Foodaware response: Television Advertising of Food and Drink to Children

CFG 14/06 rev.
June 2006

Ofcom Consultation on Television Advertising of Food and Drink to Children: options for new restrictions

Foodaware response emailed to Ofcom on 29 June 2006:

Executive summary and key recommendations
Background - Ofcom’s proposals
Options
Foodaware's general comments
Comments on specific options

1. Executive summary and key recommendations

Foodaware members considered and discussed Ofcom’s 4 options at their meeting on 22 June. Foodaware welcomes and supports Ofcom’s intention to introduce stricter regulatory rules covering television advertising and promotion to children, but does not consider that the proposals go far enough. Members regret that Ofcom considered, but rejected, the option of a ban on the advertising of all high fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) products before the 9pm watershed without including it in the formal proposals for consultation. We consider that this is the most appropriate approach because so many children watch early evening television, and not just those programmes aimed at children. It would remove the vast majority of the impacts on all children under 16 years of age. While this approach will restrict adults’ freedom to view adverts for HFSS foods before 9pm, members consider that this is of considerably less significance than the possible health benefits. Indeed, adults, while not requiring the same level of protection, would also benefit from less exposure to such adverts. We want Ofcom to reconsider its recommendations and implement this ban to protect all children under 16 and not just those up to 9 years of age.

Any decisions should be evidence based and subject to monitoring so that their impact can be assessed.

2. Background - Ofcom’s proposals

2.1

In the light of a number of government initiatives concerning child health and obesity and growing public concern, Ofcom was asked to examine the case for restrictions on the television advertising of food and drink products to children. Research carried out in 2004 led Ofcom to the conclusion that ‘television food advertising has a modest direct effect and a larger but unquantifiable indirect effect on children’s preferences, consumption and behaviour.’ Yet, Ofcom’s Chief Executive has said ‘Proposals to increase regulation in open and competitive markets should always be subject to rigorous scrutiny. With childhood obesity the case for targeted action has been made; but which action - and how this should be implemented – is the focus for this final stage of consultation.’ In the meantime, Ofcom says that the overall volume of food, drink and restaurant advertising to children dropped by about 13% in 2005 and a number of manufacturers have withdrawn from advertising during children’s airtime.

2.2

Public concern has focussed on the over-consumption of food and drink products high in fat, salt or sugar – so-called HFSS products and Ofcom has suggested a number of options for action to restrict advertising of these products. They have analysed the amount of advertising that children see, and considered the FSA’s assessment of the potential benefits of different approaches based on their nutrient profiling model. This according to Ofcom might be used to differentiate between different types of products so that restrictions on food and drink advertising to children could be appropriately targeted.

2.3

Ofcom has also considered the potential financial impact on broadcasters, taking account of the most recent data from 2005. Although there is general agreement that some form of action is appropriate and necessary, Ofcom says that from discussions there appeared to be no clear consensus on the most appropriate course of action.

2.4

Two other options were considered but rejected as they would not fulfil Ofcom’s regulatory objectives. Firstly, that it should take no other action and, secondly, the option of a pre-9pm ban on the advertising of all HFSS products. In the latter case, Ofcom took the view that a comprehensive ban on such advertising before 9pm would remove 82% of the HFSS advertising impact on children aged 4 - 15 and 89% of impacts on children aged 4 - 9 and would contribute to enhancing protection for older children. Based on FSA estimates, the social and health benefits of this were calculated to be in the ranges of £53 - £204 million or up to £990 million depending on the value of life estimate used. However, Ofcom took the view that rather than being targeted at younger children, it would prevent adults viewing adverts for most HFSS food and drink products aimed at them and, therefore, would, as a result, make television an unattractive medium for advertisers and uneconomic to produce television adverts which could only be shown after 9pm. The majority of parents consulted by Ofcom for its report ‘Childhood Obesity – Food Advertising in Context,’ July 2004 did not apparently favour a ban extending to 9pm (but see para. 4.5 below). It also considered that the cost would be excessive so has not recommended it.

2.5	As a result, Ofcom has put forward 4 options for consideration. All the options would prevent advertising of and sponsorship by HFSS products in programmes aimed at pre-school children, and a range of rules to reduce the impact on children and to avoid targeting at some age groups altogether.

Option 1: timing restrictions on specific food and drink products

No HFSS product advertising in programmes made for children.
No HFSS product advertising in programmes of particular appeal to children up to 9 years old.
No sponsorship by HFSS products of programmes affected by the above.
British Code of Advertising Practice’s (BCAP’s) rules to be applied to food and drink advertising and sponsorship [note: BCAP has submitted a proposed set of rules for consultation which would retrain the techniques used in food and drink adverts to children and cover encouragement to over-consumption or pestering, use of promotions and offers, and the use of characters and celebrities and claims. These proposals are not part of this consultation].

Option 2: timing restrictions on all food and drink advertising

As above but covering all food or drink not just HFSS products with the exception that the restrictions would not apply to healthy eating campaigns supported or endorsed by the government.

Option 3: Volume-based restrictions on all food and drink products

No food or drink advertising at all to be shown in programmes made for pre-school children.
A limit to the amount of food and drink advertising when children are most likely to be watching. This could be:

A limit of 30 seconds per hour 6am - 9am and 3pm - 6pm on week days and 6am - 1pm at the weekend;
A limit of 60 seconds per hour during family viewing times – 6pm - 8pm on weekdays and 1pm - 8pm at the weekend; and,
A limit of 30 seconds per hour throughout the day for children’s channels except pre-school channels which would carry no such advertising.

[These proposals would restrict food and drink advertising to between 7% and 12% of all available advertising airtime according to Ofcom.]

BCAP’s rules will be applied as above.

Option 4: an invitation to propose an alternative workable and effective option combining some or all of the above and/or new elements, which commands industry support

As a result of responses to this invitation, the consultation was extended to
30 June and Ofcom has done more modelling and revised its impact assessment. It has not changed its proposals and it has not recommended a specific option.

3. Foodaware's general comments

3.1

Foodaware welcomes and supports Ofcom’s intention to introduce stricter regulatory rules covering television advertising and promotion to children. Members have been concerned about the influence of food marketing and advertising to children and young people for many years. They recognise that positive influences, such as healthy eating campaigns and promotion of fruit and vegetables in schools, can be undermined by advertising and promotion of highly processed products in and around children’s television programmes. The development of television channels specifically aimed at children, and the length of time many children spend watching television, has made this problem more acute. Foodaware strongly supports the proposal to introduce specific restrictions on television promotion and advertising to children because it is such a powerful medium.

3.2

While we welcome the intention to introduce controls on advertising, the specific proposals mainly focus on children up to 9 years of age. Concerns about obesity due to dietary imbalance may particularly affect this group, but not exclusively so. Obesity levels are higher in the older aged group (1 in 4 children aged 11 – 15). There is also increased prevalence of eating disorders among children of all ages and anorexia and bulimia remain a problem for teenagers. We believe that advertising should support rather than undermine progress towards healthier eating and the new rules should cover all young people under 16 years of age and not focus solely on children up to 9 years.

3.3

The proposed new BCAP rules are considered by Ofcom to be insufficient in themselves and so must incorporate additional new rules aimed at excluding or reducing the amount of HFSS advertising at certain times of day. The consultation closes on 30 June and Ofcom intends that its decision will be incorporated into the BCAP code and implemented immediately. Ofcom anticipates that the new rules should apply to any new campaign conceived after its statement and that there would be a 6 month period of grace for existing campaigns and those which are under development. Foodaware supports this approach but thinks that a 6 month period of grace is too long.

3.4	Foodaware’s member organisations include the General Consumer Council, Northern Ireland, the National Consumer Council, Which? and the National Federation of Women’s Institutes. We are aware of their evidence and responses to this Consultation and support their conclusions.

4. Comments on specific options

4.1

Foodaware supports restrictions on the advertising of all HFSS foods before the 9pm watershed to protect all children, and not just those up to 9 years of age. None of the proposed options can therefore provide for an appropriate level of protection and meet the regulatory objective. In our view, obesity and eating disorders affect teenagers as well as younger age groups and we therefore believe that the options proposed will provide insufficient protection. There is little logic to a cut-off point of 9 years of age and all children (and some adults) would benefit from greater restrictions. Our members are concerned about the levels of obesity, overweight, and diet related problems amongst teenagers. Although young people over 9 years old, and especially those in their teens, may have more critical awareness of the purpose of advertising, they can still be highly influenced, be subject to pressure as a result of the volume and power of advertising, and have considerable spending power. Restricting advertising around programmes aimed at or watched by younger age groups could also cause advertisers to shift their marketing focus to the older children, a move which would be highly undesirable. We consider that the health benefits of such a ban would far exceed the economic impact and that this approach is justified and necessary.

4.2

This option was rejected by Ofcom prior to the consultation, so we ask you to reconsider your preferred approach. We recognise that Option 2 is the most comprehensive of the options considered and has the advantage of simplicity for the public to understand and broadcasters to implement, but we do not think this will achieve sufficient protection and strongly recommend Ofcom take more robust action as the FSA has also suggested. The estimated impact of this option is that exposure of all children (4 -15) to food and drink advertising will fall by about 37% and for 4 - 9 year olds by about 47%. Broadcasters’ revenue will fall by approximately £21 million or 0.4% per year, up to 11% for children’s channels. Ofcom has not estimated the health benefits from this option but considers they would be of the same order as those for Option 1.

4.3

Option 3 would reduce exposure of all children by about 37% and 44% for those in the 4 - 9 age group and could reduce revenues by approximately £43 million or 0.8% pa. The revenue impact on children’s channels is substantially less than for the other options, and the health benefits are valued at between £46 million and £221 million although Ofcom has not done a precise estimate for this, and it is arguable that the difference is within margins of error anyway. This option is complex for broadcasters to operate and does not do enough even to protect children up to the age of 9 and will not achieve the objective of introducing appropriate and necessary restrictions to protect young people from products which, if consumed in excess, will be bad for their health.

4.4

Restrictions should be specifically focussed on high fat, salt and sugar products and not extend to food in general as suggested by Package 2. We believe that the FSA nutrient profiling model is a robust system for distinguishing between less healthy and healthier foods. It is the best tool available and should be used to underpin Ofcom’s approach.

4.5

Members feel strongly that any proposed controls should be evidence based. They were concerned by the inconsistencies in Ofcom’s interpretation of its own data as highlighted by the National Consumer Council, for example, in relation to parent’s attitudes towards a possible ban on HFSS advertising before 9pm. While a ban on advertising of HFSS products before the 9pm watershed would potentially reduce revenue, members believe other adverts are likely to fill the slots and manufactures might even be encouraged to reformulate products so that their nutritional profile improved, representing a ‘win – win’ situation for all. The cumulative effects of advertising, not just the individual adverts, should be taken into account when drawing up rules and codes.

4.6	Foodaware supports proposals for monitoring the impact of the rule changes but considers that a 6 month period of grace for existing campaigns and those under development is too long.

June 2006