Importance Score: 75 / 100 🔴
Food Brands Increase Advertising Spend Ahead of Junk Food Regulations
Major food corporations significantly escalated their advertising expenditure last year, preceding the implementation of new regulations designed to address Britain’s obesity crisis. These impending rules aim to curtail the promotion of unhealthy food products.
Advertising Spending Surge
In 2024, food companies injected an additional £420 million into advertising, marking a substantial 26% surge compared to the previous year. This increased spending coincided with a prosperous period for snack food sales. Consumers purchased an extra 45.4 million packs of chocolate, cakes, and crisps from leading brands during this period.
Tactical Shift by Food Companies
Campaigners suggest that this surge in expenditure indicates a strategic shift by food companies to navigate the forthcoming regulations. These new rules include a 9 pm watershed for television commercials promoting less healthy food items and a ban on online advertisements starting in October, following a five-year postponement.
However, regulations do not encompass outdoor billboards, audio advertising on platforms such as podcasts and Spotify, or collaborations with social media influencers.
Potential for Further Restrictions
The elevated advertising spending, potentially driving increased sales, may intensify calls for stricter limitations. James McDonald from WARC Media, which tracks advertising expenditure and reported the 26% increase, stated the correlation between spending and sales was “not surprising”. He highlighted the “interesting timing,” given the imminent introduction of regulations concerning foods high in fat, salt, or sugar (HFSS).
Limited Scope of Current Regulations
Recent data analysis by academics at University College London and the Pan American Health Organization reveals that junk food advertising regulations will encompass less than two-thirds of food items classified as unhealthy according to government dietary guidelines. This research, involving experts like Dr. Chris van Tulleken, indicates a potential loophole in the regulations.
Echoes of Tobacco Industry Tactics
Health advocates contend that food companies are mirroring tactics previously employed by the tobacco industry in disputes over cigarette advertising. This involves emphasizing brand names and logos rather than specific products to circumvent restrictions. The advertising sector argues that regulatory uncertainty poses a threat and advocates for exemptions for brand-only advertisements.
Battle Over Brand-Only Advertising
A contention point has emerged regarding whether the rules should extend to advertisements featuring only a brand name, such as McDonald’s or Cadbury, without showcasing a specific product. Permitting brand advertisements would allow Cadbury to broadcast its renowned drumming gorilla advertisement before the watershed, provided no chocolate bars are visually depicted.
ASA Guidelines and Industry Messaging
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is preparing to release guidelines for advertisers to clarify such ambiguities, suggesting a case-by-case evaluation of advertisements. In anticipation of this pivotal decision, both sides of the debate have amplified their messaging.
Marks and Spencer chair Archie Norman recently expressed concerns in the Financial Times that the regulations would stifle food advertising, even for products like “mince pies,” potentially impacting future Christmas campaigns.
Youth Activist Findings on Outdoor Advertising
Bite Back 2030, a youth activism group combating the influence of junk food marketing, surveyed 859 poster sites across several UK cities. Their findings revealed that nearly half were dedicated to food and beverage advertising. Notably, 44% of all HFSS food advertisements were located in the most deprived areas, compared to a mere 4% in the least deprived.
Government Stance on Brand Advertising
The government appeared to align with advertisers’ perspectives recently. Junior health minister Ashley Dalton indicated that “pure brand advertising” should remain unrestricted. She clarified that the government does “not expect the perception or association of a corporate brand with less healthy products to automatically bring an advert into scope of the restrictions”.
Local Authority Concerns and Revenue Loss
A recent BMJ investigation revealed that local authorities are reconsidering restrictions on junk food poster advertisements in their localities due to warnings from advertising companies about potential revenue losses.
Expert Skepticism on Regulation Effectiveness
Dr. Van Tulleken expressed skepticism about the regulations’ effectiveness, noting that “almost without exception,” only foods high in fat, salt, or sugar are marketed in the UK. He argued against the existence of “really functional marketing restrictions” for children regarding harmful food brands and doubted that the October changes would significantly alter the situation due to pervasive brand advertising on various platforms.
Saturation of Unhealthy Food Brands
Van Tulleken highlighted the “saturation” of unhealthy food brands throughout the country, emphasizing their omnipresence in shops, convenience stores, supermarkets, and petrol stations. He described this as “complete 360-degree coverage,” contrasting it with the “inaccessible and unavailable and unaffordable” alternatives for many people.
Obesity Crisis and Historical Trends
Limiting advertising for less healthy food products has long been recognized as a crucial element in addressing the UK’s obesity crisis. In 1980, obesity rates were significantly lower, while processed food constituted a smaller portion of household groceries, and families allocated a larger share of their food budgets to ingredients.
By 2022, adult obesity rates in England had dramatically increased, with processed or ultra-processed food accounting for two-thirds of calorie intake in UK diets.
Evolution of Advertising Restrictions
Initial government restrictions on advertisements for less healthy foods were introduced in 2007, with certain commercials prohibited during children’s television programs. Responding to mounting evidence of continued exposure to junk food commercials among children, Theresa May implemented a 9 pm watershed for advertisements in 2018, bowing to pressure from campaigners.
Legislation was eventually enacted in 2023, and the Advertising (Less Healthy Food Definitions and Exemptions) Regulations 2024 are slated to take effect on October 1st. Similar to the soft drinks levy, the aim is to incentivize food brands to reformulate their product offerings or introduce healthier alternatives.
Industry Concerns About Brand Ad Restrictions
Rob Newman from ISBA, representing UK advertisers, voiced “extreme concern” regarding the implications of the new restrictions. He described the ASA as being “caught on the horns of dilemma.”
Newman warned that including brand advertisements could result in “hundreds of millions of pounds of lost revenue,” potentially diverting spending outside the UK or rendering pre-prepared advertising campaigns unusable.
Accusations of Tobacco Industry Tactics
Nicki Whiteman from Bite Back 2030 drew parallels to the tobacco industry, stating, “The echoes of tobacco are everywhere.” She accused food companies of seeking “ways around” regulations instead of acknowledging their influence on children’s health. She highlighted the immediate brand recognition associated with logos like the “yellow M” among children globally.
Corporate Refusal to Comment
McDonald’s and Mondelez, the parent company of Cadbury, both declined to provide comments on the matter.
Call for Stronger Regulatory Measures
Katharine Jenner from the Obesity Health Alliance emphasized that food companies utilize “sophisticated techniques” to maintain the prominence of unhealthy products. She stressed that exposure to unhealthy food marketing affects children’s food preferences.
Jenner concluded, “We now appear to be witnessing a final surge in less healthy food advertising before the rules come in, underlining why voluntary approaches have repeatedly failed and will continue to do so. These long-delayed restrictions are sensible, proportionate, and evidence-based. Most importantly, they are a crucial step towards protecting children’s health.”