Latest news with #Boyland
Hans India
12-05-2025
- Health
- Hans India
Just 5 min exposure to junk food ads can coax kids to consume more calories daily
Just five minutes of advertising of junk foods -- essentially high in saturated fats, sugar, and/or salt (HFSS) -- is enough to coax children and adolescents to consume significantly more calories during the day, according to a study. The study showed that 7-15-year-olds with just five minutes of ad exposure, regardless of the type of media advertising, can consume on average 130 kcals per day extra, which is equivalent to the calories in two slices of bread. "Our findings offer crucial novel information on the extent, nature, and impact of unhealthy food marketing via different types of media on young people's eating behaviour," said lead author Professor Emma Boyland from the University of Liverpool in the UK. "Even short exposure to the marketing of foods high in fat, salt, and sugar can drive excess calorie consumption and potentially weight gain, particularly in young people who are more susceptible to advertising and whose eating patterns influence their lifelong health," Boyland added. The study, based on a randomised crossover trial of 240 volunteers between the ages of 7 and 15 years, is being presented at the European Congress on Obesity (ECO) in Malaga, Spain. The analysis found that following exposure to HFSS food ads, children consumed more snacks (+58.4 kcals), more lunch (+72.5 kcals), and more food overall (snack and lunch combined (+130.90 kcals) than after exposure to non-food ads. "Our results show that unhealthy food marketing leads to sustained increases in caloric intake in young people at a level sufficient to drive weight gain over time,' Boyland said. Unhealthy weight gain in adolescents may lead to a host of health issues, including obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and cancer. The study will help in the design of urgent restrictive food marketing policies that can protect children's health, said the team.
Daily Mirror
10-05-2025
- Health
- Daily Mirror
Just five minutes of exposure to junk food advertising makes children eat more
Junk food advertising loophole revealed as experts warn children have favourite fast food logos for outlets like McDonalds, KFC and Burger King even by the age of five Scientists have revealed how just five minutes of exposure to junk food advertising causes children to consume more calories later that day. Research has shown how even adverts which show a familiar fast food brand logo - but no food product - cause kids to eat more of any food they are given. The study involved 240 children aged seven to 15 at schools across Merseyside and is being presented at the European Obesity Congress in Malaga, Spain. It has sparked warnings that marketers are becoming more sophisticated in advertising junk food to children. Experts warn the study exposes a serious loophole in the Government's planned ban on junk food TV adverts before 9pm, which comes into force in October. The research looked at the power of brands including McDonald's, KFC, Burger King, Domino's, Kelloggs, Walkers, Cadbury and Ben & Jerry's. Study lead Emma Boyland, a professor of food marketing and child health at Liverpool University, said: 'This is the first study to show that brand-only food advertising effects what children eat, where the advert just shows branding elements like logos, rather than specific food products. For the first time we've shown that that type of advertising, which is becoming more frequent does affect children's food intake. 'It just shows the strength of the brand imagery, that in many cases are very familiar to children from a very young age, children are able to identify brands and have special preferences for particular products or fast food outlets etc. before they start school.' Children involved in the trial were, on two different occasions, shown five minutes of food-related and non-food adverts. After each exposure, they were offered snacks such as grapes or chocolate buttons, and, a while later, trays of lunch food with savoury, sweet and healthy items. Those who saw a five minute junk food advert consumed 130 more calories a day and the effect was the same for adverts featuring specific food products or with only branding. The Government confirmed in December that a 9pm watershed will be introduced for TV adverts featuring junk food products, along with restrictions on paid online adverts. It claimed the measures would prevent thousands of cases of childhood obesity by removing around 7.2 billion calories per year from the diets of UK children. Prof Boyland said the Advertising Standards Authority had yet to set out final guidance but brand-only advertising is expected to be exempt. She added that this type of content, which seeks to more subtly create a positive impression of brands, was becoming increasingly popular. Prof Boyland said: 'This research suggests that we need to look at what's happening in the media and advertising trends, and that is certainly towards a greater emphasis on brands and creating positive associations with positive attributes like happiness, positive emotions and so on.' Katharine Jenner, director of the Obesity Health Alliance, said: 'Food advertising is driving excess calorie intake in children. From October, new restrictions will limit unhealthy food adverts on TV before 9pm and online at any time - a vital step forward that will protect children from the worst offenders. But loopholes remain. 'Brands will still be able to advertise to young people even without showing specific products, on billboards and at bus stops, and children living with overweight or obesity are especially vulnerable. 'Small reductions in calorie intake can lead to meaningful improvements in children's health. If the government is serious about ending junk food advertising to children, they must close the loopholes that will allow companies to keep bombarding them.' Children ate 58 calories more in snacks and 73 calories more at lunchtime after being exposed to junk food adverts. The additional calories combined were equivalent to extra two slices of bread every day and experts are warning that all adds up. Prof Boyland added: 'We also showed that children don't just eat more immediately following food advertising, they actually ate more at the lunch meal as well, a couple of hours after they had seen the advertising. 'This led to an overall increased consumption of 130 calories in the day, just based on five minutes of advertising exposure which of course is much less than children would typically be seeing on a normal day. That's a substantial uplift in calorie intake that over time, if repeated, would clearly lead to weight gain in young people. RCPCH Officer for Health Improvement Dr Helen Stewart said: 'Childhood obesity is stubbornly high, with children in the most deprived areas facing rates more than twice as high as their peers. Paediatricians recognise that tackling this crisis is impossible without also introducing necessary measures such as regulations on the food industry. 'We call on the government to implement the junk food marketing ban as planned, and without further delay. Reducing children's exposure to unhealthy food advertising is a crucial step in curbing rising obesity levels. Every child should be given the chance to grow up healthy and happy.' A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: "This government has taken bold action to end junk food ads targeted at children on TV and online, which will reduce the number living with obesity by 20,000, and deliver health benefits to the economy worth £2 billion. 'We are encouraging the industry to focus on healthier options, by allowing companies to advertise healthier alternatives in identified categories. Through our Plan for Change, we will shift the focus from sickness to prevention, reducing the burden of obesity on public services and the NHS.'
New York Times
11-02-2025
- Sport
- New York Times
The Merseyside derby dissected: A (polite) chat between our Everton and Liverpool experts
After a false start in December, Goodison Park is preparing for one last slice of Merseyside derby history tomorrow. The old stadium, Everton's home since 1892, welcomes Liverpool for the final time in a fixture rearranged from two months ago, when bad weather forced a postponement. It will be an emotional occasion, but the sporting stakes are high for both teams, with Liverpool eying a nine-point lead at the top of the Premier League and Everton anxious to maintain recent momentum under returning manager David Moyes. In the spirit of the 'Friendly Derby', we asked our Everton correspondent Patrick Boyland and Liverpool writer Andy Jones to analyse the big issues. Boyland: The rivalry is clearly still there. How can it not be when they share a city and the two grounds are separated only by Stanley Park? It is a cliche, but families are split in their allegiances and the game will dominate discussion this week. But Everton have had so many problems in recent seasons — some existential — that there has been little time to worry about events at Anfield. Advertisement When your own house is in danger of falling down, you simply don't have the headspace to concern yourself with what's happening across the road. Jones: With the exception of the actual matches, Everton have been none of Liverpool's business in recent years with both sides battling at different ends of the table. Due to their neighbours' struggles, the most pressing question Liverpool supporters have had is whether they wanted their rivals to be relegated. Did they want the derby, or did they want a good laugh? While Liverpool have got so much right in recent years, Everton have got plenty wrong — but with their owner situation finally sorted, the red half of Merseyside will be watching to see if their fortunes improve. That said, derby day remains a unique and special occasion. Families are divided and bragging rights mean everything. Liverpool will want revenge for last year's Goodison defeat and the chance to win the last contest at the home of the enemy is a huge incentive. Boyland: At the time of the initial postponement, I'd have been tempted to say Liverpool. I certainly got a sense that some at Everton felt the extreme weather conditions back in December could have worked in their favour, and Liverpool also had more than their fair share of injury problems. I'm slightly less sure on that front now, though. Liverpool may be in a better place (particularly on the injury front) but Everton are, too, under David Moyes. The hope that had ebbed away in the latter part of his predecessor Sean Dyche's tenure has started to return, Everton are playing better, and the bonds between the team and the fanbase are starting to heal. The whole atmosphere around the club has shifted, and that feels important — particularly on nights like these. Advertisement Jones: Liverpool were set to be without several key players for the postponed fixture. Alexis Mac Allister was suspended while Alisson, Conor Bradley, Ibrahima Konate, Kostas Tsimikas, Federico Chiesa and Diogo Jota were all set to be absent through injury. Slot's side were also coming off the back of a demanding 3-3 draw with Newcastle United. The 12.30pm kick-off following an intense Wednesday fixture that ended in disappointment after a last-minute equaliser was conceded, presented a potential banana skin. This time, Liverpool will arrive well rested after Slot fielded a weakened side in the FA Cup defeat against Plymouth Argle. The injury list is much smaller, too, with only Joe Gomez out and Trent Alexander-Arnold a doubt. Had Dyche still been in charge — even if he did make Liverpool's life difficult with Burnley and Everton — the answer would be clear. However, his departure, the return of Moyes and the uplift that has provided make Everton feel like a very different proposition. Boyland: It has to be Mohamed Salah, doesn't it? At 32, he looks better than ever — a regular goalscorer and creator. Everton will also have an eye on Cody Gakpo on the other side. The Dutchman, a former Everton transfer target during his days at PSV, is another to have taken it up a notch this season. Jones: The obvious answer would be Dominic Calvert-Lewin, who seems to save some of his best performances in an Everton shirt for this fixture. His excellent display last season — where he dominated Konate — set the tone for victory. The fact he will be unavailable feels significant. Of those who will be involved, derby newcomer Iliman Ndiaye is my pick. He is the type of player who can ignite the Goodison crowd with a driving run or piece of skill and will provide a stern test for whoever lines up at right-back for Liverpool. The 24-year-old feels like Moyes' potential game-changer. Advertisement Boyland: The obvious answer is in both boxes, but I'm intrigued about what happens down Everton's left. It's Salah vs Vitalii Mykolenko, provided the Ukrainian shakes off a calf problem to feature on Wednesday, and Ndiaye against Alexander-Arnold or Bradley. Ndiaye is Everton's most gifted attacker and capable of game-changing moments but also puts in a huge shift defensively. Mykolenko has, on the whole, performed well against Salah but will need to do so again if Everton are to stand a chance. Jones: I'm inclined to agree with Paddy's suggestion of both boxes, but from a Liverpool perspective this comes down to winning the physical battle, particularly in midfield. Last season, former manager Jurgen Klopp's side were bullied, with Calvert-Lewin setting the tone. Slot repeatedly referenced controlled aggression and work rate as being crucial before the postponed fixture in December. Liverpool's midfield has become so pivotal under Dutchman and they will be tasked with winning second balls, being on the front foot and outworking their opposition number. If they do that, they should earn control and allow their team to dominate. Boyland: I'll miss the atmosphere and needle. Nothing unites Everton fans like a common foe, and the derby atmosphere always somehow seems more raw at Goodison than it is at Anfield. The noise during last season's 2-0 win was incredible. Don't just take my word for it — check out Gary Neville's post-match paean to the old stadium. What Everton supporters would give for another like that on Goodison's derby send-off. Jones: Winning there. There are few better feelings as a Liverpool supporter than walking into your neighbours' backyard and leaving with a victory. The problem is Liverpool have not done that often enough in recent times, despite often being heavy favourites. Advertisement There is that old-fashioned feel and crazed atmosphere you get from a Goodison derby. It has become rarer to find in the modern game and will be missed, even if it has hindered Liverpool in the past. Traditional stadiums are harder to come by at the top level, and with the crowd on top of the players, they can provide that vital edge — which is what makes it so sweet when it can be silenced. Boyland: During the design process, Everton and their American architect Dan Meis looked for ways to replicate the Goodison atmosphere at their new dockside stadium. That is a difficult task, of course, but the steep stands and extra capacity (around 13,000 more seats) should help. In a broader sense, the move also gives Everton an opportunity to kick on again. They need the extra revenue after years of concerns over profit and sustainability rules. The club's austerity era could finally be drawing to an end, and that gives them a fighting chance under new owners. Jones: A key question when a team moves home is about how their atmosphere will transfer to a new modern stadium. As Paddy mentioned, it has been designed with the hope of replicating Goodison, but that remains unknown. There will always be an atmosphere on derby day regardless of the venue, but will it feel as intimidating for Liverpool? Only time will tell. In a broader sense, the financial benefits coupled with the recent takeover will give Everton a stronger footing to begin to compete higher up the table again. The gap between these two teams is huge, but this should allow them to start closing it by moving away from being an annual relegation-threatened side. Boyland: The table dictates that Liverpool are favourites here, even at Goodison, but I'll go for a 1-1 draw. Advertisement Jones: As regular readers of my contributions to these discussions will know, pessimism often dictates my prediction. If Liverpool play the opponent and not the occasion then they should win — but there's a part of me that can't shake the feeling Everton won't lose the final derby at Goodison… I'll go 2-1 to Liverpool.
