Marketing of unhealthy foods has come under scrutiny this week as campaigners warn of the pervasive nature of adverts promoting products high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS). Newly published research conducted by Bite Back, the University of Liverpool and Impact on Urban Health found that a quarter of outdoor advertising found in locations like bus stops and billboards is for HFSS foods and these adverts are clustered in the most deprived communities of England.
The study analysed outdoor advertising across Liverpool, Southwark (London), Birmingham, and Newcastle upon Tyne and found 25% of outdoor adverts were promoting HFSS products, often those sold by fast food or soft drinks brands. The most deprived areas were home to 44% of all HFSS ads captured in the study compared with just 4% that were found in the least deprived areas. The campaigners said this showed the disproportionate exposure that low-income communities have to junk food advertising.
Over a third (35%) of schools had at least one HFSS advert within 400 metres of their gates, while in Newcastle, one primary school was found to have seven HFSS advertisements within just 400 metres.
In response, Bite Back youth activists have secured billboards in high footfall locations across London displaying the message: “We’ve bought this ad space so the junk food giants couldn’t – we’re giving kids a commercial break.”
Bite Back and Impact on Urban Health have added their voice to calls for businesses to set clear, measurable sales targets for healthier products and publish annual reports on their progress. They also want policy makers to follow the lead of the growing number of local authorities that have implemented healthier food advertising policies and impose a complete ban on marketing HFSS products across all outdoor advertising.
Such bans are hard to get over the line – and enforce. Published on the same day as the Bite Back research, an investigation by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) found evidence that local bans on junk food advertising in outdoor spaces are being derailed by industry lobbying. Freedom of information requests to local authorities revealed that policies to restrict the promotion of HFSS products have been shelved as a result of corporate pressure.
The BMJ sent requests to 52 of England’s 317 local authorities, focusing on those that had recently announced restrictions on HFSS food advertising and those in major urban areas. It asked about correspondence and meetings with the advertising industry in the past three years relating to local plans for advertising restrictions on HFSS products. Eight councils responded with evidence showing an attempt by the advertising industry to influence their policy making: Brighton and Hove, Cheshire West and Chester, Leeds, Liverpool, Luton, Peterborough, Southampton, and Tower Hamlets in east London. The BMJ’s investigation uncovered evidence of councils being warned they would lose up to 30% of advertising revenue at a time when they are facing a severe funding crisis should they proceeds with the restrictions.
Evidence suggests such restrictions are working. A 2022 study by the University of Sheffield and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine looking at the effects of Transport for London’s ban on HFSS advertising estimated that up to 100,000 cases of obesity had been prevented, alongside 3,000 cases of diabetes and 2,000 cases of heart disease, in the three years since the policy was implemented.
The BMJ investigation also uncovered evidence showing that where councils have brought in HFSS advertising restrictions, businesses are simply moving HFSS adverts to locations outside their scope including privately owned advertising space.
Another tactic for circumnavigating advertising bans is to promote the brand itself rather than focus on specific products. Debate has been raging over whether the UK Government’s forthcoming pre-watershed ban on TV and online advertising of HFSS foods will ban these kind of generic brand adverts where a business sells HFSS products. The Grocer reported this week that the government has intervened to clarify that the ban is not intended to block brand advertising that does not identify specific HFSS products and said it expects its interpretation to be reflected in final guidance to be published soon by the Advertising Standards Authority.
Elsewhere in Footprint news this week:
- Changes to B Corp will mean businesses need to meet a series of standards spanning climate action and human rights in order to be certified. More.
- Research finds bolstering local supply chains is key to building a resilient future food system. More.
- The UK Government’s nutrition advisers remain very concerned over ultra-processed foods but find ongoing gaps in the evidence base. More.
Leave a Reply