Memorandum by the Food Advertising Unit
(WP 59)
The Food Advertising Unit (FAU), under the auspices
of the UK Advertising Association (AA), is a centre for information,
communication and research on food advertising. It represents
manufacturers, advertising agencies and media involved in food
advertising.
The FAU welcomes the great majority of the far-reaching
proposals and recommendations in the Government's White Paper
on Public Health. It considers that many of these will help to
support healthier choices. This submission will however concentrate
on proposals and recommendations relating to the provisions on
advertising and promotions (Chapter 2, "Health in the consumer
society").
The White Paper marks the beginning of a process
of discussion, negotiation and action by a number of stakeholders
to tackle a raft of public health issues, among which is obesity.
The FAU and its member organisations will be providing further
input to the Department of Health as the process develops and
looks forward to playing its part.
SUMMARY OF
MEMORANDUM
— Partnerships with clear aims, objectives
and mechanisms for discussion and action will be appropriate,
effective in achieving public health goals and value for money.
— A sustained behavioural change campaign
could be appropriate, effective and value for money and would
greatly benefit from industry backing and participation.
— The necessary infrastructure exists
to regulate advertising but mechanisms to promote and facilitate
partnerships and cohesive actions are needed.
— Disproportionately restricting advertising
will be neither appropriate, effective or value for money because:
— Evidence does not show correlation
or causality with obesity, or effectiveness in tackling it.
— Would restrict innovation and
choice.
— Has cost implications not considered
by the White Paper.
1. Will the proposals enable Government to
achieve its public health goals?
The FAU welcomes proposals to make healthy lifestyles
easier to achieve, through the provision of clear information
and education and through motivating people to want to lead healthy
lives.
Partnership with industry—food manufacturing,
advertising, media and broadcasting—and co-ordination of
actions is a clear objective of the White Paper proposals. Industry
has been advocating such an approach for some time and welcomes
the opportunity to work with Government. The FAU considers that
this approach will be effective but only if there are agreed aims
and objectives as well as clarity of purpose. For example, there
is some confusion in the White Paper on the extent to which actions
on advertising are intended to tackle obesity or improve nutrition
more specifically. Whilst obesity is about the calorie equation,
nutrition is about nutrient intakes, therefore, solutions and
actions will differ.
The White Paper has acknowledged the advertising
industry's calls to be used as a force for good, and proposes
a constructive approach to help "market health" in order
to create lasting behavioural change. The industry is sympathetic
to a public education campaign and considers that its involvement
and backing could add value to such a campaign. Such backing may
allow for more effective communication of key messages for example,
carrying agreed and co-ordinated messages on packs, on websites,
in-stores or on interactive television. Partnerships must be based
on collaboration on equal terms however: the advertising industry
will offer its support provided the role of advertising is considered
objectively and not overstated. Making healthy living more widely
accessible through partnership would be able to achieve greater
reach than a Government campaign on its own.
2. Are the proposals appropriate, will they
be effective and do they represent value for money?
The White Paper bases its proposals in the context
of an "enabling and supportive" Government that does
not "nanny", but creates the environment in which people
can make informed and healthier choices. The FAU supports this
approach but does not consider that this will be achieved by restricting
communications.
The White Paper is accompanied by a partial
RIA which overestimates the effectiveness/benefits of advertising
restrictions and seriously underestimates the costs of those restrictions.
The partial RIA overestimates the benefits of
restrictions on advertising through partial use of the evidence,
inaccurate extrapolations and misunderstandings about the role
of advertising. For example, although the size of the effect of
advertising on obesity and diet is unknown, it is recognised as
having a "modest direct effect on food preference, consumption
and behaviour . . . but it is small compared to other influences"
(Ofcom, 2004). As a result, the benefits to health of restrictions
on advertising would be at best "modest".
Disproportionately restricting advertising in
the belief that it will help to tackle the growing levels of obesity
will not be appropriate, effective or value for money. There is
no evidence to show a correlation between food advertising and
obesity, even less a causal relationship.
The partial RIA also underestimates negative
impacts of proposals by not taking into account the effect on
small firms, such as independent programme producers, or on the
non-broadcast advertising sector, which would be affected by the
White Paper proposals. It underestimates costs by misunderstanding
how advertising price is determined and how it is affected by
viewers/consumers. Among other issues, the partial RIA fails to
take into account the possibility of alienating industry from
taking part in discussions and solutions, the resulting costs
to achieving success, and the costs to competition both in the
broadcasting and food manufacturing sectors.
Two important principles, which the industry
is supportive of, are repeated in the White Paper—information
and choice. Both of these require that advertising and communications
are not disproportionately restricted because:
— advertising communicates product
benefits to consumers;
— advertisers would lose the incentive
to meet different consumer tastes or needs if they are unable
to communicate these value-added benefits to them. Consequently,
such restrictions on communication would limit innovation and
choice; and
— advertising pays for, or subsidises,
the media—a valuable source of information on diet, nutrition
and healthy lifestyles for many consumers.
All the available academic evidence demonstrates
that advertising promotes innovation and choice[114].
The premise of the White Paper and its accompanying partial RIA,
however, implies that the Government believes the opposite would
be true—restricting advertising would accelerate innovation.
Restricting advertising will have a negative
impact on activities and investments which may help to promote
behavioural change and which could, in the long-term, lead to
savings for the NHS and other obesity-related costs. The FAU supports
the need for solutions that will bring long-term benefits and
cost effectiveness such as behavioural change campaigns and partnerships,
rather than short-term knee-jerk reactions.
The FAU will be feeding into the Department
of Health's work into the RIA as the process evolves.
Advertising definitely has a positive role to
play in creating positive health outcomes but changes to food
advertising rules will not of themselves bring about a major shift
in dietary behaviour. The industry supports evidence-based and
proportionate reviews of the codes but cautions against bans or
severe restrictions that are unlikely to help Government achieve
its public health goals.
Nutritional Profiling
The industry recognises that different foods
play different roles in an individual's diet, but the evidence
does not support the proposition that restrictions on advertising
will decrease the consumption of certain foods.
While rates of obesity have been increasing
over time, the consumption of targeted food categories (eg confectionery
and soft drinks) has remained stable or has switched to diet/low
calorie variants. It is also the case that calorific intakes,
on average, have been decreasing although calorific intakes for
parts of the population remain too high relative to falling levels
of calorific expenditure.
Hence, the advertising industry does not believe
that nutritional profiling is an appropriate or effective solution.
Indeed, it is likely that attempting to treat individual nutrition
at population-wide level will be counter-productive, as it does
not take into account differing individual dietary needs.
3. Does the necessary infrastructure exist
to ensure that proposals will be implemented and goals achieved?
In terms of regulating advertising, the infrastructure
already exists to enable a review of the codes and their use.
The industry is pleased to see that the White
Paper acknowledges the important role that codes of conduct play
in the advertising sector and statutory legislation should only
be used as a last resort. Legislation cannot adapt to changing
environments as rapidly as codes. This is particularly important
in the case of advertising—the media environment can change
significantly in a short period of time, due to technological
advances for example, and codes can therefore provide more effective
protection.
Additionally, current advertising regulations
are effective in ensuring strict codes of conduct are complied
with across broadcast and non-broadcast media. Despite the use
of the word "voluntary" in describing advertising regulations,
the codes are in fact mandatory and penalties can be incurred
for non-compliance:
— The codes governing non-broadcast
advertising are self-regulatory, but all advertisers must adhere
to them. Non-broadcast media are committed to refusing to publish
any advertisement that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)
has ruled against. Advertisers that defy the ASA's decisions may
be referred to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).
— In broadcast, the code administered
by the new ASA co-regulatory system is supported in law and adherence
is a condition of broadcast licences. Advertisements may only
appear on television and radio if pre-cleared by the Broadcast
Advertising Clearance Centre (BACC) and the Radio Advertising
Clearance Centre (RACC) respectively. The ASA will adjudicate
on complaints and can demand amendment or withdrawal of an advertisement.
If necessary, the ASA can refer a broadcaster that continues to
carry non-compliant advertising to Ofcom, which can issue fines
to the broadcaster and withdraw their licence to broadcast.
However, the mechanisms for achieving effective
partnerships and cohesive actions need to be defined. The idea
of creating a body that will work at arms-length from Government
on implementing the wide range of proposals to support healthier
lifestyles is positive, but it must not duplicate the work of
bodies already in existence.
CONCLUSION
The food advertising industry can help achieve
the objectives of the Public Health White Paper. In order for
this to happen, clear goals and objectives need to be set to ensure
coordinated action. The Government should avoid ineffective policies
that will simply serve to alienate such partnerships.
The White Paper's proposals on changes to food
advertising are yet to be decided and detailed in a process that
will be led by Ofcom. If, however, accurate estimates of the likely
effectiveness of severe restrictions on advertising are placed
against the costs or losses of implementation, it is clear that
they would be neither appropriate nor cost effective.
Public education campaigns, which have different
aims, objectives and outcomes to competitive brand advertising,
have been shown to be effective, over time, in changing behaviours.
The industry considers that investment in such a campaign, with
support from a wide range of partners, would be both appropriate
and effective.
Whilst the infrastructures are already in place
for regulating advertising and reviewing the codes as well as
enabling public education campaigns (eg through the Central Office
of Information), there is a need to ensure that the means are
in place for coordinating action and partnership.
The advertising industry is committed to playing
its role and looks forward to clarifying the detail of the White
Paper proposals; discussing the ways forward; and, implementing
policies that will produce a successful outcome. This will be
a `fully engaged' scenario where: people are motivated to be healthy;
there is a wide provision of products and services to help them
achieve good health; and, they have clear and relevant information
available upon which to make healthy dietary choices for themselves
and their families.
February 2005
114 For example, Keith Boyfield "The effects
of advertising on Innovation, Quality and Consumer Choice".
Advertising Association Economics Committee. Back
| 
