Ofcom's sunny and reassuring estimate that children were now being exposed to a third less TV advertising for excessively salty, sugary and fatty snacks and food needs to be taken, with, well, a pinch of salt.
So does the view that there has been no disproportionate impact on the broadcasters or children's programmes.
Frankly, it's too early to say since the full force of the ban on programmes and channels predominantly watched by the under 16s only comes into effect in two weeks time, on 1 January.
Remember, after that date some 1.4 billion commercial impacts – one person watching a single commercial – will be removed at a stroke from the 20 or so digital commercial children's channels. No wonder Ofcom's head of commercial policy said yesterday that there could be a shake out and even closures in the children's channel sector.
One problem in reporting on the current state of play is that the statistics come with a health warning. They are pretty ropey as a system of measurement had to be created artificially and retrospectively to allow comparisons between 2007/2008 and 2005 – a full year before the move to restrict junk food advertising to under 16s.
Secondly, this is an area in flux, with some manufacturers busy changing the recipes for oven chips or low fat crisps, so they slip out of the banned category and into the approved list. And, of course, there are loopholes. You may not be able to advertise fries, but McDonald's can still promote itself.
It is also obviously in the interests of Ofcom and the advertising industry to say that everything is working well with the junk food ad restrictions – which is exactly what a smiling lobbyist from adland said to me today.
Ofcom was somewhat reluctantly pushed into introducing these measures in the first place. And advertisers, supported by Ofcom, absolutely do not want to see the ban extended any further, and certainly not to all programmes screened before the 9pm watershed, when children are in the audience, which is what parts of the healthy lobby are now campaigning for. A further review is promised by Ofcom in 2010, when the picture should be clearer.
Two issues. With children's programme-making in crisis and Ofcom also expected to come up with a solution to this in its public service broadcasting review, removing a stream of income – food and drink advertising is down 6% for ITV, GMTV Channel 4 and Channel Five – must surely have an additional chilling effect on programme investment. But Ofcom is quiet on this.
Finally, is there any evidence children are thinner because of the ban? Does it work or is it too early to say?
The experts on child obesity separately argued today that by the time children get to school it is too late. Which suggests that the real battle lies in winning over parents to ensure they withstand the temptation to feed their children with junk food.
Does that lend support to a ban on all advertising and promotion of unhealthy food? "We would not change our opinion, based on this report," said Ofcom's director of content, Kate Stross.
Your thoughts, please.
• To contact the MediaGuardian news desk email editor@mediaguardian.co.uk or phone 020 7239 9857. For all other inquiries please call the main Guardian switchboard on 020 7278 2332.
• If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication".
