Commercial interests have unduly influenced regulations for television advertising of unhealthy foods to children, argue doctors in an analysis published in BMJ Open.
The authors base their conclusions on an analysis of stakeholder submissions on the public consultation to strengthen rules on television advertising of foods aimed at children, which eventually took effect in January 2009.
The consultation received 1136 responses, 139 of which came from advertisers, broadcasters, campaigners, food manufacturers, retailers, industry representatives, politicians and public health doctors/advocates.
Most of the 139 responses argued that restrictions should apply to foods high in fat, sugar and salt, rather than a blanket ban, and that volume curbs would make no difference. Ofcom agreed.
But respondents disagreed as to whether restrictions should apply only to children's channels. Clinicians/advocates and campaigners recommended an outright ban on all unhealthy food advertising before 9 pm. Broadcasters and advertisers feared this would disproportionately affect advertising revenues, impinge on adult viewing, and would have only marginal public health benefits.
Ofcom accepted this argument, despite its own research showing that such a move would reduce children's exposure to advertisements for unhealthy foods by 82 per cent.
Advocates said restrictions should be imposed as soon as possible. But children's channels argued for a transitional period as they expected to take a financial hit. Ofcom agreed.
The authors say that although concessions were made to the public health camp, "ultimately, industry arguments appeared to hold more sway...Ofcom appeared to believe that the commercial impact of the regulation of advertising should carry greatest weight, even when the aim of the regulation was to protect children's health.”
"This then begs the question of whether a governmental body with a duty to protect broadcasting interests should be leading on public health legislation," they write.
