Organisations say restricting promotion of unhealthy food is key to tackling childhood obesity, writes Michael Kelly
LAST MONTH, on World Consumer Rights Day, the Consumers Association of Ireland and the Children's Rights Alliance called for a ban on "junk food" TV advertising to children before the 9pm watershed.
The organisations believe that restricting the advertising of unhealthy foods - particularly those products which are high in fat, salt and sugar - is one of the key solutions to the problem of childhood obesity.
The advertising of food products to children is a highly emotive topic with very little agreement on the key issues.
Proponents of children's advertising, including broadcasters and the food and advertising industries, argue that bans can not be effective given the diversity of medium through which the modern child receives advertising (for example, satellite channels, the internet, mobile phones).
There is perennial debate on what age group proposed restrictions should apply to and whether they should be limited to children's programmes and channels, or extended to include adult programmes watched by a large number of children (particularly soaps).
And that's before we even get on to the debate about what exactly constitutes "unhealthy food".
There is one point on which there is general agreement - advertising to children works, and they are exposed to lots of it. The
Children's Society in the UK estimates that, on average, children are exposed to 18,000 television advertisements each year (courtesy of between two and four hours spent watching television each day).
In addition, many researchers believe that children can not differentiate between advertising and programme content, nor are they aware of the subtle manipulation inherent in all advertisements. The Finnish Consumer Ombudsman, for example, stated that it was only after they reach late childhood (age 12) that they "learn to recognise traditional advertising and realise its sales-promoting nature".
In other words, adults may be inclined to switch channels or get up and make a cup of tea to avoid ads, but children are unlikely to do so.
Advertisers argue that the potency of so-called "pester power" is overstated and that since children don't have any purchasing power of their own, parents remain the primary "consumers", regardless of the adverts their children have been exposed to.
But if advertising to children is so ineffective, why do they invest so heavily in it? Parent groups point to the fact that merchandisers place products that are particularly attractive to children at checkouts to ensure that pester power has the best chance of succeeding -
no parent wants a scene at the checkout. When's the last time you saw stacks of fruit beside a checkout?
"Children may not have buying power but they are capable of exerting considerable pester power," says the Consumer Association of Ireland's chief executive, Dermott Jewell. "This is not about being a nanny state. It's about looking after our kids and recognising that they are not as well informed about advertising as we are."
Calls for a ban on advertising of unhealthy foods to children are hardly new, but the timing of this latest call is significant given that the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (BCI) is currently reviewing its code on children's advertising.
There is a palpable feeling among long-time advocates of a ban that perhaps its time has come - particularly since media watchdog Ofcom in the UK implemented a similar ban there in the past year.
The regulations that currently govern advertising to children in the Republic are contained in section 7 of the BCI's Children's Advertising Code.
The current focus, according to the BCI's broadcasting standards officer Declan McLoughlin, is to encourage responsible broadcasting.
"For example, advertising for confectionary products must display a message stating that snacking on sugary foods and drinks can damage teeth. Advertisements for fast food must have a tagline that says they should be eaten in moderation and as part of a balanced diet."
This doesn't go far enough, according to Jillian van Turnhout, chief executive of the Children's Rights Alliance. "Parents have a responsibility with regard to what they buy for their children but government has a responsibility to support them in this regard. We need government leadership on this issue. They [ the industry] have a voluntary code but I think that only goes to show that they admit there is a need for a code.
"This needs to be consumer led, it needs to be government led. We talk about corporate social responsibility - well, this is a perfect example of where companies could adopt an excellent corporate social responsibility model."
As part of a statutory review process, the BCI is researching attitudes to the existing code by conducting a national public survey and a stakeholder consultation with broadcasters, advertisers and advocacy groups.
The board is also reviewing developments in other jurisdictions. The review outcome will be discussed by the organisation's board in May and it will then report to the Minister for Communications, Marine and Natural Resources Eamon Ryan.
Asked if a ban is one of the options being considered, McLoughlin stated that "in theory, any and all options are on the table. It could stay as it is, or it could be strengthened."
He acknowledged, however, that developments in the UK have pushed things along considerably.
The food industry here is totally opposed to the prospect of a ban.
"We wouldn't agree with it," says Paul Kelly, director of Food and Drink Industry Ireland, which is part of Ibec.
"At the moment there is a good combination of regulation and self-regulation which allows a flexible, speedy response to the issues. Self-regulation, for example, can widen its scope quickly to take into account new media such as mobile and internet."
Kelly highlights the "EU Pledge" commitment by 11 food and beverage companies (including Burger King, Coca-Cola, Danone, Kellogg, Nestlé and Unilever) to stop marketing to children under 12, as an example of the success of self-regulation. "Together, these companies represent two-thirds of the food and beverage advertising spend in the EU. This demonstrates that industry is responding to concerns of governments and consumers.
"At the same time that the level of advertising to children is dropping, the levels of obesity are rising. That shows that obesity is a multi-faceted issue."
Nutrient profiling: what constitutes junk?
If you were asked to compile a list of "unhealthy foods" what would you opt for?
Chocolate, crisps, fizzy drinks, sugary breakfast cereals, fast food? What about cheese, butter or pistachio nuts?
The British Office of Communications (Ofcom) based its definition of "junk food" on the UK Food Standards Agency nutrient profiling system.
This system measures the salt, sugar and fat content in a 100g serving of food or drink.
It's a controversial approach largely because under the criteria used products such as cheese and butter are regarded as unhealthy due to their high fat content, even though the average portion size for these products is typically considerably less than 100g.
The dairy industry in the UK, for example, argued that if breast milk were covered by the rules, it too would be banned.
Dairy products were not the only ones that got caught in the FSA net. Tomato ketchup is considered to be high in fat, salt and sugar based on the criteria even though most people eat only a fraction of the 100g serving with a meal.
Marmite with its considerable salt content is also counted as junk food even though most people eat only a few grams per serving.
Could we see the same blunt approach used here? "You have to have some mechanism to decide what constitutes healthy and unhealthy," says the BCI's Declan McLoughlin, "but that mechanism would have to be scientific, independent and verifiable. Any code would have to be proportionate and reasonable."