Food Advertising
Advertising bans miss the mark
Academic and empirical studies1 compound the evidence that advertising bans are ineffective in combating excessive or unbalanced consumption and unhealthy lifestyles. For example, empirical evidence shows that advertising bans do not affect obesity rates2. Furthermore, there is absolutely no correlation between food and beverage advertising spend or the number of food advertisements viewed by children and obesity rates.3
Independent data illustrate how in most mature markets the volume of food and beverage advertising and the number of ads viewed by children has been in decline or stagnation.4 Despite this, obesity rates have risen inexorably in those very same markets. Often the data shows a mirror image of declining ad spend or food commercials viewed on the one hand and an increasing incidence of obesity rates on the other (see below).
There is no scientific evidence to demonstrate that advertising restrictions could impact the incidence of obesity. The evidence clearly demonstrates that advertising bans cannot fulfill public health policy objectives and would therefore be, as numerous reports have concluded, both “disproportionate and ineffective5”.
Furthermore, any drastic restrictions to advertising would have serious social, cultural and economic ramifications. In Europe, research shows that as much as 94% of revenues from children’s TV advertising are reinvested in children’s programmes6. In addition to the impact on the broadcasting industry, advertising bans would have significant negative consequences for the food industry and the economy in general.7 Reduced sales, job cuts, decreased consumer choice, stifled innovation and barriers to competition and market entry are some of the potential repercussions of marketing restrictions.
Independent data illustrate how in most mature markets the volume of food and beverage advertising and the number of ads viewed by children has been in decline or stagnation.4 Despite this, obesity rates have risen inexorably in those very same markets. Often the data shows a mirror image of declining ad spend or food commercials viewed on the one hand and an increasing incidence of obesity rates on the other (see below).
There is no scientific evidence to demonstrate that advertising restrictions could impact the incidence of obesity. The evidence clearly demonstrates that advertising bans cannot fulfill public health policy objectives and would therefore be, as numerous reports have concluded, both “disproportionate and ineffective5”.
Furthermore, any drastic restrictions to advertising would have serious social, cultural and economic ramifications. In Europe, research shows that as much as 94% of revenues from children’s TV advertising are reinvested in children’s programmes6. In addition to the impact on the broadcasting industry, advertising bans would have significant negative consequences for the food industry and the economy in general.7 Reduced sales, job cuts, decreased consumer choice, stifled innovation and barriers to competition and market entry are some of the potential repercussions of marketing restrictions.
A) Childhood obesity & food advertising in the UK: An inversely proportional trend
Source: Nielsen Media Research, UK Office for National Statistics, 2004
B) No correlation between exposure to food advertising and overweight/obesity
Source: Based on IOTF obesity figures and Consumers International data on advertising
1. Ofcom, Childhood Obesity – Food Advertising in Context, 2004; Hastings et al, Review of research on the effects of food promotion to children, 2003. The Ofcom and Hastings reports independently reviewed a wide range of literature available in English over the past twenty years, and can be considered the most comprehensive research ever done on this subject. The Ofcom report concludes that a ban would be “both ineffective and disproportionate in its wider impact.” These findings were confirmed most recently by German research (German Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food Advertising for Children’s Products – Strategy Proposals for Preventative Consumer Protection, April 2005), which also concluded that banning advertising to children would be inappropriate.
2. Despite bans on advertising to children in Sweden, Norway and Québec, childhood obesity rates in these countries/regions are not lower than in other, similar countries/regions where such advertising restrictions exist, and continue to rise inexorably.
3. Nielsen data.
4. Nielsen, 2004. In the US, children aged 2-11 saw 34% fewer ads on TV between 1977 and 2004– meanwhile, childhood obesity has quadrupled (CDC, 2005). In the UK, the estimated number of food and restaurant commercials viewed per child aged 4-15 declined by over 50% between 1994 and 2004 – meanwhile childhood obesity increased by over 40% (UK National Office of Statistics, 2004). In Germany and Italy, the volume of food and drink advertising spend has stagnated over the past decade, (Nielsen, 2004), while childhood obesity has risen dramatically.
5. Ofcom 2004 inter alia.
6. European Group of Television Associations (egta).
7. Arnaud Langlois of JPMorgan Equity Research illustrated at the 1st Annual European Obesity Conference in Brussels on 14-15 June 2005, how a ban on advertising will result in lower sales growth and diminished brand equity. A worse case scenario could result in the creation of barriers to entry and the development of oligopolistic situations.
