Assessing the UK regulatory framework

Sue Davies Chief Policy Adviser

Assessing the UK regulatory framework ! Where are we now?

Ø  Broadcast and non-broadcast marketing to children Ø  Company policies

! Outstanding issues Ø  How HFSS foods are still marketed to children

! Current Government initiatives Ø  The Public Health Responsibility Deal Ø  British Standard Institute/ Scottish Government PAS

2050 ! Conclusions

Where are we now? Broadcast marketing to children ! Ofcom scheduling restrictions and Broadcasting

Code of Advertising Practice. ! Based on a nutrient profiling model. ! Ofcom rules apply to programmes made for

children (including pre-school children), or in or around programmes that are likely to be “of particular appeal” to children aged 4-15.

! Content rules mainly focus on younger children Ø  eg. promotional offers must not be used in HFSS

product advertisements targeted at pre-school or primary school children; licensed characters and celebrities popular with children must not be used in HFSS advertisements targeted directly at pre-school or primary school children.

! Ofcom assessment (2009): children saw around 37 per cent less HFSS advertising compared to 2005.

! Product placement not permitted for HFSS foods. ! Habits are changing eg. on demand.

Where are we now? Non-broadcast marketing to children

! Code of Advertising Practice covers some forms of promotion, but not all eg. packaging and sponsorship

! Code does not take account of nutrient profiling model

! Restrictions are limited, eg: Ø  Food advertisements must not condone or

encourage poor nutritional habits or an unhealthy lifestyle in children; must not disparage good dietary practice or the selection of options, such as fresh fruit and fresh vegetables.

Ø  Except those for fresh fruit or fresh vegetables, food advertisements that are targeted directly at pre-school or primary school children through their content must not include licensed characters or celebrities popular with children.

Company policies: Which? assessment December 2012

The EU Pledge ! No advertising to children under 12 years except for products which fulfil specific

nutrition criteria based on accepted scientific evidence and/or applicable national and international guidelines.

! Advertising to children under 12 years means advertising to media audiences with a minimum of 35% children under 12 years (Mars uses 25%).

! Covers company owned web-sites as well as third party internet advertising. ! Commits companies to no communication related to products in primary schools,

except where specifically requested by, or agreed with, the school administration.

What this means Broadcast Non-broadcast

Children up to 16 protected?

Yes – for scheduling rules No – for content rules

No - only up to 12 for EU Pledge signatories and pre-school/ primary for others.

All forms of promotion covered?

Yes – but content rules are limited

No – packaging and sponsorship not covered

Robust criteria for what is an unhealthy food?

Yes – Ofcom’s nutrient profiling model

No – no agreed criteria, although EU Pledge signatories have agreed a model.

Robust criteria for what is a child audience/ how children are targeted?

Limited – definition of a child audience misses family viewing and content restrictions are vague

No – EU Pledge signatories have made progress, but otherwise CAP Code is vague.

What this means in practice On-line marketing to younger and older children

What this means in practice On-line marketing

What this means in practice Packaging promotions

What this means in practice Sponsorship

What this means in practice Sponsorship

People want the government to do more: Which? February 2012 survey – actions most wanted from government to make it easier to eat healthily. 54%

52%

52%

47%

46%

40%

39%

35%

26%

21%

17%

3%

5%

3%

Actively encourage industry to lower fat, sugar and salt contents in foods

Ensure that food companies do not use child appealing tactics to promoteless healthy foods to children

Require consistent labelling of fat, sugar and salt levels on front of pack onproducts in supermarkets

Ensure that supermarkets include healthier options in special offers

Encourage food companies to offer more healthier options

Actively encourage industry to lower calories in food

Require chain cafes, take-aways and restaurants to provide calorielabelling at point of sale (e.g. menus/ shelf-labels)

Use taxes to lower the price of healthier foods

More government advertising campaigns about healthier eating (eg. TV)

Encourage food companies to offer a wider range of smaller portions

Use taxes to make foods high in fat, sugar or salt more expensive

Other

Nothing

Don’t know

What, if anything, do you think the government should do to make it easier to choose healthier options? Please mention all that apply. Base: all who responded to survey (1995)

Current opportunities ! The Public Health Responsibility Deal

Ø  Food promotions are on the agenda, but food companies currently seem unwilling to agree pledges in this area.

Ø  Which? has suggested areas for action could include digital marketing, packaging, use of cartoon characters and sports sponsorship.

! British Standards Insititute/ Scottish Government PAS 2500 on food marketing Ø  First Steering Group meeting 17th September. Ø  The Scottish Government wants it to address wider marketing as well as

promotions aimed at children.

Possible pledges? - Which? suggestions Digital marketing aimed at teenagers We will not promote HFSS foods or our brands predominantly associated with them to children up to aged 16 through digital media. This includes our own web-sites and social networking sites. In determining what is promoted to children in this context, we will take account of marketing techniques that are likely to appeal to children, such as the use of characters, designs, celebrity, music or film tie-ins, as well as the number of children who use the sites. Packaging We will remove cartoon characters and other child appealing promotions such as competitions and giveaways from packaging for products that do not comply with the FSA/Ofcom model for what is a less healthy choice.

Sports sponsorship We will not link foods that are high in fat, sugar and/or salt (HFSS), or our brands that are predominantly associated with them, to sponsorship of sporting events or similar activities that are likely to appeal to and/or be watched by significant numbers of children. We will instead use these opportunities to promote our healthier products.

•  *need to take account of both the proportion and numbers of children exposed.

Conclusions ! A mixture of regulation and self regulation covers

some aspects of food marketing to children – but gaps remain.

! Restrictions mainly apply to younger children and exclude some forms of marketing eg. packaging, sponsorship, digital marketing to older children.

! Government initiatives are too reliant on voluntary pledges or commitments.

! These are unlikely to encourage comprehensive change across the industry.

! The Government needs to define the action needed. ! The CAP and BCAP Codes should be strengthened – but

action is also needed to address areas outside their scope eg. packaging.

! Failure to tackle this area will undermine other positive initiatives (eg. school food, traffic light labelling, reformulation) aimed at making healthier choices easier.