UK Government To Spend £75 Million On Advertising How To Lead A Healthy Life, But Still Allows Some Junk Food Advertising Before 9 p.m., Protecting The £211 Million That A Ban Would Cost TV Companies

Philip Stone January 24, 2008

Here are the UK government’s priorities when it comes to valuing child health: it’s worth taxpayers paying £372 million ($740 million, €495 million) for a vigorous multi-faceted program to combat obesity that includes a £75 million ($150 million, €100 million) advertising campaign aimed at adults to vigorously promote healthy eating and exercise lifestyles. But, for now at least, it’s not worth getting more bang for that taxpayer spend by endangering the £211 million that TV companies would lose if all junk food advertising were banned before 9 p.m.

It’s a difficult tradeoff to understand. The government says that junk food is a scourge, that the majority of the population is obese  and its hitting the younger generation worse than ever, it is going to spend hundreds of millions of pounds to fight what it calls the country’s  “most significant  personal health challenge,”  it doesn’t want any more junk food restaurants built near schools or parks, but succumbing to vigorous food industry and advertising lobbying it stopped short of  banning junk food ads until most kids are in bed for the night, as many health campaigners had advocated 

The government’s official answer is that it has asked the office of communications (Ofcom) that governs TV advertising to bring forward its review of restrictions on junk food advertising, so the ban can still be recommended but the food industry has some more time to come up with self-regulation that will negate the need for such a ban.

Apparently the health minister wanted an immediate ban but the media minister did not because the TV advertising business is already in a slump, and the economic arguments won the day over health (although it can be argued the longer kids are encouraged to eat fatty foods the more that will cost the National Health Service – but, of course, that’s a taxpayer cost and doesn’t come out of the TV ciompanies).

So far, Ofcom has adopted a slow approach to banning TV junk food advertising aimed at kids.  Last April came stage one – banning advertising for products with high fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) foods around programs that are aimed at children under the age of 10. Stage two took effect this month – increasing the age to 15 and also banning such ads in programs that are made for children.

But health campaigners say those rules have as many holes as Swiss cheese, and that many teenagers, for instance, watch programs that are aimed at older audiences but  those programs escape the junk food ban.

In UK television terms, the 9 p.m. hour is called the watershed. It is generally thought that the younger kids are in bed by then and it is only then and beyond that programs with violence or of a sexual nature can be shown. The advertising agencies and the TV stations say a junk food ban until the watershed is not necessary because the food industry over the past three years has been shifting away from advertising HFSS foods and the food industry has been changing the ingredients in popular foods to make them healthier.

What it boils down to is that the food industry wants self-regulation, not government edicts.

Baroness Peta Buscombe, the Advertising Association chief executive, sums up the group’s position, “The solution must be better self-regulation and restraint by the advertising industry and not unwelcome and restrictive legislation.” And while she does not argue against obesity being a major problem her view is “advertising is an easy and eye catching target, but advertising bans have unintended consequences and won’t tackle the root causes of the problem of obesity.” Perhaps, but if kids don’t see all those ads can it be argued that won’t help the cause?

Americans may remember as part of their folklore that laws were passed in many communities banning any house of ill repute to be located near schools (and, of course, there were always the cartoons, therefore, of the schools being moved) . The Brits are now taking a page out that book and as part of their anti-obesity program the government will urge local councils to ban the building of new junk food restaurants near schools and parks.  So there is a recognition that junk food is not good for the kids, basically out of sight (and availability) then out of mind, but when it comes to stopping kids seeing such ads on TV then that seems to be something else.

And Americans will also recall that whenever home economics was offered in high school or university few boys would ever go near. But now the British government says it’s going to make cooking lessons compulsory for all children.

The huge advertising campaign will not be aimed at kids, however, but rather their parents to promote healthy living lifestyles. Parents will be bombarded with such simple slogans as “five pieces of fruit and veg a day”. The government also announced that it will work with the food and drink industry to produce a Healthy Food Code of Good Practice that institutes a single approach to food labeling, a sensitive issue since the food industry doesn’t like the red, amber, green traffic light system that health groups encourage.

The UK obesity statistics are startling. Two-thirds of all adults are now thought to be obese and that figure is expected to rise to 90% by 2050. Thus the new strategy, “Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives”.

The Health Secretary put it bluntly, “Tackling obesity is the most significant public and personal health challenge facing our society. The core of the problem is simple – we eat too much and do too little exercise. The solution is more complex. From the nature of the food that we eat, to the built environment, through to the way our children lead their lives – it is harder to avoid obesity in the modern environment. It is not the government’s role to hector or lecture people, but we do have a duty to support them in leading healthier lifestyles. This will only succeed if the problem is recognized, owned and addressed in every part of society.”

The government gets basically an “A” for everything except its failure to impose the pre-9 p.m. advertising ban for junk food. A British Heart Foundation spokeswoman said, “How can our children expect to make ‘informed’ food choices if they are constantly being bombarded by junk food advertisements that urge them to put their health and hearts at risk.”

The bottom line of the government fudge on the TV advertising issue is telling the food and advertising industries to come up with self regulation and soon or the government will do it for them. Meanwhile the TV ad money continues flowing; so does the fat.