Local governments have shown remarkable leadership, championed their children’s health and taken on industry giants by switching the spotlight away from unhealthy foods across their advertising estate. But this is only progress if it is effective.
To achieve this, policies must be established strategically, worded robustly and implemented firmly and consistently. The policy must set out clearly how it will be applied in different scenarios so that everyone involved such as policymakers and industry know what is, and what is not, a compliant advert.
Without clear policy guidance setting out how it will be interpreted and what a compliant advert entails, there will be confusion. The policy will need to cover a range of common advertising scenarios. For example:
- Where an advert features both a healthier product and an unhealthy product
- Where an unhealthy product is depicted in graphics or words
- Where an unhealthy product is featured incidentally on an advert and is not actually advertising the featured product
- When there is no unhealthy product, but there is the logo of a well-known food brand, associated with unhealthy food and drink
Therefore, simply stating that unhealthy food and drink advertising (by any definition) is restricted is not sufficient. Without clarity in the policy wording to deal with different scenarios, it can lead to different interpretations and subjective decisions about which adverts should be restricted. For example, if there’s an advert for a range of products including confectionery and healthier items, and there is no specific guidance for product ranges, there will be uncertainty over whether the advert should be restricted. The healthier products in the advert may result in the subjective decision that the advert is compliant. Subsequently, the company and their competitors may expect to be able to advertise confectionery and other unhealthy products in future.
This leaves local governments in a precarious situation. It can result in a slippery slope where increasingly unhealthy foods and drinks are allowed to be advertised. It can also leave administrations open to legal challenge from companies because the inconsistency of policy application can result in some companies being treated differently from their competitors. Where there is no clear guidance, there is poor execution of the policy, and in practice, most of these result in no changes to advertising.
It takes time, effort and capacity to bring in robust policies that meet the minimum standards – but it’s worth it. Here’s why local governments are putting in the work to establish strong policies.
10 reasons why healthier food advertising policies must meet the minimum standards:
- It changes advertising for good: If written and implemented robustly, the policy can transform the advertising estate. When policies do not meet minimum standards, most of the time they do not result in any changes to advertising. This is because they do not clearly set out how the policy should be applied in different advertising scenarios, resulting in an inconsistent application.
- Results in health, inequalities and climate improvements: See the toolkit for more on this. Conversely, weak policy guidance and implementation removes the opportunities to achieve these aims.
- It’s much harder to oppose: When a policy does not robustly set out how it is to be followed in different scenarios, it is more likely to result in a weakened implementation.
- It’s fair and reduces the risk of legal challenge: If the rules are set out clearly and applied consistently, then businesses are treated equally and consistently incentivised to switch the spotlight away from unhealthy products. However, if there is uncertainty over the interpretation of the rules, it is more likely that the policy is inconsistently and subjectively implemented. This could result in businesses being treated differently from their competitors which is unfair on them and may leave the local government open to legal challenge.
- It’s not ‘healthwashing’: If the policy is actually switching the spotlight from unhealthy foods, it will be reducing health harms as intended. It is important to champion and celebrate policies that result in changes to advertising, otherwise the claims of restricting advertising are misleading policymakers, industry and the public. This hampers the trust, ambition and action needed to bring about the changes needed to prioritise health.
- Sets strong precedents for other local governments: It is important that local governments follow good practice and not those practices which are likely to result in negligible changes to advertising. In general, significantly more work is required to sign off robust policies so it is important that these are not confused with those that have limited impact. Local governments will need to justify spending the necessary time and resource to ensure the policy is robust.
- Sets strong precedents for national and international policies: UK local governments are setting the standard nationally and internationally on advertising restrictions and therefore weak precedents could hamper national and international ambition.
- Represents the full potential of the policy in research: If the policy writing and implementation is strong, research will be able to evidence the impacts of the changes. However, if it’s not robust, it will have limited impact, which is likely to result in the inaccurate conclusion that the policy is ineffective. This will make it more difficult to justify working on it and will make it harder for other local governments to make the case for establishing a healthier food advertising policy – no matter how robust - in future.
- Strengthens the foundations of related policies: Evidencing strong impacts on this policy could help make the case for adjacent policies, such as restrictions of other types of unhealthy food marketing and promotions. However, this is only possible if the policy is robust in the first place.
- It’s a worthwhile use of resources and political capital: If all the efforts to bring in a healthier food advertising policy ultimately result in negligible changes, it is a waste of local government resource that could have been better spent elsewhere.
Commercial Determinants: We believe our health and the health of our planet must be prioritised ahead of companies’ profits. We’re taking a stand with policymakers by bringing in regulations that incentivise industry to higher standards.
