Children's Nutrition Action Plan - The Food Commission

Charlie Powell
Sustain: The alliance for better food and farming
While children’s diets are contributing towards the development of numerous diseases and
health disorders, manufacturers and advertisers spend hundreds of millions of pounds
promoting fatty, sugary and salty foods directly to children.
Those wishing to safeguard children’s health advocate regulatory controls on the promotion
of food to children. But should this take the form of a voluntary code of practice, as proposed
by the Food Standards Agency, or would statutory provisions be more effective?
When might voluntary codes of practice be effective?
The recently launched Joint Health Claims Initiative is a tripartite collaboration between
consumers, food producers and enforcement authorities who have worked together to develop
a voluntary code of practice on health claims for foods.
There is common ground between the parties. Manufacturers that invest heavily in product
development of functional foods want to see that investment protected by exclusion of
companies that market products with poorly researched or unfounded claims. Consumers also
want to be sure that health claims are substantiated, reliable and informative.
In the case of the Joint Health Claims Initiative, consensus, albeit for different reasons, is
possible. However the fact that these codes of practices are voluntary means that there are a
number of reasons why they might not be effective.
Are voluntary codes of practice pro-active?
In 1998, SmithKline Beecham launched Ribena Toothkind and made an explicit and absolute
claim that the product did not encourage tooth decay. However, acting on independently
commissioned scientific tests, the Advertising Standards Authority upheld a complaint that
this claim was misleading.
The Advertising Standards Authority’s adjudication lasted two years during which
SmithKline Beecham had launched three national, multimedia campaigns, all based on a
claim that was subsequently shown to be misleading. By the time the judgement was issued,
millions of customers had already seen the advertising carrying the claim and purchased the
product.
This method of regulation has been criticised because it is not pro-active, and it tackles
misleading or potentially misleading advertising after it has already gone into circulation.
What happens when a manufacturer or advertiser ignores a code of practice?
The British code of advertising and sales promotion does not apply to claims made on
packaging, as the case of Ribena Toothkind clearly illustrates. Following the Advertising
Standards Authority ruling, the claim still appears on the packaging: ‘Ribena Toothkind does
not encourage tooth decay’ – the very claim criticised by independent scientific and judicial
assessment as misleading.
The Children’s Nutrition Action Plan, published by The Food Commission
35