Banning junk food ads most cost-effective way to reduce child obesity

Banning television food advertising aimed at children is one of the most cost-effective ways to tackle obesity and could save taxpayers AU$300 million in health-care costs, Deakin University health researchers have found.

The researchers analysed a wide-range of data to model the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of removing junk food advertising during peak children's television viewing times compared to 13 other potential interventions to reduce child obesity, including school-based programs and GP treatment of overweight children.

"Banning TV junk food ads was the highest impact and most cost-effective intervention to reduce childhood obesity that we have modelled to date," said Boyd Swinburn, professor of population health at Deakin.

"It would not only reduce childhood obesity but it would do so in an equitable way affecting all children and it would eventually result in savings to the taxpayers of $300 million."

Professor Swinburn said a review of the effects of phase 1 of the UK bans found that it reduced the exposure to children of junk food advertising on TV by about a third and that overall broadcasting revenue from advertising actually increased over that period.

"So these regulations clearly protect children and do not harm advertising income for broadcasters," he said.

"The government is due to respond to the Preventative Health Taskforce report and if they are listening to the evidence and the 90 percent of the public who want tighter regulations on junk food marketing to children they will follow the UK lead and apply similar or better regulations in Australia."

The results of the Deakin study are published in the latest issue of the International Journal of Obesity.

(Source: Deakin University: International Journal of Obesity: August 2009)

Article Date: 24/8/2009

Connect

Subscribe to RSS feeds

Discuss on Forum

Article Comments

Comment from: Sara | 8/24/2009 5:48:02 PM
Its not right to advertise to kids before they are old enough to understand how advertising works. They are trying to learn from the world around them, open to new info from every source. They dont stand a chance. Maybe we need to teach 5 year olds about ignoring advertising and understanding the intention of adverts in the same way we teach them about "stranger danger"!

Comment from: brigitte | 8/24/2009 6:56:47 PM
I agree with the findings. Not just children, but all ages are affected by food advertising to want to eat more.What is critical is that the lower educated parents, the ones with the most children, experience a surge like hit of education of "bad parents allow more than an average of an hour a day of TV viewing",children should be playing activly etc. "Bad parents have junk foods, sweets, treats, soft drinks in the house", not just bought for a specific occasion and "very bad parents allow the children to freely access them" as well.A house with mostly carrots, apples, heavy dark grained bread, low fat milk as available snack foods can't harm the hungriest child. On the otherhand having taken in how so many parents are ignorant and not strongly motivated about their children's current and future well being in multiple areas, these single pronged solutions won't change much at all. We are at the threshold of a "devolving underclass" in physical and psychosocial health.

Comment from: Sara | 8/25/2009 3:29:15 PM
Good point Brigitte. So what we need is more adverts with carrots and apples as cartoon characters singing and dancing. If ads are as powerful as they say why cant we use them to societies advantage?