The Children's Food Campaign has launched a new report which claims that regulators are not properly protecting children from the persistent online marketing of junk food.
Despite an extension of the non-broadcast advertising rules to cover websites and social media - which has now been in place for over two years - The Through The Looking Glass report claims that the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is 'failing' in its role to protect children.
The report suggests that 'loopholes' still allow food companies to advertise junk foods to children online and that the complaints process against exploitative marketing practices is poorly designed. Calling the ASA 'out of touch with the digital world', the report also claims that weaknesses in the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) allows companies to use adver-games filled with child-friendly characters to make false nutritional claims when promoting sugary food products.
Malcolm Clark, co-ordinator of the Children’s Food Campaign, says that the ASA is 'unable to fulfil its role' at a time when national obesity levels are continuing to rise.He explained:“The ASA and CAP act like Tweedledum and Tweedledee: ineffective, ridiculous and joined at the hip. But this is no laughing matter. Now more than ever, parents could use a strong helping hand in dealing with the online world and protecting their children from commercial interests.
“In industry after industry – from MPs’ expenses, to phone-hacking, to banks, and now in online marketing – self-regulation has proven to be a failed model. More of the same is not what is needed to protect children’s health or to give parents more help in making healthy choices for their family.”
However, Ian Twinn, director of public affairs at ISBA, the body which represents British advertisers, has criticised the Children's Food Campaign report and described its calls for a regulated internet as 'living in Wonderland'.
Twinn said:“Once again we have a PR campaign from an anti-food pressure group which is self-righteous in its belief that it speaks for public concerns; it doesn't.
'Most people rightly expect to have proactive and balanced support from ad rules to guide and protect children, but they do not want to be told by extremists what types of foods should be banned and that allowing their children sweets and snacks is fundamentally wrong. To believe that de-commercialisation of the internet is a coherent form of protecting children, is to be out of touch to the point of living in Wonderland.”
