eNews Briefing button

Loopholes on brand advertising and sponsorship could scupper junk food advertising ban

26 October 2006

In anticipation of the imminent announcement of new rules on junk food advertising from Ofcom, the National Heart Forum and Sustain (the alliance for better food and farming) cautioned MPs today (26 October) that proposals could be fatally flawed if they do not deal with brand as well as product advertising.

In a briefing note to all MPs (attached) highlighting the health and social benefits that would flow from a restriction on junk food advertising before 9pm, the two charities also drew attention to the possibility that apparently robust restrictions on junk food ads may not remove commercial pressures on children if Ofcom opts to permit brand advertising and sponsorship (where no product appears).

"Ofcom's draft proposals do not apply to brand advertising. Unless they do, it will leave the door wide open for junk food and drink companies to shift their marketing spend into programme and channel sponsorship, and into the sort of high-impact brand image advertisements we saw on billboards from tobacco companies in the 1990s," said Jane Landon, deputy chief executive of the National Heart Forum.

"Ofcom clearly recognises the risks of leaving brand advertising unregulated, but it is likely to be under huge pressure from the junk food companies and advertisers to throw them a lifeline. We now hear that Ofcom will permit entire commercial channels to be sponsored. Sponsorship is like any other bit of marketing - it promotes a product to a target audience. If Cadbury's sponsorship of Coronation Street does not ultimately sell chocolate, then what does it do?" said Richard Watts, coordinator of the Children's Food Campaign at Sustain.

Only this week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown MP said he supported a restriction on junk food advertising up to 9pm as part of a comprehensive range of measure to improve children's health and well-being.

 

Notes to editors

1. The National Heart Forum (NHF) is an alliance of 50 national organisations working to reduce the risk of coronary heart disease, the UK's biggest single - yet largely preventable - cause of death and disease. See: www.heartforum.org.uk

2. The Children's Food Campaign wants to improve children's health and well-being through better food - and food teaching - in schools, and protecting children from junk food marketing. We are supported by over 300 organisations, almost 300 MPs and 12,000 members of the public.  We were behind the ground-breaking Children's Food Bill introduced into Parliament last year. The Children's Food Campaign is coordinated by Sustain: the alliance for better food and farming.

3. Ofcom's consultation on TV food advertising to children closed in June 2006 and the regulator is due to announce its proposals. A 9pm watershed restriction on high fat, sugar and salt foods would reduce children's exposure to this type of advertising by 82%. Such a measure is supported by 29 national health charities and organisations, 14 consumer and public interest organisations, Ofcom's own advisory committee for England, the Office of the Children's Commissioner, the Food Standards Agency and over 1,000 parents and concerned individuals.

4. Ofcom announced yesterday (25 October) that it will amend the Broadcasting Code to allow sponsorship of commercial television channels and radio stations.

5. Programme sponsorship has been allowed for 15 years and marketing spend has leapt from £7m in 1990 to an estimated £99m in 1996 (Mintel 1997). Food products accounted for 45% of all programme sponsorship in 2004. (Ofcom consultation document, 2006).

6. Below is the briefing note for MPs.

Briefing: Food and drink TV advertising aimed at children

Introduction

Ofcom is due to announce its recommendations to Government on how best to protect children from HFSS (high in fat, salt and sugar) food advertising on television.

Health, consumer and children's groups remain convinced that a 9pm watershed for junk food TV adverts is the only effective way to protect children. Opinion polls consistently show that the vast majority of parents agree with us.

This briefing covers what we would like Ofcom to propose, and highlights a major loop-hole that we are concerned may damage the effectiveness of the new rules.

Food and drink advertising to children - key issues

The National Heart Forum and Sustain (together with hundreds of health, consumer and citizens' interest organisations) have consistently argued that Ofcom's proposals should:

We believe that a pre-9pm restriction on all HFSS advertising is a necessary and proportionate measure to protect children from exposure to advertising for unhealthy foods and the detrimental effects this has on their dietary health and well-being. It would:

A 9pm watershed could save the nation up to almost a billion pounds a year - at a cost to industry of only £140 million a year (less than half of ITV's dividend to shareholders last year alone). We also believe - in the face of perverse opposition from the food industry - that TV advertising for healthier products should be permitted to encourage children to eat healthier foods as well as to give companies an incentive to alter menus and reformulate products in healthy directions.

Ofcom's regulations on food and drink advertising to children must cover brand advertising as well as product advertising

When Ofcom formulates its final opinion, it is vital that it closes a significant potential loophole raised in its consultation document. As written, Ofcom's draft proposals do not apply to brand advertising where no products are shown, leaving food and drink companies the freedom to promote their brands in both spot advertisements and programme sponsorship credits.

In Ofcom's own words: "If there are no restrictions on brands, there is a risk that manufacturers of HFSS products might seek to use brand advertising and especially brand sponsorship to substitute for the loss of product advertising opportunities." (Ofcom consultation document 2006).

While acknowledging there are important differences between tobacco and HFSS foods, where controls on marketing these products are concerned, there are important common points of principle and practice. Based on evidence and experience from tobacco advertising, the National Heart Forum and Sustain believe that a loophole permitting brand advertising would seriously compromise any meaningful regulations and undermine the government's stated purpose 'to change the nature and balance of food advertising to children':

What we already know:

Brand advertising by food and drink companies

There is every reason to expect loopholes in HFSS advertising regulation will be exploited by food and drink companies and their advertising agencies in similar ways, leading to continued marketing pressure on children from companies promoting fast food, snacks, confectionery and soft drinks.

Robust regulations that are clear and unambiguous must specify what is allowed and prohibit everything else. Unless and until Ofcom and the government can determine which brands comply with restrictions on HFSS advertising and which do not, generic brand advertising campaigns should not be allowed for brands associated with foods and drinks.

What the food and drink companies and advertisers say

In response to Ofcom's consultation, food and advertising industry representatives argue that brand advertising should not be regulated, saying that they are "totally opposed to any restriction on brand advertising," (Institute of Practitioners in Advertising), that "brand advertising is not promoting a product" (Food Advertising Unit, Food and Drink Federation) and that "substitution of brand for product advertising is likely to be rare," (Incorporated Society of British Advertisers).

Pressure to increase programme and channel sponsorship

This issue of brand promotion is important in view of the increasing use of programme sponsorship (such as Cadbury's sponsorship of ITV's Coronation Street) and Ofcom's decision this month to permit sponsorship of commercial TV channels and radio stations. Broadcast sponsorship in the UK leapt from £7m in 1990 to £99m in 1996 (Mintel 1997) and in 2004, food products accounted for 45% of all programme sponsorship (Ofcom Consultation document 2006).

Ofcom's rules on advertising content and scheduling apply to broadcast sponsorship. But if brand advertising is allowed, sponsorship of programmes or entire channels may, as Ofcom predicts, "negate any beneficial effect of the regulatory package." (Ofcom consultation document 2006).

[Ends]

 

 

 

Related items