The government’s ban on advertising foods deemed unhealthy is a big fat win for the nanny state, but it will end up costing us, says John Oxley
Christmas is coming, and that means a deluge of seasonal advertising and, for most of us, overindulgence. This might be the last time we can enjoy those two in tandem. This week, the government announced the final details of its junk food advertising ban. From October next year, adverts for food deemed unhealthy will be banned before 9pm on TV and there’ll be a complete ban on paid online adverts. Introduced by the previous government and confirmed now by this one, it’s had cross-party support as a measure in the fight against childhood obesity. In other words, a big win for the nanny state.
Instead of trusting us to engage with advertising and think about our diets and what we feed our children, the government has gone for overreach. The evidence that the bill will have an impact is mixed. The government forecasts suggest it may only cut consumption by around 600 calories a year – about the same as a Big Mac. In return, it could cost the advertising industry, a vital and vibrant creative sector, hundreds of millions of pounds.
Riddled with absurdities
The approach is also riddled with absurdities. The government has judged foods on a complex matrix of “unhealthiness”, which seems to defy common sense. Porridge oats are deemed too bad for an ad, but pies and sausage rolls are apparently fine. Even the roast potato will now be censored from ads. Rather than helping people to live a full life with a balanced diet, this is arbitrary prohibition.
This has already been played out in Transport for London’s earlier ban. Independent companies supplying artisan cheese have fallen foul of the calorie censors as well as big food businesses. More than that, the gap left by food ads has been filled by stuff arguably just as dangerous. Sadiq Khan has failed to implement a pledge to ban gambling ads, while last week, Westminster tube station was taken over with billboards promoting the case for assisted suicide. It’s an odd world where it’s deemed healthier to kill yourself than have a hot dog.
It’s an odd world where it’s deemed healthier to kill yourself than have a hot dog
This all points to a broader issue about where the duties of the state end and those of individuals take over. It is hard to argue that people don’t already know what foods are bad for them. Most of it is common sense, and with calories on most menus and almost all supermarket-sold food, the information is available. Equally, there’s almost no one out there who doesn’t understand the health consequences of being overweight. Presenting this as an advertising problem abrogates individual responsibility and the reality that people eat these foods because they like them.
As a consumer, I want to know about new and tasty things I may enjoy. I want to be trusted to manage my diet and be sensible with it rather than treated like I can’t walk past a poster without being misled into eating an entire bucket of chicken five times a day. The government is right to be concerned about public health and the burgeoning costs of obesity-related illness, but it’s a poor excuse for ineffective overreach.
People, and particularly children, are increasingly overweight, but it’s about more than advertising. Wealth levels, free time, activity levels and education all play into those problems. Rather than tackling these, the advertising ban is a crude implementation with obvious costs and uncertain chances of success. This new law creates absurd contradictions between what is promoted and what isn’t and will likely confuse as many people as it helps.
This Christmas, we should enjoy our right to overeat and hear about tasty things that might not be great for us. It is likely to be the last time it’s unfettered.
John Oxley is a political commentator and associate fellow at Bright Blue