You Eat What You See

WSJ.Com is free for today only, so I thought I'd be appropriate to write a post about a Wall Street Journal article.

A few weeks ago, I posted about Kellogg's decision to stop advertising Froot Loops, and other unhealthy items, to kids 12 and under. For a number of reasons, I thought it was ridiculous-- A) Fruit Loops are great and not all that unhealthy B) Shouldn't it be up to parents to serve healthy food? C) How do you regulate who sees a commercial? D) How big a difference do commercials actually make?

I stand by the first three points, but the last point may turn out to be a bit shaky. An article in today's Journal (can I call it that), alleges that food commercials make a significant impact on kid's eating habits.

The article cited a study conducted by researchers in Liverpool. Before watching cartoons, kids aged 5-11 were either shown commercials for toys or food. After watching the cartoons, they were offered an array of snacks.

Guess who ate more?

The kids who saw the food commercials ate significantly more snacks.

"From an evolutionary standpoint, if you see it you better eat it because you don't know when it's not going to be there anymore," said Dr. David A. Levitsky, a Psychology Professor at Cornell. "What the food companies have learned very well is how to take advantage of that process and get us to eat more by showing us food."

Sorry, I have to go now. I have some Pepsi, Taco Bell, and Subway to scarf down.

(Note: The above image is supposed to be of a Budweiser Frog. I wonder if after watching that commercial, someone subsequently ate a frog.)