ACTION BY:
17:00 – Thursday 21 December
DOCUMENT NUMBER/S:
CAG-059-06
TO:
Corporate Affairs Group
FROM:
KEYWORDS:
OFCOM, Advertising to Children
RELATED DOCUMENT/S:
/ Copyright FDF
Private and confidential
To be circulated ONLY
to FDF members and authorised recipients
19 December 2006
FDF’s Response to Ofcom Consultation: ‘Television Advertising of Food and Drink Products to Children’
Please find attached our draft response to the Ofcom consultation on Television Advertising of Food and Drink Products to Children.
If you have any comments, please e-mail them to Julian Hunt by 17:00 Thursday 21December. We plan to submit our submission to Ofcom by the end of play on Friday 22 December.
(DRAFT)
FDF’s Response to Ofcom Consultation:
‘Television Advertising of Food and Drink Products to Children’
Summary
The food and drink industry fully recognises, and shares, the concerns of society in relation to the issue of obesity, especially in children.
However, advertising restrictions, by themselves, will have little or no impact on children’s weight. Indeed, the evidence from Quebec and Sweden is that advertising bans have not resulted in even modest reductions in obesity among children[1].
That is why our members remain committed to working constructively with consumers, Government and others to help find solutions to the complex, multi-factorial issues at the heart of the obesity debate in the UK.
FDF supports the submissions from the FAU and ISBA, and, like them, believes the proposal to extend the volume and scheduling restrictions to young people up to 16 years old is neither a proportionate response to the issue nor one that is based on evidence.
Further, by being based on a flawed nutrient profiling model, Ofcom’s proposed restrictions will not encourage the product innovation that consumers and government are seeking from industry.
Detail
In our response to Ofcom’s original consultation earlier this year, industry put forward probably the strongest set of content rules anywhere in the world, coupled with volume and scheduling restrictions designed significantly to reduce the number of food advertisements targeted at the Government’s key target audience of primary school children.
When Ofcom made its announcement last month we were extremely surprised that after a lengthy consultation they had effectively moved the goalposts by extending restrictions to young people up to 16 years old.
This issue has always been about advertising to young children and industry responded on that basis with a package of strong measures designed to meet the Government’s objective of focusing on those of primary school age[2]. For instance: the Government’s PSA target for reducing childhood obesity focuses on the under 11s – as does its newly emerging social marketing programme. Ofcom’s decision, therefore, is inconsistent with Government policy in this area.
We are also concerned that Ofcom’s decision to change the key regulatory objective of this lengthy consultation came so late in the process, and without any compelling evidence to justify the reasons cited for the decision to extend the restrictions to older children up to 16 years (such as their influence on younger siblings or their independent purchasing power).
In its response to Ofcom, the FAU provides the results of independent research conducted by Kids and Youth among parents and teenagers which raises serious questions about the need to extend the restrictions to children up to the age of 16.
[Detail to come from FAU]
In addition, out of 636 individual responses to Ofcom’s consultation earlier this year, only eight explicitly asked for the restrictions to apply to children under 16. There were very few responses from parents with teenagers.
Academic expert Sonia Livingstone also acknowledges that there is an insufficient evidence base relating to the impact of food and drink advertising on older children[3].
ISBA’s response to Ofcom provides a detailed analysis of the available academic literature which supports the view that children are well equipped to think critically about commercial messages by the age of 12.
Further, ISBA’s analysis of the Livingstone reports of 2004 and 2006 reveals that nearly all of the evidence presented is not applicable or relevant to children above 12 years. Of equal concern is the fact that none of the 49 key studies reviewed by Livingstone in both reports found that children above 12 years old should be targeted for restrictions.
There is even less evidence linking food and drink advertising with obesity. Livingstone herself acknowledges that the existing surveys do not distinguish between three possible explanations for the observed association between television exposure and obesity, namely whether this association reflects the specific influence or exposure to advertising; whether it is due to increasing snacking while viewing and reduced family meal times; or whether it is the result of reduced exercise and a more sedentary lifestyle.
As Livingstone says: “Many researchers suggest that all three factors operate, but further research is required to disentangle the direction of causality, the range of the other causal factors operating, and the interaction among these factors.”[4]
Consumers are well aware of the limited role that advertising plays in childhood obesity – something that was borne out by Ofcom’s own consumer research[5].
Given the lack of evidence to support the extension of restrictions to older children up to the age of 16, FDF remains deeply concerned about Ofcom’s decision and believes the threshold should remain at 12 years of age.
Nutrient Profiling
Ofcom’s decision to use the nutrient profiling model developed by the Food Standards Agency for its Modified Package One proposals is particularly disappointing.
Our views about both the concept of universal nutrient profiling, and the FSA’s model in particular, are well documented. In summary:
- The approach adopted by FSA is a subjective judgment of the perceived nutritional value of a product. It only looks at a very narrow snapshot of a product’s nutritional value and classifies some foods which are major contributors of important nutrients as ‘unhealthy’
- It is the combination of foods eaten, the frequency of consumption and portion size that is important in achieving a balanced diet; none of these factors are considered.
- The FSA’s model does not consider the vitamin or mineral content
- The model appears to be based on the scientifically invalid assumption that ‘good’ nutrients can balance out ‘bad’nutrients
- The model classifies many nutritious products commonly eaten by children as‘unhealthy’ – for example cheese, raisins and breakfast cereals.
- If reduced fat, salt and/or sugar products cannot be advertised, because both the ‘regular’ and the alternative product fail the FSA model, it will restrict opportunities for manufacturers to make consumers aware of such alternative choices and thereby serve to discourage innovation.
That last point is important, because Ofcom’s own research suggested that consumers wanted a set of measures that would “prompt manufacturers to reformulate foods, which participants feel would directly target the root of the problem”[6].
Consumers agree. They believe that reformulated products should have an opportunity to advertise – particularly during early evening, family viewing.
FDF commissioned research from independent consultancy BMRB, which conducted a telephone omnibus poll of 2,000 adults across Britain on November 17, the day that Ofcom’s latest consultation was published. BMRB found that 65% of parents think it is unnecessary to ban advertising of products such as low fat crisps, low fat spreads and half fat cheese[7].
All of these products are classed as ‘less healthy’ by the FSA nutrient profiling model, and therefore the advertising restrictions will apply to them.
The FSA’s nutrient profiling model will not provide an incentive for manufacturers to reformulate products as, in many cases, they will not be able to leap the profiling hurdle. Nor does it meet consumer expectations – they did not believe the ban should extend to innovative healthier options within food categories.
We note Ofcom also acknowledges that “any system for differentiating between more healthy and less healthy products may have drawbacks”.
Clearly, we would agree. Given our specific concerns about the FSA system, we welcome the fact that Ofcom has confirmed there will be scope to review the model in the light of experience and new information.
Changes may well come about as a result of the FSA’s own review of its nutrient profiling tool in 2007. However, we would also urge Ofcom to remain open to the idea of adopting “credible and practicable” alternatives to the FSA differentiation model – particularly the outcome of the work being done by the European Food Safety Authority.
FDF and the UK food and drink manufacturing industry
The Food and Drink Federation (FDF) represents the food and drink manufacturing industry, the largest manufacturing sector in the UK, with an annual turnover of some £70bn, employing over 500,000 people. We help our manufacturers operate in an appropriately regulated marketplace to maximise their competitiveness. We communicate our industry's values and concerns to a range of audiences in the UK and abroad, including Government, regulators, consumers and the media. We work in partnership with other main players in the food chain to help ensure our food is safe and that consumers can have confidence in it.
Our members are food and drink manufacturing companies, large and small, and trade associations dealing with specific food and drink sectors. The following associations are members of the Food and Drink Federation:
Association of Bakery Ingredient Manufacturers
Association of Cereal Food Manufacturers
British Coffee Association
Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Association
British Oats and Barley Millers Association
British Starch Industry Association
Chilled Food Association
Cereal Ingredient Manufacturers’ Association
European Malt Product Manufacturers’ Association
Food Association
Federation of Bakers
Food Processors’ Association
General Products Association
Ice Cream Federation
Infant and Dietetic Foods Association
Margarine and Spreads Association
National Association of British and Irish Millers
National Association of Cider Makers
Sugar Bureau
Society of Independent Brewers
Salt Manufacturers’ Association
Snack, Nut and Crisp Manufacturers’ Association
Soya Protein Association
Seasoning and Spice Association
UK Association of Manufacturers of Bakers’ Yeast
UK Tea Association
Sector organisations within FDF include: Frozen Food Group; Lifestyle and Dietary Trends Group; Meat Group; Organic Food and Drink Manufacturers’ Group; Seafood Group; Vegetarian and Meat Free Industry Group; Yoghurt and Chilled Dessert Group.
Food and Drink FederationPage 1
[1]Ashton, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine: Food Advertising and Childhood Obesity,2004
[2]In an answer to a Parliamentary Question to Stephen O’Brien, May 2006, Public Health Minister Caroline Flint confirmed: “My concerns are focused on protecting primary school aged children”
[3] Livingstone, LSE: New Research on advertising foods to children, 2006
[4] Livingstone, LSE: New Research on advertising foods to children, 2006
[5] Opinion Leader Research: Regulating TV Advertising of Food and Drink to Children, 2006
[6] Opinion Leader Research: Regulating TV Advertising of Food and Drink to Children, 2006
[7]BMRB defines parents as both parents and legal guardians of children aged 16 and under