PROTECTING CHILDREN FROM JUNK FOOD ADVERTISING (BROADCASTING AMENDMENT) BILL
2008
THE INQUIRY
1.1
The Protecting Children from Junk Food Advertising (Broadcasting
Amendment) Bill 2008 was introduced into the Senate on 4 September 2008. On 4 September 2008, the Senate, on the recommendation of the Selection
of Bills Committee (Report No. 10 of 2008), referred the Bill to the Community
Affairs Committee (the Committee) for report.
1.2
The Committee received 25 submissions relating to the Bill and these are
listed at Appendix 1. The Committee considered the Bill at a public hearing in Canberra
on 19 November 2008. Details of the public hearing are referred to in
Appendix 2. The submissions and Hansard transcript of evidence may be
accessed through the Committee’s website at https://www.aph.gov.au/senate_ca.
THE BILL
1.3
The Bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the
Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement Through Choice and Opportunity)
Act 2004 with the aim of encouraging healthier eating habits among children
and prohibiting the broadcasting of advertisements for junk food during certain
times.
1.4
The proposed amendment to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992
would proscribe broadcasting of food or beverage advertisements and sponsorship
announcements that identify or refer to food and beverage manufacturers,
distributors and sellers during certain viewing periods and programs.[1]
These periods and programs are defined in standards made under the existing Act
and cover programs that are suitable for children and preschool children.[2]
1.5
The proposed amendment allows the Minister to provide exemptions for
advertisements if 'the Minister considers that the food or beverage is
beneficial to children's health and well-being, based on the Food Standards
Australia New Zealand nutrient profiles'.[3]
The proposed amendment allows for broadcasting of community service
announcements concerning food and beverages.[4]
1.6
The proposed amendment to the Schools Assistance (Learning Together—Achievement
Through Choice and Opportunity) Act 2004 sets as a condition of financial
assistance to schools that they do not display advertisements of sponsorship
announcements that relate to food and beverage manufacturers, distributors and
sellers. Again the Minister may provide exemptions for advertisements on the
basis that the food or beverage is considered beneficial to children's health
and well-being based on the Food Standards Australia New Zealand nutrient
profiles.[5]
BACKGROUND
Review of the standards
1.7
On 27 August 2008 the Australian Communications and Media Authority
(ACMA) released draft new Children's Television Standards for public and
industry comment as part of a review of the Children's Television Standards.
The draft standards did not include general restrictions in relation to food
and beverage advertising. The reasons for referral of the Bill by the Selection
of Bills Committee stated that this highlighted 'the need for a legislative
response' in relation to food advertising to children.[6]
1.8
In assessing whether a ban on food and beverage advertising would have
an impact on childhood obesity, ACMA commissioned an independent review of
research on the issue. The review found that childhood obesity is a highly
complex issue and there was not a sufficient consensus on the impact of restricting
food and beverage advertising on obesity levels. The research did indicate a
relationship between advertising and the food and beverage preferences of
children and a relationship between television viewing (as distinct from
television advertising) and obesity in children. Mr Chapman, Chairman of ACMA
stated that:
ACMA has formed the view that restricting food and beverage
advertising, particularly without a tool to identify high fat, salt, sugar
(HFSS) products, would be a blunt form of regulatory intervention, with
significant cost to the commercial television sector and uncertain national
benefits. Such restrictions would also prevent healthy food and beverage
products from being advertised[7]
1.9
The ACMA review is ongoing and new Children's Television Standards are
expected to be finalised in early 2009.
Advertising restrictions
1.10
The Broadcasting Services Act 1992 sets out a
co-regulatory system for the regulation of broadcasting content, in which commercial
free-to-air broadcasters comply with the Commercial Television Code of Practice
and the Children's Television Standards. Under the system the viewing day is
divided into a series of time zones or bands to ensure appropriate material is
broadcast, to assist viewers to make informed choices about the content they
access and to provide parents with information regarding the suitability of
material for children.
1.11
The two bands relevant to the Bill are the 'P' and 'C' bands. The 'P'
band is the period of time 7.00am to 4.30pm Monday to Friday. The 'C' band is 7.00am to 8.00am and 4.00pm to 8.30pm Monday to Friday and 7.00am to 8.30pm Saturday,
Sunday and school holidays. Broadcasters can nominate times during these bands
in which they will broadcast 'C' and 'P' programs and these are called the 'C'
and 'P' periods.[8]
1.12
Under the current Children's Television Standards no commercials are
permitted to be broadcast in 'P' periods and each 30 minutes of 'C' period may
contain no more than 5 minutes of commercials (with the exception of some
Australian drama programs). The Standards also include strict content rules,
which include that an advertisement for a food product may not contain any
misleading or incorrect information about the nutritional value of that
product.[9]
1.13
The Commercial Television Code of Practice also provides that
advertisements to children for food and beverages: (a) should not encourage or
promote an inactive lifestyle combined with unhealthy eating or drinking
habits; and (b) must not contain any misleading or incorrect information about
the nutritional value of the product.[10]
ISSUES
Overweight and obesity
1.14
There was a broad consensus amongst witnesses and submitters to the
inquiry regarding the importance of obesity issues for the health of children and
the Australian community. Many submitters noted that Australia's adult obesity
rate is now the fifth highest amongst OECD countries. The National Preventative
Health Taskforce recently released a discussion paper which dealt with the
subject of obesity health issues. It estimated the total financial cost of
obesity in Australia in 2008 was $8.3 billion and suggested that by 2020 the
number of obese Australians will have grown to 6 million.[11]
1.15
The negative consequences of being overweight and obese for individuals,
their families and the community were emphasised by many submitters and
witnesses. For example the Australian Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance noted
that increasing rates of obesity will result in 'escalating rates of chronic
diseases such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and some cancers, placing
pressure on the sustainability of the health system'.[12]
Other submitters noted that the impacts of growing rates of obesity would
extend beyond increased health care costs and include shorter life spans, lower
productivity and declining work force participation for those affected.
1.16
In 2008, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research
Organisation (CSIRO) published the findings of the Children's Nutrition and
Physical Activity Survey which was funded by the Department of Health and
Ageing, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Australian
Food and Grocery Council (AFGC). The survey found that the majority of children
aged 2 - 16 (72 percent) were a healthy weight for their height, 5 percent were
classified as underweight, 17 percent as overweight and 6 percent as obese.[13]
1.17
There were differing interpretations of these results during the
inquiry. The Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) argued that
the Children's Nutrition and Physical Activity Survey showed 'no significant
change in childhood obesity levels since the previous survey in 1995,
challenging the notion that there has been any recent increase'.[14]
However a number of health groups argued that the results showed that obesity
rates have remained at significant levels after rapid increases in past
decades. For example the National Heart Foundation stated:
Between 1985 and 1995, obesity prevalence in 7 to 15 year-olds
more than tripled for all age groups and both sexes, from 1.4% of boys and 1.2%
of girls to 4.7% of boys and 5.5% of girls. Rates of overweight or obesity in 7
to 15 year-olds nearly doubled during this time, rising from 10.7% of boys and
11.8% of girls in 1985 to 20.0% of boys and 21.5% of girls in 1995.[15]
1.18
Several witnesses and submitters made the observation that overweight
and obesity in childhood have been shown to be strong predictors of obesity in adulthood.
For example the NSW Centre for Overweight and Obesity and the Australian Centre
for Health Promotion noted that:
A recent large follow-up assessment of participants in the 1985
Australian Schools Health and Fitness Survey showed that the relative risk of
an obese child becoming an obese adult, compared with those who had been a healthy
weight as a child, was 4.7 for boys and 9.2 for girls. Almost 80% (79.7%) of
participants who were overweight or obese as children became overweight or
obese adults.[16]
Link between food advertising and childhood obesity
1.19
The nature of the relationship between free-to-air television
advertising and childhood obesity was a focus in many submissions.
1.20
The Australian Association of National Advertisers (AANA) highlighted
that the research commissioned by ACMA as part of a review of the Children's
Television Standards had found no clear causal link between commercial
television advertising and obesity. The AANA also noted research which
identified other contributing factors to obesity including: genetics, food
costs, physical activity costs, and technological advancements. [17]
They stated:
Along with the UK regulator, OFCOM, the Australian
Communications & Media Authority has estimated the contribution of
advertising to children’s food consumption at less than 2 percent.[18]
1.21
The AFGC supported ACMA’s finding that the 'factors influencing
childhood obesity and overweight are complex, with public health literature
identifying a range of actors, including the interplay of hereditary, social,
cultural and environmental factors' and that it is difficult to determine the
relative contribution of advertising amongst these factors.[19]
However the AFGC also recognised that primary school children were 'impressionable,
and potentially vulnerable to promotions which may inappropriately influence
their (or their parents) purchase and use of products (including foods)'.[20]
1.22
Free TV Australia also endorsed the ACMA review as the appropriate means
through which to ensure the ongoing adequacy of the existing regulatory
framework. They stated:
As noted in the draft findings of ACMA’s review, there is no
evidence that further advertising restrictions will have any impact on issues
such as childhood obesity. The regulatory measures in place are working well
and there is no evidence of a regulatory failure in relation to food
advertising to children.[21]
1.23
The Free TV Australia provided evidence which showed that the
free-to-air television audience is fragmenting and that the number of children
watching free-to-air television is falling.[22]
They noted the existing restrictions on 'P' period advertising and estimated
that the percentage of food advertising in 'C' periods is around 10 percent.[23]
1.24
However, a number of other submissions, while acknowledging there are
multifaceted causes for overweight and obesity, highlighted the negative
effects of unhealthy food advertising to children. For example the Australian
Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance noted that most food advertisements on
television are for foods and beverages high in fat, salt and sugar,
particularly confectionery and fast foods, and that studies had shown that between
48 percent and 81 percent of all foods advertisements are for unhealthy foods. [24]
They stated:
Food advertising to children, which is predominantly for
unhealthy foods, contributes to our obesogenic environment by negatively influencing
children's food preferences, food purchasing and food consumption, as well as
their diet and health status. Consequently restrictions on food advertising to
children are an important component of a comprehensive obesity strategy.[25]
1.25
The Australian Psychological Society stated that young children are
vulnerable to being deceived and manipulated by advertising 'because they lack
the cognitive skills to defend themselves against persuasive advertisements'.
They stated:
Healthy eating habits can be disrupted by food and drink
advertising that encourages children to desire particular types of products and
brands, and that creates norms for foods high in sugar, fat and salt.[26]
1.26
However Professor Rickwood of the Australian Psychological Society also
noted that it was very difficult to directly link advertising to children and
obesity because of the range of factors influencing childhood obesity.[27]
1.27
A number of submitters and witnesses argued that if there was no link
between food advertising and increased consumption, manufacturers and retailers
would not spend significant funds marketing products. Ms Hughes of CHOICE
stated that in 2006 nearly $400 million was spent on food marketing in Australia,
the majority for products such as confectionary, breakfast cereals and fast
foods.[28]
However Mr Segelov of the AANA argued that while advertising increases
awareness '...it does not automatically increase consumption'. He stated:
What advertising does as far as the advertisers are concerned is
allow them to compete for market share. Competition is generally regarded as
positive to consumers because it helps keep prices down.[29]
1.28
The Obesity Policy Coalition questioned the ethics of advertising
unhealthy foods to children. They stated:
Children are a vulnerable audience, and have the right to be
protected from the harmful influence of advertising for unhealthy food. There
is substantial evidence that children are particularly vulnerable to
advertising because they lack the mature cognitive ability necessary to
comprehend advertising messages and assess them critically.[30]
1.29
A number of submitters noted that healthy eating habits are established
in early childhood and can affect people throughout their lives by influencing
health, well-being and the risk of developing illnesses and serious diseases.
The Public Health Association of Australia noted that children and adolescents
are important target groups for preventative strategies to deal with growing
levels of obesity in the general population.[31]
1.30
The Coalition on Food Advertising argued the current food advertising
messages directed to children undermine government guidelines for healthy
eating and policies to prevent childhood obesity. Similarly Healthy Kids SCA
stated:
The fact that advertisements for high fat, salt and sugar foods
and beverages are much more prevalent in children's viewing times than
advertisements for core foods is not consistent with government guidelines for
healthy eating. This increased exposure to foods from the non-core food groups
skews ideas about what types of foods make up a normal diet.[32]
1.31
The National Heart Foundation believed that restrictions on advertising
for unhealthy foods was an important starting point to address the imbalance between
core and non-core foods and beverages advertised on television and to reinforce
healthy eating and lifestyle messages. They noted:
The World Health Organization has concluded that heavy marketing
of fast-food outlets and energy-dense micronutrient poor foods and beverages is
a 'probable' cause of childhood weight gain or obesity. While a definitive
causal relationship between television advertising and adiposity cannot be
drawn based on existing evidence, even a small association would have substantial
impact across the entire population of children.[33]
Self regulation
1.32
During the inquiry there was discussion regarding the merits of industry
self-regulation in relation to food and beverage advertising to children. The
AFGC's submission outlined the development of The Responsible Children's
Marketing Initiative of the Australian Food and Beverage Industry. The
initiative has the goal to ensure that a high level of social responsibility in
the marketing of food and beverage products in Australia.[34]
1.33
Companies participating in the initiative will publicly commit to marketing
communications to children under 12 'only when it will further the goal of
promoting healthy dietary choices and healthy lifestyles'. The core principles
of the initiative cover the areas of advertising messaging, the use of popular
personalities and licensed characters, product placement, the use of products
in interactive games, advertising in schools and the use of premium offers. Signatories
to the initiative must also abide by:
- the AANA Code for Advertising & Marketing Communications to
Children;
- the AANA Food & Beverages Advertising & Marketing
Communications Code; and
1.34
The AFGC indicated that it was appropriate to have a mix of regulation and
self–regulation for food advertising and argued that industry 'has a strong
record in applying self-regulatory measures in the advertising space'.[35]
The AFGC indicated while the initiative was still being developed it would
become effective by 1 January 2009. They noted that the advantage of this
self-regulatory system was that it applied to all types of media, it was funded
by industry and that it could be implemented quickly. They stated:
These provisions will apply where the audience is predominantly
children under 12 and/or the program or media, having regard to the theme,
visuals, and language used, are directed primarily to children... To advertise
food and beverage products within this programming, participants will need to
demonstrate that those products represent healthy dietary choices and the
advertising must be presented in the context of a healthy lifestyle.[36]
1.35
Similarly the Australian Beverages Council noted its members had
committed to the International Council of Beverage Associations Guidelines on
Marketing to Children 2008 and the AANA voluntary code for advertising directed
to children. They also highlighted that since 2006 their member companies have
been committed to not market sugar sweetened carbonated soft drinks to children
under 12 years of age.[37]
Both the AFGC and the Australian Beverages Council highlighted that they
covered the majority of advertisers in their sector.
1.36
Free TV Australia stated there was already a 'comprehensive and
sophisticated framework of legislation and regulation governing television
content, and in particular advertising'.[38]
This included: the Trade Practices Act 1974; state-based food
legislation enforced by Food Standards Australia and New Zealand; the AANA
codes including the Advertising to Children Code; the Broadcasting
Services Act 1992 and the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice
and the Children's Television Standards.
1.37
The merits of self-regulatory systems were highlighted by the AANA,
which argued the complaint mechanisms could quickly and transparently respond
to complaints and were capable of adjustment in response to prevailing
community standards. They also noted they applied equally across advertising
media channels (including internet and emergent media).[39]
The AANA also suggested that the introduction of advertising restrictions would
weaken existing self-regulation systems by undermining the confidence of
consumers and the goodwill of advertisers. [40]
1.38
However there were also significant criticism of industry
self-regulation in relation to food and beverage advertising during the
inquiry. The Coalition on Food Advertising to Children described industry
self-regulation as inadequate and noted it had been likened to 'foxes guarding
the hen-house'.[41]
They also argued that food advertising was not an appropriate area for
self-regulation according the criteria set out by the Commonwealth
Interdepartmental Committee on Quasi-Regulation. This report recommended that
industry self-regulation should be considered where, for example, there is no
strong public interest concern, and in particular no major public health and
safety concern.[42]
1.39
The limitations of self-regulation and the proposed industry marketing
initiative were emphasised by the Public Health Association of Australia, who
stated:
...the code that was suggested by the Food and Grocery Council
(AFGC) would not cover key elements of the junk food industry – significantly,
outlets like McDonalds and KFC would be outside of the scope. While recognising
the positive strides of the AFGC the PHAA is strongly of the view that this
issue is much too serious to be left to self-regulation and that the
legislation is needed as a matter of urgency.[43]
1.40
The Australian Chronic Disease Prevention Alliance had similar concerns
regarding the Responsible Children's Marketing Initiative. Professor Olver
stated:
It is voluntary, so the level of uptake cannot be guaranteed. It
does not address the peak children’s viewing times and it talks about children
12 and under, but some of the major problems are in that early teenage group,
particularly 14- to 16-year-olds. It does not include the retailers like fast
food chains and it does not address the criteria that will be used to define
what is an unhealthy food or beverage.[44]
1.41
The Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services listed a number of
positive aspects to industry initiatives in relation to responsible advertising
but argued that restrictions on food advertising would create a conflict of
interest for industry meaning that a legislative approach was appropriate. They
stated:
...strengthening existing self-regulation mechanisms will not
affect the quantity, location or emotional power of food promotions targeted at
children or the full spectrum of promotional techniques. The aim of current
self-regulation is to prevent direct harm and promote trust in advertising.
This is a fundamentally different aim to addressing a public policy concern,
which is needed to address obesity.[45]
1.42
Other submitters and witnesses emphasised the success of advertising
regulation in other health areas.[46]
Professor Rickwood of the Australian Psychological Society argued that legislative
restrictions could send a broader message to the community. She stated:
The legislative change and regulatory change we have seen in
many health promotion areas has been the catalyst to some wider changes. It
changes the sort of mentality in a whole range of areas, including industry’s,
parents’, peers’ and community expectations. Legislation is one avenue that we
have for setting what the community says, ‘These are the standards’, and making
them very clear to people.[47]
Ministerial exemptions and FSANZ nutrient profiles
1.43
CHOICE, while noting that the FSANZ nutrient profiling system was
intended to assess the health claims of foods, believed the system could be
used to classify foods as unhealthy for the purpose of regulating food
advertising to children.[48]
However others such as the Dietitians Association of Australia argued that the
use of the '...FSANZ tool to distinguish between food and beverages for
advertisement on television is unlikely to be satisfactory'. They stated:
The tool was not designed by FSANZ for regulating television
advertising...It was designed by FSANZ in this way for use in part of an
assessment process of foods and beverages regarding labelling in relation to
health claims. It may well be adapted for the purpose of assessing foods and
beverages for television advertising, however DAA believes a group of
professionals with expertise in nutrition, eg. Accredited Practising Dietitians
(APDs), would be well placed to provide input into an assessment process in
addition to a nutrient profile calculator tool.[49]
1.44
Similarly Dr Stanton suggested that any refinement of the FSANZ nutrient
profile tool should involve public health nutritionists who are free from
commercial influence.[50]
1.45
The Public Health Association of Australia suggested that the FSANZ
profiles are nutrient focussed and are likely to be confusing and to facilitate
loopholes. They proposed an amendment whereby the Minister could grant
exemption where he or she considers that a food or beverage is beneficial to
children's health and well-being based on 'foods and beverages that are
considered to be basic core foods and part of core food groups', rather than
based on the FSANZ nutrient profiles. [51]
1.46
Youth Media Australia was concerned regarding the provision which
allowed the Minister discretion to exempt advertisements from the restriction.
They believed that any exemptions should be allowable only on transparent
criteria, and should be applied by ACMA, rather than the Minister.[52]
Schools assistance
1.47
There was broad support for the proposed amendments in relation to
School Assistance legislation from health groups. However the National
Association of Retail Grocers of Australia (NARGA) expressed concerns regarding
the prohibition of food or beverage advertising in schools as a condition for
the receipt of financial assistance. They suggested that some schools would be
adversely affected by the proposed ban, in situations where 'a number of
commercial entities may have provided schools with canteen equipment branded
with their product name - for example pie warmers, refrigerators for milk and
juice products etc'. They noted that schools may need additional funding to
replace such equipment or to employ additional staff where equipment provided
automatic vending facilities.[53]
Timing of restrictions
1.48
There was significant discussion regarding the scope of the advertising
restrictions that should be implemented. A number of witnesses and submitters
urged that the Bill be extended to cover television broadcast periods when high
numbers of children are watching television rather than just the 'C' viewing
periods.[54]
For example the Coalition on Food Advertising to Children stated:
Australian television audience measurement data shows that the
highest numbers of children are watching television between 7am to 9am and 4pm to 9pm weekdays and 7am to 9pm on weekends, with peaks in viewing between 7.00 pm and 8.00 pm on weekdays and 8.00 am and 10.00 am, and 7.00 pm to 8.00 pm on weekend days.[55]
1.49
Similarly the Dietitians Association of Australia believed that 'restrictions
on food advertising to children should be put in place when children are
actually watching television' and supported an amendment which included
restriction during the time slot 5.30 pm – 8.00 pm in addition to 'C' periods.[56]
They also suggested that OzTAM ratings be used to identify programs of
particular interest to children, where only approved products should be
advertised and that regulations cover the portion and serve size of foods and
beverages advertised.[57]
1.50
The Obesity Policy Coalition believed that food and beverage
advertisements (except for those foods and beverages exempted under the Bill)
should also be prohibited from being shown during G classification periods,
which runs from 6.00am to 8.30am and 4.00pm to 7.00pm on weekdays, and 6.00am to 10.00am on weekends. They commented:
Parents should be able to let children watch television
unsupervised during the G classification period in the knowledge that they will
not be exposed to potentially harmful material, including advertising for
unhealthy foods.[58]
Other media and advertising
1.51
Submitters also suggested the Bill be extended to cover the range of
media that food marketers use to promote products to children. These included
other broadcast media, internet and mobile phones, print media, promotions and
premium offers, venue and outdoor advertising, the use of promotional
characters and celebrities, packaging and sponsorships.[59]
For example Dr Stanton recommended all media be included in advertising
restrictions and noted the increasing time which children spend on the
internet.[60]
Similarly the Coalition on Food Advertising to Children supported a obesity
prevention strategy '...which includes the restriction of unhealthy food
marketing to children through all media channels'.[61]
1.52
Free TV Australia argued there needed to be a media neutral approach to
food advertising to children and that 'any review of advertising directed to
children must apply across different platforms to ensure regulations remain
relevant and do not disadvantage free-to-air broadcasters'. They stated:
All advertising restrictions in children’s programming must be
weighed against the objective of delivering children’s programming through an
advertising-funded model. This model is already being affected by the
fragmentation of audiences. Commercial free to air television is now one of
many screen time choices available to Australian viewers. Viewers have access
to over 100 pay TV channels, a vast array of information and entertainment
sources available on the internet, as well as DVDs, digital media players,
computer games and increasingly video service through mobile phones.[62]
1.53
However others such as the Obesity Policy Coalition argued that, while a
comprehensive regulation of all modes of food marketing to children was
required, free-to-air television advertising was still a priority area for
regulation. They suggested television was still the primary vehicle for
advertising to children, an effective medium for reaching large numbers of
children and that television is often the focus of marketing campaigns which
may integrate different media platforms.[63]
Other issues
1.54
Industry submissions and witnesses questioned the use of the term 'junk
food' in the title of the Bill, noting that there was no clear definition of
which foods and beverages could be classified as 'junk food'.[64]
They highlighted that all food and beverages sold in Australia are regulated by
Food Standards Australia New Zealand as safe to consume and can be part of a
balanced diet for children and adults.[65]
1.55
The NARGA argued that the proposed broadcasting restrictions made no
distinction between 'good food' and 'junk food'. They argued it was
inappropriate to restrict all food and beverage advertising and noted there was
a wide range of foods advertised in children's viewing times that nutritionists
would consider healthy including milk, high fibre bread and fruit juice. They
stated:
We are...concerned about any unintended consequences. These
include the impact on our member companies who, through grocery stores and
supermarkets sell a wide range of good food products that would also be
affected by the proposed advertising prohibition.[66]
1.56
NARGA also noted that any restrictions would cause advertising
expenditure would be diverted into non 'C' classified time slots and into other
advertising media which are also available to children.[67]
1.57
Free TV Australia also noted that restrictions on advertising foods and
beverages in free-to-air television would likely cause advertisers to move
marketing funding to other less regulated media, such as the internet. They
argued advertising restrictions would have a 'major impact on broadcaster
revenues without any demonstrable benefit to viewers' and that this would have
detrimental impacts on programming.[68]
Ms Flynn of Free TV Australia stated:
Banning food advertising is not a cost-free solution to the
obesity problem. Australia has chosen to deliver a range of social and cultural
objectives through an advertiser funded model. A ban on food advertising during
C periods will undermine funding for these programs and will jeopardise the
ability of commercial free-to-air networks to continue to provide these
programs free of charge to all Australians.[69]
1.58
The AANA expressed the view that the proposed legislation 'could
significantly reduce business efficiency, while increasing marketing costs to
companies and retail prices to consumers without demonstrating any improvement
in the health of Australian children'.[70]
1.59
The Coalition on Food Advertising to Children questioned how compliance
with the Bill would be monitored and recommended that standards be monitored by
an independent statutory body, with a clear and transparent monitoring and
enforcement processes.[71]
Similarly the ACDPA argued that to be successful restrictions on television
food advertising to children 'an effective compliance and monitoring procedure
needs to be implemented'. They stated the current system which relied on
complaints from the public to identify breaches was slow, 'hampered by
ambiguous terminology and can result in arbitrary interpretations'.[72]
A comprehensive approach
1.60
While supporting the proposed legislation several submitters and
witnesses highlighted the need for a comprehensive multifaceted policy approach
to addressing childhood obesity. For example Ms Hughes of CHOICE noted that
restricting food advertising would not by itself produce a rapid decline in
obesity rates. She noted:
There are many things that need to be done to reverse the trend
towards overweight and obesity in children in Australia. These include better
education of parents and children about healthy eating and how to prepare
healthy meals; increased opportunities for children to participate in physical
activity, both organised and incidental; changes to urban planning laws that
reduce the density of fast food outlets in lower socioeconomic areas; better
public transport to enable Australians to participate in active transport
rather than relying on their cars, and improvements to public transport would
also ensure that consumers have access to supermarkets and grocery stores where
they can purchase healthy foods.[73]
1.61
The Australian Psychological Society noted that that 'lessons from other
public health campaigns suggest that single measures are likely to have minimal
impact in the absence of related comprehensive strategies' and that 'achieving
real results will only result from a commitment to an integrated approach'.[74]
Nonetheless the Society recommended that advertising to children should not
promote content that is detrimental to the health and wellbeing of children,
including the promotion of foods high in sugar, fat and salt during children's
and pre-school programming times.[75]
1.62
The Dietitians Association of Australia supported a collaborative
approach 'working with all stakeholder groups is essential to bring about sustainable
changes that really make a difference'. While they believed changes to food and
beverage advertising was part of the solution to the obesity crisis in children
they stated that this 'strategy should be part of a bigger plan that requires
equal focus and investment'.[76]
Similarly the Obesity Policy Coalition stated:
No one involved in the debate suggests that food advertising is
the sole cause of the overweight and obesity epidemic, or that regulation of
food advertising alone is the solution. It is well understood that combating
childhood overweight and obesity requires a long term, multi-strategic
approach... Effective regulation of this advertising is therefore widely regarded
as an essential component of any obesity prevention strategy.[77]
1.63
Industry groups also supported a broader policy approach to childhood
obesity but did not consider the Bill contributed to such an approach. Ms Carnell
of the AFGC stated:
We think that the bill that has been put on the table is just
heavy-handed, does not address the issue, does not produce a partnership
between industry and government and the community and also does not encourage
industry to be advertising healthy eating and healthy activity and to be
reformulating product to make it more in line with established scientific
guidelines.[78]
CONCLUSION
1.64
Childhood obesity is clearly an important public health issue of concern
to the Australian community. The evidence which the Committee received during
the inquiry highlights that childhood obesity is a complex multifaceted problem
which requires a complex multifaceted solution, yet the proposed amendments in
the Bill related only to advertising of certain foods.
1.65
The Committee supports a comprehensive evidence-based approach to
addressing the problem of childhood obesity, noting that the ACMA's recent
review of the Children's Television Standards found no causal link between the
advertising of junk food and childhood obesity. The Committee notes that Australian
Health Ministers have recently agreed to make obesity a National Health
Priority Area and have announced one of the first tasks of the National
Preventative Health Taskforce will be to develop a National Obesity Strategy.[79]
The National Preventative Health Taskforce recently listed a number of major
imperatives in halting and reversing the rise in the prevalence of overweight
and obesity. One of these priorities was:
Protect children and others from inappropriate marketing of
unhealthy foods and beverages, and improve public education and information.[80]
1.66
The Committee also notes the recent development of the Responsible
Children’s Marketing Initiative by industry groups. While the Committee
recognises the reservations of some witnesses and submitters regarding the
appropriateness of industry self-regulation in relation to responsible food and
beverage advertising to children, the Committee believes this is a positive
development. The Committee acknowledges the AFGC's commitment to quickly
developing and implementing an effective self-regulatory approach and notes its
statement that industry should be judged on its progress in this area. [81]
1.67
The Committee notes that the ACMA review of the Children's Television
Standards is continuing. ACMA has indicated it would consider reviewing its
position on food and beverage advertising should '...the body of research find a
stronger association between food advertising and obesity or when there is a
more established body of research illustrating the benefits of banning food and
beverage advertising...'.[82]
1.68
The Committee believes it is premature to bring forward legislative
changes to food and beverage advertising while the National Obesity Strategy is
developed by the National Preventative Health Taskforce and before the
industry's initiatives in relation to responsible advertising can be properly
assessed.
Recommendation 1
1.69
The Committee recommends that the Bill not be passed and that the
information received by the Committee be considered by the National
Preventative Health Taskforce in their ongoing work.
Senator Claire
Moore
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page