Business ETC uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 8 °C Wednesday 22 May, 2013

What do YOU think of the draft children’s ads code?

The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland wants to hear what the public think of proposed limits to how fatty, sugary and salty food and drink is targeted at children in ads.

Little tykes: Will the draft BAI Children's Commercial Communications Code affect your children's eating habits?
Little tykes: Will the draft BAI Children's Commercial Communications Code affect your children's eating habits?
Image: PA Archive

THE BROADCASTING AUTHORITY of Ireland is asking the public to get in touch with their comments and suggestions on the new Draft Children’s Commercial Communications Code.

The BAI is recommending that ads which target children for HFSS food and drink (high in fat, salt and sugar) should NOT:

  • Be permitted in children’s programmes as defined by the code
  • Include celebrities or sports stars
  • Include programme characters
  • Include licensed characters eg, characters and personalities from movies
  • Contain health or nutrition claims
  • Include promotional offers.

It is also proposed that adverts for HFSS products can only take up 25 per cent of advertising time across the whole broadcasting day.

If you want to have your voice heard on this issue, responses can be emailed to sowens@bai.ie until 31 May 2012.

What do you think of the proposals? Go too far; don’t go far enough; just right?

Read next:

Comments (18 Comments)

  • ADM 30/03/12 #

    childhood obesity is a problem in Ireland and I agree out of sight out of mind but ultimately parents feed their children not the tv.

    Reply
  • It’s a good thing except for the cheese. not long ago the government was going to give us free cheese what ever happened to that great idea???

    Reply
  • I strongly believe that all advertising based towards children should be banned.
    Children don’t have buying power, these ads only lead to children demanding what they have seen on TV from their parents.

    Reply
  • briewee 30/03/12 #

    it is a good thing to bring in a code for adverts based at children, but this is only for irish broadcasters, how many homes have sky, ups or freeview sat they are going to be watching channels that will not have codes in place I can’t see it making that much of a differnce most kids watch nick or disney channels they are the ones that need to change their way of advertising at children to make a noticable change.

    Reply
  • Sounds good. 25% of broadcasting time is a bit much. Maybe restrict the times more so when children are watching tv.

    Reply
  • It is well-intentioned but completely misguided. The demonization of healthy saturated fats is not supported by science. The lipid hypothesis is becoming widely accepted as bad science — it was based on observational data that mistook correlation for causation. The Cochrane Collaboration — the gold standard of meta-analysis — says there is no evidence to support it. But still, health authorities drone on and on about it. Now we are taking away cheese from the kids. We have a moral panic about an issue that has no scientific evidence behind it.

    The real issue here is the rate of carbohydrate intake (in particular sucrose and fructose) and all the evidence points to this. It’s time health authorities here got up to speed on what is happening at the leading edge. And it’s time too to give healthy fats a break and to demonize the real problem — sugar. “Sugar is fueling a global obesity pandemic, contributing to 35 million deaths annually worldwide from non-communicable diseases like diabetes, heart disease and cancer” — http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2012/02/11437/societal-control-sugar-essential-ease-public-health-burden

    A good primer on this is US endocrinologist Dr Robert Lustig’s now famous lecture:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

    Reply
    • Well said. Make sure to contact the BAI with your view.

      Reply
    • @The Grinder in your last post you said you agreed with the rules, but here you have agreed with someone who disagrees?

      Reply
    • @Ultan, I agree with the proposed new rules. And if you read Paul Lynch you will see that he says there is clarification needed, in his opinion and I urged him to make a submission. I dont know what your problem is But I suspect you didnt read what Paul has to say in full.
      I know that rubbish foods are marketed to kids, and I object to that, and he says that the real rubbish is sugar
      On we go..

      Reply
  • It is unethical to use children to pressure their parents into buying a product. Advertising time on children’s television could be used for health and educational purposes.

    Reply
  • About time the con artists of the food industry were controlled.

    This is about ‘products’. And products need to be controlled if they are produced with only taste in mind.

    I fully support our right to protect our children from excess sugar, salt and other additives being marketed as some fun and exciting and convenient ‘food’.

    Reply
  • As Paul says above, the idea that all fats, even all saturated fats are bad was based on a single study in 1955 (I think) and had no effective controls built into the experiment. Trans-fats (man-made) are certainly bad but Whole milk, for instance contains a lot of healthy saturated fats that the body need for proper development in enzyme production yet there is this concept that low-fat milk is somehow better.

    Healthy eating is more about intelligent choices and moderation. Cheese is good, chocolate is good, in moderation. Nuts are good, even salted but too many are bad. Its high time that nutrition was taught in primary schools.

    Reply
    • Agree with you right up to the last sentence. Nutrition is a science and primary school is way too young to be introducing it. Children that age are still developing their basic literacy and numerical skills. It does come into the secondary school curriculum, primarily in the Science subjects and, of course, Home Economics. That’s time enough.
      Some will say that’s too late but educating children is not a way out of the pester power problem. The only way out of that is parental responsibility.
      You might notice that I’ve left the SPHE curriculum out of my argument completely. This is because SPHE does not teach nutrition at either primary or secondary level. It merely packages and endorses whatever current nutritional theories are fashionable. So we get the demonising of fat, the ubiquity of the food pyramid, endless promotion of dairy products (I’m not anti-dairy but the amount it’s promoted in schools has more to do with the clout of the dairy industry than anything else) and so on. There is a real danger in this that we are “teaching” children facts that may turn out to be fads. SPHE can be taught by teachers qualified in any subject. Those without a scientific background may be less liable to assess textbook content analytically and may rely more on the many promotional materials helpfully provided by vested interests.

      Reply
  • Way too far. Can’t contain health or nutritional claims? Or include promotional offers?

    If you’re forbidden from telling your customers the good things about your product while health agencies are allowed say every bad thing under the sun that’s propaganda. (ok don’t want to make it sound like a government conspiracy, but it’s not fair)

    And promotional offers encompass everything from price reductions to multipacks, children aren’t interested in the notion of buy one get one free or 25% off, only the product contained in the ad.

    Reply
    • I presume you work in the trade Brendan?

      I think any measure which discourages companies from going after the “pester factor” (mammy mammy mammy can I have dat?) is to be encouraged.

      Adults are able to take a step back & be sceptical about an ad for a product, but kids don’t know about the process. Unless we start educating kids in play school about “not everything you hear is true”, then I support these measures.

      Reply
  • If all advertising is banned who’s going to pay for children’s broadcasting?

    I agree though… But it should be pressuring manufacturers to cut the sugar/fat content of their products rather than stop advertising them

    The one thing the article/legislation lacks is a definition for HSHF foods…

    Reply

Add New Comment