Doctors, teachers and children's charities prepare to take broadcast regulator to court
22 May 2006
The National Heart Forum, an alliance of health, medical and consumer organisations, is preparing an application for judicial review against the broadcast regulator, Ofcom.
The heart charity claims that it is unlawful and conspicuously unfair of the regulator to exclude from full and fair consideration a 9pm watershed for junk food advertising consultation in its current consultation on TV food advertising to children. Ofcom has claimed that it would be 'disproportionate' to fully and properly consult on excluding junk food advertising before the 9pm watershed. However, the National Heart Forum believes that Ofcom's reasoning for excluding the 9pm option is skewed, unfair and relies on misquoting statistical evidence.
Jane Landon, deputy chief executive of the National Heart Forum said:
"We are dismayed that Ofcom have weighed industry profits against children's health, compromised this important consultation and forced us to take this unprecedented step of seeking a fair consultation through the courts. What we are asking Ofcom to do is to consider the 9pm watershed option fairly and equally alongside the far more limited options it has consulted on. This will ensure that parents know the full range of possibilities and Ofcom can hear their views. We are not asking for much, but we believe a fair and open consultation is essential to ensure that Ofcom reaches the right decision at the end of the consultation process."
"By Ofcom's own calculations, a 9pm watershed for junk food adverts would dramatically reduce children's exposure to unhealthy food advertising. All the health and consumer organisations who clearly communicated to Ofcom during the gestation of this consultation document that a 9pm option should, at the very least, be included for comment, are shocked and dismayed that our views have been ignored and the 9pm option has been summarily dismissed by Ofcom without proper consultation. Ofcom's reason for excluding the most effective, easy to regulate option which is popular with health groups and parents alike, namely that Ofcom believe this will place a 'disproportionate' burden on broadcasters, is a breathtaking defence of industry interests over public health."
The National Heart Forum, will be making an application to the court supported by its members and collaborating bodies including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians, the British Heart Foundation, Diabetes UK, the National Children's Bureau, The Royal Society for Public Health, the Faculty of Public Health, the National Union of Teachers, the Northern Ireland Chest, Heart & Stroke Association, Sustain, Public Voice, the International Obesity Task Force, the Health Education Trust, and Which? (formerly the Consumers' Association).
A British Heart Foundation (BHF) online survey conducted this month, and published today (Tuesday 23 May) found that 68% of parents would like to see a pre-watershed ban on junk food advertising, while just 7% are against a pre-watershed ban. A total of 75% of parents believe television junk food advertising influences their children's food choices.
Professor Vivienne Nathanson, Director of Professional Activities at the British Medical Association said:
"The BMA is extremely disappointed that Ofcom has decided to ignore the recommendation to restrict the advertising of unhealthy foods before the 9pm watershed and is urging Ofcom to think again and to hold a fair and open consultation,, Childhood obesity in the UK is soaring out of control and will lead to high rises in heart disease, diabetes and some cancers. The BMA has been calling for the regulation of advertising of unhealthy foods to children for a year. It is time for an open consultation offering firm action not just half-measures."
Professor Peter Kopelman, chair of the Royal College of Physicians Nutrition Committees said:
"We are facing a crisis of obesity and poor dietary health in children. Almost one in five children under 16 in the UK is obese., We know that advertising has a part to play in shaping children's diets and that TV is the principal medium for food advertising. The three options put forward by Ofcom in the consultation are unacceptable - undoubtedly they cushion the impact on the financial wellbeing of TV channels but to the detriment of health, Moreover, they do not address the resourcefulness of the food and drink industry who should be encouraged by more stringent regulations to promote healthier eating and drinking."
Douglas Smallwood, Chief Executive of Diabetes UK said:
"Type 2 diabetes in children is a frightening new phenomenon linked to obesity. It is putting our children at risk of heart disease, blindness and kidney failure. Preventing its spread requires real action which puts our children's health before commercial interests."
Gill Frances, director of children's development at the National Children's Bureau said:
"It's no use simply restricting food and drink advertising during TV programmes aimed at under-9s when we know that large numbers of children regularly watch so-called adult programming like sport and soaps. A nine o'clock watershed would protect children and young people from the impact of advertising and NCB believes that it is deeply irresponsible of Ofcom to fail to offer it as an option."
British Heart Foundation Director General, Peter Hollins said:
"Ofcom appears to have lost sight of the brief it was given to protect children from bombardment by junk food advertising, and now seems more concerned with protecting the interests of broadcasters and advertisers. Our research proves the pre-watershed ban commands parents' support, as well as the backing of numerous health and consumer groups. But Ofcom's clear prejudice against this option is seriously undermining the consultation. If this process is to be a valid measure of public feeling, all options must be given fair and equal consideration."
Richard Watts of Sustain and campaign coordinator of Children's Food Bill said:
"Ofcom seem to be umbilically linked to the TV and food industry, so it's no surprise that they have bottled out of a proper consultation on protecting children from junk food TV advertising. We're delighted that National Heart Forum has taken the decision to stand up to Ofcom -they have the full support of the Children's Food Bill coalition."
Sue Davies, Chief Policy Adviser at Which? said:
"Which? research has shown that more younger children are watching television during evening programmes, such as Coronation Street and Emmerdale than they are during specific children's programmes. However, under Ofcom's proposals food companies would still be able to promote unhealthy foods during these more popular viewing times for children. This is despite a recent Which? survey finding that 79 per cent of parents support restrictions during the times that children are most likely to be watching. We therefore support this action by the National Heart Forum aimed at ensuring that Ofcom consults on proposals that will actually tackle the problem."
A meeting of influential MPs will today (Tuesday 23 May) debate the legitimacy of the Ofcom consultation. Members of the four All-Party Parliamentary Groups on heart disease, obesity, diabetes and children will meet at 4pm at the House of Commons.
Press Contacts
For comment or to arrange interviews please call Carol Glover, Communications Manager on
0207 383 7638 during office hours or on
07950 253 399 evenings and weekends. Or alternatively, call Paul Lincoln, Chief Executive or Jane Landon, Deputy Chief Executive.
Notes to editors
1) Ofcom are consulting on four options for reducing the impact of food and drink advertising to children in its consultation: Television Advertising of Food and Drink Products to Children: Options for new restrictions (
www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/). The consultation closes on 30 June, 2006.
2) The British Heart Foundation commissioned an online survey of 850 parents, between the ages of 16 and 64, conducted in May 2006. See www.bhf.org.uk for details.
3) Judicial Review
Judicial review is a form of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. It is a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made. It is not really concerned with the conclusions of that process and whether those were 'right', as long as the right procedures have been followed. The court will not substitute what it thinks is the 'correct' decision. This may mean that the public body will be able to make the same decision again, so long as it does so in a lawful way. Judicial review looks at the lawfulness of actions and decisions. These can be challenged on a number of grounds, which are usually described as follows: illegality; irrationality; and unfairness.
4) Government consultation
Consultations involve the public and other stakeholders in the work of government. Interested parties have a set time window in which to respond to a freely accessible consultation document. Consultations alert policy makers to concerns and issues not picked up through existing evidence or research.