Over half of parents in England frequently pestered by their children to buy junk food while food shopping, national survey suggests
Over half (58%) of parents are frequently pestered by their children or teens while food shopping to purchase products loaded in fats, salts and/or sugar.
A study using a nationally representative survey of parents in England, to be presented at this year’s European Congress on Obesity (ECO 2026, Istanbul, Turkey, 12-15 May), reveals that over half (58%) of parents are frequently pestered by their children or teens to purchase products high in fats, salts and/or sugar (HFSS) when food shopping in stores or online, and almost three-quarters (72%) reported often buying the requested item.
Notably, shopping with children was the second most common reason parents reported for influencing unplanned food purchases (52%), after price promotions and instore offers (59%).
The findings, that form part of the PUSHED project, reveal the considerable influence the food environment has on requests for unhealthy products from children, driven in large part by instore and media marketing.
“While children might not be paying the bill at the checkout, their influence over their parents’ purchasing decisions is very real,” said principal investigator Emma Boyland, Professor of Food Marketing and Child Health at the University of Liverpool, UK. “Parents can, and do, say no but the current food environment does not help parents to feed their children healthy diets.”
“Our findings highlight the need for significant transformation of online and instore food shopping environments and marketing, both of which have a huge influence on what products parents buy and children eat, and increase the risk of childhood obesity.”
One in three 11-year-olds in England are living with overweight or obesity when they leave primary school [1]. Although the causes of obesity are complex, it is largely attributed to environments that drive children’s preference for and consumption of HFSS foods and beverages. It had been proposed that children’s requests for junk food when shopping could contribute through their impacts on what parents buy.
To find out more, the researchers set out to explore parents’ experiences of child pestering for HFSS foods during shopping in store and online and its impact on purchases, as well as pestering triggers and parental responses and strategies.
They conducted a cross-sectional online survey in a nationally representative sample of 1,050 parents (67% female, 80% white) of children (aged 1-18 years, 51% female) in England in September 2025. Parents were recruited by Savanta, an online research panel aggregator, and received a fixed points-based incentive reward for participating.
Questions were developed from existing published measures with input from public contributors (adults living with obesity and young people) and refined through piloting.
Parents were asked about their demographics (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity and education level) and socioeconomic status as well as their health and income. The parent survey included questions on pestering frequency and strategies, what in their opinion trigger pestering, their responses, and how these influence what they buy including whether it leads to unplanned purchases. Statistical analysis was used to identify differences by sociodemographic characteristics.
The power of pestering
The survey found that over half of parents (58%) reported that their child(ren) ‘frequently’ or ‘always’ request products when food shopping, just 4% said their child never makes requests.
Children of all ages made demands, but younger children (4-11 years) made significantly more requests than older children (12-18 years), and were three times more likely to pester than toddlers aged 1-3 years.
The research indicates socioeconomic differences, with parents experiencing food insecurity being 13% more likely to report more frequent child product requests.
Unsurprisingly, the most requested items were ice creams/lollies (45%), confectionery (43%), and sweets and biscuits (42%)—highlighting a key problem in that pestering rarely occurs over healthy foods.
Pestering strategies
Over half of parents reported children verbally asked for products, with one in five children using emotional tactics like nagging and tantrums. Around one in three children pestered by picking up items and placing them in the basket or trolley, while around one in six talked about a product display or in-store advert.
However, the findings revealed differences in the use of these strategies by children’s age, ethnicity, and food insecurity. For example, older teens (aged 12-18 years) were significantly less likely to resort to nagging or tantrums and were significantly more likely to explicitly refer to instore or media adverts. White children were less likely to trolley load, and children from more food secure households were significantly more likely to use tantrums/nagging to pester their parents.
Product placement and advertising driving this behaviour
Product placement instore (e.g., products placed on low shelves at children’s eye level or near checkouts) was the second most common reason parents reported for their child pestering (29%), after their child feeling hungry or craving foods (38%).
Additionally, one in four parents stated that seeing branded, child-friendly characters on packaging, or watching food adverts on TV or online before coming in store, was driving requests.
Almost all parents spent more than planned
Most parents said that they purchased the requested product ‘sometimes’ (47%) or most of the time (25%), with parents of older children (12-18 years) and those who were more food secure and less deprived more likely to give in to demands.
Almost all parents (91%) reported spending more than they planned to because of child requests.
Nearly a quarter (23%) of parents reported that requests made them feel upset, guilty, or distressed. Most parents (56%) thought that negotiating with children or making plans with a child before shopping (53%) were a good way to handle product requests.
“Children are highly susceptible to powerful and sophisticated marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages, and frequent exposure we observe prompts them to pester their parents, putting them at greater risk of developing overweight and obesity,” said co-author Dr Magdalena Muc from the Open University, UK. “Concerningly, our findings suggest that it is the parents experiencing food insecurity who are pestered more frequently and it can be a real source of distress. We are currently running focus groups with children and parents to understand better their in-shop experiences and triggers of pestering behaviours.”
The placement of HFSS products in key locations such as checkouts has been banned in most retailers since October 2022, and offers like ‘buy one get one free’ on unhealthy products has been restricted since October 2025. However, it is not yet known how well these rules are being adhered to or whether they have changed purchasing habits.
Although a junk food advertising ban on pre-watershed TV and online came into force in the UK in January 2026, the rules do not apply to outdoor sites including billboards and posters on bus shelters, advertisers’ own social media accounts or adverts for brands—even those that are strongly associated with unhealthy food products.
According to Professor Boyland, “Our findings provide crucial new information on the scale, impact, and modifiable influences of child food requests that should help inform the design and evaluation of public health policies to protect children from relentless unhealthy food marketing and reduce childhood obesity and health inequalities”.”
These are observational findings and the researchers acknowledge various limitations including that they cannot be generalised to all children and teenagers, and that they are based on a parent-reported survey of child pestering experiences that can result in problems of recall and bias, which could have affected the results. Finally, they note that the survey focused on take home grocery purchases and did not include purchases from fast-food outlets.
Over half (58%) of parents are frequently pestered by their children or teens while food shopping to purchase products loaded in fats, salts and/or sugar.
A study using a nationally representative survey of parents in England, to be presented at this year’s European Congress on Obesity (ECO 2026, Istanbul, Turkey, 12-15 May), reveals that over half (58%) of parents are frequently pestered by their children or teens to purchase products high in fats, salts and/or sugar (HFSS) when food shopping in stores or online, and almost three-quarters (72%) reported often buying the requested item.
Notably, shopping with children was the second most common reason parents reported for influencing unplanned food purchases (52%), after price promotions and instore offers (59%).
The findings, that form part of the PUSHED project, reveal the considerable influence the food environment has on requests for unhealthy products from children, driven in large part by instore and media marketing.
“While children might not be paying the bill at the checkout, their influence over their parents’ purchasing decisions is very real,” said principal investigator Emma Boyland, Professor of Food Marketing and Child Health at the University of Liverpool, UK. “Parents can, and do, say no but the current food environment does not help parents to feed their children healthy diets.”
“Our findings highlight the need for significant transformation of online and instore food shopping environments and marketing, both of which have a huge influence on what products parents buy and children eat, and increase the risk of childhood obesity.”
One in three 11-year-olds in England are living with overweight or obesity when they leave primary school [1]. Although the causes of obesity are complex, it is largely attributed to environments that drive children’s preference for and consumption of HFSS foods and beverages. It had been proposed that children’s requests for junk food when shopping could contribute through their impacts on what parents buy.
To find out more, the researchers set out to explore parents’ experiences of child pestering for HFSS foods during shopping in store and online and its impact on purchases, as well as pestering triggers and parental responses and strategies.
They conducted a cross-sectional online survey in a nationally representative sample of 1,050 parents (67% female, 80% white) of children (aged 1-18 years, 51% female) in England in September 2025. Parents were recruited by Savanta, an online research panel aggregator, and received a fixed points-based incentive reward for participating.
Questions were developed from existing published measures with input from public contributors (adults living with obesity and young people) and refined through piloting.
Parents were asked about their demographics (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity and education level) and socioeconomic status as well as their health and income. The parent survey included questions on pestering frequency and strategies, what in their opinion trigger pestering, their responses, and how these influence what they buy including whether it leads to unplanned purchases. Statistical analysis was used to identify differences by sociodemographic characteristics.
The power of pestering
The survey found that over half of parents (58%) reported that their child(ren) ‘frequently’ or ‘always’ request products when food shopping, just 4% said their child never makes requests.
Children of all ages made demands, but younger children (4-11 years) made significantly more requests than older children (12-18 years), and were three times more likely to pester than toddlers aged 1-3 years.
The research indicates socioeconomic differences, with parents experiencing food insecurity being 13% more likely to report more frequent child product requests.
Unsurprisingly, the most requested items were ice creams/lollies (45%), confectionery (43%), and sweets and biscuits (42%)—highlighting a key problem in that pestering rarely occurs over healthy foods.
Pestering strategies
Over half of parents reported children verbally asked for products, with one in five children using emotional tactics like nagging and tantrums. Around one in three children pestered by picking up items and placing them in the basket or trolley, while around one in six talked about a product display or in-store advert.
However, the findings revealed differences in the use of these strategies by children’s age, ethnicity, and food insecurity. For example, older teens (aged 12-18 years) were significantly less likely to resort to nagging or tantrums and were significantly more likely to explicitly refer to instore or media adverts. White children were less likely to trolley load, and children from more food secure households were significantly more likely to use tantrums/nagging to pester their parents.
Product placement and advertising driving this behaviour
Product placement instore (e.g., products placed on low shelves at children’s eye level or near checkouts) was the second most common reason parents reported for their child pestering (29%), after their child feeling hungry or craving foods (38%).
Additionally, one in four parents stated that seeing branded, child-friendly characters on packaging, or watching food adverts on TV or online before coming in store, was driving requests.
Almost all parents spent more than planned
Most parents said that they purchased the requested product ‘sometimes’ (47%) or most of the time (25%), with parents of older children (12-18 years) and those who were more food secure and less deprived more likely to give in to demands.
Almost all parents (91%) reported spending more than they planned to because of child requests.
Nearly a quarter (23%) of parents reported that requests made them feel upset, guilty, or distressed. Most parents (56%) thought that negotiating with children or making plans with a child before shopping (53%) were a good way to handle product requests.
“Children are highly susceptible to powerful and sophisticated marketing of unhealthy foods and beverages, and frequent exposure we observe prompts them to pester their parents, putting them at greater risk of developing overweight and obesity,” said co-author Dr Magdalena Muc from the Open University, UK. “Concerningly, our findings suggest that it is the parents experiencing food insecurity who are pestered more frequently and it can be a real source of distress. We are currently running focus groups with children and parents to understand better their in-shop experiences and triggers of pestering behaviours.”
The placement of HFSS products in key locations such as checkouts has been banned in most retailers since October 2022, and offers like ‘buy one get one free’ on unhealthy products has been restricted since October 2025. However, it is not yet known how well these rules are being adhered to or whether they have changed purchasing habits.
Although a junk food advertising ban on pre-watershed TV and online came into force in the UK in January 2026, the rules do not apply to outdoor sites including billboards and posters on bus shelters, advertisers’ own social media accounts or adverts for brands—even those that are strongly associated with unhealthy food products.
According to Professor Boyland, “Our findings provide crucial new information on the scale, impact, and modifiable influences of child food requests that should help inform the design and evaluation of public health policies to protect children from relentless unhealthy food marketing and reduce childhood obesity and health inequalities”.”
These are observational findings and the researchers acknowledge various limitations including that they cannot be generalised to all children and teenagers, and that they are based on a parent-reported survey of child pestering experiences that can result in problems of recall and bias, which could have affected the results. Finally, they note that the survey focused on take home grocery purchases and did not include purchases from fast-food outlets.
Article Publication Date
9-May-2026
9-May-2026
COI Statement
Prof Christiansen has received research funding to his institution from the American Beverage Association for work on sugar replacement outside of the proposed project. Prof Tatlow-Golden receives consultancy fees from UNICEF to research digital food marketing to children. Prof Vogel has a non-financial research collaboration with a UK supermarket. All other authors have no conflicts or potential conflicts of interest to declare.
Prof Christiansen has received research funding to his institution from the American Beverage Association for work on sugar replacement outside of the proposed project. Prof Tatlow-Golden receives consultancy fees from UNICEF to research digital food marketing to children. Prof Vogel has a non-financial research collaboration with a UK supermarket. All other authors have no conflicts or potential conflicts of interest to declare.
Controlled peanut intake may reduce allergies in toddlers
Karolinska Institutet
Researchers at Karolinska Institutet have successfully treated children aged 1–3 years with peanut allergies. The children slowly became accustomed to eating peanuts by consuming small amounts of them daily, which were gradually increased over time. The results are presented in The Lancet Regional Health – Europe.
“All children who followed the protocol achieved the goal of eating three and a half peanuts without experiencing an allergic reaction, and most were able to consume up to 25 peanuts,” says Caroline Nilsson, associate professor at the Department of Clinical Science and Education, Södersjukhuset, Karolinska Institutet, and senior consultant at Sachs' Children and Youth Hospital. “We consider the treatment to be safe if it is carried out under controlled conditions in a healthcare setting.”
Peanut allergy is often lifelong and can lead to constant worry about severe allergic reactions. In April 2026, the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare presented new allergy care guidelines, recommending that more patients be offered treatments that can alter the course of the disease. This includes oral immunotherapy for children with severe peanut allergies, whereby the immune system is desensitised to peanuts through regular exposure.
Peanut puffs were easily ingested
The current study involves 75 children aged 1–3 years in Stockholm, Sweden, with confirmed peanut allergies of varying severity, ranging from mild symptoms to severe allergic reactions upon ingestion. Fifty of the children received active treatment in the form of oral immunotherapy with peanut puffs, while the remaining 25 children in the control group completely avoided peanuts.
Treatment began in hospital with a very low dose and was then continued at home with daily intake. Every four to six weeks, the dose was increased until the children reached a low maintenance dose equivalent to approximately one and a half peanuts per day.
“This is the first randomised study of oral immunotherapy in toddlers involving a slow up-dosing and a low maintenance dose,” says Caroline Nilsson. “The peanut puffs were easily ingested, which made the treatment simple for families to follow, and we were surprised by how positive the results were.”
After three years of treatment, 82 per cent of children in the treatment group could eat at least three and a half peanuts without having an allergic reaction, even after taking a four-week break from the treatment. By comparison, only 12 per cent of children in the control group could tolerate such quantities.
Close contact with healthcare is required
Side effects occurred but were mild in most cases, such as itching in the mouth or skin rashes. More serious reactions mainly occurred during dose‑escalation periods, and a few treated children required an adrenaline injection to treat a severe allergic reaction.
The researchers emphasise that treatment must always take place under controlled conditions, in close contact with healthcare professionals and with medical follow-up.
“The cautious treatment approach appears to play an important role in safety, but this is not something that parents should attempt at home, as serious reactions can still occur,” says Anna Asarnoj, associate professor at the Department of Women’s and Children’s Health, Karolinska Institutet, and senior consultant at Astrid Lindgren Children’s Hospital, Karolinska University Hospital, who led the study together with Caroline Nilsson.
The next step is to analyse how the immune system changes during treatment, and to observe the children over a longer period to determine whether tolerance persists.
The children were identified via the Karolinska University Hospital laboratory, which analyses samples from various levels of care. They were then treated at the research unit at Sachs' Children and Youth Hospital, Södersjukhuset, in Stockholm. The research was funded by a private donation, Region Stockholm (ALF funds) and the Swedish Asthma and Allergy Association. Some of the paper’s authors state that they have received fees from pharmaceutical companies, but these are unrelated to the current study.
Publication: “Safety and efficiency of peanut oral immunotherapy in preschool children with slow up-dosing and low maintenance dosing: a randomised controlled trial”, Susanna Klevebro, Carina Uhl, Jon Roald Konradsen, Josefin Ullberg, Sandra Ganrud Tedner, Idun Holmdahl, Isabella Badolati, Rui Da Silva Rodrigues, Eva Sverremark-Ekström, Caroline Nilsson, Anna Asarnoj, The Lancet Regional Health – Europe, online 7 May 2026, doi: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2026.101690.
Journal
The Lancet Regional Health - Europe
Method of Research
Randomized controlled/clinical trial
Subject of Research
People
Article Title
Safety and efficiency of peanut oral immunotherapy in preschool children with slow up-dosing and low maintenance dosing: a randomised controlled trial
Article Publication Date
7-May-2026
Limit ultra processed foods to lower risk of heart disease, say experts
- A decade of research shows UPFs are linked to a higher risk of heart disease.
- Current dietary advice does not address the possible harms of UPFs.
- Doctors should discuss UPFs with patients and recommend limiting their consumption.
Sophia Antipolis, France – 7 May 2026. People who eat more ultra processed food (UPF) have a higher risk of cardiovascular disease and death, according to a report published in the European Heart Journal [1] today (Thursday). The report, by a group of cardiology experts from across Europe, brings together the results of all research on UPFs and cardiovascular disease that has been published to date.
It highlights the risks of obesity, diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease and death from cardiovascular that have now been linked to eating large amounts of UPF.
The authors of the report are calling on doctors to talk to their patients about how much UPF they are eating and give advice on how to reduce UPFs.
The clinical consensus statement is from the European Society of Cardiology’s Council for Cardiology Practice and the European Association of Preventive Cardiology, together with a group of topic expert, led by Professor Luigina Guasti from the University of Insubria, Varese, Italy; Dr Marialaura Bonaccio, IRCCS NEUROMED, Pozzilli, Italy; Professor Massimo Piepoli, University of Milan, Italy; and Professor Licia Iacoviello, LUM University, Casamassima, Italy.
Professor Guasti said: “UPFs, made from industrial ingredients and additives, have largely replaced traditional diets. Research suggests these foods are linked to several risk factors for cardiovascular disease, such as obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure, and to the risk of developing and dying from heart disease. However, this evidence has not yet made its way into the advice we give to patients on healthy eating.
“We hope that this consensus statement from the European Society of Cardiology will help doctors recognize UPFs as a potential risk factor and provide clear guidance to their patients on limiting UPFs to prevent cardiovascular risk factors, disease and death.”
Key findings of the expert consensus report:
- Adults with the highest UPF consumption have up to a 19% higher risk of heart disease, a 13% higher risk of atrial fibrillation, and up to a 65% increased risk of cardiovascular death, compared with those with the lowest consumption.
- These foods also worsen key risk factors, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and the build-up of unhealthy fats in the blood stream.
- Consumption of UPF is increasing in Europe with the percentage of calories from UPF ranging from 61% in the Netherlands and 54% in the UK, to 25% in Spain, 22% in Portugal and 18% in Italy.
- Most national dietary guidelines prioritise nutrient-based recommendations and do not address the issue of food processing.
The report’s authors call for:
- Better public understanding of UPFs through food labelling, food regulation and updated guidelines.
- Doctors treating people with cardiovascular disease, or at risk of cardiovascular disease, should ask about UPFs when assessing their patients’ diets.
- Doctors should discuss reducing UPF to lower risk – alongside other advice on diet, physical activity, smoking and drinking – including explaining that foods marketed as ‘healthier’ can often be ultra processed.
The authors say that evidence on the risks of UPF is consistent across large, diverse populations and holds true across different cardiovascular risks, diseases and death. However, they caution that most of the research is made up of observational studies, with few long-term interventional trials.
Dr Bonaccio adds: “The associations between UPF and heart disease are consistent and biologically plausible. UPFs raise cardiovascular risk mainly by promoting obesity, diabetes, hypertension and the build-up of unhealthy fats in the blood. UPFs tend to be high in sugar, salt, and unhealthy fats. They also have additives, contaminants and an altered food structure, which may trigger inflammation, metabolic disruption, gut microbiome changes and overeating.
“We need long-term intervention trials to test whether reducing UPFs improves cardiovascular health. More research is also needed to understand the effects of specific additives, processing compounds and food structures on heart health. Future studies could focus on implementing UPF-focused dietary interventions in clinical practice.
“The research on UPFs has been accumulating for a decade, and it highlights the risks of high UPF consumption and the benefits of choosing whole or minimally processed foods. This emphasizes that disease prevention should not focus solely on nutrients, but also on the degree of food processing. Even foods with good nutritional profiles can be harmful if highly processed. Integrating UPF awareness into routine medical care could improve patient’s health without adding significant cost or time.”
Journal
European Heart Journal
Method of Research
Literature review
Subject of Research
People
Article Title
Ultra-processed foods, lifestyle management, and cardiovascular diseases: A clinical consensus statement of the European Society of Cardiology Council for Cardiology Practice and the European Association of Preventive Cardiology of the European Society of Cardiology
Article Publication Date
7-May-2026
No comments:
Post a Comment