Taking down junk food ads Contents

3 Executive Summary Authors 5 Introduction This report was written by Ben Reynolds 5 a) Obesity epidemic (Sustain), Alex Holt (Food Active) and Fran Bernhardt (Sustain), with assistance 6 b) Obesity and HFSS marketing from Barbara Crowther (Sustain) and Beth 6 c) TV and online marketing Bradshaw (Food Active). The data was collected by the project working group, which 7 d) Outdoor advertising consisted of a range of local authority public 8 e) Current regulatory landscape for health staff, academics, campaign groups, sustainable food city partnerships and outdoor advertising individuals (see list below). 11 The Project 11 a) Aims and objectives of the project Acknowledgements 11 b) Engagement We would like to thank the following 13 Findings organisations and groups for their input and 13 a) Advertisements near schools comments that helped to shape this report. Inclusion in this list does not constitute an 15 b) Advertisements in other settings endorsement of the contents of this report. with a high audience of children Association for Directors of Public Health; 16 Case Study: Transport for London’s Blackpool Council; Bournemouth & Poole healthier advertising policy Food Partnership; Bristol City Council; Calderdale Council, Food Carlisle; Children’s 17 c) Advertisements within the council’s Food Campaign; City University; Devon control County Council; Food Durham; Food 4 Hull; Food Sync Manchester; Gateshead Council; 19 d) Other notable settings Glasgow Community Food Network; Greater London Authority; Halton Council; Incredible 21 Conclusions and recommendations Edible Lambeth; Leeds City Council; Lewisham Council; Liverpool City Council; 23 Appendix 1 Liverpool University; Middlesbrough Council; Process of submitting a complaint to Nottingham Council; North Yorkshire County the ASA Council; Royal Greenwich Council; Sefton Council; Sheffield City Council; Southwark 24 Appendix 2 Council; SUGAR SMART; Sustainable Food Cities; Swindon Council; Tameside Council; template used for collection of Tower Hamlets Council; York Council examples 25 Endnotes 3 Executive Summary

Tackling junk food advertising has never been higher up the agenda. Set against a backdrop of an increasing burden of diet related disease on individuals and society as a whole, everyone from national government, local authorities, businesses, charities and fundamentally, citizens, have accepted the need to increase the scale and impact of action commensurate to tackling the problem. Beyond the important attention being paid to online and broadcast advertising, promotions and packaging, the appetite to tackle physical advertising at a local level has rocketed.

Over the second half of 2018, Food Active (a healthy weight programme delivered by Health Equalities Group) and the charity, Sustain (the alliance for better food and farming) joined forces. By reaching out to local authorities and food partnerships in the Sustainable Food Cities network, they explored what powers local people had to reduce advertising in their area which promoted less healthy food i.e. food categorised as high in fat, salt and/or sugar (HFSS) according to the Department of Health’s Nutrient Profiling Model. By looking at different settings and types of advertisement, detailed systematically in this report, they tested the boundaries of current powers. The report looks at where advertisements feature in settings with a high audience of children including near schools and other areas within the council’s control including local transport and telephone boxes. This also includes a case study on the ground-breaking work done with the Greater London Authority who have introduced advertising restrictions on food high in fat, salt and/or sugar (HFSS) across the Transport for London network. The report ends with recommendations for further powers to allow for greater controls locally where the proliferation and location of junk food advertising is at odds with local health priorities. Equally, much more could be done at a national level to clarify existing regulations, if not extend them, and to follow through with meaningful action when there has been a breach. 4 Taking down junk food ads Junk food advertising across the UK

Sheffield, August 2018: McDonalds advertising the Signature range on a This is a selection of some telephone box of the adverts for products high in fat, salt and sugar sent in from around the country Sheffield, August 2018: McDonalds advertising a illustrating the spread of meal deal on the back of a different types and locations tram ticket of these adverts.

Inverness, May 2018: McDonalds brand-only advertising on a Edinburgh, public rubbish bin November 2018: Sheffield, August 2018: McDonalds KFC advertising their advertising a meal Southern Bites on a free- deal on the back of a standing unit near a children’s child’s bus ticket festival

Chester, October 2018: McDonald’s Flintshire, student offer on a August 2018: telephone box next Norwich, April Co-op advertising to a park cookies on 2019: Ben and price promotion Jerry’s advertising outside the store, Moophoria ice-cream directly opposite on an A-board an early years outside Budgens setting

Norwich, April 2019: Café Nero advertising cookies on an A-board on the high street

Bristol, August 2018: Nestle’s “Fabland” attraction for children London, under the age of 12 September at Bristol International 2018: Coca-Cola Balloon Fiesta advertising on a café barrier outside a council café

Barnstaple, September 2018: McDonalds brand only Ipswich, April 2019: advertising on a roundabout Kinder advertising on the main road nearest a Minions Kinder children’s trampolining centre Surprise on a bus stop outside the train station

Exeter, Exeter, September 2018: September KFC advertising 2018: McColls A their Southern board advertising Bites on a free- Maltesers on the standing unit pavement outside the shop London, July 2018: Coca-Cola advertising their London, July 2018: Walls advertising sugared and non-sugared their ice-cream on a board on the drinks on the side of a bus pavement outside a shop Taking down junk food ads 5 Introduction a) Obesity epidemic

There is a childhood obesity reception (age 4-5) children, 6.6% areas have risen by almost 5% epidemic in the UK, with one in five of those in the least deprived areas but were unchanged in the least children aged 4-5 years and one are obese compared with 12.5% of deprived areas. in three children aged 10-11 years those in the most deprived areas. overweight1. Obesity is a chronic In Year 6 (age 10-11), 12.8% of Predictions claim that half of disease which adversely affects children in the least deprived all children in the UK will be the short- and long-term physical areas are obese, compared with overweight or obese by 2020, and mental health and wellbeing 26.2% in the most deprived areas. some of the highest estimates of children2 and often results in So, for both age groups, children across Europe5, this is despite UK continued overweight or obesity in in the most deprived areas are wide campaigns, increased public adolescence and adulthood3. approximately twice as likely to be awareness and media attention obese4. Among both age groups, on the severity of the problem. In the UK, we suffer high levels the obesity gap between the most Policymakers are increasingly of socio-economic disparity, the deprived and least deprived areas under pressure to effectively most fundamental cause of health has increased in the last decade. tackle the drivers of obesity6 and inequalities. Children living in This is particularly noticeable the public health community and deprived areas are substantially among children aged 10-11, where campaign groups have raised more likely to be obese. Among obesity rates in the most deprived particular concerns about the role that unhealthy food and drink marketing plays7.

Cadbury’s Freddo advertising on a free-standing unit, London. August 2018. 6 Taking down junk food ads b) Obesity and HFSS marketing c) TV and online marketing Junk food marketing (JFM introducing effective policy hereafter), which is the marketing changes aimed at tackling food of foods and drinks that are high and drinks marketing to children, Regulators seek to protect children in fat, salt and/or sugar (HFSS meaning children continue to be from harmful effects of TV and hereafter) is big business in the exposed to advertising promoting online advertising but they typically UK8, with the top HFSS brands HFSS food and drink products15. focus on advertising “targeted spending over £143 million at”, “directed at”, or “designed to advertising their products each Furthermore, children hold many attract the attention of” children. year – yet just 1.2% of food and rights under the UN Convention These phrases have proven far too drink advertising promotes fruit on the Rights of the Child16, narrow17. Most advertisements that and vegetables9. Data from several including the right to health, which children see in broadcast media studies has found that HFSS governments have a duty to protect or the outdoor environment do not products make up the majority in the best interests of the child. specifically “target” them; they are of food and drink advertising Yet very few states have regulated shown during family TV programmes across the globe10. This is in stark food and drinks advertising such as primetime sitcoms and contrast to the food and drink effectively to fulfil their legal reality shows, on billboards and bus that is promoted by public health obligations under the convention. shelters, or around sports fields guidance and demonstrates how where children and families watch the current marketing of food their sports teams play. and drink is conveying a highly contradictory message for children. In 2010, Ofcom (the UK’s communications regulator) Not only is marketing big business, published a review of the it is sophisticated. Millions are effectiveness of its 2007 rules spent convincing impressionable banning junk food advertising children and young people that in and around UK children’s TV they want a range of products, programmes. It concluded that including food and drinks that have broadcasters had largely complied, a devastating effect on their health. but that advertisers had moved to They are targeted through multiple unregulated programmes, and as channels and locations including “adult” airtime accounted for nearly television, films and video games, 70% of children’s viewing, children websites, apps and social media. were still exposed to high levels of Marketing targets children in their junk food advertising18. Therefore, homes, at school, on the street, as the WHO has repeatedly shops, restaurants, and through stressed since 2010, children’s celebrity endorsements. In short, it overall exposure to junk food is anywhere and everywhere11. marketing needs to be reduced, wherever it’s encountered19. With The World Health Organisation the rise of the digital era, this is (WHO) states there is clear now more crucial than ever20. evidence that childhood obesity is influenced by JFM and has a clear In July 2017, new rules for set of policy recommendations advertising of HFSS products on restricting children’s in non-broadcast environments exposure across all platforms of were introduced by the Committee advertising12. Exposure to JFM of Advertising Practice. These substantially increases energy included digital environments such intake, especially in obese as catch-up TV services, websites children13 and increases brand and video streaming sites such as recognition which fosters positive YouTube. Compliance is overseen attitudes towards brands14, the by the industry’s own body, the majority of which are unhealthy. Advertising Standards Authority A recent report by the WHO (see below). Research in 2018 suggests there has been limited by the University of Liverpool and Mcdonalds “turn around” lamppost progress across Europe in advertising, London. July 2018. Cancer Research UK demonstrated Taking down junk food ads 7

the impacts of digital environments d) Outdoor advertising when they found that children (aged 7-11) who use the internet Outdoor food and drink advertising schools using the Nutrient Profiling for three hours per day are almost in the form of billboards, telephone Model. They found that 15.8% of three times as likely to pester their boxes, bus stops, advertising the packaged snack foods were parents for junk food products, columns, leaflets and posters is a categorized as “healthy” foods and than those who spend less time marketing strategy that, quite literally, 84.2% as “less healthy”24. online21. has the potential to influence the commercial food and drink landscape The higher the percentage of The Government has set out of children22. For example, billboards outdoor advertisements promoting further plans to address HFSS are viewed as a relatively inexpensive HFSS, the greater the likelihood advertising to children via method of advertising with high of obesity in the area. Research in television and online as part of potential impact; people tend to view the U.S. suggests that people living the Government’s Obesity Plan the same billboards regularly, thereby in areas where 30% of outdoor (Chapter 2), and as the loopholes achieving repeated brand exposure23. advertisements were for HFSS are exposed and addressed products would be 2.6% more likely across these platforms, an A UK study investigated the quality to be obese when compared with eye needs to be kept on those and frequency of advertisements for individuals living in an area with no advertising platforms which are child-oriented packaged products outdoor HFSS advertising25. less regulated. in the 950 metre radius around 46

Hula Hoops Flavarings billboard advertising. London. October 2018. 8 Taking down junk food ads e) Current regulatory landscape for outdoor advertising

Childhood Obesity Plan across various outdoor settings29,30. ●● The Department of Health’s Whilst the current consultations to Nutrient Profiling Model will be In March 2018, the Department of further restrict junk food marketing used to classify which products Health and Social Care (DHSC) are promising, policymakers are HFSS. published a consultation to review need to ensure we create a level the current Nutrient Profiling Model playing field across all platforms However, these rules work on a (NPM), which is currently used to of advertising, so that we are reactive basis and even if local differentiate the food and drink that confident that children and young authorities challenge breaches in can be advertised during children’s people are no longer exposed to these codes, it can take several TV programmes26. As part of the the unhealthy marketing pursuits of months to resolve – by which Government’s Childhood Obesity the food and drink industry. time, the advertising campaign Plan, published in August 201627, has remained unchallenged, Public Health England (PHE) and children exposed to it. *A Trojan Telephone box is a kiosk were tasked with reviewing the installed for the purpose as an advertising Furthermore, aside from the current model to ensure it is in line space over that of its use for phone or removal of advertisements found with current UK dietary reference communications to be in breach of rules or the values (specifically, revisions possibility of negative press to free sugar and fibre intake, The ASA coverage, there are no other following the Scientific Advisory penalties, fines or other types of Committee on Nutrition (SACN) The Advertising Standards preventative measures to act as report in 2015). The consultation Authority (ASA) is the self- disincentives for companies. did not involve the application of regulatory organisation of the the NPM nor restrictions around advertising industry in the UK. It Whilst audience figures for TV are the advertising of less healthy enforces a number of codes of easily available, assessing whether food and drink to children, with the advertising practice that apply an advertisement has passed or outcome pending having closed in to different types of media and failed the 25% audience threshold June 2018. audiences. In July 2017, the ASA is more challenging in the much introduced new codes for non- more dynamic world of digital The Government announced the broadcast marketing of HFSS marketing, as well as outdoor second chapter of its Childhood products to children under 16 advertising. The ASA’s application Obesity Plan in late June 201828, years of age. These cover online of the rules limits their remit; “media which did include several TV catch up services, video where children make up over 25% measures around restrictions on streaming sites such as YouTube, of the audience” is interpreted for the marketing and advertising of websites, social media, online the outdoor environment as only less healthy food and drink across games and apps, and outdoor covering sites that fall within 100 various platforms. This included advertising, but exclude in-store metres of primary and secondary a 9pm watershed on junk food promotions, product packaging or schools. We continue to see advertising on television, stricter sponsorship deals. The rules state loopholes in current restrictions controls to non-broadcast media that: and conflicting judgements made (social media, website advertising by the ASA following rulings ●● Advertisements that directly etc.) and restrictions on price from complaints of HFSS in or indirectly promote an HFSS promotions and placement of breach of current codes. For product cannot appear in unhealthy food and drink. Some example, recently two complaints children’s media bold and promising measures regarding KFC and McDonalds indeed – but any and all may still ●● Advertisements for HFSS advertisements being displayed fall, or be watered down, following products cannot appear in other within a 100 metre radius of two the consultation period. media where children make up schools were upheld by the ASA over 25% of the audience Council following public complaints. Furthermore, the plan fails to ●● Advertisements of HFSS These were claimed by the identify outdoor advertising of products will not be allowed advertisers to be an ‘administrative less healthy food and drink as an to use promotions, licensed error’, but it demonstrates the issue, through billboards, trojan characters and celebrities current flaws in the systems to telephone boxes* and bus stops. popular with children; implement the restrictions, notably There is some evidence to suggest advertisers may now use those that it hasn’t prevented future HFSS that advertising of less healthy techniques to better promote advertising from appearing at these food and drink is frequently found healthier options. sites. In addition, whilst the ASA Taking down junk food ads 9

banned HFSS advertisements Local Authority powers In order for an advertisement to located near these primary to regulate advertising be displayed, consent must be schools, it ruled two further HFSS practices obtained first. There are three advertisements located within 100 categories of consent, which metres of nurseries not to be in The display of advertisements include: breach of codes, as detailed further is subject to a separate consent ●● Those permitted without in section 3. Another loophole process within the planning requiring either deemed or is that if a complaint for a site is system. This is principally set out express consent from the local already under investigation (by the in the Town and Country Planning planning authority; ASA), other offending adverts at (Control of Advertisements) these sites, or similar to the type of (England) Regulations 2007. ●● Those which have deemed advertising under review, will not Advertisements are controlled consent; be considered until a ruling has with reference to their effect on ●● Those which require the express been passed, allowing these other amenity and public safety only, so consent of the local planning companies advertising to get off the regime is lighter touch than authority (GOV UK, 2014). scot-free. See Appendix 1 for a step the system for obtaining planning by step process on submitting a permission for development. complaint to the ASA. With regards to advertisements that have deemed consent, even though they do not require consent, the local planning authority can restrict the use of deemed consent, but they must apply to the Secretary of State for this power. To do this, it must be clear that one or more of the deemed consent provisions has had such adverse effects on the amenity or public safety of the area that there is no prospect of an improvement in the quality of advertising in the locality, unless the local planning authority are given the power to control that particular type of advertisement31.

Upon receipt of a proposal from a local planning authority, the Secretary of State can issue a direction under regulation 7 that requires express consent to be obtained for advertisements that normally benefit from deemed consent, with the exception of Class 12 and 13 in Schedule 3 to the Regulations. Needless to say this is a very time-consuming and expensive exercise for any local authority to pursue, let alone for numerous local authorities looking for similar powers.

Cadburys advertising on a bus stop within 100 metres of a park, London. February 2019. 10 Taking down junk food ads Taking down junk food ads 11 The project a) Aims and objectives of the project

The aim of this project was to investigate the breadth of HFSS advertising in public spaces across the UK.

Objectives:

●● Build a network of interested parties across the UK to collect data and examples on HFSS advertising in their local area. ●● Share successes and barriers to challenging HFSS advertising in public spaces. ●● To produce a report and guidance document to assist local areas in challenging HFSS in their public spaces. b) Engagement McDonalds brand-only advertising on a rubbish bin. Inverness, May 2018.

Engagement was maximised by The working group was contacted ●● Flyering (door to door, or on using existing networks through eight times over a six-month period street) SUGAR SMART, Sustain, with specific requests for examples ●● Local transport companies Sustainable Food Cities and Food of junk food advertisements in Active commissioning authorities. different settings (see appendix 2 ●● Umbrellas for outdoor seating Public health and other leads were for the template used for collecting ●● Branded vending machines contacted with a brief summary of examples). We requested the project and given the choice examples in the following settings: We grouped these examples to join the ‘working group’. 37 under the headings in the following ●● Council owned property (Council colleagues from 34 local areas Findings section. This project buildings) expressed an interest in being did not look at sponsorship, for part of the working group, with ●● Council magazines/newspaper example, of events, parks, vending more joining as the project was ●● (Trojan) telephone boxes machines, community sports clubs, underway. A further 11 colleagues and schools materials, although ●● ‘A boards’ outside properties from Public Health England (PHE), guidance on good practice in Department of Health and Social ●● Large billboards these areas is provided by SUGAR Care (DHSC), Local Government ●● Transport/bus stop advertising SMART, the Local Government Association (LGA), Obesity Declaration on Healthy Weight, Health Alliance (OHA) and several ●● Shop front advertising and Local Authority Declaration universities were kept abreast of ●● Coupons on the backs of bus on Sugar Reduction and Healthy the project. tickets Food.

Facing page: KFC Fingerlickin’ boneless advertisement on a trojan telephone box, less than 100 metres from a park when a Children’s fair was on. London. October 2018 12 Taking down junk food ads Taking down junk food ads 13 Findings

The following sections group Complaints about HFSS advertisements near schools together the various forms of outdoor advertising into July 2018 four groups, also taking into Cadburys Freddo advertisement on consideration the different powers a bus stop within 100 metres of a that exist to restrict types of primary school. Complaint lodged in advertising. July 2018 and upheld in March 2019 with press coverage including The Telegraph, The Independent, Sky a) Advertisements News and Daily Mail. near schools

Over 2018 a series of complaints were submitted to the ASA by local groups, authorities and residents across the UK about advertisements for HFSS products, particularly for those products and advertisements that appeal, July 2018 although not exclusively, to Burger King whopper jr children. Most of the complaints advertisement and Mcdonalds Flake were for products that were part of Mcflurry advertisement both found a nationwide advertising campaign on bus stops within 100 metres from well-known brands. The of primary schools. Complaints complaints that had the highest were lodged in July 2018 and both success rate in being upheld were upheld in November 2018 with press those that were located within coverage including the BBC, Metro 100 metres of schools (see ASA and ITV. section above).

October 2018 Iceland advertisement for free swizzels party mix when you buy any 3 packs of £3 party food was on a bus stop within 100 metres of a primary school. Complaint lodged in October was upheld and the advertisement was sent to compliance in November – by which time the advertising campaign had already ended anyway. The ASA did not report it on their website and there was no media coverage.

Facing page: Fabland Bristol International Balloon Fiesta. August 2018. 14 Taking down junk food ads

Complaint Upheld: Complaints about HFSS advertisements in settings KFC ‘Mars Krushem’ with a high audience of children Phonebox September 2018 An advertisement for a KFC Coca-Cola advertisement on a ‘Mars Krushem’ milkshake drink bus stop featuring zero sugar placed in a phone box directly (non-HFSS) and original (HFSS) outside a primary school. This within 100 metres of a nursery. fell foul of the Committee of Complaint lodged and closed by Advertising Practice (CAP) the ASA in September 2018 without code which states that investigating because it had a advertisements for HFSS number of cases and these would products should not be placed be “sufficient to set precedents”. The in areas where the audience ASA refused to comment on whether is likely to be disproportionally Coca-Cola or the advertiser were made up of children. asked to remove the advert. According to the KFC website, this product contains 315 calories, 7.1g of saturated fat and a staggering 42.1g of sugar. If purchased by a year July 2018 6 child at the school where the advertisement was displayed, McDonalds Chocolate Honeycomb this would have accounted for Iced Frappe advertisement was on a 35% of their recommended free-standing panel within 100 metres intake of saturated fat and of a nursery. Complaint lodged in July 140.3% of their recommended 2018 and not upheld by the ASA in intake of free sugars. November 2018. The ASA stated: “sites located near to nurseries KFC have responded, were not considered unsuitable to apologising and explaining that carry HFSS ads under the standard it was human error that had approach taken by the outdoor ad caused their media agency industry. We understood that in to select the phone kiosk as general nurseries were attended by a site for the advertisement. a smaller number of children than According to the fast food primary and secondary schools giant, they were unaware of the and that meant the audience for the error until the ASA brought it to ad was unlikely to be significantly their attention, at which point skewed towards under-16s.” they immediately contacted their media agency who arranged for the advertisement August 2018 to be removed on the same McDonalds Chicken selects with day. The ASA sauces was being advertised on a reported the bus stop less than 20 metres from a case on their nursery. Complaint lodged in August website and it 2018 and closed in September 2018 received wide because the ASA considered that press coverage other open cases would address the including concerns raised. The investigation features from was not opened and McDonalds and the BBC, Sky the advertiser were not notified. News, ITV, The Times and The Telegraph. Taking down junk food ads 15 b) Advertisements Complaint not upheld: in other settings Subway ‘Sub of the Day’ Trojan Telephone box An advertisement for Subway’s Sub of the Day on a telephone box with a high featuring images of different sandwich options for every day of the week was seen within 100 metres of a children’s centre and close audience of children to a school.

Despite the ASA adapting the 25% In Subway’s response to the complaint, they referred to the CAP audience ruling from broadcast guidance on HFSS Product and Brand Advertising and claimed advertisements, they have to date that because 6 out of the 7 products advertised were non-HFSS, only applied this to schools and this advertisement should be regarded as an advertisement for a not to other settings which children non-HFSS product. They stated that the advertisement was not attend, such as leisure centres, within 100 metres of a school and that the advertiser was unable nurseries, children’s centres, to identify whether more than 25% of the audience passing the theme parks, and playgrounds. site was under 16. Further, they said the HFSS product advertised Whilst complaints have not was only available on a Sunday when the volume of young people been submitted for all of these visiting the site was likely to be significantly lower than during the settings, those examples that have week. been submitted e.g. a Subway advertisement on a phone box The ASA ruled that this was an HFSS advertisement because outside a children’s centre (see it included an HFSS product. However, it did not uphold the box), were rejected on the grounds complaint because only the children’s centre and not the school that children’s centres are smaller fell within 100 metres of the advertisement. It stated that sites than schools, and so the number within 100 metres of a children’s centre were not considered to of children that are exposed to the be unsuitable to carry HFSS advertising. They explained “we advertisement is not considered by understood that in general children’s centres were attended by the ASA to be sufficiently reaching a smaller number of children than primary or secondary schools the 25% audience threshold. This and that meant the audience for the advertisement was unlikely is an area that needs greater to be significantly skewed towards under-16s. We therefore clarification from the ASA, and it is considered that while the advertisement was an HFSS product clear that any complainants need advertisement, it did not directly target children under 16 through greater proof of the size of the the context in which it appeared”. child audience.

Subway trojan telephone box in July 2018 – complaint not upheld November 2018. 16 Taking down junk food ads

Case Study Transport for London healthier food advertising policy

In February 2019, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, introduced a world-leading policy to tackle childhood obesity by restricting unhealthy food and drink advertising across the entire Transport for London (TfL) public transport network. Sustain has helped advise the Mayor’s team on implementing this policy.

Background context The London Food Board, which advises the Mayor on food priorities for the capital, has promoted healthy eating and sugar-reduction strategies over several years, amongst a broader range of priorities, The Mayor proposed London-wide action to reduce unhealthy food promotion advertising of unhealthy foods puts if the presentation of the product as part of his new 2018 London pressure on families and children. appeals to children. If a product Food Strategy. In summer 2018, The Mayor of London stated is granted an exception, the the Greater London Authority’s that no single intervention will advertising copy will be closely public consultation on the draft solve London’s childhood obesity observed and will be rejected if it London Food Strategy found that problem and that the advertising is marketed to children. 82% of Londoners supported restriction would be part of a range the proposal to ban unhealthy of interventions outlined in the Impact on revenue food advertising across the entire London Food Strategy. TfL network – tube, buses, bus It is too early to know if there will stops, taxis, etc. Some opposing How it works be an impact on TfL’s revenue, views came from advertisers as spend fluctuates between and the food and drinks industry. The policy was launched in advertisers, but TfL believes With public backing supported February 2019. It covers all that any revenue loss will be by prominent health and food advertisements across TfL’s minimised as it continues to work campaigners, the Mayor resolved network that directly or indirectly with advertisers and brands to to adopt this flagship policy. promote high fat, sugar and/or switch their advertising to healthier salt (HFSS) products as well as options. The majority of brands Rationale advertisements for food and drink have a range of healthier products companies, restaurants, takeaways which they plan to continue London has one of the highest rates and delivery services. advertising on the TfL estate. of childhood obesity of any city in Europe, strongly associated with The Department of Health’s Industry response social deprivation; 45% of 10-11 Nutrient Profiling Model year olds from poorer areas such determines which products can Some food and advertising as Barking and Dagenham are be advertised. Companies can companies accepted the policy overweight and obese compared to apply for an exception for their without challenge. Others have 23% in wealthier Richmond. HFSS products. A panel reviews objected or presented requests applications, considering: whether for exceptions. There are already Evidence from the National a healthier alternative is available; positive impacts at this early stage, Centre for Social Research and if the product is listed on Public with brands shifting to promotion Cancer Research UK shows Health England’s sugar and of healthier products and working that advertising impacts upon calorie reduction lists; children’s closely with TfL to make the policy children’s food choices and that consumption of the product; and work. Taking down junk food ads 17 c) Advertisements within the council’s control

What is within direct control of the to roughly 40% of the advertising Buses themselves are often used local authority will vary from area space in London (see Case Study). to advertise. A complaint submitted to area, but in most instances The specific restrictions are now to the ASA about a bus with HFSS the council will still have some being considered by some of the advertising with multiple stops influence. Some areas have 33 local authorities in London for created council wide healthier implementation on advertising advertising policies (Southwark, space within their control. 2019 in draft, includes Hoarding, Electronic Displays, Smart Benches, Inlink, Bus shelters and Telephone boxes). Others have looked beyond to advertising on, and outside, shop fronts, including Not upheld: Subway “New Signature Loaded Wraps” A-board advertising. on the side of a bus

An advertisement for Subway’s New Signature Loaded Wraps was seen on the side of a bus. The bus stops along the route were within 100 metres of 8 primary schools, 2 secondary schools, 6 nurseries and 2 other children’s settings like children’s centres. It is therefore likely to be used as a school route by children and their families who will be exposed to the advertisements while waiting at the bus stops, or making their way to children’s settings.

The ASA determined this advertisement to be acceptable under the advertising rules. They considered that because “children under 16 comprised less than 25% of the UK population, and we considered that therefore, in general, ads for HFSS products which appeared in outdoor public spaces were unlikely to breach the Code. Its placement on the side of a bus means that its location is not static and therefore, it is not consistently in a location whereby the audience is likely to be affected to mean that more than 25% of it is made up of children.”

The ASA did not open an investigation or report this case on its Exeter – A Board – Maltesers Truffles website and there was no media coverage. Promotion

Beyond council owned newspapers and billboards, one of the major areas that some councils have broached is transport. Following proposals such as those in Redcar and Cleveland (Briefing Note, 2016) to limit advertising of HFSS products on their bus stops, the Greater London Authority are the first to implement such restrictions. This covers the whole Transport for London network, including underground and bus stop advertising which amounts 18 Taking down junk food ads

Complaint not upheld: within 100 metres of schools and other children’s settings was not McDonalds £1.99 bus upheld by the ASA (see box). ticket deal Back of bus ticket advertising This complaint involved a voucher printed on the back of Another common form of advertising is on the back of travel tickets. a bus ticket, offering a £1.99 A complaint submitted to the ASA for a McDonalds advertisement on deal a Big Mac, McChicken the back of a bus ticket was rejected as it did not reach the required Sandwich or Filet-O-Fish and audience threshold for children (see box). Another approach being medium fries. considered by one local authority who had a financial relationship

McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd said they ran a number of Exeter, Devon - This particular advertisements on bus tickets, bus was travelling from Exwick- which were placed by an St.Thomas- City Centre- Stoke Hill agency that was aware of the route. requirement that HFSS product advertisements must not be placed in media where more than 25% of the audience was under 16. The advertisement in question was displayed on the back of tickets issued on the 261 route which travelled between Uckfield and East Grinstead, operated by Compass Group. During school term-time children under 16 made up, on average, 16% of August 2018 passengers on the route. Three- quarters of those children Sheffield – the back of a tram ticket. used a bus pass and so would At a stop on busy shopping high not see the advertisement street. Photo taken during school because they did not purchase holidays whilst Hallam FM family a ticket. During term-time the fun day took place 5 metres further proportion of children under down The Moor 16 that made up passengers on the route who also saw the advertisement was 12% of the total number of passengers. During school holidays only 4% of passengers on the route were under 16.

McDonald’s added that the advertisement clearly stated that users must be 16 years or November 2018 older to redeem the voucher. The complaint was investigated Edinburgh, Scotland – the back of a and the ASA ruled it was not in child’s Lothian bus ticket. Submitted breach of current advertising to the ASA in November 2018. codes. Taking down junk food ads 19 d) Other notable settings with a bus provider in their area Examples submitted of phone boxes was to use this financial power to negotiate restrictions on what August 2018 could be advertised on the bus Sheffield – Public Telephone Box tickets. within 100 metres of a children’s festival – McDonalds ‘Signature Range’ of Burgers One of the main sources of outdoor advertising not yet covered is advertisements which appear on public telephone boxes. In line with the ASA regulations, when within 100 metres of a school, any advertisement not meeting the Nutrient Profiling Model’s standards may be removed (though only when a complaint is submitted). However, many local areas feel that this isn’t sufficient July 2018 for their local priorities, on top of which their powers are limited to London – Public Telephone Box restrict advertisements on these within 100 metres of a primary boxes in other locations. What is school – KFC’s original recipe snack more, the boxes themselves, falling box. Complaint upheld as part of under a particular public amenity KFC Mars Krushem complaint (see classification have not required the box above) level of planning permission that an advertising hoarding or billboard would. With a rise of over 900% in applications across some local authorities, despite the downturn in their use for communication, the surge in these phone boxes, often occurring in close proximity to each other, points towards their use primarily as advertising space.32 As of early 2019 the Government are consulting on new legislation to close this planning loophole.33 August 2018 London – Public Telephone Box within 40 metres of a nursery - Haribo Fangtastics. Complaint submitted in August 2018. Outcome still pending at the time of writing. 20 Taking down junk food ads Taking down junk food ads 21 Conclusions and recommendations

In gathering examples for this place in many cases long after the that children frequent It is worth report and helping others to submit advertising campaign has ended. contrasting this with Government’s complaints on advertisements, When an advertisement was found current recommendation for a 1% this process has helped to clarify to have breached the code, there audience threshold for TV and what powers local authorities and are no financial repercussions for online advertising (as part of a communities have, what current the advertisers, with only a handful 9pm watershed for HFSS adverts). national legislation exists and receiving publicity, which some where these are currently lacking. may argue is hardly a deterrent, We have identified on the following when the companies had been page some recommendations Moreover this process has seeking publicity in the first place. for changes that would help to highlighted a series of loopholes And then there is the anomaly strengthen or clarify existing and failures in the compliance where a junk food advertisement legislation, and to extend powers procedure which mean that current can appear outside a nursery of local areas to have more say regulations do little to meaningfully attended by a 4-year-old, but over their local environment. But restrict children’s exposure to not outside a school attended by these tweaks are the minimum physical junk food advertising. a 5-year-old. This having been necessary and we would question The onus is on the public to created by an arbitrary decision whether the current form of self- report any breaches, without that the 25% audience threshold regulation is still appropriate; and many knowing what the rules are. i.e. at least 25% of the audience is whether a more fundamental When complaints are submitted children, should be interpreted as review is needed of the ASA, a the procedure is lengthy, with restricting advertisements around body set up by and run by the rulings on advertisements taking schools but not other settings advertising industry to police itself.

Mcdonalds Chocolate honeycomb iced frappe advertisements on the ticket barriers to the tube, London. July 2018.

Facing page: KFC Double Down burger advertisement on a bus stop outside the gates of a primary school, London, July 2018. Complaint upheld as part of wider KFC August 2018 complaint. 22 Taking down junk food ads

Recommendations

the crow flies and where it is Local Government National Government measured from e.g. the school entrance. More importantly 8. Local government public health 1. Government needs to tighten we think this distance should teams should lodge complaints restrictions on in-store be increased to reflect the on suspected breaches of CAP advertising, which would distance that children travel Codes on advertising of HFSS include the area immediately to reach schools, and at the products to under-16s to the surrounding stores, which the very least this distance should ASA Complaints process, where ASA does not adjudicate on. be reviewed on the basis of adverts are placed in settings This could be as part of their evidence, rather than relying with a high footfall of children and proposed changes to in-store on an arbitrary distance young people (not just primary promotions (consultation decided by the advertising and secondary schools), in order ended April 2019), or if not, as industry. to provide a body of evidence part of future policy. in relation to how companies 5. The ASA should remove are currently exploiting existing 2. Local government needs to be the application of a 25% loopholes in the rules. given more powers, and help audience threshold for outdoor to better understand existing advertising, recognising it is 9. Councils could mirror the powers, to impose restrictions impossible to enforce with Greater London Authority’s to meet local priorities. The evidence in this context. Healthier Food Advertising proposals to close the planning It should instead focus on policy across settings over loophole on public telephone implementing meaningful which they have control, as boxes will help but may serve restrictions (such as other a few London boroughs are to shift the advertising to recommendations listed proposing, and introduce different settings. Further, here) that aim to eliminate or rules which ensure public councils should be given significantly reduce children’s advertising spaces are only powers to restrict the type of exposure to HFSS product used to healthier products and advertising on public telephone advertising in all outdoor eating habits, and therefore boxes settings frequented by children. pre-approves food advertising campaigns in line with this 6. The ASA must have, and use, policy. And where they do not For the Advertising powers to levy fines on any control them but have some Standards Agency (the company (the brand owner, financial stake, they could seek ASA) and Committees of the immediate marketing to influence these contracts. Advertising Practice (CAP) agency or the company that physically places the advert) 3. The ASA should consider whose advertisement breaks any area where children the rules more than once in 3 congregate to be unsuitable for years. Any advertisement that HFSS advertisements, which has the same circumstances we believe should include of a previously adjudicated nurseries, children’s centres, complaint, should go straight to parks, family attractions compliance. and leisure centres. These additional locations should be 7. The ASA should be more incorporated into Outsmart’s transparent in publishing and database which is used by the publicising the names of all outdoor advertising industry to companies that have been in search for permitted sites to breach of the rules, not just advertise HFSS products, and those that have been subject which currently only restricts by to investigation and a formal proximity to schools. ruling. Where the case has been informally resolved or 4. We recommend that the 100m dealt with through compliance, Subway trojan telephone box less than measure is reviewed, partly to more information should be 100 metres from the entrance to a hospital. clarify if this is measured as published and publicised on the London. July 2018. nature of the breach/complaint. Taking down junk food ads 23 Appendix 1

Process of submitting a complaint to the ASA

1. Take a photo of an advertisement for an HFSS food or drink

Take a photo of an advertisement for an HFSS food or drink. Don’t worry if you’re unsure whether it’s strictly HFSS - if in doubt, take the photo and check later, either by asking a health expert, or using the nutritional information of the product and running it through the Nutrient Profiling Model (available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-nutrient-profiling- model). Ideally you’d also know whether there is a school (or other location that children frequent eg theme park or leisure centre) within 100 metres of the advertisement. However, again, don’t let not knowing stop you - take a photo and check later e.g. using googlemaps.

2. Check whether the advertising site is within 100 metres of a children’s setting

If the product is HFSS, check whether the advertising site is within 100 metres of a children’s setting. An easy way to do this is by looking up the exact location of the advertising site on Google maps and then typing in “schools near [the location]”. Google will bring up all the local schools (usually this usefully includes nurseries and children’s centres too). To measure the distance, right click on the advertising site and select “measure distance” and click to the nearest point of the local school. Google will give a measurement as the crow flies from the site to the school. Don’t forget to check for other children’s settings as well like leisure centres and family attractions.

3. Submit your complaint

Go to the ASA website (https://www.asa.org.uk/make-a-complaint.html) and fill in details about the advertisement to submit it as a complaint. It takes 5-10 minutes and it’s worth doing soon after spotting the advertisement. That way the advertising campaign is more likely to be running when the complaint is received. You only need 2-3 sentences to describe the issue as the ASA will look into the details of the case. For example, “McDonald’s is advertising its Big Mac, an HFSS product, across the road from a primary school. The advertisement is on Garden Street bus stop, which is less than 100 metres from Garden school, Sheffield.” 24 Taking down junk food ads Appendix 2

Template used for collection of examples during this project Action on Local Advertising – submitting an example

Instructions Please use the bullets below to submit any example of HFSS advertising you find in public spaces Fill in as much of the template as you can – incomplete examples are still useful Please use a separate template for each example Return to Ben (Sustain) and Alex (Food Active) via email [email protected], [email protected] This form can also be completed on your mobile phone - https://tinyurl.com/action-on-advertising

1 Name of example (also to be used as file name) format location_company_setting e.g. Middlesbrough_KFC_Bus Stop 2 Picture of advertisement (include name of the file and attach separately)

3 Date picture was taken 4 Time the picture was taken 5 Location - local authority and postcode or nearest landmark (please be as accurate as possible e.g. Liverpool, Water St Outside Boots Chemist)

6 Proximity to children’s setting (delete those not ●● Within 100 metres of a school? (give distance) relevant ●● Within 100 metres of other venues that children frequent – sports, leisure, cinemas, shopping centres? (give distance) ●● Not within 100 metres of a school / venue children tend to frequent ●● Not sure

7 Type of advertising (delete those not relevant) ●● Council owned property (Council buildings) and please add if the category does not ●● Council magazines/newspaper appear on this list ●● (Trojan) telephone boxes* ●● 'A boards' outside properties ●● Large billboards ●● Transport/bus stop advertising ●● Shop front advertising ●● Coupons on the backs of bus tickets ●● Flyering (door to door, or on street) ●● Local transport companies ●● Umbrellas for outdoor seating ●● Branded vending machines

8 Category of advertisement (delete those not ●● Directed at children/using child friendly characters relevant) ●● Showing food or drink that is HFSS (if in doubt include it and we can check this out) ●● Just brand advertisements (for brands associated with HFSS) 9 What attempts have you made to see this advertising removed (and with whom)? 10 What policy/justification did you use to back up this call?j

*A Trojan Telephone box is a kiosk purporting to be a phone box which is used to display advertising material Taking down junk food ads 25 Endnotes

1 Public Health England (2017). Patterns pdf-files/canada/2017-heart-month/ around primary schools in Australia. and trends in childhood obesity. A pres- heartandstroke-reportonhealth2017. Australian and New Zealand Journal of entation of the latest data on child obes- ashx Public Health, 32(6), 522-528. ity. [online]. Available at: https://www. 12 WHO. (2016). Tackling food marketing 23 Luke D Esmundo E, Bloom Y. Smoke slideshare.net/PublicHealthEngland/ to children in a digital world: trans- signs: patterns of tobacco billboard patterns-and-trends-inchild-obesity- disciplinary perspectives. Copenhagan: advertising in a metropolitan region. Tob june-2017 WHO Regional Office for Europe. Control. 2000;16:23–7. 2 Beck A.R. (2016). Psychosocial aspects 13 Halford, J.C., Boyland, E.J., Hughes, 24 Missbach, B., Pachschwöll, C., Kuch- of obesity. NASN School Nurse. (31/1) G.M., et al (2007). Beyond-brand of ling, D., & König, J. (2017). School food pp.23-27 television advertisements of food choice environment: quality and advertisement 3 Simmonds, M., Llewellyn, A., Owen, in children; the effects of weight status. frequency of child-oriented packaged C.G. et al (2016). Predicting adult obes- Public Health Nutrition. 11(9), pp.897- products within walking distance of pub- ity from childhood obesity: A systematic 904. lic schools. Preventive medicine reports, review and meta-analysis. Obesity 6, 307-313. 14 Gibney, M., Margettes, B.M., Kearney, Reviews. (17/2) pp. 95-107. J.M et al (2014). Public Health Nutrition. 25 Lesser, L. I., Zimmerman, F. J., & 4 House of Commons Briefing Paper: London. Wiley-Blackwell. Cohen, D. A. (2013). Outdoor advertis- Obesity (2018) file:///C:/Users/Alexan- ing, obesity, and soda consumption: 15 World Health Organisation (2018) draH/Downloads/SN03336%20(1).pdf a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Evaluating implementation of the WHO [Accessed 20.11.2018] Health, 13(1), 20. recommendations on the marketing of 5 Royal College of Pediatrics and Child food and non-alcoholic beverages to 26 Public Health England (2018) PHE Health: Tackling England’s Childhood children. Geneva: WHO. publishes consultation on Nutrient Obesity Crisis [http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/ Profiling Model [online] Available at: 16 United Nations (1990) Convention on system/files/protected/news/Obes- https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ the rights of the child. https://www. ity%20Summit%20report%20FINAL. phe-publishes-consultation-on-nutrient- ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInter- pdf] (2015) profiling-model est/crc.pdf [Accessed 26.11.2018] 6 Buijzen M, Schuurman J, Bomhof E: 27 Public Health England (2016) Child- 17 Ofcom (2010) HFSS advertising Associations between children’s televi- hood Obesity Plan: a plan for action. restrictions, Final Review. https:// sion advertising exposure and their food London: Crown Copyright www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/ consumption patterns: A household pdf_file/0024/31857/hfss-review-final. 28 Public Health England (2018) Child- diary–survey study. Appetite 2008, pdf [Accessed 26.11.2018]. hood Obesity Plan: Chapter 2. London: 50:231-239. Crown Copyright 18 Ofcom (2010) HFSS advertising 7 Harris JL, Graff SK: Protecting Young restrictions, Final Review. https:// 29 Flint, S and McKenna, J (2018) Public People From Junk Food Advertising: www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/ transport and the promotion of un- Implications of Psychological Research pdf_file/0024/31857/hfss-review-final. healthy food and drink. The Lancet. 3 for First Amendment Law. American pdf [Accessed 26.11.2018]. (7), Journal of Public Health 2012, 102:214- 222. 19 World Health Organization (2010). 30 Local Government Association (2018) Set of recommendations on the Councils call for crackdown on trojan 8 Boyland, E.J., Whalen, R. (2015). Food marketing of foods and non-alco- telephone boxes [online] Available at: advertising to children and its effects on holic beverages to children. http:// https://www.localgov.co.uk/Councils- diet: review of recent prevalence and apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/han- call-for-crackdown-on-Trojan-telephone- impact data. Pediatric Diabetes. (16) pp. dle/10665/44416/9789241500210_eng. boxes/44622 331-7. pdf;jsessionid=FD5BD5F93540AFC45 31 Ministry of Housing, Communities & 9 The Food Foundation: UK’s restrictions AF5BCE44CA906F7?sequence=1 [Ac- Local Government (2014) Guidance: on junk food advertising to children. cessed 26.11.2018]. Advertisements https://www.gov.uk/ London: Food Foundation; 2017. 20 World Health Organisation (2016). guidance/advertisements#restrict-the- 10 Potvin-Kent M: The Kids are Not Alright: Tackling food marketing to children in a use-of-deemed-consent [Accessed how the food and beverage industry digital world: trans-disciplinary perspec- 21.01.2019] is marketing our children and youth tives. http://www.euro.who.int/__data/ 32 Local Government Association (2019). to death [http://www.heartandstroke. assets/pdf_file/0017/322226/Tackling- https://www.localgov.co.uk/Councils- ca/-/media/pdf-files/canada/2017- food-marketing-children-digital-world- call-for-crackdown-on-Trojan-telephone- heart-month/heartandstroke-reporton- trans-disciplinary-perspectives-en.pdf boxes/44622 health2017.ashx] (2017) [Accessed 26.11.2018]. 33 Sustain (2019). https://www.sustainweb. 11 The kids are not alright. How the food 21 https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/sites/ org/news/jan19_trojan_phone_boxes/ and beverage industry is marketing default/files/see_it_want_it_buy_it_eat_ children and youth to death. 2017 report it_final_report.pdf on the health of Canadians [Internet]. 22 Kelly, B., Cretikos, M., Rogers, K., & Heart and Stroke Foundation. 2017 King, L. (2008). The commercial food [cited 2017 April] . Available from: ht- landscape: outdoor food advertising tps://www.heartandstroke.ca/-/media/ Taking down

junk food ads How local areas are taking action on outdoor advertising A Sustain and Food Active publication April 2019

About Sustain Sustain: The alliance for better food and farming, advocates food and agriculture policies and practices that enhance the health and welfare of people and animals, improve the living and working environment, enrich society and culture, and promote equity. It represents around 100 national public interest organisations working at international, national, regional and local level.

Sustain: The alliance for better food and farming [email protected] www.sustainweb.org

Sustain, The Green House 244-254 Cambridge Heath Road London E2 9DA 020 3559 6777

About Food Active Food Active is a public health organisation tasked with promoting healthy weight at local, regional and national levels in England. Supporting local authorities, NHS bodies, third sector organisations, and government health agencies, Food Active promotes healthier weight through original research, advocacy, policy change and targeted behaviour change campaigns and interventions. www.foodactive.org.uk

Sustain is a Registered Charity No. 1018643