Day 300 - 14 Nov 96 - Page 28
1 that he backed, which you might think is a bit ridiculous,
2 bearing in mind they all spend so much money on
3 advertising. What would be the point of doing that unless
4 it was going to have some significant effect on what people
5 bought?
6
7 The second position was that of those who were criticising
8 the current practices, such as the National Food Alliance,
9 which Mr. Miles admits was backed by organisations
10 representing a very significant section of the public, and
11 they were calling, some of them were calling, for outright
12 bans on advertising of sugary and fatty foods to children
13 in a similar way that advertising cigarettes and alcohol to
14 children is banned. That, sort of, comes in on day 47,
15 page 37 onwards. I think I have a reference missing,
16 actually. (Pause)
17
18 Evidence emerged that the new ITC proposals were now
19 circulating and that they recommended that advertising
20 should not undermine progress towards national dietary
21 improvement by misleading or confusing consumers or by
22 setting bad examples, particularly to children -- that was
23 day 47, page 31 -- and that the proposals were also
24 suggesting regulations against encouragement of excessive
25 consumption of any food, eating practices that would be
26 detrimental to dental health, and against generalised
27 claims, such as the goodness and wholesomeness that were
28 not backed up by medical evidence.
29
30 He agreed that McDonald's advertisements portrayed their
31 food as healthy and attractive and desirable, which the
32 healthy part would really come in under generalised health
33 claims, which they were discussing banning.
34
35 On day 47, page 39, he said that it was generally
36 considered that it was bad behaviour for children to nag
37 their parents, and for advertisers to encourage children to
38 nag their parents. He said that that was implicit, or
39 specified, in the various codes in the UK and in most other
40 countries, and he said that the words 'pester power' do not
41 appear but the concept certainly does.
42
43 He said that it was not considered acceptable for
44 advertisements to tell children to go and nag their
45 parents, but then he agreed that the effect of
46 advertisements is that children do nag their parents. He
47 said, "In life they do, yes." Anyway, then you made the
48 point that there was a line drawn between advertising which
49 positively urged children to ask their parents and the fact
50 that the advertising had a consequence that children --
51 advertising that did not overtly say that still had the
52 consequence that children would go and ask their parents.
53
54 In terms of it being quality, ITC have said it is
55 acceptable that as long as it does not overtly happen the
56 end effect of children nagging their parents was not
57 something that they would take action over. We then asked,
58 "But if people think it does have a detrimental effect
59 then they have a right to express that, do they not?" He
60 said, "Of course they have a right to express it, that is
