Andrew Christopher
February 6, 2012
The Age
Just before Christmas the Greens introduced a billto ban junk food advertising in certain media and at certain times of the day. The government also released its response to the food labelling review, led by Dr Neal Blewett.
Banning junk-food advertising is an unsatisfactory policy response to obesity. This is because it will lead to inconsistent and subjective decisions as to what type of foods or advertisements ought to be banned and on what occasions the ban ought to apply.
This will only promote economic inequities between food manufacturers and suppliers. More importantly this approach undermines the necessity for individuals and families to develop their own ways of controlling their eating habits and resisting the lure of advertising by sending a message that obesity is caused by someone else’s actions rather than being a personal responsibility.
As obesity rates continue to climb, the public debate continues and yet unfortunately it seems the government policy responses continue to show a lack of imagination.
Advertising bans and labelling regulation remain the main weapons of choice for our government. The Singapore government’s Trim and Fit programme and more recent Holistic Health Framework are examples of less paternalistic, multi-faceted approaches that emphasise personal responsibility and encourage kids to build fitness, exercise and moderation into their day-to-day behaviours. Despite attracting some critics, these programmes have met with some success.
In explaining the Greens bill, the party’s leader, Senator Bob Brown, stated: “We have a burgeoning health crisis of childhood obesity and need to curb the relentless advertising of unhealthy foods to children.”
Brown is right to describe the childhood obesity as a burgeoning crisis but, in the range of measures required to tackle this issue, advertising regulation is likely to be the least effective and also runs the risk of having unintended adverse consequences.
It is likely to be ineffective because it will not serve to mitigate the range of underlying social, cultural and lifestyle factors behind growing rates of obesity. As everyone knows, obesity results from a surplus of calorific intake over energy expenditure i.e. too much food and not enough exercise.
Banning the advertising of a small category of high calorie or fatty foods at certain hours of the day will not stimulate exercise and is unlikely to cause people to eat better. The best that can be said is that it may indirectly reduce kids’ “pester power” or may diminish the appeal of certain foods or brands in the consciousness of kids. Unfortunately kids are getting fatter for a range of reasons and because they eat too much food generally, not just the narrow range of processed foods advertised between 6 to 9am and 4 to 9pm.
By targeting the manufacturers and suppliers of the foods that are deemed to be junk, the proposed law will simply operate as a tax or extra cost on a narrow segment of the industry and is unlikely to affect the consumption of those foods.
These costs will be passed on in the form of higher prices or in a shift of consumption to other weight-inducing foods. Even if reduced consumption of the advertised foods does result, there are countless other poor eating choices available, including unhealthy home-cooked and processed food meals and takeaways supplied by small businesses that don’t advertise on TV.
The bill also seeks to ban the promotion of certain foods via digital media. You can’t hide food away. It is impossible to try to employ a “dark market” policy response for food, much like we have done for tobacco. Unhealthy food is everywhere – and this is the crux of the policy dilemma. Children and families need to learn, themselves, how to navigate the hazards of unhealthy eating habits.
While our community and our lawmakers have a duty to protect the young and the weak, we also need to give these groups some resilience by developing policy and educational responses that instil in the community the need for moderation and self care. Better food labelling might help in this regard but advertising bans won’t.
Banning junk food is a headline-grabbing response and superficially conveys the impression that the government is doing something. The likelihood is that bans won’t work because they target one small factor in obesity and divert attention from the need to educate us to make healthier personal choices.
Andrew Christopher is a partner at law firm Baker & McKenzie and works in the area of advertising and food regulation. He advises a wide range of clients, among them food, grocery and media companies.
Subscribe to our free mailing list and always be the first to receive the latest news and updates.