ReviewFrontiers in nutrition2025
Obesity and food marketing: a narrative review of consumer influence, regulatory gaps, and ethical implications.
Review in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prevalence and Correlates of Perceived Food Noise Among U.S. Adults in a Nationally Representative Sample.Obesity science & practice · 2026Article
- Indigenous games and physical activity for preventing non-communicable diseases in African communities: a public health perspective.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Obesity is a multifactorial global health crisis exacerbated by modern food marketing strategies that encourage the consumption of energy-dense, nutrient-poor (EDNP) foods. Children and socio-economically disadvantages groups are particularly vulnerable to the cognitive and emotional cues embedded in food advertising. Objectives: To investigate the ethical aspects of marketing to vulnerable groups, evaluate the shortcomings of the current regulatory frameworks, critically analyze the impact of food marketing on consumer behavior and dietary patterns, and offer policy-relevant insights for public health interventions. Methods: Multidisciplinary sources from the fields of public health, behavioral psychology, marketing science, and nutrition policy were synthesized through an extensive narrative review. Through methodical searches of databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, peer-reviewed and gray literature were found. Among the theoretical models used are the REFCAM model, the Theory of Planned Behavior, and the Social Cognitive Theory. Results: Food marketing uses digital microtargeting, sensory cues, and psychological priming to influence consumption. Overconsumption has become commonplace due to strategies including portion control, manipulating brand loyalty, and health halo benefits. Despite global variation in regulatory responses, corporate lobbying, disjointed governance, and inadequate digital oversight often limit their effectiveness. Marketing aimed at minorities and children raises ethical concerns, as there is proof of exploitation through deceptive and culturally specific advertising. Comparative case studies highlight regulatory achievements (like Chile and France) as well as failures (like UK policy delays). Conclusion: Food marketing is a major contributor to the development of obesogenic environments, despite being poorly controlled. A change from reactive to proactive, system-level governance is necessary to combat obesity. Strong digital control, more stringent nutrient profiling, and a moral shift in food marketing strategies are all part of this. Promoting healthy choices and safeguarding vulnerable people require cross-sectoral collaboration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.