‘Children still watching ‘junk food’ ads, says Which?’- Mark Sweney, guardian.co.uk, 19/09/08
Since one of my original media sources did not contain as much healthy eating news as I expected, I decided to change my media source to the guardian website.
The guardian website featured an article about a criticism made by consumer body Which?, that Ofcom’s restrictions on the TV advertising of ‘junk’ food needs to be reviewed.
A report made by Which? showed that only 4 of the top 20 programmes among under-16-year olds met Ofcom’s restrictions on TV ads for products high in fat, salt or sugar. Ofcom’s restriction bans ‘junk’ food ads from programmes if the proportion of under-16s viewing is 20% higher than the general population.
Ofcom’s research, ‘based on data from audience measurement body Barb, showed that programmes in the top 20 between June 9 and June 22 included Emmerdale, Coronation Street, 10 Years Younger, The Bill, Animals Do the Funniest Things, The Hulk movie and Beat the Star.’
The Advertising Association has hit back at Which?, saying it has missed the point; “Their list includes programmes clearly not aimed at children and films screened after 10pm. There clearly has to be an element of parental responsibility on which programmes they allow their children to view”.
The article ends saying, ‘ The Which? report showed that Ofcom’s proportional regulation system did block ads from appearing in shows clearly targeted at children such as The Simpsons, SpongeBob SquarePants, Shaggy and Scooby Doo Get a Clue, and The Power Rangers’, which is in more in favour of the Advertising Association’s argument. Although this last part was probably put in to show a fair view of the subject, it has left me, the reader, feeling that Which? has been nit-picking over the small details and their findings isn’t much of a fuss to be made of.
Whilst reading the beginning of the article, I was slightly alarmed that junk food was advertised in the top 20TV programmes among under-16s, but after reading the Advertising Association’s argument, I realised that they had a point…the Bill is a program not aimed at children, it isn’t a children’s program.
Of course, exposing junk food ads to children is a concern, but we can’t protect all children. Besides, most children wants to watch programs made for adults, because they are curious and think it is ‘cool’, so it is difficult to slot in the junk food ads into ‘appropriate’ programs, Is Which?’s finding such a fuss to be made of? I can’t remember the last time I watched a junk food ad on TV. As the article says, ‘The loss of prime advertisers such as Coca-Cola, Mars, Cadbury, Kellogg’s and Nestlé – which advertise in and around live sport content – would be disastrous and unsustainable for broadcasters.‘
The article is written as if Which? sounds like it has a weak argument, and does not mention the effects that junk food advertising has on children, whereas the Advertising Association is reported to describe Which’s report as sensationalist and unconstructive, which is much more hard-hitting and emotional, thus making it much easier to gain reader’s support.
The online article is categorised and linked onto other similar articles with key words such as ‘health’ and ‘Ofcom’ (listed on the right side of the article), which directs users to and from the article easily.
