A Healthier Future: analysis of consultation responses

4. Advertising (Q3)

4.1 The consultation paper discussed options for introducing (or strengthening) restrictions on advertising in the wider environment – both in relation to broadcast and non-broadcast advertising. Specifically, there were proposals to (i) extend current restrictions on advertising targeted at children to all programmes broadcast before the 9pm watershed; (ii) review the implementation and impact of the Committee of Advertising Practice ( CAP) code on non-broadcast advertising of products high in fat, salt and sugar; (iii) explore the scope for extending the current CAP restrictions at, or near, streets or locations commonly used by large numbers of children; and (iv) explore opportunities to restrict advertising on buses and trains and in transport hubs.

4.2 Respondents were asked whether they agreed with the actions proposed in relation to non-broadcast advertising.

Question 3: To what extent do you agree with the actions we propose on non-broadcast advertising of products high in fat, salt and sugar? Please explain your answer.

4.3 A total of 265 respondents (139 organisations and 126 individuals) provided comments at Question 3. Although the question asked for views specifically in relation to actions on non-broadcast advertising, respondents generally also commented on the proposal to restrict advertising to all programmes before the 9pm watershed. Box 4.1 below briefly summarises the current UK restrictions on broadcast and non-broadcast advertising.

Box 4.1: Current restrictions on broadcast and non-broadcast advertising

Broadcast advertising: The Broadcast Committee on Advertising Practice ( BCAP) Code prohibits advertising of foods high in fat, sugar and salt on children’s channels, in children’s programming and in other programmes that are of particular appeal to children. There are also restrictions on the use of licensed characters and celebrities, and promotions in ads appearing outside restricted parts of the schedule, but which are nevertheless likely to appeal to pre- and primary school children.

Non-broadcast advertising: In July 2017, the Committee on Advertising Practice ( CAP) introduced a comprehensive ban on the advertising of food and drink high in fat, sugar and salt in all children’s non-broadcast media – i.e. media attracting an audience where 25% or more of the audience were aged 15 or younger. This covers print, cinema, online – including online TV-like content, such as video-sharing platforms and social media. The rules also apply to social influencers, in-game advertising and ‘advergames’ subject to the 25% child audience test. ^[25]

Views in favour of new or extended advertising restrictions

4.4 Respondents who agreed with the proposals set out in the consultation paper generally thought that actions to change the food environment – and to restrict advertising, in particular – would help to reduce the purchase and consumption of foods high in fat, sugar and salt. This group included public health and third sector organisations, private sector weight management organisations and most individual respondents. These respondents argued that ‘advertising sells goods’; if it did not, companies would not do it. They also thought that advertising was mainly used to promote foods high in fat, sugar and salt; and that the messages within advertising aim to normalise the consumption of such foods. Respondents in this group pointed to the effectiveness of restrictions on tobacco and alcohol advertising, and suggested similar restrictions should be introduced for ‘junk food’. Many called for a complete ban on all advertising of foods high in fat, sugar and salt.

4.5 In relation to advertising likely to appeal to children, these respondents pointed out that children are more susceptible to advertising than adults. Furthermore, even where advertising is not overtly aimed at children, it can have a strong influence on their behaviour and ‘pester power’, thus putting pressure on parents to buy unhealthy foods for their children.

Broadcast advertising

4.6 Among the respondents who expressed general support for advertising restrictions, there was also support for the specific proposal to restrict advertising of foods high in fat, sugar and salt before the 9pm watershed. At the same time, there were some in this group who felt this proposal did not go far enough. As noted above, there were calls to ban all broadcast advertising of such foods.

4.7 The point was also made that while it may be desirable for control over broadcast advertising to be devolved to Scotland in the long term, it will take time for this to happen. In the meantime, the focus should be on pressing the UK government to strengthen current restrictions, or to implement a ban on advertising unhealthy food before the 9pm watershed.

Non-broadcast advertising

4.8 There was widespread support among public health and third sector organisations and individual respondents for restrictions on advertising on routes to schools, and within schools, sport centres and all public buildings. These respondents also supported restrictions of advertising on public transport, bus shelters (particularly bus shelters near community venues), and family visitor attractions; and it was suggested there should be restrictions on the use of mobile billboards to promote sugary drinks.

4.9 Some respondents thought that a targeted approach to restricting non-broadcast advertising was likely to be difficult to implement, and thus unlikely to be effective. Instead, they called for a universal ban on all non-broadcast advertising of foods high in fat, sugar and salt.

4.10 Some respondents who supported restrictions on non-broadcast advertising highlighted other forms of advertising – or contexts for advertising – which they thought should be included within the scope of any actions taken. The two issues raised most often were in relation to:

• Online advertising and advertising through social media: Respondents noted that food marketing on social media, the use of branded food websites, and ‘advergames’ are increasing as the food industry seeks more sophisticated and innovative ways to reach young people. They also pointed out that children’s viewing habits have changed: they tend to watch less live television and more live streamed, on demand programmes. YouTube videos and vloggers were also reported to be influential among young people. Respondents thought that controlling online advertising would be more challenging than restricting advertising on TV.
• Sponsorship: It was suggested that fast food chains and soft drink companies should not be permitted to sponsor sporting events and sports equipment and that the promotion of sugary energy drinks in sports venues should be restricted.

4.11 A few respondents also wanted ‘misleading advertising’ to be tackled. Specifically, they thought products should not be able to be advertised as ‘healthy’ unless these claims can be substantiated against certain standards. Reference was made to formula milk (‘sold under the misconception that it is better for the child’ than breastmilk) and to foods that claim to be ‘low fat’, but which are very high in sugar or artificial sweeteners. ^[26]

4.12 At the same time, respondents were in favour of the idea of using the same sophisticated marketing methods employed by major food and drink manufacturers to promote (through media and social media) good nutrition and healthy eating. There were suggestions that such a campaign should (i) focus on wellness and eating well, not ‘bad’ vs ‘good’ foods; (ii) involve registered nutritionists and dieticians in developing the key messages; (iii) target children, parents and grandparents; (iv) involve suitable role models for both children and adults (various celebrities from sport, TV and music were suggested); (v) be ‘snappy, memorable and not preachy’; and (vi) have the aim of going ‘viral’.

4.13 Finally, some respondents who supported restrictions on advertising also expressed some caveats as follows (i) any actions taken must be enforceable, (ii) people should not simply be told what not to do, they should also be offered affordable alternatives, and (iii) efforts will still need to be taken to motivate people to change their buying and eating habits.

Views opposed to new or extended advertising restrictions

4.14 Respondents who did not favour new or extended restrictions on advertising were mainly organisations from the food and drink industry and business sectors. These respondents highlighted the wide range of actions already taken by them to support government efforts to address overweight and obesity (i.e. product reformulation, and voluntarily agreeing not to market certain products to children long before the current CAP regulations came into force). These respondents repeatedly stated that they supported the current BCAP and CAP codes, and that they supported the objectives of the Scottish Government. However, they did not think that proposals to extend advertising restrictions at this point in time were appropriate for achieving these objectives.

4.15 There were three main themes in the comments made by these respondents (i) that the proposals are likely to have only a modest influence on children’s food preferences, (ii) that the impact of the current regulations should be assessed first before any additional restrictions are introduced, and (iii) that the proposals are likely to have substantial and far-reaching negative impacts – and not only for the food and drink industry. The main issues raised in relation to each of these themes are summarised below.

4.16 A small number of respondents said they disagreed with the Scottish Government’s proposals in relation to advertising restrictions because they believed the proposals did not go far enough.

Proposals will have only a modest influence on children’s food preferences

4.17 Respondents opposed to further advertising restrictions pointed out that there are multiple and complex factors that contribute to obesity, and they argued that advertising plays only a small role in the choices people make. This group cited research which showed that media restrictions were ranked relatively low (12 ^th out of 16) in terms of possible cost-effective interventions for tackling obesity. ^[27]

4.18 They also referred to research indicating that (i) young people aged 12-16 are easily able to identify and understand the persuasive intent of marketing communications, and (ii) children are increasingly accessing social media and viewing television programmes via devices (phones, tablets, computers), rather than through a television.

4.19 These respondents concluded that actions to further regulate either broadcast or non-broadcast advertising were unlikely to have the desired effect. They called for any further interventions in this area to be evidence-based and proportionate, while at the same time minimising any undesirable costs and impacts on the business sector.

The impact of the current regulations should be assessed first

4.20 Respondents pointed out that the CAP’s non-broadcast regulations were only introduced in July 2017 and they noted that, even before these new regulations had come into force, Ofcom had described the UK’s broadcast advertising rules as ‘amongst the strictest in the world’.

4.21 These respondents thought the new regulations needed time to ‘bed in’, and that their impact should be evaluated before any steps are taken to further restrict broadcast or non-broadcast advertising. Some respondents went further, stating that it would be ‘premature’, ‘unwarranted’ and ‘disproportionate’ to take further action in this area without clear evidence that the current system was ineffective.

The proposals will have significant negative impacts

4.22 Respondents opposing further restrictions on advertising identified a wide range of potential negative impacts from the proposals, not only for businesses within the food and drink sector, but also for broadcasters, for the advertising industry, for public transport services, and for the general public.

Businesses in the food and drink sector

4.23 Respondents were concerned about the potential impacts of the proposals on small food and drink businesses (including small, independent eating and drinking out establishments), many of whom rely on advertising on public transport and in other contexts to reach their potential customers. The proposals were also seen to be indiscriminate, in that they would have an impact on businesses irrespective of whether they mainly sold foods high in fat, sugar and salt, or a wider range of healthier options.

4.24 Respondents considered that the proposed restrictions (in particular, the 9pm watershed) would represent a significant intrusion on the ability of companies to reach a legitimate audience for their products.

Broadcasters

4.25 Respondents cited evidence from Ofcom (reported in 2007) which forecast that £211 million would be lost to broadcasters from a 9pm watershed ban on advertising foods high in fat, sugar and salt. The Ofcom report stated that the public health benefits of such a ban were too uncertain and the impacts on broadcaster revenues too great to warrant such restrictions.

4.26 A range of respondents also noted that restrictions on advertising would have an impact on programme investment, thus reducing programme choice for Scottish audiences. They again cited Ofcom which reported that between 2008 and 2014, the ban on advertising of foods high in fat, sugar and salt relating to children’s programmes had contributed to a 74% reduction in spend by commercial public service broadcasters on UK-created children’s programmes. Some respondents raised concerns specifically about the impact on STV: they noted that if broadcasting / media regulation were devolved, the proposed restrictions on advertising would apply only to STV since other commercial broadcast service available to viewers in Scotland, but distributed across the UK, have no ability to differentiate their commercial inventory by region. This would have the effect of putting STV at a competitive disadvantage in relation to other broadcasters.

Advertising industry

4.27 Respondents cited evidence which highlighted the positive contribution that advertising has on the Scottish economy – with every £1 spent on advertising leading to £5 returned in GDP (Gross Domestic Product). ^[28] They also noted that advertising supports large numbers of jobs in creative industries.

Public transport revenue

4.28 Respondents noted that food and drink advertising on public transport services and in transport hubs helps to subsidise the cost of public transport. Restricting advertising in these locations would mean a shortfall in funding for these services.

Members of the public

4.29 Respondents thought that impacts on members of the public would be seen in terms of less choice in television programming and a loss of media plurality (seen to be fundamental to culture and democracy); and potentially higher public transport costs.

Other issues raised by those opposed to new or extended advertising restrictions

4.30 The following additional points were also made by respondents who were opposed to, or concerned about, proposals to introduce further restrictions on advertising:

• There was a commonly expressed view that a UK-wide approach should be taken in relation to advertising regulation. Respondents were concerned about the practical difficulties and increased complexity for businesses if there were different rules in Scotland.
• All significant changes to the BCAP code must be put out to public consultation and agreed by Ofcom.
• If further restrictions were put on television advertising, there is likely to be a move towards greater advertising on social media, which is where increasing numbers of children aged 5-15 are watching television programmes or films. Advertising restrictions on social media would be harder to enforce.
• These respondents advocated improved education to enable consumers to make better, more informed choices about the foods they eat.