Ofcom’s Junk Ads Dilemma
Communications regulator Ofcom is currently considering a selection of proposals that could spell the end of junk food advertising aimed at children on television. NewsLine editor, Susan Le May, examines how the debate has escalated in recent months…
Government departments and health groups believe that marketing high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) products to young people during television programmes has significantly added to the perceived epidemic of childhood obesity in the UK. However, for advertisers and broadcasters already struggling with a weak market, the proposed ban could spell disaster.
Recently, Tony Blair stepped in, saying the Government would take action on the issue if the food industry could not regulate its own advertising by coming to an amicable voluntary agreement on the matter.
Richard Watts, the campaign coordinator for the Children’s Food Bill, welcomed Blair’s comments, saying poor diet promoted by junk food advertising is a “major cause of obesity”. However, he also said that the Government’s policy to solve the problem by voluntary agreement was “doomed to failure”.
“If the Government is serious about tackling childhood obesity, the first step would be to protect children from junk food TV ads before 9pm,” he said.
One in three children in Britain is said to be obese, with the incidence of the condition amongst under 11-year-olds having risen by more than 40% in the past ten years. These statistics have spurred other MPs to join the debate, calling on Ofcom for tighter HFSS restrictions.
Sir John Krebs, former chair of the Food Standards Agency, warned that for the first time in more than a century, life expectancy may fall, with the real prospect that parents may outlive their children.
The introduction of the Children’s Food Bill coincided with the release of a major British Medical Association report, outlining research demonstrating that food promotions do influence children’s food preferences, purchase behaviours and consumption.
However, the Advertising Association warned that food marketing restrictions could end up costing an already frail industry in excess of £375 million pounds, equating to around three-quarters of its total annual revenue.
Some advertising bodies have warned that a pre-9pm ban will impact on the promotion of these products to the adult market as well. Those on this side of the fence may also argue that it is parents’ responsibility to monitor the foods that their children consume, and that so-called “bad foods” are acceptable as part of a normally healthy, balanced diet.
Christy Swords, the ITV director of regulatory affairs, warned that independent television programmes could suffer if the pre-9pm ban was introduced.
“ITV spends £25 million per year on producing children’s television programmes… Ad revenue is vital for the funding of these productions and a pre-watershed ban… would result in ITV no longer being able to sustain production on these shows.
“The problem of child obesity needs to be addressed but it is a wider debate and not just about food advertising on television,” he said.
Ofcom predicted that commercial TV channels could lose almost 4% of revenue if the pre-9pm ban came into place. The figures from the regulator showed that all commercial channels could lose up to £140 million, highlighting that GMTV could be the worst affected, potentially losing up to 6.7% of the channel’s revenue.
ITV could also suffer, with the body saying it could stand to lose 4.2% of its revenue, with Channel 4 feeling a potential 3.4% drop, and Five looking at a 3.1% loss.
The IPA joined the debate, saying that the proposed ban was “sensationalist, misguided and unjustified”, and it would not solve the child obesity problem and could cost broadcasters millions.
Questioning the FSA’s call for an outright ban, the IPA said: “Their own research shows that advertising only has a modest (2%) direct effect on children’s food preference. We see their call for a ban as purely a tactic to grab headlines and put pressure on Ofcom.”
Marina Palomba of the IPA added: “It is nonsense to accuse advertisers of making people fat when some well known food brands have been advertised on television for over 40 years.”
As the 30 June consultation submission deadline drew closer, the Food and Drink Federation and the Food Advertising Unit of the AA managed to reach a compromised proposal, which suggests a ban on food advertising on the main general entertainment channels during times when children are likely to be watching TV.
Another part of the submission relates to advertising on children’s channels, with the idea of a 30-second per hour restriction on HFSS ads. The IPA said it supported this idea, but policing these regulations would be difficult.
Ofcom will now spend time considering the suggestions that have been put forward. Whether or not a decision can be reached to suit all players in the debate remains to be seen, but for now it is clear that this heated issue is unlikely to see an immediate resolution.