REMEMBER when it seemed that a blanket ban on the widespread advertising of cigarettes would never happen? Up against the tobacco giants that wielded so much power, it seemed as if the anti-smoking lobby didn't stand a chance.
Remarkably, their campaign came to a successful conclusion – one which was reached such a long time ago now that the days when the Marlboro Man graced billboards and lithe models exuded sophistication by lighting up on television programmes are a d
istant memory.
These days, it is those who fear for the health of children with ever-expanding waistlines who are facing the seemingly impossible fight. This week their campaign will take a step forward when Nigel Griffiths, the Labour MP for South Edinburgh, addresses Westminster on the need to ban the marketing of unhealthy food during family TV shows.
His view – to be outlined in the second reading of his Food Products (Marketing to Children) Bill on Friday – is backed by more than 40 groups, including the British Medical Association, the National Union of Teachers and consumer magazine Which?
Since the start of this year, broadcast watchdog Ofcom announced new regulations banning junk food marketing from the commercial breaks of TV programmes aimed at children under the age of 16.
But there is deep disquiet about the regulations as they stand, because campaigners say they leave far too many avenues open for exploitation.
Research by Which? has shown that 12 of the 20 most popular programmes watched by children are exempt from the legislation because they are classed as family shows. More than 400,000 children watch these early evening shows every week, and it is this loophole advertisers are making the most of.
With this in mind, Nigel Griffiths and his supporters are looking for a blanket ban on this type of advertising before the watershed time of 9pm.
His view is supported by the public, with a survey finding four out of five people believed the irresponsible marketing of unhealthy food made it harder to encourage children to eat a healthy diet.
If children are reaching for a bag of crisps instead of an apple because of the TV programmes they are watching, surely the £6 million drive the Scottish Government announced earlier this month represents cash down the drain.
As part of the new Government initiative, more than 20,000 children will be given counselling for over-eating and taught how to cook healthy meals.
The initiative will see children found to be overweight admitted to a treatment programme after being referred by GPs and school nurses. At a time when a third of all children in the UK are classified as obese – all at risk of developing life-threatening conditions such as diabetes and heart disease – it is certain measures like these do need to be taken.
But surely this mass healthy living re-education scheme will be completely undermined if children are leaving the classroom and going home to settle down to watch family shows like Ant and Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway? It's during early evening shows like these that contentious food advertising is prolific, with products like Cheese Strings, Kellogg's Coco Pops and Mars bars being advertised.
"The only way to shield children from TV ads for unhealthy foods is a 9pm watershed," says Which? food campaigner Miranda Watson.
"There is no silver bullet in the fight against obesity, but tougher restrictions on the way unhealthy foods are marketed to children will play an important role in helping parents to instil healthy eating habits in their children." Of course, the food industry will say advertising does not have the profound effects claimed by health campaigners.
But if this was so, then why did the same industry spend £472million on food advertising in 2005 – most of which was for products that were high in fat, salt and sugar?
There is also the view that television is not as important as it was, with advertisers looking to target youngsters via the internet as an alternative medium.
But the fact remains that the industry pays almost half a billion pounds a year on the television advertising of foods.
While Mr Griffiths' Bill is welcomed by campaigners, it is certain that the television companies would be happier with self-regulation, rather than being dictated to by the "nanny state".
However, how much can an industry that thrives on the revenue generated by advertising be trusted to say no to lucrative deals from the conglomerates that aggressively sell unhealthy food products to children?
Just in the same way that it took years of heated legal debate to see cigarettes banned from our screens, and eventually also in public places, banning the advertisers from children's media will be an uphill struggle.
A move that would cost the food industry £175m a year is bound to be unpopular.
However, compare this to the cost of the obesity problem to our health services.
It's a price that annually amounts to an incredible £990m. Preventing advertisers from undermining healthy eating messages must surely be a prize worth fighting for.
The full article contains 854 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
