Note: This advice is given by the CAP Executive about non-broadcast advertising. It does not constitute legal advice. It does not bind CAP, CAP advisory panels or the Advertising Standards Authority.
Section 15 of the CAP Code (Food, food supplements and associated health or nutrition claims) includes specific rules in relation to food and soft drink product marketing communications and children. Rules 15.11 to 15.16 are intended to restrict certain advertising techniques in the promotion of food to children. A CAP Help Note contains guidance on the rules; marketers should familiarise themselves with the rules and with the Help Note if they plan to advertise food to children.
In summary, the Code prohibits food or soft drink advertisements (for anything other than fresh fruit or fresh vegetables) that are targeted at pre-school or primary school children from including promotional offers, featuring licensed characters or celebrities and making nutritional or health claims. The Code distinguishes between advertisements and promotions.
Marketers should be aware of the new European Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 on Nutrition and Health Claims Made on Foods. We understand that marketers may now make a nutrition claim only if it appears in the Annex to the Regulation and if their product meets the criteria set out in the Annex. The Annex to the Regulation can be found here:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/claims/nutrition_claims_en.htm
Nutrition claims might differ in wording to the claims listed in the Annex, but if they are likely to have the same meaning for the consumer they will be subject to those same requirements.
In 2007, the ASA Compliance team surveyed food and drink ads against the revised rules. It found that compliance with the Codes (broadcast and non-broadcast) was much higher than the media had suggested and in fact 100%; only 1% of ads broke other rules in the Codes. The survey report is on the ASA website, www.asa.org.uk.
Marketers should be aware of the changing political climate in which they operate and should neither irresponsibly advertise so-called “unhealthy” foods to children nor irresponsibly undermine Government guidelines about exercise, fresh fruit and fresh vegetables. A complaint about a campaign by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) illustrates the more general point that children should not be encouraged to eat unhealthily or discouraged from eating foods with nutritional benefits. The ASA considered the PETA leaflet exploited children’s ignorance and vulnerability (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 5 September 2001). Also, marketers should be careful not to exaggerate the health benefits of a product intended for children. In 2005, the ASA upheld complaints that an ad for Panda Pops, a range of soft drinks for children, misleadingly implied the advertised products were healthy whereas in fact they contained 6% sugar (Hall & Woodhouse Ltd, 16 March 2005). Similarly, the ASA considered that a claim that eating Frosties qualified as “eating right” was misleading because of the cereal’s high sugar content (Kellogg Company of GB Ltd, 6 October 2004).
Two broadcast adjudications, published in 2008, give helpful guidance for marketers wanting to feature children in ads for foods that are best eaten in moderation (because they are high in sugar, fat or salt). The ASA upheld complaints about an ad that presented the chocolate spread Nutella as a healthy breakfast food for children on the grounds that the product misleadingly claimed to make a more significant nutritional contribution to breakfast than it did (Ferrero UK Ltd, 27 February 2008). Conversely, an ad promoting Kellogg’s Coco Pops as a suitable after-school snack for children was considered not to have been irresponsible because, in part, the product was presented not as nutritionally beneficial but merely as a suitable alternative to other common after-school snacks such as chocolate, biscuits or crisps and because children were not encouraged to eat it “anytime” but rather only after school. Marketers may advertise their products as suitable snacks for children, therefore, provided they do not overstate their nutritional value and do not encourage excessive consumption (Kellogg Company of GB Ltd, 23 April 2008).
In 2006, the ASA did not uphold complaints that a Jammie Dodgers cinema ad which showed the biscuits ripping open a bag of brussels sprouts and playing with them to the amusement of a boy, portrayed sprouts as “bad” and the biscuits as “good” and was therefore likely to encourage children to eat an unhealthy diet (Burton’s Foods Ltd, 15 March 2006). The following year, The ASA adjudicated that an ad for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals that claimed “feeding kids meat is child abuse” alongside an image of an overweight child eating a burger was not misleading. The ASA considered that the advertiser had obviously stated its opinion and that the claim that eating meat was directly linked to increased obesity did not have to be substantiated. The ASA rejected complaints that, because it could encourage parents to withdraw meat from their children's diet without replacing the nutrients meat provided, the ad was irresponsible (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 24 January 2007).
Rule 15.2 of the Code reflects the requirement under the Regulation that health claims referring to general non-specific health benefits of the nutrient/food for overall good health e.g. “good for you”, “healthy” must be accompanied by an authorised health claim. However, because the Community Register of authorised health claims is not yet complete the ASA is likely to investigate under Section 3 (Misleading advertising) for the time being.
On a general note, marketers should be aware that complaints to the ASA about food or soft drink ads that either feature or are targeted at children are increasingly frequent; the advertising of food or drink to children is obviously a subject of enormous public concern and debate. Marketers are urged to advertise their products responsibly, exercise caution and be aware that adverse ASA adjudications could bring the industry as a whole into disrepute.
Last modified : 31 January 2011