Home > Consultations > Consultation Documents > Food Advertising to Children > Plain English Summary

Advertising food and drinks to children on television

A consultation on possible new restrictions

Published 28 March 2006
Closing date for responses 30 June 2006

The story so far

In the last few years there has been a growing worry about more and more children being overweight. There are many reasons for this increase, and some of them are linked. Changes in lifestyle, diet and the way products are sold to us have all played their part.

With more children getting fatter, in 2004 the Government asked us to find out whether advertising was having an effect on children. We were also asked to decide whether we should tighten our rules on advertising food and soft drinks to children.

Our report, which we published in July of that year, built on a large amount of research that had already been done in this area. We found that children were directly affected by the adverts they’d seen (for example, by buying something just because they’d seen the commercial), but only to a small extent. However, we did find that adverts had a larger indirect effect, on what children liked, what they ate and drank, and how they behaved. Having weighed up the evidence, we decided that leaving things as they were was not good enough. There was a case for tightening the rules.

Since then, the situation has been changing. In 2005, the number of food, drink and restaurant commercials on television aimed at children dropped by 13%. Also, a number of food and soft-drink manufacturers decided not to advertise on television during kids’ programmes.

The television advertising industry’s own watchdog – the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) – has also come up with a range of tighter rules on how food should be advertised to children. We have welcomed this input, as it will be an important part of possible new ideas we’ll be asking people about. Even so, it leaves the question of whether there should be even less advertising of food and drink to children? We think there is a case for cutting the number of commercials. However, deciding on the ‘right’ level is another thing. Perhaps that’s why there have been no proposals which TV stations, advertisers, supermarkets, fast-food restaurants and manufacturers all feel they can support.

As a result, we’re asking for your views on three possible ways to see a cut in the number of food adverts to children. Each tries to strike a balance between taking action that works, without harming the range and quality of children’s programmes which advertising helps to pay for, or the vital activities of making food and selling it.

Each of the three options has its own advantages and disadvantages, and at this stage we don’t prefer one over another.

In fact, if you can think of a better idea – or perhaps a combination of thoughts you see here – we would be very interested to hear it. We believe advertising plays a small part in a much bigger issue that involves parents, schools, exercise and many other things. However, it’s something we can work to improve.

Our role

We at Ofcom are the independent regulator of television, radio, telecommunications and wireless communications services in the UK. Part of our role is to set standards for television advertising. Broadcasters must make sure that the advertising on their stations keeps to our rules. Since late 2004, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has been looking after complaints and developing policies for advertising on television. However, we are still in overall charge of standards for advertising you see on your television. It is our job to:

look after the interests of us all as citizens and consumers;
protect people under 18;
make sure there is a choice of broadcasters;
make sure we can all enjoy high-quality television for a number of tastes and interests;
see that all advertisers are treated the same; and
do our job as regulator in an open way, while interfering as little as possible.

Food advertising and children – a little background

The Government wants to tighten the rules on the ways certain products are promoted and sold to children. These are foods and drinks that are high in fat, salt or sugar (and which, for this booklet, we’ll call HFSS foods). They want to look at everything from advertising to vending machines, and to see healthier alternatives being promoted.

This has been caused by worries, among ordinary people and official organisations, that many children are getting fatter and less healthy because of a poor diet. They’re eating too many HFSS foods, and not enough fresh foods, fruit and vegetables. Both the Department of Health (DH) and the Food Standards Agency (FSA) think that there should be tighter rules to control how HFSS products are sold to children. Because of this, the Government have asked us to consider how this could be done.

Clearly, we are not experts in food and nutrition, so the FSA has created and tested a scoring system for us that measures the nutrition in food. The total score of a particular food tells us whether that product falls into the HFSS category. This could be useful if we want to single out foods that are part of the problem, without getting in the way of advertising healthier foods.

Research and analysis

As an independent regulator, before we can say any restrictions are fair, we must be sure there’s a link between advertising HFSS products on TV and bad eating habits.

If restrictions are justified, what form should they take? And should they apply to all food and drink adverts made for children, or just ads for HFSS food and drinks?

That’s why, in 2004, we launched a major research project to bring together findings from previous academic research, national food surveys, lifestyle questions, and facts and figures from the food companies and broadcasters. We also carried out our own research into people’s habits and attitudes. From this study, we decided that television advertising does have a small direct effect on what children like, eat and choose.

There are likely to be more indirect effects as well, for example, children discussing brands with their school friends . However, there was not enough evidence to say just how big the TV advertising effect on children’s weight is, when you compare it to other factors such as:

exercise;
trends in family eating habits;
parents' social groups;
school policy; and
food labelling and other ways of promoting food.

We also looked into what parents thought. We found that while they agree their children’s diet is their responsibility, they also thought that tighter rules on advertising would help to encourage their children to eat more healthily. Since then, we’ve carried out more research, to:

update our first estimate about the size of the food market, what people spend and how important it is to advertising;
update our knowledge on how children watch television;
study food and drink advertising to children on television; and
look at the most recent academic research on how television advertising affects children’s health and diet.

These new and updated studies confirm what we first thought. There is growing evidence that television advertising does have an effect on what children like to eat. It’s also clear that although advertising to children is falling each year, television is still the main way to put food and drink in front of the widest audiences.

Why we should get involved

We realise that the food industry and the broadcasters could bring in some rules of their own to make food advertising less powerful. In fact, some manufacturers have done just that by deciding not to advertise to younger children.

However, we don’t think that ‘self-regulation’, where an industry keeps a check on itself, will be enough. So far, the food industry has found it hard to agree on a way forward, and perhaps it will need firm action to make a real difference. Taking everything together – the research findings, our duties as a regulator and the general view that society will benefit – we believe we should now tighten the rules on advertising certain foods to children.

However, we must weigh up what’s actually needed. We must:

balance the benefits to people’s lives with advertising’s small part in a much bigger picture and think about the lost business for broadcasters if we do restrict advertising;
only get involved and use our powers if they’re really needed;
listen to studies that say there’s a difference between children who are more at risk (those under age 8) and children of 11 and 12 who are much more streetwise about advertising; and
be aware that restrictions would be part of a package of steps, with the Government taking action on other kinds of advertising and promotion.

What we’re aiming to do

By bringing in these extra restrictions, our goals would be to:

make sure that younger children see far less advertising for HFSS products;
give more protection to all children, and their parents, by being stricter about what these adverts can say;
lower the risk that children and parents misunderstand the claims they see in adverts;
avoid the broadcasters losing too much business;
avoid heavy-handed rules that aren’t needed during adults’ programmes; and
put the new rules in place and give them time to work before the Government reviews the situation in early 2007.

‘Nutrient profiling’

In this consultation we’re asking whether we should use a system that identifies products high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS), depending on the amount of fat, salt or sugar they contain. If so, we need to decide whether the Food Standards Agency’s system (‘nutrient profiling’) is the best for what we need, or whether there are better ways of doing it. ‘Nutrients’ are the individual parts of food, such as fats, sugars, salt, calcium, vitamins, protein and so on. We are aware that the FSA’s system is supported by some, but that it is also has its critics. Here’s a summary of the arguments on both sides.

‘Nutrient profiling’ – the case for

Others are in favour of the system, because:

it is only meant to guide the regulator on high or low fat, salt or sugar foods (ordinary people won’t see it);
you need to single out HFSS products – otherwise, new stricter rules could affect healthy products as well;
without it, it would be more difficult to advertise healthier products to adults as well as children;
there is no real alternative to the ‘for every 100g’ system (it’s also used widely in other countries); and
it has been created and tested by experts, and is based on science.

‘Nutrient profiling’ – the case against

Food manufacturers have criticised the system. They say:

the whole idea is wrong because few foods do you harm if you eat sensible amounts (even so, they would be labelled as ‘unhealthy’);
it isn’t based on science, but on what’s seen as ‘healthy’ and ‘unhealthy’;
it would lead people to eat unbalanced diets;
it is wrong to measure nutrients ’for every 100g’ instead of ’in a portion’; and
it would mean we would not treat some advertisers equally.

Policy options

Bearing in mind our duties, and weighing up all the arguments above, we have looked at a number of possible solutions. We are starting with two at opposite ends of the scale.

Let the food industry keep a check on itself?

In early discussions we held before this consultation, we heard that:

there have already been major changes in food advertising, with a number of manufacturers acting on their own to reduce the effect on children;
nutritional information on food labels has been improved; and
food advertising is already well checked, and is strengthened by the industry’s own rules.

For these reasons, some argue that there is no need, and no reason, to bring in restrictions on food advertising to children. It is certainly true that things have changed on television since the Government’s call for action. The main food and drinks manufacturers and restaurants have had a smaller share of advertising time in recent years, both generally and during children’s programmes.

However, the amount manufacturers spent actually increased in 2004 and 2005. Even if their spending went down again, it could take a long time before HFSS products had less of an effect on children. We’ve also noted that the advertising rules still allow advertisers to use a number of different techniques to make their adverts attractive to children.

It is one of our principles not to step in unless it’s clear we’re needed. It might seem, looking at the sacrifices the food industry has already made, we should leave it to keep a check on itself. However, it could also be true that the industry has been on its best behaviour while there’s talk of more regulation in the air. However, would things stay that way if the threat of restrictions went away?

We’re not convinced. As a result, leaving the industry to regulate itself does not seem to us like a good policy for the future.

Stop HFSS advertising before 9pm?

At first glance, this idea seems simple. All we do is just say no to any advertising for HFSS products until younger children have gone to bed.

Instantly, it would cut the amount of this kind of advertising on four- to 15-year-olds by 82%. It would achieve one of our main goals. The FSA also estimates that, in money terms, the health benefits could be anywhere between £50million and £990million.

However, in our view, this option isn’t as good as it looks. It would protect younger children, but would also make it difficult for adults to see HFSS advertising aimed at them. The main channels could also lose out on anything up to £240million a year. We think this penalty would be much too high, particularly when parents have told us in our research that they’re not in favour of a ban. For these reasons, we don’t support a ‘9pm watershed’ for this kind of advertising.

Four options for consultation

Clearly, this is a complicated issue and none of the main groups involved seem to share much common ground. For this reason, we have created three possible ways forward which we would like you to consider, and give us your thoughts on.

At the same time, we’re leaving the door open to a fourth possible solution – from anyone with an interest in this complicated problem. If the idea seems to get the broad support of the broadcasters, advertisers, manufacturers and supermarkets – and if it meets our goals – we would be happy to extend our consultation to get feedback on this option as well.

The three packages we are now proposing share two themes:

no advertising of HFSS products in programmes aimed at pre-school children (younger than five years old); and
a range of rules about what food and drink advertising can show or say, and to stop some selling techniques to certain age groups altogether.

These rules have been drawn up by BCAP, the broadcasting and advertising people who are in charge of the standards codes. In short, the rules say:

the adverts must not encourage poor eating or an unhealthy lifestyle for children;
they must not advise or ask children to buy anything, or to pester their parents;
no promotional offers (including collectables and giveaways) should be given in food and drink adverts to children under age 10;
children must not be encouraged to eat or drink a product simply to get a gift or offer;
celebrities and characters from films must not be used in food and drink ads targeted directly at children under 10;
health claims about the parts of a product (for example, ‘rich in fibre’) must be based on sound scientific evidence, and must not suggest that the whole product is healthy unless there is evidence to support that view;
no nutritional or health claims may be focused on pre-school children; and
advertisements must not praise or encourage eating or drinking too much.

Three possible ways forward

Package 1

Timing restrictions on certain food and drink products

The features of this package of restrictions are:

no HFSS product advertising to be shown in programmes specially made for children (including pre-school programmes);
no HFSS product advertising to be shown in any programme that appeals strongly to children up to nine years old, no matter when it’s shown;
no sponsorship by HFSS products of programmes that are affected by the restrictions above; and
the BCAP watchdog’s rules to be followed for all food and drink advertising and sponsorship.

The likely effects of package 1 would be:

that children (aged four to 15) would see around 50% less HFSS food and drink advertising;
terrestrial broadcasters (in other words, the main broadcasters – ITV, Channel 4 and Five) would lose about 0.5% of their total income;
children’s channels would lose much more – between about 4% and 21% of their income, depending on the channel;
taken as a whole, broadcasters would lose about £28million a year in income; and
health benefits for children. In money terms, using the FSA’s figures, we estimate this could be between £63million and £303million.

If we went for this package, the broadcasters as a whole would lose around 1% of their income. However, the children’s channels could be more seriously affected, and the smaller ones could even go out of business. For this reason, we would recommend that the restrictions should be phased in for children’s channels gradually over three years.

Package 2

Timing restrictions on all food and drink products

The features of this package would be the same as package 1 – except that there would be restrictions on every type of food and drink. The only special case would be for healthy eating advertising supported by the Government.

We think that package 2 would mean that:

children (aged four to 15) would see around 50% less food and drink advertising;
terrestrial broadcasters would lose around 0.5% to 0.8% of their total income;
children’s channels would lose between 4% and 21% of their total income (depending on the channel);
broadcasters as a whole would lose about £31million a year in income; and
like package 1, the health benefits would between £63million and £303million a year in money terms.

So with this package, the broadcasters would lose out on slightly more money. Again, it could have a serious effect on children’s channels, so if we were to go with package 2, we would also suggest phasing in these rules over three years.

Package 3

Cutting the amount of advertising of all food and drink

The main features of this package are shown below.

No food or drink advertising at all to be shown in programmes made for pre-school children.
A limit to the amount of advertising when children are most likely to be watching. This could be:
- a limit of 30 seconds an hour (6am to 9am and 3pm to 6pm weekdays, and 6am to 1pm on weekends);
- a limit of 60 seconds an hour during family viewing time (6pm to 8pm) and weekend afternoons (1pm to 8pm); and
- a limit of 30 seconds an hour through the day for children’s channels (except pre-school channels, which would have no food or drink advertising at all).
BCAP’s rules will be applied to food and drink advertising and sponsorship.

We think package 3 would mean:

children would see a little under half of the food and drink advertising they see now;
the incomes of terrestrial broadcasters would fall by about 3%;
this package would have less effect on the children’s channels than the other two, but their income would still be down by between 2% and 12%;
taken as a whole, broadcasters would lose out on around £90million a year; and
the health benefits to children would be similar to packages 1 and 2.

In this package, we have designed the limits on advertising to take effect when children are most likely to be watching. This reaches a peak between 6pm and 8pm, when up to two million children are watching TV.

Conclusion

We think that these three packages offer a fair and balanced approach to meeting our aim. We aren’t recommending one in particular, and instead would like your views on how you think we could improve them. We’re also inviting people with an interest to contribute their own package which would be the fourth one. It would need to tackle the issue of children being swayed by what they see in food and drink advertising, but still get the support of food manufacturers, supermarkets, channels and broadcasters.

The consultation will close on Tuesday 6 June 2006. We will then issue a statement later in the year saying what the new rules are and when they would come into force.

How to respond

If you have any comments on the issues raised in this booklet, please e-mail your comments to us at foodadvertising@ofcom.org.uk.

If possible, please attach your response to your e-mail as a Microsoft Word document. Please also attach the response cover sheet, which you can download separately from the ‘Consultations’ section of our website.

You can also post or fax your response, marked ‘Food advertising – consultation’, to:

Ian Blair
Ofcom, 5th Floor
Riverside House
2A Southwark Bridge Road
London
SE1 9HA.
Fax: 020 7783 3806

The closing date for responses is 5pm on Friday 30 June 2006.

To simplify the process, we do not usually acknowledge that we have received your response.

We think it is important that anyone interested in our consultation can see the views we receive. For this reason, we will put all responses on our website when the consultation period is over. We will treat your response as confidential only if you ask us to.

After the consultation period, we will publish a statement. This will be later in the year.

Any general comments?

We also welcome any comments you may have on the way we have organised this consultation process. Please contact:

Vicki Nash
Ofcom (Scotland)
Sutherland House
149 St Vincent Street
Glasgow
G2 5NW.
Phone: 0141 229 7401
Fax: 0141 229 7433
E-mail: vicki.nash@ofcom.org.uk