Food marketing in Irish schools

Abstract

Purpose
Schools are thought to represent a growing marketing opportunity for food advertisers in many countries. Marketing of unhealthy food to children is linked to the increased prevalence of obesity worldwide. This paper aims to explore ways in which schools respond to commercial activity around food marketing.

Design/methodology/approach
A census survey in the Republic of Ireland was employed to investigate the extent of commercial activity in post‐primary schools in Ireland, with a focus on food marketing. School policies related to commercialism and promoting healthy living to children and respondents' attitudes to these issues were explored.

Findings
Food sales are a prevalent form of commercial activity in schools with 81.4 per cent operating shops or canteens that sell snacks, 44.7 per cent drinks vending machines and 28.0 per cent snack vending machines. A total of 38 per cent of schools reported that they accept for‐profit sponsorship and the primary reason was inadequate funding for equipment (91.6 per cent), especially sports equipment. The majority (87.3 per cent) agreed with establishing a national voluntary code of practice in relation to industry sponsorship, which is recommended by the Irish National Taskforce on Obesity. Few schools have policies that refer to commercial sponsorship (7.0 per cent), but schools would welcome receiving guidance and support in developing such policies.

Practical implications
The extent of commercial activity in schools and the possible effect on children and their families need to be disseminated widely. A mechanism for monitoring the type and volume of commercialism, and food marketing in particular, in schools in Ireland is necessary.

Originality/value
These findings provide a baseline to monitor the future direction of commercialism in Irish schools.

Full text

Food marketing in Irish schools
Colette Kelly, Pauline Clerkin and Saoirse Nic Gabhainn
Health Promotion Research Centre, National University of Ireland,
Galway, Ireland, and
Maureen Mulvihill
Irish Heart Foundation, Dublin, Ireland
Abstract
Purpose – Schools are thought to represent a growing marketing opportunity for food advertisers in
many countries. Marketing of unhealthy food to children is linked to the increased prevalence of
obesity worldwide. This paper aims to explore ways in which schools respond to commercial activity
around food marketing.
Design/methodology/approach – A census survey in the Republic of Ireland was employed to
investigate the extent of commercial activity in post-primary schools in Ireland, with a focus on food
marketing. School policies related to commercialism and promoting healthy living to children and
respondents’ attitudes to these issues were explored.
Findings – Food sales are a prevalent form of commercial activity in schools with 81.4 per cent
operating shops or canteens that sell snacks, 44.7 per cent drinks vending machines and 28.0 per cent
snack vending machines. A total of 38 per cent of schools reported that they accept for-profit
sponsorship and the primary reason was inadequate funding for equipment (91.6 per cent), especially
sports equipment. The majority (87.3 per cent) agreed with establishing a national voluntary code of
practice in relation to industry sponsorship, which is recommended by the Irish National Taskforce on
Obesity. Few schools have policies that refer to commercial sponsorship (7.0 per cent), but schools
would welcome receiving guidance and support in developing such policies.
Practical implications – The extent of commercial activity in schools and the possible effect on
children and their families need to be disseminated widely. A mechanism for monitoring the type and
volume of commercialism, and food marketing in particular, in schools in Ireland is necessary.
Originality/value – These findings provide a baseline to monitor the future direction of
commercialism in Irish schools.
Keywords Schools, Food products, Obesity, Ireland, Marketing opportunities
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Childhood obesity is a major public health problem, particularly in the Western World.
The consequences of childhood obesity are both short-term and long-term, and include
bullying, low-self esteem, asthma, persistence of obesity into adulthood, CVD risk
factors and social and economic disadvantage (Reilly et al., 2003). Currently it is
suggested that more than 300,000 children are overweight or obese in Ireland and that
rates are probably rising at a rate of 10,000 per year (Department of Health and
Children, 2005a). More recent data from the Republic of Ireland show that 23 per cent of
boys and 28 per cent of girls (aged 4-16 years) are overweight or obese (Whelton et al.,
2007). Trend data illustrate an increase in prevalence, presenting a major public health
problem for Ireland (O’Neill et al., 2007).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0965-4283.htm
The authors would like to thank the school Principals and staff who took part in the survey.
The survey was funded by the Irish Heart Foundation.
HE
110,5
336
Health Education
Vol. 110 No. 5, 2010
pp. 336-350
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0965-4283
DOI 10.1108/09654281011068504

Changes in the social, economic and physical environment have resulted in
increased availability of energy dense foods, a decrease in physical activity and a more
sedentary lifestyle. The emergence of this obesogenic environment has been associated
with the increasing prevalence of overweight and obesity world-wide (Doak et al., 2006;
Swinburn and Egger, 2002). The marketing and advertising of energy-dense,
micronutrient-poor foods and beverages to children has been identified as one of the
many factors contributing to obesity in children (WHO, 2003). This paper focuses
specifically on in-school marketing in Ireland and associated factors such as school
food policies and attitudes to commercialism in schools. These issues are placed in
context with the recommendations from the Irish National Taskforce on Obesity
(Department of Health and Children, 2005a) and other relevant international work.
Television advertising, which is predominantly for foods high in salt, sugar and fat,
has been shown to influence food choice, purchasing behaviour and consumption
(Hastings et al., 2003). With respect to diet-related health, television advertising is
associated with the adiposity of children and youth (McGinnis et al., 2006), prompting
some countries (e.g. Australia) to conduct an updated and more comprehensive content
analysis of television food advertising (Chapman et al., 2006a). However, food
marketing is not confined to television advertising and can occur through other media
such as magazines, radio, cinema, mobile phones and outdoor advertising. The effects
of such media advertising on food choice and diet have not been systematically
reviewed to date.
As well as numerous media, there are also a range of settings such as supermarkets
(Chapman et al., 2006b) and schools through which children are exposed to food
marketing. The school setting is thought to represent a growing marketing
opportunity for food advertisers in many countries (Matthews, 2007; Hawkes, 2004). In
the USA the Federal Trade Commission report to Congress on the 2006 expenditures
and activities of 44 companies found that marketing in schools totaled 11 per cent ($186
million) of reported youth marketing and 90 per cent of that was for beverages, both
carbonated and non-carbonated (Kovacic et al., 2008). Event sponsorship,
token/voucher collection schemes, where tokens on confectionery products or via
supermarkets are collected and redeemed by schools for educational or sporting
equipment, and the placement of branded vending machines, are examples of some of
the marketing techniques in place in schools. Guidelines or regulations on in-school
marketing are currently not commonplace in many countries. Of the 73 countries
reviewed by Hawkes (2004), 33 per cent were identified as having some form of
regulation of this type and only a handful of countries place any restrictions on the
sales of selected food products in schools. More recently, one of four policy options
proposed by the WHO Forum on the Marketing of Food and Non-alcoholic Beverages
to Children to reduce the promotion of energy-dense, nutrient-poor food involves
prohibiting marketing of such food products to children at specified times and settings,
including the school setting, which they propose should remain a commercial-free zone
(WHO Forum and Technical Meeting, 2006). Consumer organisations have called for a
WHO code that will set international standards on marketing of food and beverages to
children to be implemented by national governments and food companies. This is in
response to an investigation into food marketing in Asia Pacific where a wide disparity
between countries in their approach to the marketing of food and beverages to children
is reported (Robinson et al., 2008).
Food marketing
in Irish schools
337

In Ireland, the National Taskforce on Obesity made a number of recommendations
directly relevant to schools (Department of Health and Children, 2005a). These include:
.all schools should be encouraged to develop school polices to promote healthy
lifestyles;
.a national, regularly reviewed code of practice in relation to industry sponsorship
and funding of activities in schools and local communities be established; and
.the development of a clear code of practice in relation to the provision and
content of vending machines in post-primary schools.
In Ireland, unlike other countries such as the UK for example, it is not mandatory to
provide school meals, although funding is available through the school meals
programme to disadvantaged schools that choose to avail of food services. Children
can bring their lunch to school, purchase it at school or in a nearby shop or indeed may
travel home at lunch time, depending on the individual school policy, facilities and
location. In comparison to other countries, such as England (National Governors’
Association, 2007; Food Standards Agency, 2008) and Scotland (Scottish Executive,
2003; Lang et al., 2006) where considerable progress has been made in establishing,
implementing and revising standards for food in schools and for school food policy,
Ireland lags behind, primarily as a result of the differences in the school food
environment. Food and nutrition guidelines are due to be launched shortly for
post-primary schools in Ireland, and have been designed to act as a resource for
training purposes and for the development of healthy school food policies.
The current use of policies to promote healthy living to children in schools as well as
the extent of commercial involvement in schools in Ireland is unknown. This gap in the
literature provided the impetus for this study The aim of this study is two-fold, to
document the extent and nature of marketing, in particular food marketing from
for-profit organisations in post-primary schools in the Republic of Ireland and
associated school level policy, and to explore attitudes towards commercial
sponsorship in schools.
Method
A census survey of post-primary schools was undertaken based on a list of these
schools from the Department of Education and Science web site (www.education.ie),
which was based on the 2005 school year and included a total of 741 schools. The
post-primary education sector in Ireland comprises Secondary, Vocational and
Community and Comprehensive schools. Each category of school have different
ownership and management structures but also have a great deal in common and are
largely State funded, following the same State prescribed curriculum and the same
State public examinations (www.education.ie). Schools were recruited via a letter to
Principals and follow-up phone calls where necessary. Principals or staff involved with
Social Personal and Health Education (SPHE) were invited to complete the
questionnaire. Students were not invited to participate in this instance as the
primary aim was to investigate school food policy and in-school food marketing rather
than the food choices or dietary habits of school-going children.
A 40-item self-completion questionnaire was designed and piloted with ten schools,
resulting in minor amendments. The majority of questions were closed-ended
including sections on:
HE
110,5
338

.school demographics;
.school food environment including the availability of specific foods and
existence of healthy eating policies;
.involvement from for-profit organisations, including types of products
sponsored and services offered to schools;
.respondents’ attitudes to sponsorship in schools, some of which were based on
the work of Bennett and Gabriel (1999), approaches to change and
recommendations from the National Taskforce on Obesity.
Questionnaires were returned in prepaid envelopes. Quantitative analyses were carried
out using SPSS for Mac version 17.0. Tests of association including Chi square and
Fisher’s exact probability tests were employed to investigate patterns in responses to
questions on the school food environment, commercial sponsorship in schools and
attitudes to sponsorship by respondent type (Principals and Vice-Principals, SPHE
co-ordinators and teachers and other school staff) and school characteristics, including
location (urban and rural), disadvantaged status (yes and no), school type (Secondary,
Vocational and Community and Comprehensive), and student gender composition
(boys only, girls only and co-educational). Null findings are not reported below.
Results
Of the 741 schools that were approached for participation, 331 participated, yielding a
response rate of 44.7 per cent. All 26 counties in the Republic of Ireland were
represented in the returned questionnaires. Just over half (52.7 per cent) of the schools
were located in towns while almost one-quarter (24.1 per cent) were located in cities.
Smaller numbers were located in villages (15.5 per cent) and in the countryside (7.6 per
cent). The response rate from the various types of schools is representative of the
proportion of these schools in the Republic of Ireland (see Table I). The vast majority of
schools were State funded (93.3 per cent) with just under one-third (32.6 per cent)
having disadvantaged status; overall 27.8 per cent of schools in Ireland are designated
disadvantaged. Most of the schools were mixed gender (62.9 per cent) while smaller
numbers were single sex schools (female only: 21.2 per cent, male only: 16.0 per cent).
The gender composition of schools in Ireland generally is similar: mixed 64.6 per cent,
female only 20.1 per cent and male only 15.2 per cent. In most cases the person
completing the questionnaire was the Principal (64.5 per cent). Others who completed
the questionnaire included SPHE co-ordinators (18.2 per cent), teachers (8.5 per cent),
Deputy Principals (5.2 per cent), and other staff members (3.6 per cent).
Type of school Obtained sample (%) Schools in Ireland (%)
Secondary
a
52.9 54.8
Vocational
b
33.6 33.3
Community and comprehensive
c
13.4 11.9
Notes:
a
Privately owned and managed, generally by religious communities;
b
State established and
administered by Vocational Education Committees;
c
Managed by Boards of Management of differing
compositions
Table I.
Schools in Ireland and
obtained sample, by
school type
Food marketing
in Irish schools
339

Food outlets
A majority of schools (81.4 per cent) reported having either a canteen (cafeteria within
the school) or a tuck shop (shop selling snacks), and 24.9 per cent reported both. Just
under half (44.7 per cent) reported having a drinks vending machine while just over
one-quarter (28.0 per cent) reported having a snack vending machine. Nearly
two-thirds (64.4 per cent) stated that there was a shop located close to the school while
44.4 per cent reported a fast food outlet nearby. Table II lists the types of food available
in participating schools.
Healthy eating policies
Just over one-third of schools (36.0 per cent) reported having a “healthy eating” policy
in place. The number of years the policy had been in place ranged from one to ten years
(mean 2.33, SD 1.59).
The aim of all healthy eating policies was to increase consumption of healthy foods.
Most (96.5 per cent) also aimed to educate students about food and nutrition and
decrease the consumption of unhealthy foods. Fewer schools (89.5 per cent) aimed to
improve food availability. Supporting teacher training in healthy eating and active
living was a further aim of 70.5 per cent of schools. Fewer (13.4 per cent) reported that
the healthy eating policy referred to commercial sponsorship from food and drinks
companies.
Sponsorship from for-profit organisations
Policies that refer to commercial sponsorship were present in only 7.0 per cent of
schools. Over one-third of schools (38.0 per cent) reported that their school currently
accepts sponsorship. Inadequate funding for essential school equipment was the
primary reason why schools reported that they accepted commercial sponsorship (91.6
per cent). Pieces of sports equipment (70.8 per cent) were the products most frequently
sponsored. A substantial number also indicated sponsorship of IT equipment (48.1 per
cent) and involvement in competitions and prizes (e.g. art and science, with branded
prizes awarded to schools or class groups) (39.6 per cent). Lower percentages reported
sponsorship of educational materials (19.5 per cent), vending machines (13.0 per cent)
and science equipment (9.1 per cent).
In terms of services offered to schools, over a quarter (28.0 per cent) reported that
information packs were offered to the schools by for-profit organisations while fewer
reported being offered vouchers or token schemes (21.9 per cent), where for example
provision of educational equipment or cash development grants are subject to
collection of tokens via product purchasing. Approximately one-fifth of schools
reported being offered the provision of business expertise (21.6 per cent), payments for
advertising space (20.1 per cent), discounts on school equipment (19.8 per cent) and
event sponsorship (19.1 per cent). Company employees helped with school activities in
14.9 per cent of schools. In terms of any change in sponsorship offered over the last five
years, over half the respondents did not know if there had been a change (52.5 per cent),
with a small number thinking it had increased (13.5 per cent) and a similar number
(12.9 per cent) reported having accepted more sponsorship in the past five years.
The main reasons given for any perceived changes in sponsorship are illustrated
below in Table III.
HE
110,5
340

Vending machine Tuck shop School canteen Supplied free
Available in at least
one outlet
a
Product Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent
Water 92 29.1 105 33.2 112 35.4 82 25.9 291 92.1
Juice 72 23.2 100 32.3 113 36.5 17 5.5 243 78.4
Confectionery 78 24.4 143 44.7 73 22.8 0 0 237 74.1
Sandwiches 20 6.5 71 23.2 149 48.7 12 3.9 226 73.9
Fruit 5 1.7 71 23.4 119 36.1) 17 5.6 188 62.0
Salty snacks, crisps 43 14.1 107 5.2 53 17.4 0 0 174 57.2
Milk 2 0.7 49 16.9 109 37.6 16 5.5 160 55.2
Coffee or tea 28 9.5 22 7.5 107 36.3 17 5.8 162 54.9
Fizzy/high sugar drinks 68 22.4 82 27.1 47 15.5 1 0.3 157 51.8
Diet drinks 64 22.0 69 23.7 50 17.2 0 0 146 50.2
Yoghurt 4 1.4 42 14.5 96 33.2 10 3.5 143 49.5
Biscuits, cakes or pastries 12 3.9 29 9.5 70 23.0 0 0 99 32.6
Note:
a
Includes supplied free
Table II.
Availability of food items
at school
Food marketing
in Irish schools
341

Attitudes to sponsorship
Just over half of respondents (50.1 per cent) agreed or strongly agreed that they have
severe moral reservations about the commercial sponsorship of school activities. Just
under half (46.7 per cent) agreed or strongly agreed that the teaching staff are generally
opposed to the commercial sponsorship of school activities and the promotion of
company images on school premises. Just over a quarter (26.7 per cent) strongly agreed
or agreed that they would like their school to receive more commercial sponsorship
with 50.6 per cent disagreeing or strongly disagreeing. Just over half (56.7 per cent)
strongly agreed or agreed that they believed themselves to be reasonably competent to
negotiate sponsorship deals with for-profit organisations. Just over half of the
respondents (51.3 per cent) indicated that they thought that sponsorship should be
restricted in schools while about one-fifth (19.5 per cent) thought there should be more
sponsorship activities.
Table IV illustrates the responses obtained regarding approaches for introducing
change in the school-industry relationship. In terms of policy, 83.3 per cent strongly
agreed or agreed that there should be a voluntary school policy, 56.7 per cent agreed
that there should be a self regulatory code by industry and just under half (47.7 per
cent) agreed or strongly agreed that there should be a legislative approach to change.
A large majority (92.1 per cent) strongly agreed or agreed that there should be a
clear code of practice in relation to provision and content of vending machines in
schools while 87.3 per cent agreed or strongly agreed that there should be a national
code of practice in place in relation to industry sponsorship and funding activities in
schools and local communities.
Significant differences by respondent type emerged in relation to attitudes to
sponsorship. Principals and Vice-Principals were most positive of all respondents
about having a clear code of practice (Principals and Vice-Principals, 65.6 per cent;
SPHE co-ordinators, 29.6 per cent; teachers and others 47.1 per cent; p,0.05) and
voluntary school policies (Principals and Vice-Principals, 87.1 per cent; SPHE
co-ordinators, 79.6 per cent; teachers and others 69.7 per cent; p,0.05).
However Principals and Vice-Principals were most negative about legislative
change (Principals and Vice-Principals, 40.9 per cent; SPHE co-ordinators, 61.2 per
cent; teachers and others 64.5 per cent; p,0.01). They were also most likely to report
(p,0.001) that they felt they would be competent to negotiate sponsorship deals
(Principals and Vice-Principals, 65.6 per cent; SPHE co-ordinators, 29.6 per cent;
Cited reason for change Frequency Per cent
Schools are an obvious choice for reaching children 92 28.0
More competition between companies 63 19.2
Economic boom 50 15.2
Goodwill from companies 36 11.0
Parental views 17 5.2
Students views 15 4.6
Teachers views 13 4.0
Corporate responsibility 11 3.4
Note: These opinions were expressed as reasons for a change in sponsorship and not an increase or a
decrease in sponsorship
Table III.
Main reasons for change
in sponsorship offers
HE
110,5
342

Strongly agree Agree Neither Disagree Strongly disagree
Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per cent
More communication between schools and industry 100 37.2 118 43.9 39 14.5 6 2.2 6 2.2
A voluntary school policy 95 35.2 130 48.1 34 12.6 10 3.7 1 0.4
Legislation 39 15.1 84 32.6 73 28.3 45 17.4 17 6.6
A self regulatory code by industry 37 15 103 41.7 58 23.5 29 11.7 20 8.1
Training for principals 90 32.7 112 40.7 51 18.5 16 5.8 6 2.2
Table IV.
Approaches to
introducing change
Food marketing
in Irish schools
343

teachers and others 47.1 per cent). No other patterns emerged by respondent type or
school characteristics.
Discussion
In the context of the recommendations from the National Taskforce on Obesity
(Department of Health and Children, 2005a), this study examined Ireland’s school food
environment and associated healthy eating policies, investigated the extent of
involvement of for-profit organisations, with a focus on in-school marketing, and
whether this was guided by policy. In addition, the attitudes of respondents towards
in-school marketing and proposed changes were explored.
Food outlets and healthy eating policies
This survey demonstrates a variety of food outlets in existence in post-primary schools in
Ireland, with a high proportion also reporting a food shop close to the school grounds (64.4
per cent). The school environment has been shown to have a strong influence on students’
eating behaviours and physical activity patterns (Weschler et al., 2000). More specifically,
the availability of food within or close to a school can influence school-children’s health,
either directly, from consumption of the items, or indirectly, from the messages these
items convey (Higgs and Styles, 2006). While it is likely that schools have no control over
items on sale or purchased in shops, future work could investigate children’s food
purchasing behaviour in and around school times and potential influencing factors.
Although nutritious foods such as milk, yoghurt, sandwiches and fruit are available
in many schools, the simultaneous availability of confectionery, soft drinks, salty snacks
and biscuits, which are recommended for consumption in small portions and only
occasionally (Department of Health and Children, 2005b), could prevent children from
developing healthy eating habits and attitudes. Changing the options available within
school to a better choice of ready-to-eat foods and snacks (e.g. dried fruit, plain popcorn)
could make an important contribution to healthier food choices in schools (Crawley,
2005). Although only a minority of specifically disadvantaged schools are currently in a
position to offer school meals to students in Ireland via the school meals programme of
the Department of Education and Science, guidance provided to these schools should be
based on the best available evidence. Thus a detailed examination of the standards set
for schools in the UK countries is warranted (www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk; Scottish
Executive, 2003). Practitioners providing support to schools should ensure that they
include an assessment of the revisions that have been necessary to the UK guidance as
well as the recommendations to schools on how to appropriately localise such standards
(www.schoolfoodtrust.org.uk; Lang et al., 2006). Although the food choices of children
were not investigated in this survey, documentation of the options available to children
in schools is important and provides a baseline for future work that could investigate the
influence of school food policy on school food availability.
The vast majority of respondents in this survey (92.1 per cent) agreed with the
recommendation from The National Taskforce on Obesity to develop a code of practice
in relation to vending machine provision and content (Department of Health and
Children, 2005a). The report of the Taskforce recommends that industry, the
Department of Education and Science and schools’ representative bodies develop the
code. It is likely that the forthcoming food and nutrition guidelines for post-primary
schools from the Department of Health and Children will provide guidance on vending
HE
110,5
344

machine use and content. Nonetheless it is a challenge for schools to balance providing
for the nutritional needs of students’ and pupils’ preferences, which influences supply
of the items sold by the school, and the extra income generated for schools. In the US,
the financial vulnerability of schools was considered responsible for the increase in
in-school marketing over a ten-year period (Story and French, 2004). Yet profits for UK
schools have been generated using healthy vending operations (Higgs and Styles, 2006)
and the revised National School Lunch Program in the USA has not lead to a loss in
total revenue to date (Wharton et al., 2008).
That more than one-third of Irish post-primary schools have a healthy eating policy
is in line with a study of secondary school principals in Minnesota, USA (32 per cent)
(French et al., 2002). In comparison, only 15 per cent of schools in Belgium-Flanders
reported having written policies on biscuits, sweets and savoury snacks (Vereecken
et al., 2005). However, it is difficult to make meaningful comparisons cross-nationally
on the existence and nature of school food policies because of the distinct education
systems as well as cultural differences, particularly in relation to food. For example,
school meal provision varies considerably across Europe (Young et al., 2005) and this is
likely to impact on the existence of school food policies and how comprehensive they
are, or need to be. Future relevant work in Ireland could include systematic
documentary analyses of school food policies and the extent to which they are
influenced by best practice and the forthcoming food and nutrition guidelines for
post-primary schools.
School food and nutrition policies can have an impact on students’ food choices and
diets (Vereecken et al., 2005; Wojcicki and Heyman, 2006; Veugelers and Fitzgerald,
2005; Lytle et al., 2006). These studies lend support to the broader implementation of
policies that deal with food availability and food-related activities, which should help
schools in Ireland create an environmental context where healthy food choices and
behaviours are easier. The National Heart Alliance together with the Irish Heart
Foundation (2008) and the National Taskforce on Obesity recommends that all schools
should be guided by a health policy, in particular, opportunities for physical activity
and what is being provided in school meals, including breakfast clubs and school
lunches should be addressed (Department of Health and Children, 2005a). While many
schools in Ireland are aligned with the Schools for Health in Europe (SHE) network
(www.schoolsforhealth.eu), where a whole school approach to health is part of their
ethos, more can be done to encourage, guide and implement healthy eating policies in
Irish schools. A commitment to and belief in healthy eating policies and allowing
adequate time for children and staff to become familiar with the policy, and adapt
accordingly, are likely to be important factors when measuring success. Looking
forward, Ireland is involved with the “Healthy eating and physical activity in schools”
(HEPS) project (www.hepseurope.eu), which is connected to the SHE network, and
whose aim is to support each member country with the development of national school
policy on healthy eating and physical activity. This project should further highlight the
importance of implementing school food policies as well as programmes to prevent
obesity in a sustainable way and at school level for the health of children in Ireland.
Policies on commercial sponsorship and activities in schools
In terms of formal policy on sponsorship from for-profit organisations, Ireland
compares poorly with the 14 per cent of secondary schools in Greater London with
Food marketing
in Irish schools
345

such policies (Bennett and Gabriel, 1999). It is anticipated that the Irish Department of
Health and children’s food and nutrition guidelines for post-primary schools will
recommend a voluntary policy on commercial sponsorship in schools be developed.
With over one-third of schools currently in receipt of sponsorship, a formal policy may
help schools to negotiate with for-profit groups more easily and should help schools
introduce change in the current situation, where desired.
This study has documented the broad range of services offered to schools by
for-profit organisations and illustrates the extent of interaction between businesses
and schools. There is some similarity between countries in the types of services offered
to schools. In the study by Bennett and Gabriel, most sponsorship took the form of gifts
of equipment (77 per cent), followed by the sponsorship of competitions and prizes (65
per cent), till voucher schemes (59 per cent), loans of company employees (56 per cent)
and cash donations (56 per cent) (Bennett and Gabriel, 1999). In the USA, sponsorship
of school events, token schemes, appropriation of space, sponsored educational
material and privatisation (i.e. management of schools or school programs by private
for-profit corporations) are just some examples of how commercial organisations are
involved with schools, see (Molnar, 2005; Story and French, 2004). In Asia Pacific, food
companies appear to be heavily involved in sponsoring school sports events (Robinson
et al., 2008). While in the USA food sales remain the most prevalent form of commercial
activity in schools, primarily the sale of soft drinks from vending machines (Story and
French, 2004). This is mirrored in Ireland, where sponsorship of vending machines was
reported by 13.0 per cent of schools and the reported presence of drinks vending
machines (44.7 per cent) and snack vending machines was higher (28.0 per cent).
The acceptance of commercial sponsorship appears, in the majority of schools in
Ireland, to be influenced by a lack of funds for essential equipment, in particular sports
equipment and IT equipment. This may explain the desire to obtain more commercial
sponsorship which was expressed by over a quarter of respondents. The need to
prioritise the provision and maintenance of physical activity facilities in Irish schools
was highlighted by the National Taskforce on Obesity (Department of Health and
Children, 2005a). This would go some way to helping schools to be less reliant on
for-profit organisations for funding equipment.
In Ireland, there appears to be no system for tracking and monitoring sponsorship
in schools. Matthews found that while advertising budgets for television may be
declining, small but rising proportions appear to be diverted to schools, as well as via
the internet (Matthews, 2007). Story and French (2004) state that from 1994-2004, the
use of public schools in the USA as advertising and marketing venues has grown.
The National Taskforce on Obesity has recommended a national, regularly
reviewed code of practice in relation to industry sponsorship and funding of activities
in schools and local communities (Department of Health and Children, 2005a). The
majority of respondents in this survey are in favour of such a code, either on a
voluntary basis, self-regulation by industry or a legislative change. Differences by
respondent type may well be explained by Principals and Vice Principals’ experiences
of the difficulties of working without a policy framework to guide day-to-day decision
making, and their reluctance to be required to follow legislative guidelines and
potentially incur legal sanctions. Existing European self-regulatory approaches aim to
ensure that marketing promotions are responsible but they currently do not attempt to
address the volume of advertising or other marketing practices and they are not being
HE
110,5
346

monitored in relation to their effect on children’s diets (WHO Forum and Technical
Meeting, 2006). Hawkes, in her review of self-regulation of food advertising (per se),
argues that an independent body concerned with public health should guide such a
process (Hawkes, 2005). In the UK a Government White paper (Department of Health,
2004) called on the food industry to self-regulate their promotional activities so as to
reduce children’s (TV) exposure to marketing for less healthy foods. A lack of
subsequent change resulted in a ban on the promotion of foods high in fat, salt and
sugar during children’s (under 16 years) television programming, introduced at the
beginning of 2008 (www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/foodads_new/statement/).
Similar restrictions have been called for in Ireland and the issue is currently under
debate (National Heart Alliance and Irish Heart Foundation, 2008).
Irrespective of the provision of school meals, the data presented here, when taken
together with evidence from other jurisdictions, highlight the relative importance of
expanding policy to encompass a more holistic view of students’ experiences in school,
including their exposure to marketing efforts. Those working towards child health
improvement need to be cognisant not only of existing marketing strategies, but the
potential risks associated with de-regulation or self-regulation (Robinson et al., 2008;
Hawkes, 2005) and indeed must engage in ensuring that the macro economic
environment is conducive to healthy public policy. The general lack of systematic
patterns in responses by school type indicates that there is no immediate need to tailor
any intervention for specific schools, but rather that it would be possible to take a
national approach to policy and practice development.
In terms of the strengths and limitations of this survey, this is the first study to
report on healthy eating and in-school marketing polices in post-primary schools in
Ireland and the involvement of commercial organisations in schools. While there are
parent/teacher associations in existence which are likely to be interested in school food
policy and food provision, there is currently no national association or nutrition/food
action group bringing together all stakeholders that could have been consulted to add
to or compliment this survey. The school response rate (44.7 per cent) is not dissimilar
to other studies (e.g. Bennett and Gabriel, 1999) and the sample is generally
representative of school types in the Republic of Ireland, in terms of gender
composition, governance and disadvantage. It is likely that refusal to partake was
strongly influenced by involvement in other studies, which has also been reported as
the main reason for non-response in other studies (Vereecken et al., 2005). It is
important to recognise that the reported attitudes of respondents do not necessarily
reflect the entire school staff as only one member of staff, the Principal in the majority
of schools, completed the survey. In-depth qualitative research with school staff would
capture a clearer and more comprehensive picture of staff attitudes to commercial
sponsorship, and food marketing in particular, in schools.
Conclusion
These data illustrate the extent of involvement of commercial organisations in
post-primary schools in Ireland and how food sales are a prevalent form of commercial
activity. While there is a desire for a change in this relationship by some, there are
others who are interested in more sponsorship opportunities. This may be related to
the lack of funding available to particular schools. The extent of in-school marketing in
Ireland is small compared to the USA but with a reported move away from television
Food marketing
in Irish schools
347

advertising it is possible that it may increase in Ireland. Thus, having policies in place
in school and at a national level, through which issues concerning school food
availability and industry sponsorship are addressed, are needed. Schools are open to
receiving guidance and support in developing such policies, which is particularly
needed in the case of involvement of industry in schools, since no progress on this
recommendation by the Obesity Taskforce has been achieved to date (Department of
Health and Children, 2009).
References
Bennett, R. and Gabriel, H. (1999), “Head-teacher characteristics, management style and attitudes
towards the acceptance of commercial sponsorship by state-funded schools”, Marketing
Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 41-52.
Chapman, K., Nicholas, P. and Supramaniam, R. (2006a), “How much food advertising is there on
Australian television?”, Health Promotion International, Vol. 21, pp. 172-80.
Chapman, K., Nicholas, P., Banovic, D. and Supramaniam, R. (2006b), “The extent and nature of
food promotion directed to children in Australian supermarkets”, Health Promotion
International, Vol. 21, pp. 331-9.
Crawley, H. (2005), “Eating well at school: nutritional and practical guidelines”, Caroline Walker
Trust and National Heart Forum, available at: www.cwt.org.uk/pdfs/EatingWellatSchool.
pdf (accessed 18 February 2010).
Department of Health (2004), Choosing Health: Making Healthier Choices Easier. The Public
Health White Paper, Department of Health, London, available at: www.dh.gov.uk/en/
Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4094550
(accessed 18 February 2010).
Department of Health and Children (2005a), Obesity, The Policy Challenges: The Report of the
National Taskforce on Obesity, Health Promotion Policy Unit, Dublin, available at: www.
healthpromotion.ie/uploaded_docs/Report_of_the_National_Taskforce_on_Obesity.pdf
(accessed 18 February 2010).
Department of Health and Children (2005b), Food Pyramid, Health Promotion Unit, Dublin.
Department of Health and Children (2009), Report of Inter-sectoral Group on the Implementation
of the Recommendations of the National Taskforce on Obesity, Health Promotion Policy,
Dublin, available at: www.dohc.ie/publications/report_ntfo.html. (accessed 18 February
2010).
Doak, C.M., Visscher, T.L.S., Renders, C.M. and Seidell, J.C. (2006), “The prevention of overweight
and obesity in children and adolescents: a review of interventions and programmes”,
Obesity Reviews, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 111-36.
Food Standards Agency (2008), Food Policy in Schools Research. School Governors, FSA, London,
available at: www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/foodpolicyfullreport.pdf (accessed
18 February 2010).
French, S.A., Story, S. and Fulkerson, J.A. (2002), “School food policies and practices: a state-wide
survey of secondary school principals”, Journal of the American Dietetic Association,
Vol. 102, pp. 1785-9.
Hastings, G., Stead, M., McDermott, L., Forsyth, A., MacKintosh, A.M., Rayner, M., Godfrey, C.,
Caraher, M. and Angus, K. (2003), Review of Research on the Effects of Food Promotion to
Children, Final Report, Food Standards Agency, London, available at: www.food.gov.uk/
multimedia/pdfs/foodpromotiontochildren1.pdf (accessed 18 February 2010).
HE
110,5
348

Hawkes, C. (2004), Marketing Food to Children: the Global Regulatory Environment, WHO,
Switzerland, available at: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241591579.pdf
(accessed 18 February 2010).
Hawkes, C. (2005), “Self-regulation of food advertising: what it can, could and cannot do to
discourage unhealthy eating habits among children”, Nutrition Bulletin, Vol. 30, pp. 374-82.
Higgs, J. and Styles, K. (2006), “Principles and practical aspects of healthful school vending”,
Nutrition Bulletin, Vol. 31, pp. 225-32.
Kovacic, W.E., Harbour, P.J., Leibowitz, J. and Rosch, J.T. (2008), “Marketing food to children and
adolescents. A review of industry expenditures, activities and self-regulation. A report to
congress”, available at: www2.ftc.gov/os/2008/07/P064504foodmktingreport.pdf (accessed
18 February 2010).
Lang, T., Dowler, E. and Hunter, D.J. (2006), Review of the Scottish Diet Action Plan. Progress and
Impacts 1996-2005, Health Scotland, Edinburgh.
Lytle, L.A., Kubik, M.Y., Perry, C., Story, M., Birnbaum, A.S. and Murray, D.M. (2006),
“Influencing healthful food choices in school and home environments: results from the
TEENS study”, Preventive Medicine, Vol. 43, pp. 8-13.
McGinnis, J.M., Appleton Gootman, J. and Kraak, V.I. (Eds) (2006), Food Marketing to Children
and Youth; Threat or Opportunity?, available at: www.iom.edu/CMS/3788/21939/31330.
aspx (accessed 18 February 2010).
Matthews, A.E. (2007), “Children and obesity: a pan-European project examining the role of food
marketing”, European Journal of Public Health, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 7-11.
Molnar, A. (2005), “School commercialism and adolescent health”, Adolescent Medicine Clinics,
Vol. 16, pp. 447-61.
National Governors’ Association (2007), Food Policy in Schools. A Strategic Policy Framework for
Governing Bodies, National Governors’ Association, Birmingham, available at: www.food.
gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/foodpolicygovernor2.pdf (accessed 18 February 2010).
National Heart Alliance and Irish Heart Foundation (2008), “Children’s food campaign;
protecting children from marketing of unhealthy food”, Position Paper, April, available
at: www.irishheart.ie/iopen24/pub/positionstatements/booklet_web.pdf (accessed
19 February 2010).
O’Neill, J.L., McCarthy, S.N., Burke, S.J., Hannon, E.M., Kiely, M., Flynn, A., Flynn, M.A. and
Gibney, M.J. (2007), “Prevalence of overweight and obesity in Irish school children, using
four different definitions”, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 61 No. 6, pp. 743-51.
Reilly, J.J., Methven, E., McDowell, Z.C., Hacking, B., Stewart, L. and Kelnar, C.J.H. (2003), “Health
Consequences of Obesity”, Archives of Disease in Childhood, Vol. 88 No. 9, pp. 748-52.
Robinson, E., De Vera, A. and Witt, J. (2008), The Junk Food Trap. Marketing Unhealthy Food to
Children in Asia Pacific, Consumers International, London, available at: www.
consumersinternational.org/files/98027/FileName/TheJunkFoodTrapwebversion.pdf
(accessed 18 February 2009).
Scottish Executive (2003), Hungry for Success: A Whole School Approach to School Meals in
Scotland. Final Report of the Expert Panel on School Meals, The Stationery Office
Bookshop, Edinburgh.
Story, M. and French, S. (2004), “Food advertising and marketing directed at children and
adolescents in the US”, International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity,
Vol. 1 No. 1, p. 3.
Swinburn, B. and Egger, G. (2002), “Prevention strategies against weight gain and obesity”,
Obesity Reviews, Vol. 3, pp. 289-301.
Food marketing
in Irish schools
349

Vereecken, C.A., Bobelijn, K. and Maes, L. (2005), “School food policy at primary and secondary
schools in Belgium-Flanders: does it influence young people’s food habits?”, European
Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol. 59, pp. 271-7.
Veugelers, P.J. and Fitzgerald, L. (2005), “Effectiveness of school programs in preventing
childhood obesity; a multilevel comparison”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 95
No. 3, pp. 432-5.
Weschler, H., Deveraux, R.S., Davis, M. and Collins, J. (2000), “Using the school environment to
promote physical activity and healthy eating”, Preventive Medicine, Vol. 31, pp. S121-37.
Wharton, C.M., Long, M. and Schwartz, M.B. (2008), “Changing nutrition standards in schools:
the emerging impact on school revenue”, Journal of School Health, Vol. 78 No. 5, pp. 245-51.
Whelton, H., Harrington, J., Crowley, E., Kelleher, V., Cronin, M. and Perry, I.J. (2007), “Prevalence
of overweight and obesity on the island of Ireland: results from the North South Survey of
Children’s Height, Weight and Body Mass Index, 2002”, BMC Public Health, Vol. 7, p. 187.
WHO (2003), Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. Report of a Joint WHO/FAO
Expert Consultation, WHO Technical Report Series 916, World Health Organization,
Geneva, available at: www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/publications/trs916/download/en/
index.html (accessed 18 February 2010).
WHO Forum and Technical Meeting (2006), “Marketing of food and non-alcoholic beverages
to children”, Oslo, Norway, 2-5 May, available at: www.who.int/dietphysicalactivity/
publications/Oslo%20meeting%20layout%2027%20NOVEMBER. pdf (accessed 18
February 2010).
Wojcicki, J.M. and Heyman, M.B. (2006), “Healthier choices and increased participation in a
middle school lunch program: effects of nutrition policy changes in San Francisco”,
American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 96 No. 9, pp. 1542-7.
Young, I., de Boer, F.A., Mikkelsen, B.E. and Rasmussen, V.B. (2005), “Healthy eating at school: a
European forum”, Nutrition Bulletin, Vol. 30, pp. 85-93.
About the authors
Colette Kelly, BSc (Hons), MSc, PhD, is a senior researcher in the Health Promotion Research
Centre, NUI, Galway. She has degrees in physiology and human nutrition from the National
University of Ireland, Galway, and the University of Aberdeen, Scotland. Colette obtained her
PhD from the University of Reading, England. Colette Kelly is the corresponding author and can
be contacted at: Colette.kelly@nuigalway.ie
Pauline Clerkin, BSc, MA, is a part time tutor and researcher in the Department of Health
Promotion, NUI, Galway. She has a degree in psychology from the University of Ulster at
Jordanstown and MA in health promotion from NUI, Galway.
Saoirse Nic Gabhainn, BA, MA PhD, is a senior lecturer in health promotion at the National
University of Ireland Galway, and Deputy Director of the Health Promotion Research Centre. She
has degrees in psychology and health promotion from the National University of Ireland and the
University of Nottingham.
Maureen Mulvihill, BA, H. Dip. Ed., MA (Health Promotion), is the Health Promotion
Manager with the Irish Heart Foundation. She has a degree in health promotion from NUI,
Galway, and in Arts from University College Dublin. She also has a Higher Diploma in Education
from University College Dublin.
HE
110,5
350
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints