2fyY1Py

(213). The extent to which such provisions have been used for the protection of children from digital marketing appears,
however, to be limited.
In other countries, marketing legislation to protect children has focused on broadcast media. Sweden has a general
prohibition on television advertising during programmes that appeal to children under the age of 12; five further Member
States in the WHO European Region prohibit advertising in children’s television programmes: four impose a partial ban
or other restrictions on advertising in children’s television programmes, either during specific time slots or for specific
products; and seven prohibit the showing of sponsorship logos in children’s programmes (213). These regulations are
limited in their application, as they focus exclusively on children’s programming (which does not reflect children’s actual
viewing patterns); they rarely address the use of persuasive techniques or the incitement to overconsumption and “pester
power”; and they often fail to identify which foods are not permitted for marketing to children. Indeed, the reference
in some regulations to “inappropriate” marketing may imply that some HFSS food marketing to children is appropriate.
Furthermore, they fail to reflect the integrated reality of modern marketing communications and apply to one medium
alone (typically broadcasting). In contrast, the European Union Audiovisual Media Services Directive (2010/13/EU) (214) has
taken a broader approach and recommends national co- or self-regulation in HFSS food marketing to children that applies
to traditional television as well as to newer services, such as video-on-demand, Internet television, streaming services and
commercial live webcasts. Powerful digital marketing techniques such as online advergames are considered, however, to fall
outside the scope of that Directive (215).
Such systemic incoherency means that existing rules, despite appearing to be “general principles”, are scattered and are
limited or not applicable to many current marketing communication channels and techniques (216). As a result, these
policies often fail to adequately address non-traditional marketing (e.g. advergames) and platforms (e.g. social media), and
there is convincing evidence that much marketing to children is readily permeating through the gaps in broadcast media
regulation (18, 20, 217–219). Many countries with similar general marketing legislation (including provisions for marketing
to children in general terms) have thus felt pressured to introduce additional codes of conduct specifically relating to HFSS
food marketing to children. The Danish Forum for Responsible Food Marketing Communication (220) issued a code of
conduct intended to limit the marketing of unhealthy food to children under the age of 13, with the support of the Danish
Government.
Explicit policy and legislation on marketing of foods high in saturated fat, salt and/or free sugars
A few countries have introduced explicit policies or legislation to restrict HFSS food marketing to children; e.g. Ireland
and the United Kingdom have statutory restrictions on broadcast advertising for HFSS foods in and around child-directed
programming. While they tend to reduce marketing according to the criteria of the policy, these are typically quite narrow
in scope, and monitoring of children’s overall exposure reveals that they have not been as effective as initially hoped
(18–20). First, they often have a limited definition of “marketing to children”, e.g. marketing in child-directed programmes
or marketing explicitly targeting children, where the regulation applies to programmes and advertising that have a high
proportion of children in their audience but whose audience sizes, overall, are relatively small. Programmes viewed by the
largest numbers of children (e.g. prime-time soap operas, reality shows, sporting events) are usually aimed at the general
population, and the ads during such shows might attract children’s attention but do not target them specifically. Therefore,
such ads are not subject to restrictions. As a result, HFSS marketing moves to the non-restricted family viewing times, with
larger numbers of child viewers than dedicated children’s programming, and children’s exposure may remain similar or
even increase (221). Secondly, restrictions are limited to broadcast advertising, and marketers may shift their investment to
other platforms. Sometimes, these shortcomings are cited as evidence that HFSS marketing restrictions are ineffective and
therefore not a worthwhile policy option. A more convincing interpretation is that they have major loopholes (222), which,
if addressed by expanded regulation, would substantially improve their efficacy.
Industry self-regulation of marketing of foods high in saturated fat, salt and/or free sugars
Self-regulatory approaches to restricting HFSS marketing to children have, to date, been the preferred choice of States
and economic operators (223, 224). Most self-regulatory schemes apply primarily to television advertising and have only
recently started to include digital marketing. The existing schemes are funded and administered by economic operators in
20