Tài liệu Protecting children from unhealthy food marketing docx

A British Heart Foundation and Children's Food

Campaign proposal for a statutory system to regulate

non-broadcast food marketing to children

Protecting children from

unhealthy food marketing

Children’s Food Campaign

www.childrensfoodcampaign.org.uk

II

Acknowledgments

The conclusions in this report have been reached

after a long process of discussion and

consultation. Particular thanks are due to the

author Richard Watts, Coordinator of the

Children's Food Campaign; as well as Alex

Callaghan, Yvonne Gritschneder and Ruairi

O'Connor at the British Heart Foundation (BHF);

Dr Mike Rayner from Sustain and Jane Landon of

the National Heart Forum who formed a steering

group to oversee the writing of the report.

An expert seminar was held in July 2007 to

discuss the current state of non-broadcast food

advertising to children. The seminar was

attended by: Isla Arendell, National Federation of

Women's Institutes; Emma Boyland, Liverpool

University; Jo Butcher, National Children's

Bureau; Alex Callaghan, BHF; Gill Cowburn, BHF

Health Promotion Research Group, Oxford

University; Kath Dalmeny, Sustain; Sue Davies,

Which?; Professor Gerard Hastings, Institute for

Social Marketing, University of Stirling; Jane

Landon, National Heart Forum; Dr. Tim Lobstein,

International Obesity Task Force; Kirsty

Schneeberger, Sustain; Professor Boyd

Swinburn, Deakin University; and Richard Watts,

Coordinator, Children's Food Campaign. The

conclusions of this report have been shared with

those who attended the seminar.

Particular thanks are due to a number of interns

who worked on the report: Alex Hale, Lianna

Hulbert, Shaira Kadir, Kirsty Schneeberger and

Harriet Smith. The report has only been possible

with their help.

Any mistakes in this report are, however, the sole

responsibility of the author.

Childhood obesity is one of the nation's most pressing public

health issues. If current trends continue, best estimates

suggest up to half of boys and almost a third of girls will be

obese by 2050. Obese children are highly likely to become

obese adults and the potential rise in cases of heart disease,

type 2 diabetes and diet-related cancers would create a

massive cost to the NHS, as well as huge suffering for those

involved.

Further action simply must be taken. Given the link between

the marketing of unhealthy foods to children and poor diets

amongst our nation's young, there is the strongest possible

case for further action to regulate marketing of unhealthy

foods to children.

This goes well beyond television advertisements. Health

groups have long called for a statutory system to regulate

marketing of junk food to children on promotional websites,

text messages, in-store placements, cinema adverts and

posters - but until now, no one has set out what these

arrangements might look like.

I commend this report as the first serious attempt to design a

truly comprehensive statutory system of regulation for non￾broadcast food marketing. I very much hope that the debate

it will undoubtedly stimulate will lead to action on how to

control unhealthy food marketing aimed at children.

Peter Hollins

Chief Executive

British Heart Foundation

Protecting children from unhealthy food marketing III

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Diet-related diseases and unhealthy food marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1 Prevalence of diet-related ill health in the UK, including childhood obesity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.2 The role of food promotion in making food choices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.3 Regulation of unhealthy food advertising in broadcast media. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2.4 Lack of regulation of unhealthy food marketing in non-broadcast media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2.5 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3. Non-broadcast unhealthy food marketing - what the existing regulation does and does not say . 11

3.1 What regulations are currently in place - the CAP Code and others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.2 What the current regulations do not cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.2.1 Product-based . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3.2.2 Promotional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.2.3 Placement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.3 Criticisms of the current codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.3.1 The language used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.3.2 Definition of 'children' and 'unhealthy food' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.3.3 Enforcement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4. Models of good practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.1 Tobacco control in the UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

4.2 Examples of unhealthy food marketing controls from other countries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.2.1 Quebec, Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4.2.2 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

4.3 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

IV

Contents

Protecting children from unhealthy food marketing: Contents V

5. How to protect children from non-broadcast marketing of unhealthy food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.1 What the rules should be. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.1.1 General principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

5.1.2 Defining 'unhealthy food' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5.1.3 Defining 'targeted at children'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

5.1.4 Marketing in store. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

5.1.5 Regulating websites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.1.6 Brand advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.2 Legislation and enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.2.1 The role of the ASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5.2.2 Proposed role of Trading Standards Offices (TSOs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

5.3 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

6. Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Appendices

1. The revised CAP Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

2. ICC International Code of Advertising Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

3. Draft enforcement sheet for TSOs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

VI

Summary

Public interest groups have long made the

case that our current system of regulating non￾broadcast (i.e. not on television or radio)

marketing of unhealthy food to children is not

adequate. This report is the first attempt in the

UK to design a statutory system of regulation

for non-broadcast food marketing that protects

and promotes children's health.

Children's dietary health, in particular childhood

obesity, is widely recognised as one of our most

pressing public health problems. The recent

Foresight report on obesity makes grave

predictions for the future state of the nation's

health unless we act now. Without action, 55% of

boys, and 70% of girls, could be overweight or

obese by 2050 and obesity will cost the country

£45 billion a year.

Food advertising and marketing, which is almost

always for unhealthy products, plays an important

role in encouraging unhealthy eating habits in

children. These habits are likely to continue into

adulthood. It has been proven that advertisements

affect food choices at both brand and category

level i.e. a McDonald's burger advert is likely not

only to make a person more likely to buy a

branded McDonald's burger over another brand,

but also more likely to buy a burger per se.

Recent efforts have been made to restrict

television advertising of unhealthy food to children.

These regulations acknowledge the particular

susceptibility of children to the influences of

advertising. However, there are currently no legal

limitations on non-broadcast marketing aimed at

children. This category includes marketing

through sponsorship, packaging, text messaging

and the internet. This is a growing form of

advertising aimed at children and its omission from

statutory regulation damages the effectiveness of

the system.

Since there is no evidence to suggest that non￾broadcast advertising marketing which targets

children is any less effective than broadcast, it is

inconsistent to regulate advertising of unhealthy

foods on television while ignoring non-broadcast

marketing aimed at children. Regulations

governing broadcast and non-broadcast

advertising of unhealthy food to children must be

brought into line with each other. Both must reflect

the need to protect children from undue pressure

to choose unhealthy food over healthy food.

Non-broadcast food marketing is currently subject

only to voluntary codes developed and enforced by

advertisers. These include the Committee of

Advertising Practice (CAP) code. There are

several criticisms of this self-regulatory regime:

It is primarily designed to ensure advertising is

"legal, decent, honest and truthful" and not to

protect and promote health.

The rules mostly cover only advertising in a

traditional, narrow sense and ignore the wider

range of techniques used to promote a product.

The wording is vague and inconsistent.

Enforcement is weak and retrospective and

there is little incentive to comply.

This report analyses legislation in Quebec and

Sweden that stops the television advertising of all

food to younger children. It suggests that a

number of legal devices used in their legislation

Protecting children from unhealthy food marketing: Summary VII

could be helpful in the UK, especially the Quebec

grid that decides which advertisements should be

controlled. The report also considers if there are

useful legal precedents in UK legislation to control

tobacco marketing. The definition of 'advertising'

used in this legislation covers anything with the

purpose or effect of promoting a tobacco product,

which is helpful in covering the range of marketing

techniques outlined in this report.

This report therefore proposes a regulatory system

based on the principle that individuals and

organisations must not act in a way where the

purpose or effect is to promote an unhealthy food

product to individuals under the age of 16. This

should be a statutory system enshrined in law, not

a voluntary industry code. The proposed law

prohibits all marketing whose purpose or effect is

to promote unhealthy food to children. This covers

not only traditional advertising methods but

anything that acts as advertising, such as

promotional websites, text messages, in-store

placements and so on.

The proposal would only apply to foods that are

classed as 'less healthy' by the Food Standards

Agency's nutrient profiling model. Less healthy

food promotions would then be assessed as to

whether they target children. Promotions would be

assessed as low, medium or high for two criteria.

The first is the extent to which the product targets

children. The second is the extent to which the

mechanism used to promote the product targets

children. Any promotion for an unhealthy food

product that is either highly targeted at children, or

a promotion which is medium highly targeted at

children would be restricted. Promotions assessed

as medium for both product and mechanism

criteria would also be restricted. This would mean

that no unhealthy food product specifically aimed

at children could be promoted. The report sets out

definitions for the assessment of each criteria.

Finally, the proposal recommends that the system

is enforced by Trading Standards Officers with the

support of the Food Standards Agency. We do not

believe that an industry body, such as the

Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), should

have a role in its implementation.

Adopting this system, we believe, would have a

significant impact on protecting and improving the

health of children in the UK.