According to a report in the Sunday Telegraph, broadcasters have worked out that such a watershed applied to alcohol ads, currently shown around afternoon and early evening sports events such as football matches, would cost them £50m.
Last year, broadcast regulator Ofcom calculated at £211m the amount of ad revenue that would be lost to a 9pm watershed on junk food ads.
It chose not to impose a watershed, preferring to introduce restrictions on advertising junk food around programmes aimed at four to nine years old on April 1, and at children up to the age of 15 from January 2008.
However, since the ascension of Gordon Brown to Prime Minister, noises emanating from government have indicated it is keen to introduce a 9pm watershed.
Last month, health secretary Alan Johnson said that the restrictions on junk food ads needed to be extended because they do not currently affect programmes that are aimed at adults but have a large audience of children, such as 'The X-Factor'.
In addition, Brown said in Prime Minister's Questions that he wanted to meet with drinks companies "to look at what they are doing in relation to advertising".
David Poley, chief executive of the alcohol manufacturers' self-regulatory body the Portman Group, has been invited to a meeting at 10 Downing Street this Wednesday to discuss the retailing and marketing of alcohol, according to the Sunday Telegraph.
Comments
What's the point of banning junk food ads if kids can go to Tescos or McDonald's and buy what they want??? Just go to any supermarket near any school. Simply watch.
What's the point of banning junk food ads if kids can go to Tescos or McDonald's and buy what they want??? Just go to any supermarket near any school. Simply watch.
It has to do with social responsability. Just because drugs are widely available it doesn´t mean we have to accept them. I tottaly agree with this government measure, although I live in Europe.
Ermm so has anyone asked why the parents aren't teaching these kids to eat better, not to mention up until recently the horrible state of so called school dinners. Imposing an advertising ban is not going to do anything. Just another PR tactic from the Labour party. Why don't they deal with real problems with real solutions like crappy public transport that’s overpriced and inefficient so that people who are actually are employed and support the economy can get to work with out being stressed out before they even get there.
How far will this go?
The majority of kids will soon enough start accessing content on any medium at anytime - with funding coming from food/drink advertisers - what then?
It's on parents to educate their kids about the ill-effects of eating junk food...why is the government acting as the 'Big Daddy' here??
It's ridiculous to believe that children are immune to advertising. Surely the reason we create adverts is because we believe that they influence people's behaviour? It's true that advertising is not solely reponsible for the growing obesity rates in children; parents, schools and companies also have a responsibility to promote healthy living. One of the greatest problems facing young mothers is pricing. Smart price crisps are obviously going to cost less than organic brocolli. As well as the change in advertising we need more initiatives like Sainsbury's fruit/veg of the week (a scheme in which selected items were reduced to enable people to incorporate fruit and veg and vary their diet for a lower price). We need to integrate our campaigns to make children healthier, not just pass blame around.
Every child knows what the golden arches of McDonalds stand for and regardless of the adverts they will probably want to go there, they ultimately know what food they think tastes good, its up to the parents to monitor this and say no. the government seems to be becoming a "nanny state" over advertising, which seems to be nothing more than a PR stunt. If they are really concerned over there obesity crisis they should be doing something more pro-active than banning ads.
Kids can eat all the burgers and chocolate they want if only they were more active. The selling off of playing fields and the cutting back of timetabled PE is more to blame for increased levels of obesity in children than any advertising. The government's PR driven attacks will adversely effect the economy and British children's TV producers.
Comments
georgina - 19/11/2007
What's the point of banning junk food ads if kids can go to Tescos or McDonald's and buy what they want??? Just go to any supermarket near any school. Simply watch.
georgina - 19/11/2007
What's the point of banning junk food ads if kids can go to Tescos or McDonald's and buy what they want??? Just go to any supermarket near any school. Simply watch.
Ines Fonseca - 19/11/2007
It has to do with social responsability. Just because drugs are widely available it doesn´t mean we have to accept them. I tottaly agree with this government measure, although I live in Europe.
Gregory Allan - 19/11/2007
Ermm so has anyone asked why the parents aren't teaching these kids to eat better, not to mention up until recently the horrible state of so called school dinners. Imposing an advertising ban is not going to do anything. Just another PR tactic from the Labour party. Why don't they deal with real problems with real solutions like crappy public transport that’s overpriced and inefficient so that people who are actually are employed and support the economy can get to work with out being stressed out before they even get there.
clay gill - 19/11/2007
How far will this go? The majority of kids will soon enough start accessing content on any medium at anytime - with funding coming from food/drink advertisers - what then?
Hrishikesh Mehta - 19/11/2007
It's on parents to educate their kids about the ill-effects of eating junk food...why is the government acting as the 'Big Daddy' here??
Sara Chapman - 20/11/2007
It's ridiculous to believe that children are immune to advertising. Surely the reason we create adverts is because we believe that they influence people's behaviour? It's true that advertising is not solely reponsible for the growing obesity rates in children; parents, schools and companies also have a responsibility to promote healthy living. One of the greatest problems facing young mothers is pricing. Smart price crisps are obviously going to cost less than organic brocolli. As well as the change in advertising we need more initiatives like Sainsbury's fruit/veg of the week (a scheme in which selected items were reduced to enable people to incorporate fruit and veg and vary their diet for a lower price). We need to integrate our campaigns to make children healthier, not just pass blame around.
Chris Rush - 20/11/2007
Every child knows what the golden arches of McDonalds stand for and regardless of the adverts they will probably want to go there, they ultimately know what food they think tastes good, its up to the parents to monitor this and say no. the government seems to be becoming a "nanny state" over advertising, which seems to be nothing more than a PR stunt. If they are really concerned over there obesity crisis they should be doing something more pro-active than banning ads.
Mike Blunt - 27/11/2007
Kids can eat all the burgers and chocolate they want if only they were more active. The selling off of playing fields and the cutting back of timetabled PE is more to blame for increased levels of obesity in children than any advertising. The government's PR driven attacks will adversely effect the economy and British children's TV producers.