Ideologically motivated ban on food advertising: heated discussions about child protection and sweets

The proposal for a ban on food advertising has been on the table since April 23. It has many supporters and continues to be the subject of very emotional and heated debate, although most of them are unaware of it.  

Every child who is obese suffers." Sugar and fat consumption should also be significantly reduced for overall social and health policy reasons. I can also understand that as a mother you would like to avoid advertising junk food and highly sugary soft drinks to children and therefore support advertising bans. Claudia just told our office lunch mothers' group, annoyed, that her 13-year-old daughter has been reaching for liter bottles of Coke lately. But she also had to admit that she doesn't see any advertising at all. That speaks against advertising bans. Studies have confirmed this individual observation: Advertising bans do not reduce junk food consumption or the number of overweight people, just as, unfortunately, advertising bans on tobacco have not worked. The products would have to be banned, because no sugar and indulgence fan will give up cola or other sugary snacks and sweets as long as they are on the market. Of course, every mother hopes that less advertising to uninformed children will at least help a little. Industry and associations also agree with this. They have therefore tightened up their own restrictive rules on advertising to children. There is therefore no need for a state-imposed ban on advertising junk food to children. 

However, the proposed advertising ban, which also affects PR, influencers, social media, sponsorship and events, is about something completely different. The advertising ban is intended to put an end to 70 to 80% of all foods, virtually all industrially manufactured products, all those containing sugar, fat and salt, such as tomato paste or cheese. This is not about health and certainly not about children. The majority of the foods affected by the ban are not unhealthy per se, but only if they are consumed in excess. The intention behind this advertising ban proposal is to encourage people to eat a frugal diet and avoid consumption. The advocates of advertising bans believe that consumers are too stupid to judge what is good and healthy for them and that the state knows better. And instead of focusing on information and education and the promotion of exercise and sport, which are actually the tasks of the state, they resort to supposedly free advertising bans without taking into account the negative effects these have on our economy and our prosperity. The possibility of free and unbureaucratic market communication is what enables the success of brands and innovations - and reasonable prices for consumers. Prohibitions and bureaucracy have the opposite effect. In addition, advertising financing is more important than ever for the broad accessibility, indeed the existence, of many media offerings - and thus for the democratic constitution of society.“

See also our article  „Eyes closed and (still) fat“.