Industry chokes as MPs demand fresh HFSS crackdown

The advertising and marketing industry has hit out at a proposed new crackdown on food and drink ads that calls for a blanket ban on “junk food” OOH activity, an overhaul of the new “less healthy food” restrictions, as well as the exclusion of trade bodies from future consultations, branding the move “wholly unacceptable”.

The “Food and Weight Management: Fixing the Food Environment” report, published by the Parliamentary Health & Social Care Committee, follows growing calls from health campaigners for tougher action.

The likes of Sustain, Nesta, Cancer Research UK and Children’s Food Campaign, have long argued that the LHF rules, which came into force at the beginning of this year and are designed to restrict advertising of food and drink high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS), do not go far enough.

While they ban ads for identifiable less healthy food products from appearing on TV or on-demand services between 5.30am and 9pm, or in paid online media at any time, they do not cover brand advertising or other media such as sponsorship and online gaming.

Just last week, the Advertising Standards Authority dismissed complaints about campaigns by Domino’s, KFC, Burger King, Uber Eats and Papa Johns, ruling they did not fall within the classification of a less healthy product.

At the time, Sustain claimed the rulings were a direct consequence of fierce lobbying from food and drink giants and urged the Government to “tighten up the policy now”.

This appears to have struck a chord with MPs on the committee who are calling on the Government to “stand up” to the food industry after “decades of failure to tackle obesity”.

They are now demanding a raft of changes, including bringing forward a review into how the rules are working from 2031 to “as soon as possible”; extending the ban to include all brand advertising; banning all outdoor advertising of HFSS foods by July 2027; launching a consultation on extending the restrictions to other forms of advertising, including sports sponsorship, social media, mobile phone app notifications and online gaming; and finally, updating regulations to require food companies to dedicate resource to advertising healthy products.

Crucially, however, the committee is demanding that food businesses and their advertising trade associations should be excluded from any discussions on the formation of policy on food, diet and obesity prevention.

The report states: “Throughout our inquiry we have seen many examples where policies to improve the health of the population were delayed or diluted in the face of threats from the food industry about the impact on food prices, jobs or the economy. Previous governments have consistently chosen to put those interests ahead of health interests. This government cannot continue that pattern.”

In response, an Advertising Association spokesperson said: “This report represents a significant missed opportunity to put forward policies which would bring together government, industry, and the third sector to tackle this major policy issue.

“Decades of research across multiple academic disciplines has repeatedly shown that advertising does not contribute to long-term changes in obesity or BMI and that advertising restrictions do not improve the nation’s health.

“The focus should be on addressing the real drivers of poor health including inequality, affordability, and accessibility of healthy food.”

Client trade body ISBA has also waded in. Director of public affairs Rob Newman said: “The challenge of obesity and public health is a very real one which demands evidence-led solutions – delivered in partnership between the public, civil society, business and government. In our view, the select committee’s analysis and recommendations fail to recognise the realities and challenges facing advertisers, retailers and manufacturers.

“Reformulating products, sourcing new ingredients, testing products with consumers and bringing them to market are all complicated and time-consuming. Raising these difficulties is not special pleading, but is asking government to recognise that changes to requirements of this kind cost money, take time, and impact on operations.

“Extending HFSS ad restrictions to out of home, sponsorship and elsewhere would be a further hit to advertisers at a time when they are already dealing with multiple government policy changes. This, and the committee’s proposal to unwind the brand advertising exemption from the LHF rules – which only came into force in January, and which the advertising industry voluntarily adopted early to enable the Government to meet its manifesto commitments – would also break faith with the promise that the Government gave to review the impact of those rules after five years.

“We are especially concerned to see the committee’s recommendation that not only should certain types of businesses by silenced when it comes to future discussions with government on this policy area, but their trade associations should be, too. It would be wholly unacceptable for the door to be slammed shut and for conversations with those making the law to be barred. When the Government responds to this report, we call on it to be unequivocal that all parties with an interest in future policy will continue to be heard without fear or favour.”

IPA director of public affairs Richard Casofsky concluded: “The IPA is disappointed by the committee’s recommendation to expand advertising restrictions. The report does not provide convincing evidence that further restrictions would reduce obesity or improve public health outcomes. Policy makers should focus on interventions that are proven to work and are grounded in robust evidence.”

Industry chokes as MPs demand fresh HFSS crackdown

Be the first to comment on "Industry chokes as MPs demand fresh HFSS crackdown"

Leave a comment Cancel reply