Examination of Witnesses (Questions 660-679)
13 NOVEMBER 2003
MRS CILLA
SNOWBALL, MR
BRUCE HAINES
AND MR
ANDREW BROWN
Q660 Mr Burns: In some ways you cannot
just say you are targeting young people, because, as was given
in earlier evidence and anecdotal experience, a lot of teenagers,
who are young people by definition, also watch programmes that
adults watch. I know you quoted earlier Coronation Street.
What other outlets do you have for advertising the product?
Mrs Snowball: To children or to
anybody?
Q661 Mr Burns: To children, because
I suspect in some of the answers you are going to give it is easier
to target and focus the market.
Mrs Snowball: In the campaigns
that we have submitted to you, we have used television, posters
and press advertising.
Q662 Mr Burns: Presumably you regard
television, in a general way, as probably the most successful
way of reaching your audience.
Mrs Snowball: Yes.
Q663 Mr Burns: What media would you
use if television advertising was prohibited for children? I think
it is a nonsense in some ways—because how would you do it,
because of programmes that children watch that adults also watch—but
how would you reverse your tactics if television advertising were
prohibited? Do you think it would be effective in any way in achieving
anything?
Mrs Snowball: I think it is hard
to predict the outcome of a ban. I think the case for a ban would
be that it would have a beneficial effect, and that is hard for
us to establish, whether there would be one, at this stage. If
the effect of a ban was to push money that had been invested into
television into other channels, then the ban would be ineffective
because money would be reaching children in different ways.
Q664 Mr Burns: Do you find it odd
that there is a school of thought that this sort of advertising
should be banned, and it is focused mostly on certain categories
and types of food or the way it is produced and delivered to the
individual for consumption, but there is a whole range of foods
where it is a mix and match. Some foods have, in some areas, a
very positive effect on people's health or requirements and they
may also have some down sides as well. There is nothing where
one item of food is 100% absolutely fantastic for individuals
to eat and one item of food is an absolute nightmare for people
to eat from a health point of view, nutritionally. It is all about
balance. What can be achieved, given that food does in the main
have a beneficial and necessary requirement on human beings to
survive? What would we gain by banning the advertising of food
on television?
Mrs Snowball: We support the view
that very little would be gained for precisely the points you
mention. That we want everybody to eat a very balanced diet, that
any food consumed to excess is a bad thing. Moderation in everything.
All foods can be enjoyed within a balanced diet and an active
lifestyle. We would not support a ban because we do not believe
there is sufficient evidence to justify one or that there is any
conclusive proof that there would be a beneficial effect arising
from one.
Dr Naysmith: If that is the case—
Mr Burns: Hang on, I have not finished
yet. Let me just finish.
Chairman: Let Simon finish.
Q665 Mr Burns: Would it not be more
productive and sensible then, instead of the nanny state attitude
of trying, as a knee-jerk reaction, to ban something, if one made
it a more positive message, and if there were more encouragement
to try to ensure that advertising also drew the individual's attention
to the benefits of food and exercise and a balanced diet?—rather
than just in a knee-jerk way to say, "Okay, some people think
that some foods are not as healthy to eat as others, so let's
just ban the lot."
Mr Brown: I would agree with that
completely. There are discussions going on and when they are finalised
we will be able to be clearer. But it does seem that the advertising
and food and drink industries have to help pro-actively in this
debate. There are big areas where help is needed, I think: the
education of children, the parenting skills of some parents, and
the whole area of active lifestyles. It does seem to me that the
industry as a major stakeholder has to encourage that. I agree
completely with Cilla's comment that the advertising and food
and drink industries want people eating a wide and varied diet
and living an active lifestyle. It seems to me perfectly legitimate
for brand owners to involve sports personalities to encourage
that to happen. Going back to Dr Taylor's question, the one fruit
that has shown dramatic growth in this country is bananas, and
it is because of the role models of tennis players eating bananas
between games. It is just indicative of how a piece of communication
could be utilised. I do not think the food and drink industry
should be ashamed, I think it just has to get up and do something
and do something constructive, because I genuinely think that
the prohibitive, the banning route (a) will not deliver a solution
to the obesity problem and (b) will cause disproportionate and
unintended damage.
Q666 Mr Bradley: If you are saying
that banana consumption increased because of sportspeople eating
them, does that not therefore confirm that the use of Lineker
increased the consumption of crisps?
Mr Brown: I actually do not think
so. I think to any child under the age of 10, Lineker is a TV
personality, he is not a footballer. When did he last play for
England?
Q667 Chairman: I think most children
of seven, when they see the distinctive clothing—
Mr Brown: No, he is a footballer
to adults, but not to under 10s.
Q668 Dr Naysmith: As an aside, I
would be grateful to know if there is any research that supports
your theory about bananas and Wimbledon.
Mr Brown: I was at the Westminster
Media and Diet Forum two weeks ago, when the FSA spoke. There
was a lady from the banana organisation—I do not know what
it is called—and I am really just quoting what she said.
Q669 Dr Naysmith: That was an aside
and not really what I wanted to ask. I did want to ask—and
it is a question in line with the those you have been answering
for Mr Burns: Can you explain why Sweden, Australia, Norway, Belgium,
the Netherlands, Denmark and Finland all have some kind of restrictions
of the type you three have all been dismissing this morning?—of
different sorts.
Mr Brown: Indeed. If you go to
Scandinavia—and I did go to Scandinavia to talk about it
during the Swedish presidency—their position up there is
very clear. They have taken what they see as an ethical stance.
They believe that childhood should remain childhood and should
not be subject to commercial pressures. They had some relatively
dodgy research which said that children up to the age of 12 could
not separate programmes from advertisements—and actually
nobody really believes that, but theirs was an ethical stance.
If you go to southern Europe, where there is a ban on toy advertising
in Greece, that is entirely a trading decision masquerading as
an ethical one.
Q670 Dr Naysmith: I did not include
Greece in my list. It was of all northern countries, except for
Australia.
Mr Brown: The healthiest of the
Member States, as I understand it, is Holland, which has relatively
unrestricted . . . It is the most active Member State.
Q671 Dr Naysmith: They are all relatively
sophisticated countries, why should they think it is worth restricting
and you do not?
Mr Brown: Because I think they
have been bullied by pressure groups like everybody else has,
to be honest.
Q672 Dr Naysmith: Are you frightened
of being bullied by a pressure group in this country?
Mr Brown: Not at all. I think
the pressure groups have been very successful in this country
and they have a very high profile, but I think there is a dilemma.
I think there is a dilemma in the Food Standards Agency. The Food
Standards Agency does not have exercise within its remit; it is
only concerned about calories in. They are an incredibly important
stakeholder in the debate, but, if we are looking for real solutions,
we have to deal with what, in my view, is a question of imbalance
between calories in and calories out. That is the issue of obesity.
Q673 Dr Naysmith: That is one issue
but it is certainly not the only issue. Both sides of the argument
are at fault.
Mr Brown: Of course.
Q674 Dr Naysmith: We are focusing
on the food side.
Mr Brown: Everybody is focusing
on the food side—
Q675 Dr Naysmith: No, I do not think
that is true.
Mr Brown: —because it is
easier to focus on it.
Q676 Chairman: I think this Committee
is focusing pretty thoroughly on both sides.
Mr Brown: I was here last week
to witness—and I thought it was a fascinating debate—the
session on exercise, so, yes, I know you are, but I think the
advertising industry has to as well.
Q677 Dr Naysmith: Mrs Snowball suggested
she took an ethical stance about some of the things she would
and would not advertise. I have already admitted my links with
the Co-Op movement or the Co-Operative Group. They have said they
have a commitment to a voluntary ban on advertising for all food
and drink products high in fat, salt and sugar during children's
TV hours. Is that something of which you approve?
Mrs Snowball: I think every company
has to make its own decisions about what it believes is ethical.
I am pretty sure that you can still buy those products in the
Co-Op. But, no, I would not support the ban that they wanted—
Q678 Dr Naysmith: I am putting this
question to you because of your ethical stance at the start of
this meeting.
Mrs Snowball: Yes. I think each
company has to take a view on what they regard as dangerous and
ethical and what products they regard as appropriate for a mainstream
target. We believe the products we advertise can be enjoyed and
consumed as part of a healthy diet. The vast majority of people
who consume those products, do just that: consume them in moderation
and enjoy them.
Q679 Dr Naysmith: How much discussion
would there be at your agency or your group of companies about
taking on a particular brief to advertise a product? Would there
be discussion about whether or not that was something you wanted
to follow up?
Mrs Snowball: Absolutely. Absolutely.
Yes, we have very vigorous discussions, and no more so than on
the tobacco discussion. That was a unanimous decision by the agency
that cost us revenue but which we all stood by wholeheartedly
for many years and supported you absolutely in everything you
were doing.
Dr Naysmith: Thank you.
| 
