“Teenage children do need to be protected just as much as younger children because they are - they have proven to be - vulnerable, their cognitive abilities have been shown to be still developing,” she said.
“Studies show that up to [the age of] 18 is an important time to still be protecting [children] from exposure from harmful marketing. And also, obviously, purchasing power has increased. Clearly, there’s purchasing power from a younger age too, but we move away from children who have pester-power, and can try to nag their parents, to [children] actually [having] money in their pockets and the ability to have a direct impact.
“So the marketing can be more effective because it actually drives sales directly, as opposed to having to go through the parent.”
She was concerned companies opting in to the rules would not be held to account unless members of the public complained about possible breaches.
“The enforcement of it [the code] is left up to the public, it’s left up to the parents, who have far too much to do as it is. It shouldn’t be the responsibility of parents to regulate the food and beverage industry, it should be the responsibility of the Government.”
She is among academics, many of whom are involved in Health Coalition Aotearoa, who say self-regulation of advertising through the Advertising Standards Authority is not appropriate.
“Mandatory regulation is not only more effective at reducing exposure of children to unhealthy marketing, commodity marketing - but self-regulatory models are outdated. And many countries now are looking at legislating this area.”
In Sing’s opinion, it was “quite clear that industry has a conflict of interest and that they can’t adequately regulate themselves” when their shareholders want to increase profit.
The draft rules would apply to brands producing products high in fat, salt or sugar that don’t meet the Australasian nutrient food standards.
The authority described them as “occasional” food and beverage products: “Those food and beverage products which are high in fat, salt or sugar and classified under the Food and Beverage Classification System (FBCS) as being intended for occasional consumption.”
Health Coalition Aotearoa co-chairwoman Lisa Te Morenga (Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Whātua), who is also a Massey University Māori health researcher, told RNZ earlier this week that the proposed new rules were “well overdue”.
“Exposure to junk food marketing increases the liking for junk food and intake in children, and this happens to a much stronger extent than in adults. So yes, definitely, the Advertising Standards Authority should be doing this. However, we don’t think this work should be under the voluntary control of companies involved in marketing junk food to children.”
“These sorts of authorities don’t have the teeth we would like them to have.”
And in her opinion: “If we had an authority that was under Government control, we would have a much stronger policy and it would be much more effective.”
But Advertising Standards Authority chief executive Hilary Souter told RNZ that advertisers were normally receptive to changing rules and judgements.
“We have a 96 per cent compliance rate with our rulings, so there’s a pretty high level of engagement across the industry. My experience is that people are happy to have guidance on what responsible advertising looks like.
“Once we get a complaint, the complaints board - which is a body of five public members and four industry members - decide if there’s a breach of the code, and we ask the advertiser to remove the advertising [if the code is breached].”
Consultation on the new advertising rules ends next month.
- RNZ
