Failure of self-regulation
BEUC strongly agrees that self-regulatory initiatives by Food Business Operators have failed to adequately and effectively protect children from the exposure to and power of unhealthy food marketing, especially at a time of increasing use of sophisticated digital marketing. At the same time there is unequivocal evidence that such marketing impacts on childhood obesity which continues to be very high across Europe [1] .
In a nutshell, BEUC calls for an EU-wide regulation on marketing to children which would include:
Below are our comments on the consultation for a future proposal in Norway to restrict marketing of unhealthy food products.
In a nutshell, BEUC calls for an EU-wide regulation on marketing to children which would include:
Below are our comments on the consultation for a future proposal in Norway to restrict marketing of unhealthy food products.
Marketing in retail environments
BEUC welcomes the recognition in the Hearing Document of the marketing impact of retail environments on children and supports the proposal to restrict the sale of unhealthy food in retail environments which are particularly popular with children such as toy shops or specific areas in a shop where toys are sold. However, a broader restriction for general sales would be further welcomed. The UK for example has already introduced and implemented restrictions on unhealthy food from being placed in key locations in supermarkets such as end-of-aisle, checkouts and supermarket entrances [2] .
Furthermore, as acknowledged in the Hearing Document the packaging of the product themselves is a very powerful marketing vector. BEUC and its members have highlighted the extensive use of cartoon characters (both brand characters as well as licensed-media characters) on the packaging of foods high in fats, salt and/or sugar [3] .
Moreover, while it could be reasonably expected that children could accompany their parents to the supermarket rather frequently given visits to a toy shop would realistically be much less frequent. It is certainly a positive move to restrict the sale of unhealthy food in toy shops yet key location restrictions (e.g. checkouts) in supermarkets where children are frequently present could have a more significant impact given that children’s visits to these shops are much more frequent.
Nutritional profiles of foods to restrict
BEUC supports the use of the WHO Nutrient Profile Model for defining which foods are healthy enough to be marketed towards children and would recommend that the products to which restrictions should be applied should be as broad as possible. We believe it would be preferrable that some of the proposed excluded product categories are in fact included for the purposes of the Norwegian marketing regulation. For example, processed meats, fish products, cheese and juice.
Juice is a key contributor of sugar intake for children and there is good reason why national dietary guidelines recommend only very limited amounts in the diet or even to rather opt for water as a beverage.
Processed meat is a category for which total fats and salt content are often very high. Indeed, both the EU Pledge and the WHO Nutrient Profile would restrict around two thirds of processed meat products from being marketed to children due to the excess of these nutrients-of-concern [4] . Given that processed meat, in terms of sales volume, is significantly consumed in the EU, including by children and adolescents, it is important that marketing restrictions apply tot his category too.
Definition of a child
Many self-regulatory initiatives choose to define a child as anyone under the age of 13 which fails to protect teenagers who are still particularly vulnerable to the marketing of HFSS foods. Not only are teenagers at a sensitive stage of development with generally more financial independence than younger children, but they are also heavily targeted by the marketing of the food industry. The EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) identifies children as a clear example of “vulnerable consumers” who may be affected by unfair commercial practices. In its Guidelines on the UCPD, the European Commission also identifies teenagers as another group of vulnerable consumers.
At the same time, age-screening mechanisms are not stopping even younger children from using popular social media platforms where such child-appealing marketing for HFSS foods is common.
Brand Marketing and Sponsorship
Crucially ‘brand marketing’ is not covered by self-regulatory models which generally state that their commitments only concern ‘product advertising’. This means that even companies which are synonymous with food high in fats, salt or sugar can continue to market their brand to children as long as they do not feature such products in the advert themselves. Continuing to permit well-known food companies such as McDonald’s or Coca Cola for example to pursue sponsorship opportunities, would evade the spirit of the regulation. The issue of brand marketing should be addressed, not just in related to sponsorship but also for marketing in general on TV or online for example.
Assessment of whether marketing is directed to children
BEUC would note that deciding whether a product listed in Annex 1 is aimed at children by using an ‘overall assessment’ bears inherent risks for a) the effective protection of children from marketing of such products and b) administratively burdensome and complicated for regulators.
In 2021, as part of an action with our members BEUC submitted complaints related to marketing examples (which we believed to be directed towards children) to the EU Pledge’s Accountability Mechanism [5] . However, the food companies in question would nearly always reject that they were marketing to children which would then result in a complaints panel having to adjudicate on what they believed constituted marketing directed towards children. Inevitably, this then led to very subjective interpretations of what this meant in practice, and even sometimes rulings which contradicted other Pledge panels’ findings.
Beyond the arguments for better protecting children, it can also be argued that imposing a watershed e.g. between 6am-11pm and an online ban on unhealthy food ads is much more straightforward for authorities to enforce. Lengthy discussions and subjective decisions on what constitutes marketing to children can be avoided by imposing the watershed/online ban. Moreover, even if an unhealthy product is not necessarily directed at children, they should not be exposed to marketing of it at all.
From October 2025, the UK will introduce a watershed for advertising of unhealthy foods on TV before 9pm and has also moved to introduce a ban on paid-for marketing online for any unhealthy food regardless of whether the marketing is directed at children or not. Authorities there cited, ‘ absence of any independent, comprehensive, industry-recognised, gold-standard and publicly available means of audience measurement’ as the reason for which they decided to go for a total restriction of paid-for HFSS advertising online [6] . BEUC is in favour of a total restriction of HFSS advertising online, both paid-for and on company-owned social media profiles.
[1] World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. (2016). Tackling food marketing to children in a digital world: trans-disciplinary perspectives: children’s rights, evidence of impact, methodological challenges, regulatory options and policy implications for the WHO European Region. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/344003
[2] The Food (Promotion and Placement) (England) Regulations 2021, Public Health, England.
[3] ‘CARTOON CHARACTERS AND FOOD: JUST FOR FUN?’ BEUC Position Paper on the use of brand mascots and licensed media characters in marketing to children, 2017.
[4] Storcksdieck Genannt Bonsmann S, Robinson M, Wollgast J, Caldeira S. The ineligibility of food products from across the EU for marketing to children according to two EU-level nutrient profile models. PLoS One. 2019 Oct 23;14(10):e0213512. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213512. PMID: 31644591; PMCID: PMC6808307
[5] FOOD MARKETING TO CHILDREN NEEDS RULES WITH TEETH: A snapshot report about how self-regulation fails to prevent unhealthy foods to be marketed to children, BEUC 2021.
[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/total-restriction-of-online-advertising-for-products-high-in-fat-sugar-and-salt-hfss/introducing-a-total-online-advertising-restriction-for-products-high-in-fat-sugar-and-salt-hfss
Furthermore, as acknowledged in the Hearing Document the packaging of the product themselves is a very powerful marketing vector. BEUC and its members have highlighted the extensive use of cartoon characters (both brand characters as well as licensed-media characters) on the packaging of foods high in fats, salt and/or sugar [3] .
Moreover, while it could be reasonably expected that children could accompany their parents to the supermarket rather frequently given visits to a toy shop would realistically be much less frequent. It is certainly a positive move to restrict the sale of unhealthy food in toy shops yet key location restrictions (e.g. checkouts) in supermarkets where children are frequently present could have a more significant impact given that children’s visits to these shops are much more frequent.
Nutritional profiles of foods to restrict
BEUC supports the use of the WHO Nutrient Profile Model for defining which foods are healthy enough to be marketed towards children and would recommend that the products to which restrictions should be applied should be as broad as possible. We believe it would be preferrable that some of the proposed excluded product categories are in fact included for the purposes of the Norwegian marketing regulation. For example, processed meats, fish products, cheese and juice.
Juice is a key contributor of sugar intake for children and there is good reason why national dietary guidelines recommend only very limited amounts in the diet or even to rather opt for water as a beverage.
Processed meat is a category for which total fats and salt content are often very high. Indeed, both the EU Pledge and the WHO Nutrient Profile would restrict around two thirds of processed meat products from being marketed to children due to the excess of these nutrients-of-concern [4] . Given that processed meat, in terms of sales volume, is significantly consumed in the EU, including by children and adolescents, it is important that marketing restrictions apply tot his category too.
Definition of a child
Many self-regulatory initiatives choose to define a child as anyone under the age of 13 which fails to protect teenagers who are still particularly vulnerable to the marketing of HFSS foods. Not only are teenagers at a sensitive stage of development with generally more financial independence than younger children, but they are also heavily targeted by the marketing of the food industry. The EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) identifies children as a clear example of “vulnerable consumers” who may be affected by unfair commercial practices. In its Guidelines on the UCPD, the European Commission also identifies teenagers as another group of vulnerable consumers.
At the same time, age-screening mechanisms are not stopping even younger children from using popular social media platforms where such child-appealing marketing for HFSS foods is common.
Brand Marketing and Sponsorship
Crucially ‘brand marketing’ is not covered by self-regulatory models which generally state that their commitments only concern ‘product advertising’. This means that even companies which are synonymous with food high in fats, salt or sugar can continue to market their brand to children as long as they do not feature such products in the advert themselves. Continuing to permit well-known food companies such as McDonald’s or Coca Cola for example to pursue sponsorship opportunities, would evade the spirit of the regulation. The issue of brand marketing should be addressed, not just in related to sponsorship but also for marketing in general on TV or online for example.
Assessment of whether marketing is directed to children
BEUC would note that deciding whether a product listed in Annex 1 is aimed at children by using an ‘overall assessment’ bears inherent risks for a) the effective protection of children from marketing of such products and b) administratively burdensome and complicated for regulators.
In 2021, as part of an action with our members BEUC submitted complaints related to marketing examples (which we believed to be directed towards children) to the EU Pledge’s Accountability Mechanism [5] . However, the food companies in question would nearly always reject that they were marketing to children which would then result in a complaints panel having to adjudicate on what they believed constituted marketing directed towards children. Inevitably, this then led to very subjective interpretations of what this meant in practice, and even sometimes rulings which contradicted other Pledge panels’ findings.
Beyond the arguments for better protecting children, it can also be argued that imposing a watershed e.g. between 6am-11pm and an online ban on unhealthy food ads is much more straightforward for authorities to enforce. Lengthy discussions and subjective decisions on what constitutes marketing to children can be avoided by imposing the watershed/online ban. Moreover, even if an unhealthy product is not necessarily directed at children, they should not be exposed to marketing of it at all.
From October 2025, the UK will introduce a watershed for advertising of unhealthy foods on TV before 9pm and has also moved to introduce a ban on paid-for marketing online for any unhealthy food regardless of whether the marketing is directed at children or not. Authorities there cited, ‘ absence of any independent, comprehensive, industry-recognised, gold-standard and publicly available means of audience measurement’ as the reason for which they decided to go for a total restriction of paid-for HFSS advertising online [6] . BEUC is in favour of a total restriction of HFSS advertising online, both paid-for and on company-owned social media profiles.
[1] World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. (2016). Tackling food marketing to children in a digital world: trans-disciplinary perspectives: children’s rights, evidence of impact, methodological challenges, regulatory options and policy implications for the WHO European Region. World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/344003
[2] The Food (Promotion and Placement) (England) Regulations 2021, Public Health, England.
[3] ‘CARTOON CHARACTERS AND FOOD: JUST FOR FUN?’ BEUC Position Paper on the use of brand mascots and licensed media characters in marketing to children, 2017.
[4] Storcksdieck Genannt Bonsmann S, Robinson M, Wollgast J, Caldeira S. The ineligibility of food products from across the EU for marketing to children according to two EU-level nutrient profile models. PLoS One. 2019 Oct 23;14(10):e0213512. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0213512. PMID: 31644591; PMCID: PMC6808307
[5] FOOD MARKETING TO CHILDREN NEEDS RULES WITH TEETH: A snapshot report about how self-regulation fails to prevent unhealthy foods to be marketed to children, BEUC 2021.
[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/total-restriction-of-online-advertising-for-products-high-in-fat-sugar-and-salt-hfss/introducing-a-total-online-advertising-restriction-for-products-high-in-fat-sugar-and-salt-hfss