advertising mobile smartphone shopping online

Proposed new rules banning the advertising to children of food and drinks high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) have sparked a major row over whether they should be limited to under-12s or everyone under 16.

The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) this week set out plans to introduce the first specific set of rules for HFSS products in non-broadcast advertising, which would bring them more into line with Ofcom restrictions on TV.

However, despite organisations like the FDF, the BRC and the BSDA already changing their policies to ban HFSS advertising to anyone under 16, the CAP consultation reopens the debate on the issue.

While there were “strong grounds” for falling into line with others and changing its definition of a child to anyone under 16, CAP said it wanted to consider the possible ramifications. “The key question is whether there would be disproportionate costs to advertisers and media providers when set against the benefit of also reducing exposure for those aged 12 to 15.”

It claimed older children were better able to understand advertising and less easily influenced in their food choices. However, it admitted older children were potentially more exposed, such as through online ads on their mobile phones.

The FDF is calling on CAP to define children as under-16s, in a move it claims is the “responsible” position for advertisers. “We support a change to the current code, which would ensure ads for foods and drinks high in fat, sugar and salt are not targeted at under-16s in any medium, including online,” said DG Ian Wright.

Malcolm Clark, co-ordinator of the Children’s Food Campaign, described CAP’s proposals as “murky”. “Why is it that, with other groups like the FDF having moved to this position, that CAP is leaving this important matter up for question? It’s typical of the whole tone of the report, which is not the brave and bold new approach we were promised. Instead there is a begrudging tone throughout.”

CAP director Shahriar Coupal said the 50 stakeholder organisations felt they needed to tighten rules despite “no clear evidence” advertising was ­contributing to obesity. Months of pre-consultation had produced “no clear ­consensus” about switching from 16 to 12, he added.