A panel of health and nutrition experts have called on the government to impose stricter regulations on junk food advertising in order to prevent businesses from finding loopholes in the current system.
The call for stricter rules surrounding the marketing of food and drink high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) came at an evidence-gathering session at the House of Lords’ Food, Diet and Obesity Committee last week.
University of Liverpool chair of food marketing Emma Boyland, City University professor in food policy Christina Vogel, and Bartle Bogle Hegarty co-founder Sir John Hegarty made up the panel.
In Hegarty’s view, the major function of any business is to make a product for as little as possible and sell it for as much as possible – so businesses will do whatever they can to make profit if regulations fail to prevent them from going too far.
As far as the role of people in advertising, Hegarty said: “Their function is to answer a client’s needs – here is a product, please promote this in a way which is most effective.”
He believes it’s up to government to “put in systems and processes” and that voluntary systems are a waste of time, adding that an official system needs to be airtight to stop businesses exploiting HFSS loopholes – in much the same way cigarette companies did in the mid-70s.
Vogel agreed, adding that a raft of exemptions and loopholes made it hard to enforce the current HFSS legislation.
An example of these loopholes included space being cleared in the fruit and veg section at the front of a store to make way for Christmas confectionery and alcohol promotions.
The complexity of the legislation was also considered problematic, particularly as there is currently no definite way to assess what classifies as a HFSS product.
Vogel said: “I know through some of the consultations there was a proposal that we have an indicator on the labels for HFSS products, which would make it much easier for enforcers to accurately enforce the legislation.
There is also insufficient funding for enforcers, meaning that retailers can break the rules without consequence.
Subscribe to Marketing Beat for free
Sign up here to get the latest marketing news sent straight to your inbox each morning
Boyland referred to the fact that the regulation of advertising and restrictions on advertising on programmes primarily watched by children remained effective, while self-regulation of online advertising was repeatedly ineffective.
Since there is a lot of TV that is not child-specific but still watched by children, Boyland proposed a time ban such as a watershed as a more effective solution, highlighting the sheer amount of advertising they are exposed to, to make her case.
For example, 52 minutes of every hour spent on online streaming services such as Twitch will feature advertising for food, with about 17.4 ads seen per hour.
She also spotlighted how easily influencers can promote HFSS products, such as Logan Paul and KSI’s Prime drinks range.
Referencing the Metaverse, Boyland said: “Certain celebrities and brands are already using that as a brand extension – a well-known soft drink was launched there before it was physically available in stores. As an indication, that’s where their presence intends to go next.”
Hegarty’s ultimate solution is that government should make clear what is and isn’t allowed and how a company will be penalised if these conditions are broken, reinforcing that the blame cannot be laid solely on advertising companies.
He added that a better solution would be preventing or disincentivising the manufacture of HFSS products in the first place.
“When you’re dealing with something as fundamental as food, then the government have got to take a central role in determining what is good and what is not”, said Hegarty.
“You have to push companies to do the right thing.”
