very much look forward to hearing your comments later on tonight. it is important that we get the food right. policies affect us and in innumerable ways and there's all sorts of pieces of data that suggests this but i like to show one thing from an article that came out with look and see how food is implicated in this particular list. you can see in almost every case it is a major player. it is because in many parts of the world people are using inefficient stoves to prepare their food leaving enough of respiratory illness. so, it can be an important player so there's a lot of good work to be done.

instead of talking about any, how can we take the work that we do as professionals and scholars and creat created a maximum impd that begins with asking the question how good are we at creating change. we are putting out a lot of effort and a lot of papers and research reports, publications, books and the like. but how much change is that leading to and could be tightened up so we are creating maximum change in the effort. hence, most produced knowledge that serves to society and we hope the society actually gets served. but it's kind of a mysterious process whether that occurs or not and there are things that determine whether it is create a social and policy change and a purpose to think about that. over the years, when i think about my own work, i've had

periods of frustration of not creating the difference of the work i was doing but it was what is happening in a lot of the fields that we produce scholarship and empirical studies and it could be reviews or legal scholarship that it's a group of like-minded people in the professional world. sometimes the audience can be small but it feels good because we reinforce each other and invite each o of us to meetings like this and do things like that that make it feel like it is making a difference but the question is does it really. the people are into position to do something with the information and this leads to sometimes the scholarship in the policy and the metaphor i use to describe this if you are running a relay race, you only qualify to win a race if you

successfully pass the baton from one to another but as it gets dropped, then you are disqualified and there is no way that you can win that race. so when we do the work we are hoping the baton in our hands this knowledge and we hope that somebody out there picks it up and does something with it and we successfully complete the race. we are not trained to reinforce not as much gets done as it could. we typically attribute to the percipient au pair. let's just create an example and think about the academic and

scholarly research for a moment and say that we were setting out to make it relevant to the world as possible. of course we wouldn't do that if we would be incredibly slow and it would take more time to get it done. it would be communicated to ourselves and not to the outside world and it would be unresponsive to the policy out there and it would be only programmatic rather than strategic and it would be right with conflicts of interest and that is very true. while we can move quickly our work tends to move pretty slowly

so can we change this and so here is how we've been thinking about the problem. the way we think about it is research needs tthisresearch neo the change agents so we begin with the question who are the people or institutions in the position to do something about the problem we hear about, how can we create a feedback loop with those individuals that form an opportunity to base the research.

the courts become an important player and hopefully most of you understand this better than i do the public opinion can be shifted through and they are important players in the industry of course this is only a partial list. over the years i've had incredibly powerful and important career changes made by talking with people like senator harkin there out there and know how the policies are in the forefront of making the policy change. and they very often give us ideas of information gaps that we can help so.

then the feedback can occur in a constructive way. the process we think about is identifying the change agents, interacting with them it helps to define the questions we do, then creating the research and having an effective communications opportunity that goes back to the change agents and this can create a virtuous cycle of feedback that involves all the relevant parties. if any of you are interested, we've written about this on the paper that we call strategic science and i would be happy to send that if anyone is interested. let's talk about this at work in the children's food marketing. we should be interested in marketing breakfast cereals to children. jennifer, marlene and others at the center spent a number of

years working on the marketing of food to children. the first focused on was on the marketing of breakfast cereals and you can go to the website and pull down these reports that have been done. the first purpose was to find out how much is being marketed. in creating the list of serials ranked from the worst of the top of the list of the best at the bottom and the worst would be the ones with the most sugar or salt etc. you get the picture. next to that it gives you the best dozen by the nutrition score and look to see how much

marketing is being done on television, through internet and other websites it comes to exactly zero. it is setting out to make them overweight or unhealthy but if they did have that they are doing a pretty good job. the hypothesis about how they market to children when they do have told your products in the portfolio when we were going to release this we were hoping that they would generate a lot of ability so people would understand what's going to children but we try to predict what the industries -- it wasn't

too hard because we were at professional meetings where they are sometimes present ansometime was an interesting paper that came out a return data chief nutrition officers at kellogg's and general mills. they don't often collaborate. they are at each other's necks but in this case they did collaborate around this paper and here's what the paper said. you can have the healthiest food in the world but if it sits in the bowl at breakfast and the kids don't eat it is not going to help. children like the taste of ready to eaready-to-eat which is a euphemism for high sugar. eating breakfast is a good thi thing.

serial can be a helpful way of delivering nutrients that the third part is the children won't eat it unles unless there is a f sugar. that is a testable hypothesis. it's plausible. maybe it's true, maybe it's not so in order to have a scientific basis for the industry defends it by jennifer harris and marlene schwartz the study was undertaken to give access by randomized designs of a low sugar version or high sugar version so cornflakes versus frosted flakes and the children could eat as much as they chose to come in use as much milk, add sugar if they want and put fruit on if they wanted. the study found with a low sugar version children had about what you'd like to see a child have for breakfast and they put fruit on it to sweeten it up so they

got a boost from the fruit that they have an unhealthy profile when they ate the high sugar version of the serial so the results ultimately were published in a good medical journal but the results became helpful so when the newspapers were the media folks would find out about the result and call the people of the cereal companies and say why are you marketing your worst foods to kids they would say breakfast is good and kids won't eat i it or doesn't have a lot of sugar it was a randomized study that showed in fact that was not true so why are they marketing least healthy foods because they won't overconsume the ones with sugar so that helped undermine and became a very important strategic study. nobody in the scientific world is that the study should be done.

it wasn't part of what question are rated it was strictly from the to. several months after the study was published. it was by about 25%. there is no way that we can take credit for this so i'm not suggesting cause and effect because a lot of organizations have been working on this issue. to whatever extent we played a role itherole in this it was tha mechanism like this. the press generated a loss for the companies that helped the public opinion so we could do a lot of studies and never get to this outcome.

2009 the food industry got together a century and created nutrition standards. they could be awarded the smart choice is labeled but because the industry made up its own standards they were self-serving and very lax. when this came out it was an interesting case study of how social change could occur. several things happened. "the new york times" found out the smart choices product program was occurring and decided to write an article that was quite critical.

he found out about the smart choices because he was interacting at the center and decided to go after the smart choices feeling that it was a deceptive and misleading program. we've been doing all that see real research and so we were able to inform him about this and then he launched the official investigation. "the new york times" wrote a follow-up article that indicated that the attorney general was going after the choices and others were likely to follow suit. he issued the letters that went to request information from the companies and also from a professional organization called the society of nutrition which had taken a large area to

administer the program so i'm assuming that it would be seen rather than the food industry players so in a short pier caught time in a scant six week period, the article came out and launched an investigation. there was an fda action done by the commissioner through a phone call this. it was pulled after six weeks being launched. the change agent we could have published 500 studies showing the smart choices were bad or misleading or deceptive or whatever you want to say that it never would have created this outcome, so it was to connection

of the feedback loop that turned out to be hopeful. i would like to give you one more example and then i will finish up. it's interesting to think about whether this template of identifying change agents can apply to the food and wall and are there particular issues where the legal scholarship can follow this model and who are the change agents and can they be brokered in a way that affects the nature and a feedback loop for the change agents and one issue this might be relevant as the impact it has on the brain. in its natural form, humans can live in harmony with this particular plant but when it gets processed into cocaine or hyper processed into crack cocaine, humans can no longer live in harmony with it because it hijacks the brain.

now could you say when you take a product like this, nobody ever uses corn in its natural form as far as i know but you process it into this and then what happens or when you take water and process it into this what happens these are interesting questions if food is proven to be addictive, think of the locality of marketing to children and could this help provide a basis for restricting our marketing god where we are right now. we are doing a second edition of this and it's looking at the legal theory that might be applied in this area so this

would be just one example where the legal scholarship might get mixed up in the interesting issue. will be the litigatin it be theg attorneys because all of a sudden there might be culpability by the food industry for the marketing pitch during -- marketing to children. the reason i haven't filled in the boxes is because i'm not an attorney and this is not my area of expertise but it would be great if you could fill in and then we could take it and run with it and create social chan change. congratulations again happy to be involved.

thank you for having me. >> thank you for that excellent and interesting presentation. we will turn to the first prong of the slide that you showed and we need a panel focused on science to discuss the marketing from the public health and cognitive perspective i would like to introduce the moderator who was an academic fellow at the program.

>> we are fortunate today to be joined by the leading scholars on the marketing to children. we are happy to introduce the three panelists in the order they will be speaking we have doctor marlene schwartz who comes from the center and will be speaking first and we are joined also by the berkeley media studies group and coming all the way from liverpool. i'm delighted to be here.

kelly was the founder and we were at yale university and then two years ago moved to the university of connecticut. people have been concerned about this since it began but definitely, the connection between the food marketing and the recent childhood obesity increasing reached the breaking point when the report from the institute of medicine came out that caused the marketing opportunity. what this did is pulled out the research at the time and said this is what we know, food marketing works, it affects the preferences and request to purchase certain brands and increases the short term food consumption. there were several calls and one of which was for the food industry to take some action and address the problem.

one of the things we were concerned about is whether it affected the consumption of the particular brand of food because one of the defenses of the industry was we are not trying to get people to eat more food, we just want them to choose our brand instead of our competitors. one of the theories is exposure wasn't an intellectual process where you learn the information about the particular brand of food and make a recent decision to eat more of that but it was and more automatic and unconscious timing being exposed to the food finds the behavior so this was a randomized controlled experiment where she had a videotape and the children in one condition watched a videotape and the other there were a control as for other items.

she offered a snack. she found the children that actually watched the food commercials have 45% more than those that had controlled condition. so what this suggests is it automatically triggered this response for more. so it is certainly the place there's been the most research where kids had historically been exposed but this changed over the years and every year we have to come up with new methods because it feels like there are new ways that it's being marketed for use. so, some of the things we have been tracking rv ads where you are looking at one website and then there is an ad for a particular product.

there's also lots of food companies and social media growing a lot and then there's the games that are basically online games that have characters made of the food products that are sort of playing the game so it is a combination and exposing them repeatedly to the brand. we were curious whether they would work the same way as the television commercials did so we did another study we had the kids come in and play and then in one it's the unhealthy game so in this case pop tarts and another they played at the healthy and another controlled game what we did is we wanted to see if we changed the consumption so instead of just goldfish we gave grades, carrots, cookies, potato chips and they got the same thing

after being randomly assigned. we found in the control group vithey had 28 of the unhealthy snacks and in the healthy condition they had more and less of the unhealthy. this is interesting because it was able to document just being exposed to and on healthy character could have an immediate impact on the children consumed. so, in response to the rising criticism and regulation in the food industry they got together in 2006, started in 2006 and the better business bureau that oversees these initiatives. it's a voluntary self-regulation program to shift the food to

encourage healthier choices and lifestyles. the original goal they set were fairly weak base of at least half the marketing would be better products and it was a healthy lifestyle message showing ronald mcdonald on a skateboard accounted because it was physical and then be connected to what kelly said before they each set their own nutrition standards so you would have a strict saturated fat. and if you had soup there would be the standard that's not the sodium standard so it was a little bit fishy. in 2011 it was that companies

that you see here they decided that the message didn't count any more. they changed it to 100% which i think would step in the right direction and they came up with more criteria so began it may not be as strong criteria as we would have wanted but it was on the same. they said they were not going to market to the children so then i hope we hear later this is a federal effort to come up with strong recommendations to children.

if you look back at the original state and there's a lot of questions that need to be answered. how do you define advertised to children and how do you define healthier dietary choices. so, here's where there is room for action in this area. they are defined as under 12-years-old. now the working group actually said because all the way up to 18 to basically 17. the expert opinion is the 12, 13 and 14 should be included in the category and there was a panel put together by a group called healthy eating research which is a program where they had a 17 member panel and they looked at the research and decided 14 is a better age to set.

we have a paper on the website that's looking at the science and making thinmaking the case d go to 14. specifically some of the reasons are 12, 13, 14 they are eating more of the foods marketed then younger and the argument used is to the understand the persuasive intent but there's others that protect you and that's what the science shows an understanding what's happening doesn't make you any of them. those that were playing the videogame they were not immune to those effects even though they may have understood what was happening. it really triggers emotional responses an and peace adolesces are still developing executive control and their ability to moderate their impulses. so, there was a very long and detailed response to the interagency working group and they took issue with many of the items but definitely with the

considering 12 to 17 year old children. they give examples of how they can drive, work, with parental permission they can and must in the military that when you look at the argument, it really doesn't apply to the 12, 13, 14-year-old so we have a strong case and it would ask them to put an effort into trying to get that changed. it will make a big difference and i will explain why not just in that part of the age of the children but advertising if it goes up it's going to capture more of the marketing. we view these reports and we've been doing them now for eight years. we went back to see if things have changed and then we did snack foods.

they read the reports. one of the things they are doing and we are doing has to do with defining advertising to children so its focus on the purchasing behavior of the company is when the company goes into purchases media that already been designated as having an audience size over 35% made up of two to 11-year-olds so it has to do with the industry behavior. we are not focused on this we are focused on the experience of the child. what we do is focus on the meals data and you can get the data that would show how much exposure for every brand how much there is to ask for that brand so if we find out the children saw 372 adds within a

year and that those ar those art we are working with so we look at the exposure for the different age groups to determine what it looks like and we are focused on whether the child saw that ad. if mrs. half of what they are seeing so we did a study where we actually try to figure out how changing the percentage would improve the situation and another idea that we put in is whether in addition to the percentage of the audience there should be kind of a volume, also for excel if 100,000 are seeing something even if they don't make up more than 35% of the

audience media should still count. i wouldn't argue that isn't a show meant for children. so this shows what we calculat calculated. it's more than 50% of the audience that was the original definition for some. you can see how much it captures so a little over 40% would be captured for that and you can see the six to 11-year-olds and then you see the 18 to 49. it wouldn't be without interfering with the ads reaching adults. what you can see is if we get it down to 20% of the audience and you continue to have increasing amounts of protection for

children in terms of what they view it if you add thi add to t0 k100became attractive to basicay show more than 100,000 watching it you can then capture 70% of the ads but at the same time you are kind of interfering with 35% so it comes to this cost-benefit analysis that is an interesting question how much are you willing to interfere with the ability to reach the adult by protecting children and it is a balance that needs to be decid decided. so in the dietary choices, here's where it gets tricky. a lot of the brands companies have multiple varieties of example let's take cheerios, regular, honey not, there might be chocolate, so there's all kinds and as the ones tha of tht

the nutrition criteria they are about to put in their ad but it doesn't necessarily mean all of that brand are not healthy. but the trouble is a lot of times there's marketing for the brand and it's not obvious which exact variety so if you are marketing a happy meal, there may be some that meet the criteria but others that don't. but looking athat's looking at u really can't tell. that was a good example because i don't know if there's 25 different types of one shovels and maybe four of them meet the criteria so they will be pictured in the ads for kids but when you go to the grocery store is only a small fraction of what's there so the child has been exposed to the brand marketing even though the product doesn't necessarily meet

the criteria. another place where this issue of the brand is coming up is marketing to schools. they said no foods can be marketed in schools that don't meet the new criteria so there've been a lot of changes in the school meal program and one of them is very strong nutrition criteria for snacks that can be sold and rules and this is a huge and exciting improvement in terms of the federal regulation over school food. so they were not terribly happy about this because one of the implications is that you really can't have marketing for foods in middle and high schools that don't meet the criteria and we only cared about elementary schools that is what they covered. they also exclude marketing is fund-raising and on educational

materials so they support the companies providing to give the materials of schools and also allows what he called look-alike snacks and i will explain what that is, so here are some examples. we go through the fund-raising and other learning enforcement programs. there were lots of ways in which they had been encouraging the system through fundraising or biting purchasing things and signs. this is a picture that i took that it was a back-to-school night my kids are in high school and i saw this vending machine after i knew this mark snacks had gone into effect.

i took a picture an and people d are you going to turn them in or get them in trouble and as it turns out, technically every one of these, you can see that they all are they meet the criteria because they basically reformulated them so they are under the portion sizes but if you look at them it is exactly the products you see in the grocery store so we are concerned about this and ended up giving a study for the online experiment where we show people different versions and ask them that we are basically shoving the look-alike snacks it's the same as those that are sold so this is a problem for two reasons.

it makes the school look bad. it must be healthy but then when they go to the grocery store to buy it they are not even available so that the regular hire fat high sodium versions so this is an issue that does need to be resolved saying that if you are going to have the branding then it needs to cover the varieties of the brand so you need to take a brand when they go to the grocery store and buy the same brand that they are getting the same nutrition. so, just going to finish up shelling this is some research of shoving how many are seen per

year so ages two through 11 and 12 to 17 and then 18 to 49 so you can see the food beverage. this starts in 2002 and you could see that it was fairly steady through 2006. when it appeared what is happening is the marketing during the time between 2008 and 2010 it doubled and that sounds great but it was a much smaller metric.

it's up from four so that is an improvement. fast food stayed the same. then you can see that they are very flat and everything else is going up. the most recent data it is the first time since it started that they are seeing fewer ads than they were before but it has a lot to do with moving away from television and other types of marketing. i want to reiterate the content has gone down as we heard before. others have been kids meals at the major chains from things

like apples and juice, consumption of regular food has dropped so that is another piece of good news and bad one of the big change as w changes we saw t definitely increased with how much it was marketed to kids. the final thing to leave you with if the brand is marketed should every variety be nutritious. the issue of raising the age to 14 and when we are tracking as a field, are we going to say we are paying attention to the purchased ads on tv or use the youth exposure so as a field we need to take a position on that and finally would it be possible to say schools should just be commercial free zones entirely. thank you. [applause]

thanks for starting us off. ..

>> >> marketing is a typical business practice the went to the store with my goddaughter there were no books all covered with coca-cola branding. that is what they what to - - if they want to do with the people purchase that generally speaking are not suffering from the problem so we have to go deeper to think about the exposures we know kids of color particular african-american and latino suffer more from diabetes than their counterparts also getting

extensive exposure for the wrong stuff. select that the data and 84 percent of food and drink advertised to kids on spanish tv is a healthy black kids he twice as many advertisements for sugary drinks so we can see who is being targeted. the other thing is that we have a digital divide in this country. quit holmes a don't have a computer or accessing the most people do have a mobile device she cannot do your homework on there but they will target you with advertising in and to see kids of color have more time than their white

counterparts. so this is another problem that is exasperatingly things. so i will show you what this looks like berger after having a discussion later today. so product means the products themselves mean they are developed for kids and the promotion in their own language not just spanish or english with the language of the use that they can relate to that is but those burgers and lunchables that they were talking about. and the marketing and what

you don't necessarily have a promotion like sponsorship of defense. of the schools of upstream illustrations to help the parents understand what marketing looks like because people don't necessarily think of a vending machine as marketing so that digital aspect makes that more intensive and i will spend my time talking about this. just to put some context think of a tobacco company putting this into a

competition how they capture the youth audience and then look at mcdonald's and snap chat. >> mcdonald's does not just talk redo digital predators out to be one hell of a year. we made headlines on snap chat defers to brand ever to have filters and f-14 thousand + those that are sharing stamps to their networks of friends. it is 308 million viewers. >> so now you see with the line goes down where people are going they're very proud as of the customers sharing

snaps with our messages to their network of friends. there is already confusion about intent that completely goes away for your that editorial that is blurred because it is french french message. with any alert and that is a problem. so now we have a situation midair physically surrounded with increasingly digital always on personalized information to become a brand ambassadors going friend to friend with interesting research with a brain development and the connection with what happens in the digital world and what excites the young people's brains and then to

be any -- included with any type of restrictions. so here is the senior brand manager for mellon do him and he said this will line everything we have done into a hub for youth culture is died minnesota cage transition from the campaign specific approach to delays on approach that is the key. i will show you one of the ads from pepsico that it did for mountain dew that did not appear in television bayou to i find it very disturbing i will sari to show it to you but you should see what they are targeted to audiences that may not be sitting in this room. >> we have them all lined up

. point to them. i don't think i can do this. the ones with forelegs? keep your mouth shut. keep your mouth shut. i cannot do this. mw no. no. no. no. no. >> she is going to do it

estimate by has been said he did know if it was the violence against women or the ratio stereotypes that is worse and series of ads that since have been taken down when pepsico created with the crater there is more to say about did course but it is something you would not see if you were not part of the target audience of we need to understand the whole gamut of what they're doing the i will leave it there now talk more about the other avenues the digital marketing of this is a very popular showing youtube -- youtube the complaint went in today from the citizen for digital center for a violation that they see here and i will explain what they are looking at for. this is long been his nearly

18 minutes long to kents in have a show to put on blindfolds that are given in taste of what ever it is spicy or yankee in dysentery adorable and cute and they have a lot of viewers. keep in mind to the 32nd commercials people were concerned about because the evidence was so strong the incident -- institute of medicine said we should do something. that is not that of the park by this because it goes on so long and the engagement is so when tens which is what the digital landscape is all about. be are so addictive to our television:negative telephone the kids are native to this and a pale lot of attention. so this is called the upper angle's challenge you can see there were 27 million views and it goes on 18

minutes and most of what they're doing is about food. so we have a real problem that we don't know laugh about in terms of the effect of kids that we need some of research but my assumption is if we know 302nd television advertisements have been a factor that i will put my money on the fact is 18 minutes deep impeachments has an even stronger defect. and there is knowledge or the companies would not be doing it but that is proprietary knowledge net the industry doesn't have to go through the institutional review board like we do that the university. with the rapidly changing environment picasso to

target those racial ethnic groups. and to help the parents understand. as they ran around the television so they can say can we get this? so barrett is dade this entanglement. we need a lot more policy. wan and i will show you one last thing then be done. if the son of those females from the coca-cola executives from europe were leaked i am not in favor of hacking and likin but it nonetheless second not take

my eyes off of this. came from a coca-cola executive they are analyzing their policy focus to come to a strategic decision internally. on the left that the access is likely to materialize so when people got excited about was an end of member states people were excited because it was high on the impact picasso it is likely deet materialize. so what i noticed is a bunch of policies are concerned about half to do with food marketing and i circled them for you.

me know and we have suspected it is gratifying that what we have been working on will have a huge impact and to that is all in the upper left-hand corner of the high business impact. alleys right now according to coca-cola it will likely materialize. plan and i will just point out one little thing that marlene talked about the age breakdown you will see a circle on the bottom of this is the band of advertising to children must and will result. that will have a very low impact on their business. pdf that is part of the reason they are willing to do that that circle is much

higher with that definition. so the idea we need to expand the definition definitely needs to be expanded. i look forward to our discussion. [applause] [inaudible conversations] could morning.

i am not a lawyer but a psychologist also because a scientist and work with industry. so i have major conflicts of interest. but only when some of the appetite work brings into the area of policy that we are dragged into the area. so i have some interesting conflicts of interest so moving on i would like to recognize those who are carrying on our policy work in most of this is down to the hard work now 12 for 13 years in this area i show

this slide with no apologies that was truly horrendous but unfortunately we never seen anything like that despite the slide from coca-cola that i became aware of about just on the plane coming over they forded that slide i was going to show as well so television is still a popular way of communication with children particularly under 12 because that is the entry level and get in-house . it is so powerful that everything else is built around. remember their multiple media users using the computer and television at the same time. so with all of the different platforms emerging where

we're operating is becoming incredibly complex. / descent advertising it just means competition in television is less economic as the advertising media. actually advertising is getting cheaper. so now into exposure talk about the data we were stupid enough to keep it to ourselves we recorded 150,000 by 2008 was a very important year and the offense say the food stamp agency published a hasty and support for national level to demand the government take action to be put in

charge in regulation came between 2008 and 2010. the regulation should cover children to the age of 16. this is coding these are all channels popular with children. if we have a look at this foods which are defined as being healthy or unnecessary . read are unhealthy foods that you cannot do without them in your diet. there are profiling systems of whichever one that you use. this is children's television targeted at children.

foods i in fact,, high and sugar, high in salt also look at family television. that is actually much more by a large kids will watch your three hours per week but the family television is 17 hours per week. i am from northwest england little boy is in little girls watch together albany and new more about football than idyllic as sports. three-quarters of sports and remember that advertising around it doesn't include what is on the shirts. but look at music television and popular culture and it two-thirds on that.

this just shows between 2008 and 2014 during the peak viewing time so looking at the time they're not looking at those channels. deregulation is just coming in. again have 50 percent and then 2010 still over 60 percent. regulation has been in two years but still the majority . but if we break down what children are seeing or least when they're most likely to be watching and looked at the top 10 foods, now attend , only one of them is core committee will see

enough fast-food has gone up . this is a regulatory system myself in regulation but the impost system. this is the one that interests me the most. before regulation there was a particular change but look what is happening? plus cat august that is still holiday time. look at the switch of advertising. in his post regulation. so they immerse the child because there are gains with a high score then they post that and they share that through social media than the child of an agent and of

those trends that we did see is that it is about children against the manufacturers. but shows the number of website links placed going up through 2012. if you look at that data 10 years it has been a place. this is just that part of the talking in regulation. despite u.k. regulation children remain exposed from. remember our legislation and is meant to provide complete coverage and most of these are healthy foods because we talked about this earlier what the legislation is based on is the children and

not the total number of hours of viewing so family shows are excluded. and to do a brilliant ranking exercise reading the favorite programs but no. i 26 which was where pants sponge bob? [laughter] it is not popular in our household. [laughter] it was there when they kicked in so 25 more popular programs before regulation was kicking in because if you did not advertise the experience experience then the advertisement falls upside. so with prosperity to see that in other territories. europe and asia and the

holiday targeting we see that in ajax as low but it is worth tracking the phenomenon. is still think he is / tv is key but it is the entry point. live but it depends and without all of that added is very difficult to tell so self regulation is inferior if the imposed regulation is not functioning properly. >> so with a little bit about power and will not talk so much so for those areas but but i want to start with this life. i like this because it

speaks to the relationship of food advertising and child abuse city. -- child could obesity. look at the consequences over in lifetime. looking to commercial tv viewing. you can remove those effects of exercise and the relationship remains. and to the number of the of studies that got us into this mess. but 25 years i have spent studying society. but it became very clear

that obesity was not down to the deficits of biology so much as the interaction or the failure to cut with the food environment so i have a hypothesis that is very old that we can see the differences. now i just happen to choose the foot advertisements i happened to choose children because once they bring other people they guess what we are doing laugh laugh so why set out to do this study. first of all, we have a similar design ratio the advertisements in and let the kids eat so first of all, we ask the kids how many food items to remember?

that is the of hypophysis proven. but when we actually look at what they ate, all the kids over 80 years old all switched from the less energy dense healthier food to the energy dense unhealthy foods as a we replicate this many times in the very early days not very many people are operating then we are attacked by the advertising industry.

and leonard wasn't addressed to me but to my bosses but then colleagues start defending his translations of articles condemning think there's something in there so we stay in the area despite not being poured we have been appalled 10 policy areas it would not recommend which who is in this area or the european network for the prevention of marketing to unhealthy foods and beverages to children but looking from the international and gold. so what you can see is what

they eat and then the effect is greater. so all kids are full verbal the children respond more. so i put in the slide in my grad students sent them to me and i will judge showed this team you quickly that first edison dressing with normal white children but of very similar study to west but instead of choosing the food they put them on the scanner to like the choices that they need and what we

found is after me gave them the the adverts day made a different choice to the things that they liked based on taste so they concede the areas of the brain within the children's brains with the component of appetite. that is interesting it is more of cognitive control with the ability to resist food messages and they will have a lot of difficulty they feel the food is said control of them but what

happened a show negative series of photos and the obese children showed that response to the food adverts i have great difficulty showing that response there is a different deficit there those that are promoted to with celebrity endorsement want and will give you an example of each fighting that is good to give an example of each. so first of all, deer now to gary is? the famous english soccer player?

he is a famous soccer player who played in europe and he is becoming more successful people. i'm on it. he has gone into commentary with bbc one british television when all of the games that showed a preview with the of highlights. we have less similar study we the show of clap and we

sell it because that is what we recognize. we showed another groupware pom so one labeled workers at the supermarket the kids did not like the home brand. will obviously what happened and they ate more crisps they would dramatically change even though it is the same. interestingly we got the same effect from the group from presenting much of the day and the reason is they

have the power outside of the adverts why would you pay them money otherwise? you don't have to pay so much money with your development but you do pay a lot for the licensed characters like track -- or even frozen to breakfast cereals here named frozen? i had no idea. so lysol this about 40 times he was very keen on the idea that you could get breakfast cereal one but this was

interesting in which they put those licenses characters on packaging or they didn't but what they found when licensed characters are on the packaging children's taste and taste preferences and also what they chose so those licensed characters to have any effect. we did with brand equity characters like tony the tiger deal have the haribo bears over here quick. >> we put them on foods and then we did not. but also we switched them around and put them on the wrong food. what happened? could doesn't matter it could be in progress went with the food but when we put them on the increase to

the preference for the food. irrespective of what it was even if they did not associate with it. that is of power of the character to be on the food so think about these devices and the effects that they have. so as the most direct means to access as the promotional activities they have demonstrable effects of the food choice in children and that which we no overwhelming and widely get those exaggerated response

and celebrity endorsement of brand equity is not the only component to but to operate beyond the adverts. punish did reinforce those values want to independently influence the behavior. the devil finish with this director general from the who prevent diseases go against the business interest of a powerful economic operators would of the biggest challenges we face in health promotion. i like to talk about the group we are working with the school in liverpool it will be great to have international coordination if you haven't met her before she is a force of nature i would encourage you to have for speaking one of her events in the future and it is important but also the

potential conflict of interest. i am a scientist do work to produce healthy products but coming into this area i realize the horrendous conflict of interest in i am very alarmed with the operation of business that there is no policy work that has any input from industry whatsoever. if you see that slide from coca-cola remember industry is most notable in europe now messiness light i beginning to wonder. laugh laugh thanks for your attention have a good day. [applause]

>> we have a lot to digest. i think we can all agree that is a fantastic way to start the day. >> i will get us going with the first question open to the audience, we heard a lot and it is overwhelming for what must be done so my question is what is on your wish list? if you could pick a couple of things policymakers could lead take away as the most important thing to be done in of your research perspective what would those speak quick. >> in we had a change of government in the u.k. but

it was ripped up because of those economic challenges of the food industry of its still push on the efforts before 9:00. that is the policy we have been pushing it is simple there others like it with the message it is easy to communicate with. >> i was still stick with increasing the age of the definition of children if there was a way to have official definition from other organizations that have put forth if we had one here that never betty had to follow so then you include those in the audience then makes that% the of much more effective because when you allow the other kids and counted in a cover is even

more shows than what you were saying. >> please think the age of imitation is very important for the healthy eating research and recommendations with the data behind them makes the argument very clear that is important but i am also troubled by the fact in her presentation she pointed out the companies have the ability to make products that our healthier. so why don't they? if they could sell those to rio's -- doritos that is good for the schools they should make a good for everybody so when industry is asked to come together.

and is trickier and i did not get into with but behind the digital marking -- marketing is big data. but what that mean is individuals are sold one by one so the ads can be personally delivered to them there are huge privacy concerns with that and people are working on privacy issues and the ftc has engaged as we learn more about that. we have no protection for children in the digital space except for the privacy protection act for those 12 and under. there is a gap pennis to be filled editing is a murky area and it is hard to explain but essentially we have the unfair exchange by

clicking yes you have soldiers health and that is a fair exchange with. >> and have one more follow-up question then we'll open to the audience. how do you as people navigate or protect your children? what can we do or what do we do given what we've just learned? >> i don't have kids i think what you say is what can parents do? parents are responsible course what they put on the table but it is completely unfair to hold parents responsible for the billion

dollar onslaught of marketing that comes to their kids out of earshot. and the thing i would like to see parents get help with this to become active and vocal with their kids are targeted in this way. >> there have been steady showing risk of television in the bedroom so that was uneasy insert to the question. but it is so much harder now . been now have telephones and the i pad so it is virtually impossible to keep the media out of their rooms but that is one place they could try to have influence. >> i had a child in 2011 my

best played hand went out the window laugh laugh this very difficult. you have the option of the bbc that is no appetizing material or children's channels. but is in as a child goes to school and he is in contact but then they want to watch those and then bring those products to school they are good about what they want to be to. we do not have the basis entry of food companies that would shock me. but i think we have a little bit more control. because kids are getting very but you have to watch

what he is looking at. >> had the lead to research quick. >> argue asking flight to do the children have the shot over what their parents by? >> if it becomes a battleground and then doing interviews with the focus groups answer vase they feel you have to pick your battles and oftentimes that doesn't seem like a big enough battle to pick so they're leaving the children

to influence the brands that they abide by this month negative by. >> thanks for the work the large doing but i have a question for lori about the experience of marketing they pointed out? so talk more why black and latino youths are targeted so amazed seem counter intuitive but they would come from lower-income families with and not have as much disposable income but i am wondering if you think it has to do with access with the money that they have they spend more on unhealthy foods or something else going on. >> 18th there are big markets so there is in, disparity.

that is why you are targeted . so the balance of what they are is where the food choices are but what comes to mind is what is it like to come through parts of this city with those highly concentrated areas. i was talking to somebody earlier i went to high-school in the sanford ando valley in was pretty white and our history teacher was disgusted with our privilege lightness to put this on a bus to show was glossy angeles and he took us to east los angeles and that was the first time ever saw a billboard in spanish. also the first time probably

i saw billboards on the sides of apartment buildings . in some neighborhoods, people have advertising they cannot turn away from because of for they live for what the of -- what it looks like and that its data sent bear in that we're held responsible. >> those wonderful talks left me despondent laugh laugh that tidal wave of advertising to doesn't seem like there is a way to stop it. so what did you don't with later is self regulation has failed in a the government steps and what would come up

later but in then to have that neckcloth cover-up one as you are much more likely so go apply there when it comes to the advertisements that could be a more effective way is more cost-effective, more of them are migrating over. >> i do think that is a dead atf and the challenges some

but there are necessarily database i would even know why but like macdonell. author that is we are behind all the changes are happening the companies they tried to track this the -- but to make sure we applied the same standards across all of the different mechanisms. >> i think you are right rico and say certain products would be off-limits because of the nutrition standards that has to be worked out but there are people thinking about that. also is easy to reduce marketing to promotion but remember supermarkets in the

biggest change of dollars for certain things in the checkout aisle design for public-interest there is greater information about that so think about of product to sell for the reformulation and the place and we have to be vocal as citizens to say this is not acceptable so our agencies understand what is problematic. >> des don't have anything more but i do agree we should stop looking and if we're going to regulate or separate it is marketing. it all comes from marketing with those same principles and guidelines.

is the ed joined so they're doing a little different but with that responsibility of other agencies but with children both sides of the political spectrum they want to protect and that is really get traction with the press people you would not normally deal with and that can be very powerful they're only interested of sorts can it have something to do with the defective force with tobacco use against teenagers say you do think

that advertising is helpful to make that? pdf. >> i fainted could be but you could not consider that an isolation so few take california with a powerful and very effective counter advertising campaign to help people understand the industry is not your friend we had billboards up and down the state they were paid for by a staff put tobacco control programs in every county in the state where people worked on the ground to have all full range of policies and programs that they were seeking. said the campaign was part of that to you have to put that in combination with others. >> remember how much spent

on food advertising and public health. if we have those widgets to get of mechanics of advertising to work with those social norms and aspirations the same way that the markers do it is just a matter of scale sore they forced to have free time for advertising? >> and to make the effort for healthy products and then invest the money. >> but it is a different direction to be effective and. >> a key concept is whether the advertising is misleading or deceptive or

if for children that could be inherent you do not speak to that directly but i interested of your thoughts and research. >> one says parts of a healthy diet to say if you give them this then children could read that to say it is the essential to a healthy diet but probably not. so there are some simple things like that. >> jennifer has written on that is inherently deceptive because of their inability to understand the commercial choice of intent signed this isn't sold on health of friendship and popularity here life will be better in many will be popular. that is very powerful if you understand that.

>> thinks so much to the three of you oat for a fantastic event. [applause]

one warned of. >> and also to back down from the president and pushing congress with their presence with congress. >> it is not possible to only talk about this as

societal to throw them out and dehumanize them but that has already been accounted for. so there is a real problem. . . >> good morning everyone and welcome to the institute.

i'm the deputy director at the institute and i would like to welcome you both to the institute and to the center forr today's presentation on the 86% opinion polling in russia. i want to begin by thanking the cosponsor for today's event the institute for european, russian studies at george washington university we are pleased they were able to cosponsor today's event and i would like to welcome c-span and we look forward to watching the program going forward. it remained high and the popularity rating is referred to as the 86% russia and the commentators that we are very pleased today to have the

director of the center to come and talk about the popularity is. speaking today in a private capacity not as the director of the center among the other titles he is the editor-in-chief of the magazine russian public opinion harold as well as a lecturer at the school of economics. he has won numerous awards and is the director of one of the major sources of independent public opinion and research in russia. it is my pleasure to introduce today speaking in russian so i ask foasked for those that need translation to use your headset.

>> translator: how can you ever conduct the poll -- for the pressure on the public opinion from all sides to undermine the

system as well as the activists [inaudible] because the very idea created the understanding that was going on.

[inaudible] [inaudible] every movement more frequently.

it shows that it combines a number amherst into the country. [inaudible] if you look for the last 20 years, you can see it drop in the 1990s.

[inaudible] its dramatic -- i'm sorry. >> translator: when putin came to power and said we are going to kill all our enemies [inaudible]

later it depended on this to conduct a however in the situation we are growing by about 30% a year.

[inaudible] abruptly the regime can secure it stability and we were observing a general situation with disappointment particularly emotional middle class all the

way to [inaudible] it's radically changed. how does that work. you can see that it was reaching the sentiments in the propaganda and later we have to compare

with the lowest but this is the total control. 40% said they don't like to see the putin candidacy and they are tired of waiting. let me remind you the

demonstrations that came out [inaudible] the party popularity there was the moment his slogans for supported by 45% right up to

that credible and aggressive campaign and the annexation of crimea and the excitement. the rating as you can see is all the way to 88% which perfectly matches. later he stay on the same level slightly decreasing. it was quite different because

unlike the current crisis which is a systematic crisis and the economic situation naturally [inaudible] by the time that putin came to power but they were controlling 26% of all now controls the

state sector of the economy has increased the number [inaudible] they dramatically cnge with the drop of the prices and income which reflects the

middle-class [inaudible] all of the trust of the government so in general it was the assessment about 13%. the [inaudible] it was a much more dramatic drop however it wasn't critical and

it was transferred to the lower level of the government. you can see it goes down. they provoke the legislators in the assessment roughly 62 to 30% but the most important thing is the western sentiment. so the ukraine propaganda i'm not going to analyze it because

we won't have enough time there was not so much against ukraine but the policy of integration modeled from the human rights. they were directed against the opposition [inaudible]

this is a very important factor because [inaudible] the policy was reinforced. they adopted a further civil society and introduced the persecution of the position. this is when the legislation was

used to and they conduct the pro- u.s. policy in the channels of the so-called color revolutions. [inaudible] speak to [inaudible]

the negative approach the end of friends was the political approach into this element is the very construction of the regime's and the ability to bring the society in because this is the goal of the domestic

policy of kremlin. this doesn't mean that was published [inaudible] few believe that it completed the provisions for one of the

members of the style government. by the time it decreases again, a significant share of people against putin [inaudible] baby it is correct to encourage bathat.

but to me it is more significant and if it is true, the difference [inaudible] the lives and country keep getting better. it's one of [inaudible] this is from a person that has learned from the oppressive state to lead with the state and to display loyalty but in

reality to talk about his or her own personal problems. the strategy of the physical survival and they have an idea of what their regime is about to. he is not even a monarch, therefore they have an idea

about the regime system. as i said before, there's the propaganda that was brought to the level of the great war. it raised the self assured us in self-confidence and we have shown everybody started to respect us.

speak t [inaudible] it's jumped twice. it was extremely painful and today was revealed the self assurance. [inaudible] if we look at the components it is in the national interest

which is important because the activity is modest and in the fight the economics goes down, which doesn't make it more popular. in all of this symbolic area there is the foreign policy.

it's different in the environment of russia and the russian civilization against the rest of the world this makes sense to assess it [inaudible] also to raise the level of the perceptions during the last few years we are dealing with a dramatic rebirth of many soviet

ideas and perceptions and returned to threturnto the old l of the economy because it secures the stability but also people do not remember but believe that it is some kind of guideline.

it seems quite a model [inaudible] the current system is less attractive. [inaudible] >> translator: there is no need to make professional comments but it's important the united states is the enemy number one in the framework in

the struggle for russia and united states plays the role brought back a here you can see the approach has grown a lot and the unfriendly nation was always

led by the republics which opted for information then came ukraine. [inaudible]

[inaudible] it carries the burden to present as a victim which allows the domestic policy to be an outside defender but what is also important is the best removes

all the claims against the government and the need to be patient and the most important factor here is we can enjoy everything as long as there is no major. this is the illustration and finally, in order to understand the [inaudible]

dohowever, it is according to creating the oppression and plays a more significant role in the international area in this brings respect from other nations. this is what people expected from putting.

the most important element is the march [inaudible] anti-western confrontation. in the 1999, 65% felt the southern tower that had been turned into the original power at the moment of this new propaganda in 2008 when there was the war of georgia or the annexation in the great power status and this dramatically increases the the economic and

political issues. the changed the attitudes. my time is running out and that's why i'm going to stop here. >> thank you very much. there is much to think about and numbers to contemplate about in your talk. i will ask the first question. my first question goes to the naturnature about the opinions e old soviet system and if you

could address the question when you talk about the rising number of support i was curious if you could identify when you talk about the support for the soviet system whether you could break that down by age groups. there's ththere is the support d system from those that live in the soviet system or is the support for the system equally spread among all areas of society including young people?

[inaudible] [inaudible] in this moment, our research is getting a strong number more than anybody else. it's from 7% to 54%. it was from the collective

system pursued in a very medical fashion. after the crisis [inaudible] it brought greater disappointment [inaudible] redirected a the union

[inaudible] kept using this argument all the time. the [inaudible] this number hasn't been changed for 25 years. [inaudible] more critical of those that

lived at the end. young people who were not familiar [inaudible] related to the idea of the superpower, and this is very significant to those in the remote provinces and therefore

the [inaudible] and it's also so c-span can get the feed as well so please identify yourself and speak into the microphone like i am right now.

>> [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible] and one in particular is different. i believe that there is one to justify to understand our data if people do not take into account the elements. this is exactly like the united

states. for me it is the transponders of a liberal journalist idea. people are not shy or afraid to answer the. the. the society has been reasoned to which extent it has an impact but there are differences. for example, the technique gives

10% more regarding the face-to-face interview at then there is an element of trust and people start to look after the [inaudible] however it is an opinion that

anything when we ask are they afraid or not they've been from about ten to 18%. therefore this is the problem and the collection of governing information.

>> i would like to ask a question looking a bit into the future. one of the issues the government is facing is the need for the reform of the pension system which is very generous by the international standards and extremely expensive given the russian government finances. they've proposed some significant restrictions on age and benefits. the tension is between the state and people in russia and it is the primary means by which much of the older population survives. if between now and the next presidential election there were

a significant alteration in the system even announced they've not actuall actually apply actu, how do you think this would affect the broad public attitudes towards the state? [inaudible] will be painful to words the population the number last year

it was 4% and then with 16%. they are going to survive at the expense of the regime as low. at the same time they are very slow in the replacement of the average wage that was about 70% and it is now 32% which it is hard to survive a.

[inaudible] >> these bacteria defend short questions. [laughter] steve crowley at the institute i just want to follow on the question how about the support for putin how does this breakdown by social group? we heard through the protest of the professional class folks in moscow and st. petersburg he seems to claim the support of the working class into the industrial hinterlands and so on. what does the data say?

>> speak of why do they accept? the first one was very interesting.

under the environment of the regime. but the question is [inaudible] there is a quarter that has no opinion. it was interesting to because there was a new trend that started from 2015 [inaudible]

[inaudible] the majority starts to fade aw away. there's this distinction of the so-called low intensity of the western sentiment that people

are not willing to pay the price and if the situation is going to change dramatically come it can change very quickly. [inaudible] it should make dramatic, radical breakup of the change and then everything is going to collapse and it will not play a role.

people should become aware that it doesn't provide to bring back the success of. did i answer the question [inaudible] it is in the circumstances.

they support the robust age group decreasing in this part. if we check the social segments. it was about 70 plus. this support was about 25, 28%

and specifically the russian middle class ..

[inaib