Advertising helps a child develop, claims think-tank

The explosion in the advertising of food and drink to children in the past decade has divided expert opinion over whether it is an essential part of growing up or harmful to health, according to two new reports.

Items such as Spiderman cereal, Barbie dolls who work at McDonald's and battery-operated sweets that spin in the mouth are contributing to a global epidemic of obesity, eating disorders and emotional problems, claims research in the medical journal The Lancet.

But the Social Affairs Unit, an independent right-wing think tank, argues in a pamphlet published today that learning to handle advertisements is part of a child's education. "Young people should not be protected by increased regulation from advertising of products such as snacks, fizzy drinks, computer games and alcohol," it says. "Those who seek to impose further regulation do not have the research evidence on their side... and may do harm."

Spending on marketing to children, which has been regarded as increasingly acceptable in the past decade, rose to $12bn (£8bn) in the US in 1999 as companies realised children could be taught to influence what their parents bought.

In the UK, the Advertising Association said the £16.5bn spent in total on advertising in 2001 included an increased amount targeted at children.

Doctors at a meeting organised by the Stop Commercial Exploitation of Children Coalition in New York last week warned that as factories in the early 20th century pressed children into hard labour and in effect owned their bodies, so marketers in the 21st century were trying to own their minds.

The brand names of food and drinks appeared on toy cars, and fast food chains issued "educational" card games. A new kind of "interactive candy" incorporated a lollipop into a battery-operated handle and carried names such as "sound pops" and "hot licks" which were operated "when your tongue turns it on".

The sexualisation of these products and the constant exposure to "oversexualised and underfed" images in the media were contributing to body image and other emotional problems, the meeting was told.

In its editorial, The Lancet says efforts made by companies to create "lifelong consumers" are resulting in a generation "destined for psychosocial and physical problems".

"The soaring increase in obesity and diabetes among children is a public health crisis, plausibly linked to the 'toxic environment' created by the food industry," it says.

It recommends more radical solutions, including taxing soft drinks and fast foods, subsidising nutritious foods, labelling the content of fast food and prohibiting marketing and advertising to children.

It says an advertising ban similar to that covering tobacco has been recommended to the European Union and litigation inspired by the success of tobacco litigation is underway.

But in his pamphlet for the Social Affairs Unit, Growing Up With Advertising, Adrian Furnham, professor of psychology at University College London, says there are many factors which influence young people, other than advertising, most importantly their parents and peers.

"Around 50 years ago a myth was born about the power of advertising.... It is a conspiracy theory totally unsupported by the data.... Manufacturers spend vast sums to increase their total market share by small percentages," he said.

Sara Soltani, director of the Food Advertising Unit of the Advertising Association, said criticisms of the role of advertisers in the obesity epidemic were simplistic and emotive. Despite the increase in advertising, people were eating less sugar, fat and calories, and the increase in average girths could be blamed on our sedentary lives. "Watching advertisements doesn't make you fat," she said.