It's not enough.
It's not enough for a number of reasons.
Firstly it's not enough because why should anything be advertised to a population that has been shown to not be able to discern truth from advertising? If we're talking ethics, it's plainly unethical to allow advertising to target children. Period.
Secondly it's not enough because at least one recent study suggests the possibility that advertisements for food, any food, even healthy food like fruit, paradoxically lead children to increase consumption of calories and unhealthy dietary choices.
Thirdly it's not enough because there's no agreed upon definitions for what would constitute unhealthy food. In turn not calling for a total food advertising ban at best necessitates long and drawn out discussions to try to define unhealthy and at worst, simply paralyzes the process.
Lastly it's not enough because even if a definition of "unhealthy" is agreed upon, food manufacturers will take advantage of the new definition of "unhealthy" to make products that come in one squeak better than that - and then not only continue to market them, but to market them with their newly found health halo - because after all, if they're allowed to advertise them, consumers will automatically assume that they must be "healthy".
And I'm certainly not the only one who feels this way as evidenced by a wonderful paper coming from a whole boatload of Canadian friends and colleagues from across the country. Published just last week in the Journal of Public Health Policy (and freely accessible) is a paper entitled, Restricting marketing to children: Consensus on policy interventions to address obesity where their evidence based consensus opinions include the following stronger than the recent Health Kids Panel report's recommendations:
Importantly they also define marketing in a realistically broad sense of the term,
- A Canadian (federal) government-led national regulatory system prohibiting all commercial marketing of foods and beverages to children under 18 years of age, with exceptions for 'approved public health campaigns promoting healthy diets'
- That regulators set minimum standards, assure monitoring of compliance, and impose penalties for non-compliance.
"We recommend adoption of a broad definition of marketing that includes, but is not limited to, all media through which children are or can be targeted, such as ‘sponsorship, product placement, sales promotion, cross-promotions using celebrities, brand mascots, or characters popular with children, Websites, packaging, point-of-purchase displays, e-mails, and text messages, philanthropic activities tied to branding opportunities, and communication through ‘viral marketing’."So while I was thrilled to see a call targeting advertising in Monday's Healthy Kids Panel report, it's not enough, and moreover, if enacted, would be almost certainly be ineffective and potentially even harmful.
And my bet is, the food industry representatives who were full voting members of that panel - I bet they didn't raise one peep of concern when a junk food advertising ban was suggested as it was the best possible advertising recommendation they could have hoped for. I'd go even further and bet that they were even vocal champions of it during the committee meetings.
Government! Next time, by all means let the food industry come to testify in front of the next such committee and ensure their concerns are heard, but for the love of god, next time, don't give them a vote.