AANA warns of national fallout from SA junk food ad ban
The AANA is continuing to fight the South Australian Government’s ban on junk food advertising in order to stop it spreading nationally.
This comes after Preventative Health South Australia piled in to support the government’s approach, arguing it it an evidence-based policy, contrary to what the AANA says.
“This evidence-based policy has been endorsed by the Cancer Council SA, the Public Health Association of Australia and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians,” Preventative Health SA’s chief executive, Marina Bowshall, said in a statement to Mumbrella.
Processed meat is included in the ban
The ban came into effect this week, and prohibits advertising of junk food on government assets, including buses, trams, and trains. It has long been met with resistance from national advertising bodies including the AANA and OMA, which have claimed it “will be ineffective”.
The AANA has pointed out that foods not considered junk foods — such as many soy milks, rice cakes, and cured meats — are caught up in the ban.
It is based off the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Health Council’s ‘National interim guide to reduce children’s exposure to unhealthy food and drink promotion’, a guide created in 2018 for voluntary use by governments. The COAG Health Council’s guide does not have a specific definition of junk food, only a list of items it does not recommend for promotion.
The products are itemised via food categories, not nutritional value, which is where the problem lies, according to AANA’s CEO Josh Faulks.
“It’s an arbitrary food list,” Faulks told Mumbrella. “We’re saying this ban should be based on nutrition, not these ambiguous food categories.”
He described the guidelines as “inflexible” and said the confusion evident this week about what is included and what is excluded proves the AANA’s point made on Tuesday about the complicated definition and eligibility criteria.
On Tuesday, he said the policy sends a “contradictory message to consumers and undermines trust in health-based initiatives”. According to Faulks, this ban from the government is “effectively discouraging people from consuming what are widely considered to be nutritious core foods”.
He doubled down, telling Mumbrella today: “This just proves there is a lot of uncertainty and confusion around the policy.”
The South Australian Government has previously described the ban as having a “common sense” approach, which Faulks strongly disagreed with. Yesterday, it hit back at the AANA, saying: “Because they [advertising industry bodies] can’t win the actual argument about junk food advertising they are concocting spurious clickbait hypotheticals instead.”
Faulks said a common sense approach “shouldn’t have all this ambiguity”. He even argued that at face value, it “doesn’t pass the pub test”.
He repeated a previous point, that the South Australian Government should instead adopt the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) Nutrient Profiling Scoring Criteria to “improve clarity, consistency, and alignment” with national nutrition policies. The criteria were developed by the independent statutory agency, which was established by the Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991 and is part of the Australian Government’s Health portfolio.
“These standards are based on the nutritional value of products, not the arbitrary food lists and categories,” Faulks said.
Preventative Health SA also reinforced the government’s messaging about what advertisers should do if they are unsure of if their products are in or out of the banned list.
“We encourage advertisers to send through any advertisements they would like additional clarity and feedback on for advice from our expert team of public health dietitians,” Bowshall said in the statement to Mumbrella. “An independent monitoring and evaluation strategy will be commissioned to assess the impact of the policy and its effectiveness in reducing the exposure of the advertising of unhealthy food and drinks in South Australia.”
Faulks pointed out flaws in this system, and told Mumbrella advertisers aren’t going to waste their time. He said this would compromise economy activity, with food and drink brands “just not using those assets” regardless of if they are actually banned or not.
If that’s the reality, brands stop using the government assets, it will be seen as a success, and could have influence on a national ban, which is ultimately what the AANA wants to stop.
Keep up to date with the latest in media and marketing
Got a tip?
Lauren McNamara is the associate editor at Mumbrella, covering the agency beat. She joined in November 2022 as editorial assistant, after completing a Bachelor of Communications (Journalism) at UTS.
Linkedin
topics
AANA
Australian Association of National Advertisers
Josh Faulks
junk food
junk food ad ban
junk food ban
Marina Bowshall
Preventative Health SA
South Australia
South Australian Government
Have your say