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

Prev Next Index