Food advertising to children: a fourth option is proposed to Ofcom

03 August 2006

In response to Ofcom's public consultation on food advertising to children, trade bodies representing the food and advertising industries have suggested a fourth proposal for how food and drink ads should be regulated.

Widespread concern about rising childhood obesity and how this could be addressed led to the launch of the food advertising consultation by Ofcom in March this year. Ofcom put forward three proposals looking at how foods high in fat, salt or sugar should be marketed to children, which were to be considered as part of the three-month consultation. Ofcom also invited anyone interested in the issue to put forward their own proposal, which could also be considered if it gained broad support and met the consultation's objective.

The industry has proposed a new, fourth solution, which has got the backing of the Advertising Association, the Food and Drink Federation, The Food Advertising Unit, the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising and the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers. It proposes a ban on food and drink advertising on terrestrial channels at times when children are likely to be watching television and a restriction on the amount of food and drink advertising on children's satellite/digital and cable channels. This move is a compromise solution compared with the watershed ban on food and drink advertising that some parties are calling for. Those proposing this fourth solution believe an all-out ban is unnecessary and would prove too damaging not only to the food and advertising industries but to the broadcasters as well.

In terms of advertising content, the fourth solution proposal group includes the content proposals put forward by BCAP when the consultation was launched; this will mean that licensed characters, such as cartoon favourites like Scooby Doo, would be banned from ads, whilst "brand equity" characters like Kelloggs'-created Tony the Tiger would not.

The consultation is now closed. Ofcom had planned to make its final recommendation in October but the timetable may now encounter delays, if this fourth proposal option fits the criteria for consideration. Responsibility for enforcing the new rules on this issue will fall to the ASA.

While Ofcom considers the responses to the consultation, two recent food-related rulings by the ASA demonstrate that marketing to children is not the only area where food advertisers need to take care. Many advertisers are keen to promote the functional benefits of their products but they must be mindful that the ASA will take a dim view of exaggerated claims. The ASA ordered two ads to be pulled on the grounds that the research held by the advertisers in question was not rigorous enough to justify the claims made in their ads. The first ad was for St.Ivel's "advance milk", which suggested the product could make children cleverer. The second was a Flora pro.activ ad that claimed the product keeps blood vessels healthy as well as lowering cholesterol. The message to advertisers following these rulings is that any research used as the basis for a claim must provide "definitive evidence" backing up any statement.