Total Ban on Junk Food TV advertising

[grim_tales]

From Digital Spy:

Ofcom has published its plans for a total ban on junk food ads in and around programmes aimed at the under-16s, broadcast at any time of day or night, on any channel.

The move is set to rock the industry as while a total ban was anticipated, it was thought it may be restricted to all children's programmes or to programmes shown before the 9pm watershed.

The ban includes all advertising of high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) food and drink around all children’s programming, on dedicated children’s channels and in youth-oriented and adult programmes which attract a 20% higher proportion of viewers under-16 than the UK average.

This last restriction has come as a surprise and could impact on many popular entertainment, music and reality shows and channels.

The regulator believes the move will mean children under 16 would see 41% fewer high HFSS food and drink advertisements. For under-9s the reduction would be 51%.
Chief executive of Ofcom, Ed Richards, said: “Based on the evidence and analysis we believe the case for intervention is clear. We will introduce significant but proportionate measures to protect children under 16.”

Ofcom estimates the impact on total broadcasting revenues would be up £39 million per year, falling to around £23 million as broadcasters recoup the revenue lost.

New rules have also been proposed for ads targeted at primary school children. These rules would ban the use of celebrities and characters licensed from third-parties (such as cartoons), promotional claims (such as free gifts) and health or nutrition claims.

The changes announced today will take effect before the end of January 2007, but advertising campaigns already underway would be allowed to be broadcast until the end of June 2007.

Richards added: “We will look to advertisers and broadcasters to follow both the spirit as well as the letter of the rules we are putting in place.”

Its the fault of the parents if kids eat too much fatty food, not TV IMO. I'm not a kid obviously but this nanny state bollocks is starting to annoy me.
Won't this impact on the quality of programmes that get made, and not just kids shows as that article says? Adults watch TV before 9pm too

[Yi-Long]

Yeah it's absolutely ridiculous. I wish people would get back to their senses and would start taking their own resposibilities when it comes to stuff like this. But sadly, they wont. The group of mindless idiots who apparantly have influence over these things, is growing and growing.

[bradavon]

You honestly think kids watch these adverts and aren't influenced? What about school time, you think the kid's parents watch them 24/7?

It's got nothing to do with a nanny state, jeez people are so paranoid sometimes.

Why on earth would the quality of the program deteriorate? They're adverts nothing more less, a form of making money.

About time I saw.

Agreed it's starts at home but schools and society generally needs to do their bit. What's the point parents saying it's wrong if the media says it's right?

Nothing is ever as simple as just blaming one group. Kids are very impressionable and will be seeing these adverts, and then wanting to eat the food.

Surely by this token it's a nanny state to ban cigarette advertising? But I don't see you moaning about that.

Yeah it's absolutely ridiculous. I wish people would get back to their senses and would start taking their own resposibilities when it comes to stuff like this.

That's what the government is doing. The government can't control what parents say in the privacy of their own home.

It's a job for parents first but definitely a job for the government too.

[grim_tales]

But its the parents who do the shopping Brad, and banning ads on TV is only the tip of the iceberg. What about print ads?
Most kids have a TV in their bedroom so will watch after 9pm?
On ITV/C4 the quality of the programmes could get worse because the networks will get less money to make shows, no?

[Shen]

LOL so they shop at macdonalds? burger king? pizza hut maybe?

junkfood adverts are a huge portion of all adverts shown. and i agree that yes parents have a responsibility too. but kids are bombarded with cocacola, pepsi, Macdonalds, burger king, crisps, sweets etc etc from like as soon as they start watching TV im sure that has no effect on the kids at all...when they go out with mates they have no desire at all to get a burger, or a can of coke or whatever im sure they go and eat healthy foods instead.

personally i would NEVER give my child shit from Macdonalds or the like. or fizzy drinks like cocacola and stuff. i think its terribly bad for a childs health both physical and mental.

i agree with brad that whilst its partly the parents responsibility its also the governments, (and the schools imo, the meals in my schools were/are grotesque i wouldnt even call it food.)

[bradavon]

But its the parents who do the shopping Brad

As Shen says they don't shop at McDonalds and have you never seen kids saying "Mum can I please have this or that"? I wonder where they see this junk? TV mostly.

and banning ads on TV is only the tip of the iceberg. What about print ads?

What kids magazines? If so good idea (AFAIK kids magazines don't have adverts). It's not all programs just kids one, the ones you don't even watch.

Most kids have a TV in their bedroom so will watch after 9pm?

Well clearly that's the parents responsibility. It's after the watershed for starters so they shouldn't be watching TV anyway and secondly should kids even have TVs in their bedroom?

Again the government can't control either of these.

On ITV/C4 the quality of the programmes could get worse because the networks will get less money to make shows, no?

Again it's only kids programs.

Why will they get less money? The space will be filled with something else. The only people losing out here are the junk food companies, tough. There is as much calories in a McDonalds salad as burger.

Lets say it is a nanny state (of which I think in this case the idea is absurd) fine but we still have an obesity problem. That needs to be stopped. Nanny state or no nanny state obesity that's a fact.

But its the parents who do the shopping Brad

Again do you honestly think parents are the SOLE reason for obesity?

[bradavon]

TV isn't really the right forum for this, moving.

[grim_tales]

Hey I didn't say parents were the SOLE reason but they are a large part of it, IMO if they always buy ready meals etc and only feed that to their children. There are many factors besides TV adverts. This punishes adults who can think for themselves IMO :x
And BTW when I say print ads no I don't just mean "kids magazines" but all sorts of things, posters, newspaper ads etc, what about those flyers for Pizza Hut or whatever? I get those all the time.

[tom2681]

The ban includes all advertising of high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) food and drink around all children’s programming

That's ridiculous.

Any kid who is easily influenced by TV commercials deserves to get fat and die from a heart attack anyway, no ?

Only smart kids should be allowed to live.
I say increase the number of junk food/alcohol/tobacco commercials and let the idiots kill themselves.

"Oh no, we need to remove junk food commercials so that stupid kids can't get fat". How stupid is that ?

should kids even have TVs in their bedroom?

I didn't have a TV in my bedroom when I was a kid.
Got my first TV when I was 12.

But I turned out fine... I think...

:supz:

[grim_tales]

LOL, harsh Tom but I know what you mean.
Junk food is OK in moderation IMO (like everything). IMHO Brad you are underestimating the intelligence of kids.
I got my first TV when I was about 12/13-ish I think.
Brad no of course they don't shop at McDonalds lol but you can still buy processed food/ready meals in shops And kids will continue to get fat if parents buy that stuff instead of fresh food, and the kids arent active.

[bradavon]

Hey I didn't say parents were the SOLE reason but they are a large part of it

Well you did by implicatation in your opening statement.

You've not answered why cigeratte banning isn't a nanny state but junk food is???

IMO if they always buy ready meals etc and only feed that to their children. There are many factors besides TV adverts. This punishes adults who can think for themselves IMO :x

What adults watch kids shows? Adults are already well aware of junk food and will go and by it regardless.

Kids are impressionable in a much greater way, that's the point.

And BTW when I say print ads no I don't just mean "kids magazines" but all sorts of things, posters, newspaper ads etc, what about those flyers for Pizza Hut or whatever? I get those all the time.

If that was going to happen they'd be banning junk food ads out right.

No offence Grim but think you're (unusually) talking nonsense.

"Oh no, we need to remove junk food commercials so that stupid kids can't get fat". How stupid is that ?

All kids are stupid in one way or another. It's called growing up and maturing.

I didn't have a TV in my bedroom when I was a kid. . Got my first TV when I was 12.

Glad to hear it. A kids bedroom isn't the place for a TV. TV was banned during summer holidays until the evening in my household. I still think that was harsh.

I didn't get my first TV until I was 16-18 (I forget) when I bought my own. My parents would've never bought us as kids one. Kids watch more than enough TV as it is without allowing them more.

IMHO Brad you are underestimating the intelligence of kids.

All I do understand is we have an obsesity problem. Sure kids are intelligent but like I said they're even more impressionable.

[grim_tales]

No offence taken Brad thats what Debate is for
Huh we're not talking about cigarette banning? If smokers want to kill themselves let them IMO, their sale is already banned to people under 16, not that it makes much difference.
The article said "ban it all before 9pm" - no? In which case it would have an affect on general entertainment shows not just kids shows.

[bradavon]

The ban is specifically kids programs and programs kids watch with parents, maybe a bit dubious but certainly not all programs.

Huh we're not talking about cigarette banning?

I never said we were but we are talking about banning something from TV adverts and the possible nanny state it introduces. Cigerrettes are banned yet I've never heard you say it's a nanny state but this you have?

Both if they are a nanny state should be included in the same discussion. Seriously what do you propose to curtail obsesisty? That the government has control over?

Food at school as Shen says agreed sucks, it's sad it's was better when was at school since I was.

[grim_tales]

Cigarette advertising has banned from TV for years yet people still smoke don't they?. Tobacco sponsorship of sporting events (except for F1 AFAIK?) only ended this year.

Will banning TV ads help stop obesity? I don't know, 1) It isn't just children who are obese/overweight 2) If a person wants to eat junk food he will find ways to get it, TV ad or no. Kids will still see the outlets in the street.
Banning smoking adverts didnt stop people smoking, and banning junk food ads on TV won't stop kids/adults eating junk food. As I said what about take away flyers and the ads you see very time you go into town?
What it will have is a massive impact on commercial channels ad rates.

Fair point about kids being easily swayed (if you mean young ones) but if its an older kid, say a teenager, they can decide for themselves.

TV isn't the only cause IMO, do you watch the soaps? Did you immediately want to go out and buy a bar of Cadbury's just because you saw an ad before Coronation Street?

There's nothing wrong with us disagreeing
No it won't affect ALL programs but I got the impression it will affect a hell of a lot more than the ones shown on CITV.

and in youth-oriented and adult programmes which attract a 20% higher proportion of viewers under-16 than the UK average.

Agreed school/institutional food is crap.

[bradavon]

Cigarette advertising has banned from TV for years yet people still smoke don't they?.

Of course as people will continue to eat junk food but you never said that was a nanny state, or did you?

Tobacco sponsorship of sporting events (except for F1 AFAIK?) only ended this year.

Even more reason to call it a nanny state. Weird not F1.

I'm guessing you're more annoyed as this could directly approach on your freedoms instead of a nanny state per say.

Will banning TV ads help stop obesity?

Definitely not but I just think ultimately it's a step in the right direction.

Fighting obesity starts at home, educating parents.

As I said what about take away flyers and the ads you see very time you go into town?

Those aren't directly advertised at children whereas ads between kids shows are. The advertisers know it's kids watching them and for a fast buck they know kids will be most impressionable to buying junk food.

Fair point about kids being easily swayed (if you mean young ones) but if its an older kid, say a teenager, they can decide for themselves.

I disagree teenagers are just an impressionable as young kids.

TV isn't the only cause IMO, do you watch the soaps? Did you immediately want to go out and buy a bar of Cadbury's just because you saw an ad before Coronation Street?

Nope but I bet some kids do. Good point though it does open questions to that kind of sponsorship too.

No it won't affect ALL programs but I got the impression it will affect a hell of a lot more than the ones shown on CITV.

Probably but do you actually pay attention to adverts anyway? The products will still be there. Banning the products agreed I'd be dead against.

Maybe a minimum age of selling junk food in places like MacDonalds (just like cigarettes which also kill) to say 16 is the answer, controversial but boy it would make a big difference.

The government wouldn't ever do this unfortunately. I see no real difference between cigarettes and junk food, except of course even 1-2 cigarettes is dangerous for you but 1-2 burgers is not.

[grim_tales]

Correct. Of course it starts with educating the parents. So shouldnt this be done first before banning adverts?
I think theres a loophole as McDonalds can't advertise Big Macs etc but they can advertise the company (the current ads don't say anything about Big Macs but more about the shite toys you get with the food). So Big Mac/Whopper ads will get banned, but McDonalds/Burger King per se will not.
According to that article the soap operas (Emmerdale etc) escape the ban anyway.

[bradavon]

So shouldnt this be done first before banning adverts?

The government doesn't have control over parents and even if they did it's much, much harder to educate parents but yes agreed they are doing a lousy job of even trying.

the current ads don't say anything about Big Macs but more about the shite toys you get with the food

It's the toys that sell the burgers. Kids love them. I used to love the new toys.

So Big Mac/Whopper ads will get banned, but McDonalds/Burger King per se will not.

Really? That does seem stupid.

According to that article the soap operas (Emmerdale etc) escape the ban anyway.

I do think banning burgers in the actual show would be taking it to far.

[grim_tales]

Yeah kids love Happy Meals. I havent been in a McDonalds for years though, in Florida I went in a "Wendy's" restaurant and it was very good.

[grim_tales]

As far as I can see, more kids watch TV *outside* of CITV etc, like the soaps so banning the ads in CITV shows per se won't work very well IMO.
ITV has slashed children's programmes and stopped making them or something, even before this was announced.
It doesnt matter whether the posters aren't aimed at kids or not, they can still see them.