Should TV food commercials targeting children be banned?

Amalia E. Maulana, Contributor, Sydney

A child stamps her feet before shelves of snacks in a supermarket demanding that her mother buy some of the brightly- colored packs of chips. Such an ordinary sight today, and the usual comment about it is korban iklan (advertisement victims). We think the child has fallen victim to commercials.

How big an impact do commercials have on children?

Children in developed countries are facing serious health hazards, such as obesity, that are thought to be directly linked to their pattern of consumption influenced by junk food commercials during children's TV programs. Debates on whether such commercials should be banned have dragged on and become a political issue that featured prominently in the general election campaign in Australia last year.

Australia's advertising industry last year came under pressure when the government attempted to ban TV commercials of (junk) food during hours when children view television the most. Among the proponents of the ban was the Child Obesity Summit in New South Wales, which blamed television commercials as the biggest factor contributing to childhood obesity. Boasting nutritional experts, academics and medical experts among its members, the organization called for stricter rules on food commercials targeting children under 9 years old.

New Zealand is considering a similar ban following a finding that 65% of all the commercials during children's TV programs promote food that is high in fat, sugar and salt content such as sweets, snacks, drinks and ice cream. Child diabetes and dental problems have been attributed to such foodstuffs.

Most European Union members have also launched strict regulations against children's TV commercials, but only Sweden and Norway have seriously attempted a complete ban. Responses to the policy have varied; some have protested against it, while others have adjusted their approaches to marketing their snack products.

McDonald's in the UK are among those that have adjusted to the more stringent policy against children's TV commercials. Rather than protesting the ban, the company launched programs that in all appearances support a healthy lifestyle.

There are those who question the sincerity of the world food giant, but their new approach has been lauded as being progressive. The company has invested 1 billion pounds sterling to devise a 2-minute TV commercial for children, telling them to take up sports and eat balanced, healthy meals that include fruit and vegetables.

This is a big departure from McDonald's previous campaign that told children to collect lots of small toys by buying lots of Happy Meal set-menus, and the I'm Lovin it campaign promoting high-calorie meals.

Opponents of the ban include advertising and media industry heavyweights. In a June 2003 release on the Responsible Advertising and Children's Programmes website (www.responsible- advertising.org), Stephan Loerke, the deputy chairman of The World Federation of Advertisers (WFA) insisted the ban was not a solution to the real problem. He called on the government to instead firmly regulate commercials so as to make them more sensitive about the subject.

Loerke argued that commercials actually contributed to better quality television programs for children. Revenues from television commercials are the largest contributor to the efforts to provide quality programs. The European Group of Television Advertising (EGTA), representing 12 EU members, found in a study that 94% of a TV station's net profit is reinvested into producing or purchasing good TV programs.

This is also the argument of the Advertising Federation Australia (AFA), which lobbies the government to keep commercials on children's programs. The federation insists that without commercials, no TV station would be able to finance their own quality programs as it is doubtful there are other financial resources to take the place of revenues from commercials.

Would a commercial ban solve the health hazard?

A study by Ofcom, a media regulating body in the UK, found that commercials do not have a direct impact on children's eating habits. A commercials ban would therefore not mean much in reducing the childhood obesity rate.

What has been found to have a direct impact is the change in the eating habits of the community, whose access to instant meals is increasing all the time. More people have less time to prepare food, so variations of instant food are increasingly becoming a choice, despite the fact that most of these meals are fatty, calorie-laden and high in salt and sugar content.

In the UK alone, the demand for instant food increased by 44 percent between 1999 and 2002, and parents attributed the trend to the fact they had less time to cook and to the increasingly varied choices on the market.

Another argument against the ban is that child obesity has more to do with a sedentary lifestyle than with TV commercials. Today's children spend more hours before the television or computer than on active play, leading to the calories piling on and turning into fat.

In short, proponents of the ban base their argument on the health risks facing obese children who will likely grow up obese and prone to disease. They believe that by banning the commercials, children will be less likely to consume junk food.

Australia has not resorted to such a drastic measure as banning commercials from children's television programs. The most recent policy is to tighten control over new commercials and to launch a more intensive campaign to reduce the childhood obesity rate.

A total of A$90 million has been allocated to create after-school activities programs for children in 150,000 primary schools. An additional A$15 million is reserved for community groups seeking to promote healthy lifestyles, including the offering of healthier, low fat, low-sugar, fiber-rich choices in school canteens.

What about Indonesia? Each morning, noon and evening, our children are bombarded with food commercials on television with no limitations whatsoever regarding the kinds of food being promoted. Further, the use of child celebrities as endorsers of food products in these commercials has reached an alarming level -- not only because such celebrities have great persuasive powers over their peers but also because they are causing a shift in children's role model concepts.