What's the story with food advertising?

Major British retailers selling pole-dancing kits and push-up bras to pre-pubescent girls as young as nine years old were recently cited by a British teachers union as damning proof of the excessive commercialisation of childhood.

Such cynical and inappropriate marketing strategies, while indefensible, are hardly surprising in a world where advertisers, retailers and manufacturers push children as young as two to become good consumers: while they might not have any money, they certainly have lungs, tears and pester power on their side.

In recent months there has been a slight change in Britain, however, and a growing childhood obesity crisis has made targeting products loaded with sugar and salt directly at children less acceptable. In January, the UK communications regulator, OfCom, banned the advertising of foods considered high in salt or sugar on television before 7pm - it was going to be 9pm until a dubious compromise was reached after much pleading and hand-wringing by certain industries.

Earlier this month there was further good news for those concerned about the negative impact advertising can have on children when the UK's Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) introduced further curbs on food and drink promotion. Ads for certain foods and soft drinks will be prohibited from encouraging under-16s to be unhealthy, and phrases such as "ask mummy to buy you . . ." are to be banned.

Hard-sell techniques and irresponsible promotional offers aimed at children are to be prohibited, and popular cartoon characters and celebrities will no longer be able to promote food and soft drinks. The new rules, which will apply to newspaper and magazine ads, along with posters, cinema and online ads, will come into effect on July 1st.

With one in five Irish children aged five to 12 years overweight or obese, and more and more children developing Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular and respiratory problems, it is a wonder that there is so little movement in this country to regulate the advertising of fast foods, confectionery, sweetened cereals and soft drinks. While the Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (BCI) published a new advertising code earlier this month, it did not contain any restrictions on advertising to children. However, Michael O'Keeffe, the BCI's chief executive, did say that the BCI planned to review its Children's Code next year.

It won't be a moment too soon for the Irish Heart Foundation (IHF), which believes TV advertising for such foods should be banned before the 9pm "watershed". An IHF study has shown that half the television advertising during RTÉ's children's schedule is for foods considered high in sugar, salt or fat while a separate study published last year by the National Consumer Council Northern Ireland showed that there were more ads for such foods on Irish television during children's viewing times than during adult viewing times.

Maureen Mulvihill, health promotion manager of the IHF, told PriceWatch last week that it does not want to see such ads banned but restricted so their influence on children is limited. She points to a large volume of research which proves that child obesity is directly linked to television advertising.

"Advertising is not the only issue that needs to be tackled. Of course parents have a degree of responsibility and are a very strong influence but many surveys have shown that parents find it very difficult to combat the level of advertising aimed at their children," she says.

"Pester power has a very significant impact on how certain foods are marketed. It empowers children to question parental authority from a very young age," she believes.

While Mulvihill thinks the Government has been slow to respond to the obesity crisis, she is optimistic in the longer term "There is a sea change happening and while the advertising industry is responding, it is doing so with a view to protecting itself and not out of concern for children. They talk of voluntary codes but, generally speaking, voluntary codes do not work. I would like to see the Government taking stronger action."

Sean McCrave, the chief executive of the Institute of Advertising Practitioners in Ireland (IAPI), would very much not like to see the Government take action and does not believe it is necessary to do so. He has been in his post since the beginning of the year and has made the regulation of advertising to children a priority of his first year.

He does not believe a pre-watershed ban on advertising foods high in sugar, salt or fat is the answer to the problem of obesity amongst Irish children. "Advertising is considered to be a soft target and we are considered to be the root cause of the problem. The bottom line is that the ads we in the industry make adhere to the central tenet of best practice and we make sure advertising is legal, decent, honest and truthful.

"We would love to get involved in campaigns promoting exercise for young people, making it healthy and sexy but imposing blanket bans on advertising certain foods will not help. It is an education thing." He believes that controls were needed in the UK but the Irish market is "much more responsible".

As proof, McCrave points to the fact that IAPI has already worked with advertisers and government to regulate the advertising of alcohol.

He says a similar strategy should be adopted with regard to marketing to children. "We are going to have to adopt the same approach to food advertising and children. The last thing we want is the imposition of a blanket ban."

McCrave says self-regulation will be easier and more effective than any enforced change, because when the industry works in co-operation with the Government, more companies are likely to buy into any new proposals.

Mind you, if a blanket ban on advertising certain foods before a watershed is introduced then manufacturers, retailers and ad agencies would have little option but to buy into it, no matter how negatively it impacted on their bottom line.