New proposals to combat childhood obesity and "pester power", including a total ban on junk food advertising during children's TV programmes, were immediately attacked yesterday for placing profits ahead of children's health.
Media regulator Ofcom will ban advertising for foods high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) during all programmes aimed at under-16s as well as during shows such as The Simpsons, Friends and Hollyoaks, which have a higher than average proportion of children watching.
Celebrities and licensed characters will also be banned from endorsing products aimed at younger children. But food manufacturers can continue to advertise their brands generically and use cartoon characters they have created themselves, so Tony the Tiger and Ronald McDonald will survive.
The plans, unveiled yesterday, were attacked from all sides, with health campaigners claiming they lacked conviction and would have little effect on children's eating habits. Broadcasters and advertisers said they were too draconian, warning that a projected £39m advertising deficit would put the future of UK-produced children's programming under threat.
Ofcom surprised the advertising and food lobby by extending the proposals to protect all children under 16. During a fierce three-year lobbying campaign the proposals have focused on children under nine.
The new guidelines, to be introduced from January, were criticised by a broad coalition of health and consumer groups as a missed opportunity. They wanted a ban on all advertising before 9pm and warned that children would still be bombarded with ads for unhealthy food during popular early evening programmes such as Coronation Street, Emmerdale and Ant and Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway.
Although watched by millions of children, these programmes will not appear on the banned list because under-16s do not make up a disproportionate percentage of the audience.
The children's commissioner accused Ofcom of failing to recognise the extent of the obesity crisis. "Children have been sold out yet again to the interests of profit," said Sir Albert Aynsley-Green, adding that plans to use an "index measure" to ban advertising in shows watched by 20% more children than adults lacked "clarity and force".
Nearly 70% of children's viewing time is outside children's airtime, rising to 80% among 10- to 15-year-olds, according to the National Consumer Council. Four times as many children watch Coronation Street as Saturday morning children's programmes on ITV, it warned.
The British Medical Association accused the media regulator of lacking conviction. "We are in the midst of an obesity epidemic and must use all the weapons in our armoury to prevent the next generation of British children being the most obese and unhealthy in history," said Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics at the BMA. "Ofcom clearly believes that TV advertising has an effect on children's eating habits, yet it does not have the courage to recommend a more comprehensive ban."
Ofcom's research suggests most under-16s will see 41% fewer junk food ads and the exposure among under-nines will drop by about half. Arguing that the measures were "significant but proportionate", its recently appointed chief executive, Ed Richards, said the regulator had balanced the impact of advertising with the detrimental effects of a ban on British broadcasters.
"For the single-issue health bodies we haven't done nearly enough. For the advertisers and food manufacturers, we have done far too much. You can draw your own conclusions from that," he said.
"If you are an organisation exclusively concerned with health objectives, I can understand where they're coming from. We're not, we're a communications regulator. We also have to be concerned with the quality and range of programming."
He said a ban on all junk food advertising would cost broadcasters £250m a year. He was concerned that junk food advertising, which only had a "modest" direct effect on dietary choices, was being viewed as "some kind of silver bullet" for wider problems of childhood obesity.
Mr Richards said the onus would be on broadcasters to ensure they did not fall foul of the new regulations. Programmes on the edge of the the banned category, believed to include ITV's hit The X Factor, should "err on the side of caution".
The decision was given a cautious welcome by opposition parties and hailed by government as a step forward in the battle against childhood obesity.
FAQ: Junk food advertising
Why is Ofcom taking action now?
In December 2003 the government asked the regulator to consider strengthening the regulation of food and drink advertising on children. It then embarked on a marathon research effort that sought to determine the effect of junk food advertising on children's eating habits and place it in the context of other influences including demographics, family eating habits, school policy, public education, food labelling and exercise.
Why has it taken so long?
It has been a long and exhaustive lobbying process, pitting the combined might of the food industry, advertising trade bodies and broadcasters against single issue health groups and consumer associations. The latter loose coalition saw their arguments gain traction as the Jamie Oliver-inspired healthy eating campaign and the debate around childhood obesity gathered pace.
How did we get here?
Having established that television advertising had a "modest" direct effect on eating habits and a larger indirect effect, Ofcom published a menu of potential options. However, none satisfied the health lobby, which wanted to see a complete ban on all junk food advertising before 9pm. Ofcom argued that would have a devastating effect on broadcasters, and came back with further proposals more draconian than its original ones but still stopped short of a complete ban.
Why has it proved controversial?
The debate over advertising junk food to children is a microcosm of the wider debate around obesity and the damaging effects of "pester power". The combined lobbying power of the food industry, added to the debate around obesity and a government taking a keen interest but not wanting to legislate in the area left Ofcom in a no-win situation.
Owen Gibson
