a growing market. We've seen, 0:12:13.830 --> 0:12:16.340 you know, more and more products are coming on the market. 0:12:17.140 --> 0:12:22.940 Um, and we had a consultation in 2019. The issue 0:12:22.940 --> 0:12:26.619 came onto the agenda, and the sort of key issues 0:12:26.619 --> 0:12:29.939 have recently been moved into the food regulator. So they're 0:12:29.940 --> 0:12:33.299 around composition of the product, so it's not just the labelling, 0:12:33.340 --> 0:12:36.619 but what's, what's in the product. So that's around levels 0:12:36.619 --> 0:12:40.500 of sodium and levels of sugar, which is really important, 0:12:40.539 --> 0:12:42.179 and a lot of these products are sweet. 0:12:42.469 --> 0:12:45.010 And they contain a lot of sugars derived from fruit, 0:12:45.419 --> 0:12:48.340 particularly apple and pear, which is probably cheap. Um, and 0:12:48.340 --> 0:12:51.809 even savoury products, like Helen was talking about, they're not 0:12:51.809 --> 0:12:55.609 whole meals, really. They're, you know, could be 80% apple. 0:12:55.799 --> 0:13:00.530 And it's also about having names that accurately reflect the ingredients, um, 0:13:01.020 --> 0:13:02.900 what's on the front of the pack, so not being 0:13:02.900 --> 0:13:06.250 able to use these pictures of, um, pumpkin and apple, 0:13:06.539 --> 0:13:09.830 unless they make up a significant portion of the 0:13:09.890 --> 0:13:13.359 product in a whole form, not in a processed form, 0:13:13.479 --> 0:13:15.559 because you, you know, what you're seeing should be what 0:13:15.559 --> 0:13:19.239 you're actually getting. So really trying to have more truth 0:13:19.239 --> 0:13:22.520 in the labelling, but also to try and encourage the 0:13:22.520 --> 0:13:25.830 manufacturers and, and shift them to, um, and incentivise them 0:13:25.830 --> 0:13:29.239 to create healthier products, because we have so many snack 0:13:29.239 --> 0:13:33.400 foods for toddlers. Um, we don't have really well-made, um, 0:13:33.479 --> 0:13:37.159 nutritious and nourishing meals for children. 0:13:37.650 --> 0:13:40.489 And we need to sort of shift this to create 0:13:40.489 --> 0:13:43.130 a healthier source of food for parents who do want 0:13:43.130 --> 0:13:45.919 to use these products. And, you know, they are convenient, 0:13:45.969 --> 0:13:47.770 but wouldn't it be great if we had a nourishing, 0:13:47.849 --> 0:13:51.359 healthy supply of these products? I mean, it, it is 0:13:51.359 --> 0:13:53.960 the ultimate con in that young children can eat the 0:13:53.960 --> 0:13:56.609 same healthy food as the rest of the family. They 0:13:56.609 --> 0:13:58.809 might just need it to be mashed. So it is 0:13:58.809 --> 0:13:59.530 a bit of a sort of 0:13:59.575 --> 0:14:03.765 Of marketing, you know, creation that these products are, you know, 0:14:03.846 --> 0:14:05.726 we're seeing more and more of these products in the 0:14:05.726 --> 0:14:09.715 supermarket because children can eat, eat other foods that are 0:14:09.716 --> 0:14:13.045 potentially cheaper, um, as well. But, you know, having this 0:14:13.046 --> 0:14:16.435 special market and these special sort of ways of promoting 0:14:16.434 --> 0:14:19.366 them is, is very persuasive, and it, and it just 0:14:19.366 --> 0:14:21.565 shows the success of, of, of 0:14:21.651 --> 0:14:22.742 that kind of approach. 0:14:22.981 --> 0:14:26.961 And I think nutrition is so interesting, particularly for kids, 0:14:27.161 --> 0:14:30.882 because it's not only important for lifelong chronic disease prevention, 0:14:30.961 --> 0:14:35.072 but to enable them to, to grow, you know, flourish 0:14:35.072 --> 0:14:39.122 in a developmental sense. And we do have stricter rules 0:14:39.122 --> 0:14:41.942 about the composition of baby foods cause they have certain 0:14:41.942 --> 0:14:46.271 iron requirements and so on. But the toddler food category 0:14:46.780 --> 0:14:50.640 has really emerged as this whole new category of products 0:14:50.640 --> 0:14:55.119 in recent years. And what's interesting is, uh, the Australian 0:14:55.119 --> 0:14:58.359 dietary guidelines for kids in, in the toddler age group, 0:14:58.440 --> 0:15:02.080 they basically recommend that they can eat family foods. You know, 0:15:02.200 --> 0:15:05.479 there are textural issues before kids have teeth, that they 0:15:05.479 --> 0:15:08.719 may need purees and so on. But there's no reason, 0:15:08.799 --> 0:15:10.440 you know, that a 4 year old needs to be 0:15:10.440 --> 0:15:13.479 sucking puree out of a pouch. They, they can be 0:15:13.479 --> 0:15:15.150 eating family foods. So, 0:15:15.599 --> 0:15:19.299 Yeah, it's fascinating. This whole product category's arrived. And then 0:15:19.299 --> 0:15:22.000 because they're kind of presented in the aisle in the 0:15:22.000 --> 0:15:27.080 supermarket with nappies and baby shampoo, it's kind of implicit 0:15:27.080 --> 0:15:30.429 from their placement, all these foods are appropriate for kids. 0:15:30.640 --> 0:15:33.599 On that, not just related to toddler foods, but, uh, Helen, 0:15:33.640 --> 0:15:35.080 you mentioned the health star rating. 0:15:35.440 --> 0:15:37.570 I think a lot of people will be surprised that 0:15:37.580 --> 0:15:41.299 that's not a mandatory piece of information that's on all 0:15:41.299 --> 0:15:44.049 food that manufacturers can choose to display that or not. 0:15:44.419 --> 0:15:46.780 What does your research say about the usefulness or perhaps 0:15:46.780 --> 0:15:49.200 the misinterpretation of the health star rating? 0:15:49.580 --> 0:15:53.539 Well, when we have done studies where it is applied 0:15:53.539 --> 0:15:54.190 uniformly 0:15:54.424 --> 0:15:58.755 to products. It does enable consumers to compare products within 0:15:58.755 --> 0:16:03.794 a given category and identify healthier options. The algorithm to 0:16:03.794 --> 0:16:07.994 assign stars to products, kind of, they get demerit points 0:16:07.994 --> 0:16:12.755 for being high in nutrients of concern, like saturated fat, salt, sugar, etc. 0:16:13.270 --> 0:16:17.330 And, and kind of bonus points for positive nutritional attributes. 0:16:17.369 --> 0:16:20.330 And there are a few exceptions to the rule, but generally, 0:16:20.409 --> 0:16:24.289 the algorithm does work and is a good indicator of 0:16:24.289 --> 0:16:26.289 higher stars being a healthier choice. 0:16:26.299 --> 0:16:29.409 But only within a category, right? So you can't compare 0:16:29.409 --> 0:16:32.840 a frozen food star to a cereal star. 0:16:33.049 --> 0:16:36.705 No, but the categories are quite broad. I think the 0:16:36.705 --> 0:16:40.145 main issue is that 2/3 of products aren't carrying the 0:16:40.145 --> 0:16:42.385 health star. And if, if you're a consumer out there 0:16:42.385 --> 0:16:44.895 listening to this, if a product's not carrying a health star, 0:16:44.984 --> 0:16:47.655 find something that is, and that's higher rather than lower, 0:16:47.705 --> 0:16:50.424 because it is used as a marketing tool, and that 0:16:50.424 --> 0:16:55.125 gives me comfort, apart from the research that it works. So, 0:16:55.390 --> 0:16:58.219 That's why food manufacturers aren't putting it on their lower 0:16:58.219 --> 0:17:02.659 rating products, because it does influence consumers. So that's why 0:17:02.659 --> 0:17:06.380 we're advocating for it to be mandatory. And for 3 0:17:06.380 --> 0:17:09.339 out of 4 Australians who use the health stars, um, 0:17:09.380 --> 0:17:12.060 it helps them to understand which are what product's healthier. 0:17:12.099 --> 0:17:14.619 So it is being used. What's undermining trust in it 0:17:14.619 --> 0:17:17.420 is that it's not mandatory and not sort of seen 0:17:17.420 --> 0:17:19.369 to be government endorsed, and a 0:17:19.416 --> 0:17:22.875 standard that all food manufacturers have to meet. So that 0:17:23.125 --> 0:17:28.046 is in some way undermining the effectiveness of this system, 0:17:28.125 --> 0:17:31.975 which was designed to simplify the nutrition information panel and 0:17:31.975 --> 0:17:34.125 bring it to the front of the pack. So it 0:17:34.125 --> 0:17:37.526 was a sort of meant to be a time-saving way 0:17:37.526 --> 0:17:41.166 to support, you know, people when they're actually choosing what 0:17:41.166 --> 0:17:42.475 foods they want to buy. 0:17:42.765 --> 0:17:45.192 And in that supermarket situation where they're all side by 0:17:45.192 --> 0:17:48.702 side on the shelf, you know, they are basically within category. 0:17:49.071 --> 0:17:51.511 So that's, you know, where you can sort of compare 0:17:51.511 --> 0:17:54.071 cereals against each other because there's a wall of them. 0:17:54.511 --> 0:17:57.071 So that's where it does have its sort of utility, 0:17:57.151 --> 0:17:58.311 I suppose. Uh, 0:17:58.432 --> 0:18:01.072 what other research have you done on how food marketing 0:18:01.071 --> 0:18:02.692 can influence our food choices? 0:18:02.911 --> 0:18:07.311 We've done lots of research on different forms of marketing. 0:18:07.790 --> 0:18:11.640 We've done stuff, elite sports sponsorship, both in relation to 0:18:11.640 --> 0:18:17.899 alcohol and food, because those events have really high audience reach. 0:18:18.030 --> 0:18:21.800 The AFL Grand Final has the biggest audience of any 0:18:21.800 --> 0:18:24.139 televised sporting event for the year. 0:18:24.459 --> 0:18:31.270 And so it's a great way to reach adults and kids, unfortunately, 0:18:31.359 --> 0:18:36.280 with alcohol, gambling and food marketing. I like to when 0:18:36.280 --> 0:18:41.188 I design studies to not just be investigating a problem, 0:18:41.280 --> 0:18:44.839 but try and build in ways of looking at solutions 0:18:44.839 --> 0:18:45.579 to address the 0:18:45.630 --> 0:18:50.209 problem. So we've done some interesting experiments where we've done 0:18:50.209 --> 0:18:54.260 simulations of sponsorship. What if, for example, this is a 0:18:54.260 --> 0:18:58.699 kind of grassroots community sport, we replace the kit that 0:18:58.699 --> 0:19:01.339 kids are given at the start of their enrollment in 0:19:01.339 --> 0:19:06.660 Milo cricket or Macca's Little Athletics with a healthy sponsor. 0:19:07.099 --> 0:19:10.430 And we have found that if you apply those marketing 0:19:10.430 --> 0:19:15.948 principles to healthful products, they similarly build brand awareness, promote 0:19:15.949 --> 0:19:17.270 the appeal of the product. 0:19:17.680 --> 0:19:21.969 And sports related marketing is really interesting, particularly in relation 0:19:21.969 --> 0:19:25.290 to junk food, because, you know, we all have in 0:19:25.290 --> 0:19:28.250 our minds an image of sport as a sort of healthy, 0:19:28.290 --> 0:19:34.199 vital kind of pursuit. And so, again, it's, it's deeply psychological, 0:19:34.250 --> 0:19:37.810 this sort of building these associations that every time a 0:19:37.810 --> 0:19:40.290 goal's kicked in the footy match, we zoom in on 0:19:40.290 --> 0:19:43.010 the Macca's logo on the fence, and so on. And 0:19:43.010 --> 0:19:43.619 it's sort of 0:19:44.180 --> 0:19:47.380 implicitly creating this notion of, you can eat crap as 0:19:47.380 --> 0:19:49.619 long as you burn it up with activity or whatever. 0:19:49.670 --> 0:19:51.619 And if there's a lot of that linkage, like there 0:19:51.619 --> 0:19:54.489 was a phase a while ago of pedometers given away 0:19:54.489 --> 0:19:57.979 with sugary breakfast cereal. But the other thing about sports 0:19:57.979 --> 0:20:02.969 sponsorship is it's a highly emotional context, and 0:20:03.390 --> 0:20:09.000 Um, you know, with persuasion, there are affective and cognitive components. And, 0:20:09.040 --> 0:20:11.719 and if we associate a brand with this sort of 0:20:11.719 --> 0:20:16.349 exciting event that people are invested in with attractive, fit, 0:20:16.479 --> 0:20:20.119 healthy athletes and celebs and so on, it's, it's a 0:20:20.119 --> 0:20:22.229 great kind of promotional strategy. 0:20:22.400 --> 0:20:25.836 But it also implies that the athletes are eating that food. 0:20:25.984 --> 0:20:29.786 Yes. And that's another thing we've done research on is 0:20:29.786 --> 0:20:37.105 counter-advertising strategies. So if you actually direct consumers' attention upstream 0:20:37.105 --> 0:20:42.504 to exposing the marketing tactics of, of these harmful industries, 0:20:42.595 --> 0:20:46.855 be it gambling, tobacco, or, or junk food. We 0:20:46.901 --> 0:20:51.161 did another trial where around the NRL finals a couple 0:20:51.161 --> 0:20:53.251 of years ago, we knew they were gonna have heavy 0:20:53.251 --> 0:20:57.771 alcohol sponsorship. And we had a professionally produced ad that 0:20:57.771 --> 0:21:02.931 exposed and critiqued alcohol sponsorship, and we tested that against 0:21:02.932 --> 0:21:07.092 a traditional public health ad focusing on the downstream health 0:21:07.092 --> 0:21:11.411 harms of alcohol. And so we sent people links, and 0:21:11.411 --> 0:21:14.092 they watched this counter ad in the lead up to 0:21:14.092 --> 0:21:15.852 watching the alcohol sponsored event. 0:21:16.130 --> 0:21:18.199 And we followed them up, and what we found was 0:21:18.199 --> 0:21:23.469 that the counter ad exposing industry marketing, it also had 0:21:23.469 --> 0:21:27.959 the kind of effect of promoting reduced intentions to drink alcohol, 0:21:28.040 --> 0:21:32.260 so it could potentially assist with curbing personal alcohol intake. 0:21:32.439 --> 0:21:36.800 But it also made the audience members more critical of 0:21:36.800 --> 0:21:42.359 the alcohol sponsor brands and view them less favourably, and 0:21:42.359 --> 0:21:44.879 they saw more of a mismatch between those products 0:21:45.494 --> 0:21:49.234 and the sport, and it increased their support for policy 0:21:49.234 --> 0:21:52.824 to restrict that form of marketing. So that's an interesting strategy. 0:21:52.994 --> 0:21:54.823 But on that, I mean, back when I was a kid, 0:21:54.954 --> 0:21:58.755 cigarette companies sponsored sport, which seems bizarre today, but that's 0:21:58.755 --> 0:22:01.805 just how it was. And, you know, in 10 years 0:22:01.805 --> 0:22:04.074 or so, do you think that's how we'll look at 0:22:04.074 --> 0:22:07.264 fast food sponsorship and advertising in, in sport? 0:22:07.555 --> 0:22:08.274 I think we will. 0:22:08.380 --> 0:22:11.500 The leading burden of disease used to be tobacco. Now 0:22:11.500 --> 0:22:14.760 it's obesity, and then, you know, up there too is diet. 0:22:14.890 --> 0:22:17.449 So this is a really serious health problem, and we're 0:22:17.449 --> 0:22:20.489 setting our children up, using all these kinds of techniques 0:22:20.489 --> 0:22:24.130