A ban on advertising food and drink to children would not only be “ineffective” but potentially unworkable, claims Ofcom.
In a report this week, the TV watchdog said new research - including 2,000 interviews with children, parents, teachers and nutritionists - showed advertising only had a “modest direct effect” on children’s food consumption and health compared with exercise, family eating habits, school meals, food labelling and other promotions.
It also claimed the Food Standards Agency would have to name and shame specific food and drink brands for any future advertising ban to be workable.
Otherwise, any ban would be “unavoidably absolute; it would remove the right to advertise any product, regardless as to actual nutritional value or potentially positive contribution to health”.
Chairman David Currie added: “To do anything in terms of the (broadcast advertising) code, we have to define which
are the foods of concern. If the FSA is able to do that, it would allow us to consult on tightening the code, it is a prerequisite.”
Ofcom’s report is being seen as a snub to recommendations made in the FSA’s Action Plan on Food Promotion and Children’s Diet (The Grocer, July 10, p4), which called for the industry to get its own house in order in the next two years or face tougher action.
One advertising executive said: “Ofcom is clearly laying out a marker ahead of the White Paper on public health and is making it clear it is in no mood to be bossed about on this.”
In its report, Ofcom also found 70% of children’s viewing took place outside of children’s airtime and that the benefits of banning advertising to children in other countries were both unclear and contested.
Simon Mowbray
In a report this week, the TV watchdog said new research - including 2,000 interviews with children, parents, teachers and nutritionists - showed advertising only had a “modest direct effect” on children’s food consumption and health compared with exercise, family eating habits, school meals, food labelling and other promotions.
It also claimed the Food Standards Agency would have to name and shame specific food and drink brands for any future advertising ban to be workable.
Otherwise, any ban would be “unavoidably absolute; it would remove the right to advertise any product, regardless as to actual nutritional value or potentially positive contribution to health”.
Chairman David Currie added: “To do anything in terms of the (broadcast advertising) code, we have to define which
are the foods of concern. If the FSA is able to do that, it would allow us to consult on tightening the code, it is a prerequisite.”
Ofcom’s report is being seen as a snub to recommendations made in the FSA’s Action Plan on Food Promotion and Children’s Diet (The Grocer, July 10, p4), which called for the industry to get its own house in order in the next two years or face tougher action.
One advertising executive said: “Ofcom is clearly laying out a marker ahead of the White Paper on public health and is making it clear it is in no mood to be bossed about on this.”
In its report, Ofcom also found 70% of children’s viewing took place outside of children’s airtime and that the benefits of banning advertising to children in other countries were both unclear and contested.
Simon Mowbray
No comments yet