Lesley Riddoch: Fat chance of banning junk food ads

Should junk food TV ads be banned before 9pm? Scotland’s public health minister has written to the Westminster health secretary urging an end to pre-watershed adverts for high fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) food and drink products.

Michael Matheson quotes Newcastle University academics who say the existing ban on ads during children’s programmes is ineffective. A UK spokesperson for the Culture (not health) Department has responded saying current rules are “proportionate and sensible”.

So, that appears to be that. If Westminster was always set to rebuff the SNP move, though, why bother pursuing it? Is the junk food ad debate really a public health issue or just a piece of political posturing? And with two years until the referendum, is flag-waving to replace policy-making?

There is no doubt Scots eat too much comfort food, empty carbs and takeaways. Our legendary fondness for fried, fatty foods has been augmented by cravings for salt and sugar – craftily added by some manufacturers to the most unlikely staple foods. But is that fondness down to television or tastebuds?

After all, surveys suggest a third of viewers watching healthy-eating evangelist Jamie Oliver on the box are also eating takeaway dinners.

Last year in health journal the Lancet, scientists predicted 23 million people (40 per cent of the British population) will be obese by 2030 and called on the government to tax unhealthy foods and ban all junk food advertising.

Politicians on both sides of the Border recoiled. Extra VAT on burgers, chips and sweets was floated by Downing Street in 2004 but vetoed by Gordon Brown, who said it would disproportionately punish the poor.

Of course, the ill-health caused by obesity, smoking and drinking also disproportionately punishes the poor. But taxing fast food out of existence is clearly as politically appealing to the coalition as the memory of John Gummer force-feeding burgers to his offspring.

Matheson’s decision to do battle over a television ad ban suggests support for a tougher food policy – like a Danish-style fat tax – is now dead in the water in Scotland as well. Nonetheless, any extension of the ad ban will encounter the main problem faced by the “fat tax” – which food ads should be banned?

The prevailing health wisdom is that fat is public enemy number one. The total average fat intake, however, has fallen by a third over the last 25 years while the incidence of obesity and diabetes has more than doubled and kidney disease is on the rise. Could a switch from fatty foods to sugary, processed carbohydrate-based foods be to blame?

A recent survey found one in four loaves of supermarket bread contained as much salt per slice as a packet of crisps. Another found chicken tikka masala contained 116 per cent of the guideline daily amount (GDA) of saturated fat. Sweet and sour chicken with fried rice had 119 per cent GDA of salt.

Which? found Dairylea Lunchables Ham ‘n’ Cheese Crackers had half the daily salt allowance for a child of five, while a 200ml bottle of Robinsons Blackcurrant and Apple Fruit Shoot had more than four teaspoons of sugar.

“Danger” seems to be lurking in unexpected places – which of these “unhealthy” foods would be slapped with a pre-9pm advertising ban?

Labour’s shadow health spokeswoman, Jackie Baillie, clearly thinks the whole argument is irrelevant: “At a time when we have lost 2,000 nurses, our hospitals are crumbling and don’t have enough blankets for elderly patients, I am amazed the SNP government is picking a fight with the UK Government about what time we can show McDonald’s adverts on TV.”

Although Labour doesn’t cover itself in glory with tougher, more workable, or effective solutions, some of the criticism is justified. The SNP does seem to be Westminster-baiting. Broadcasters like ITV and Channel 4 can’t easily implement different advertising rules north and south of the Border, so any extension of the junk-food TV ad ban would have to apply to the whole UK to be effective.

The UK government clearly isn’t keen – and yet control of broadcasting is its shout. So why did Matheson bother? Well, now his idea has been rejected the SNP can say that another social policy innovation has been stymied by the stick-in-the-muds in London. And their case for a devolution of broadcasting powers is strengthened. All’s fair in love and pre-referendum politics, I suppose.

But meanwhile, what about poor diet, child obesity and academic underperformance – since they are all linked? The problem doesn’t get tackled, but the Scottish Government does get to deflect blame on to Westminster. That helps no-one.

Policy competition between governments is no bad thing. Devolved Scotland led where Westminster feared to tread with the public smoking ban. The SNP is forging ahead with minimum alcohol pricing even though the scheme will initially boost supermarket profits (to be taxed away later) instead of waiting for a simpler UK scheme where duty increases will create an automatic flow of cash into government coffers.

But that’s just the point. With problems the SNP really means to tackle, it opposes strategies that rely on action from intervention-averse David Cameron. The SNP’s style is to press ahead with workable ideas – not to talk endlessly about “changing attitudes through education” when we all know that price and adult behaviour contradict those laudable health messages every waking minute.

If price is the only mechanism tough enough to tackle damaging drink habits why back undeliverable advertising curbs to tackle child obesity? Why waste the time? Just to remind policy wonks that control of advertising is a powerful lever the Scottish Government could usefully acquire? The health of young Scots and the Scottish Government’s growing reputation for brave, non-populist public health interventions like minimum alcohol pricing – are too important to be used opportunistically.

The economic crisis strengthens the call for bold policy change – like free school meals. Poverty is rising and without new eating habits developed outside the home, a new generation of Scottish children will regard empty carbs and fatty fry-ups as normal. The SNP government has opted not to “roll out” successful free school meal pilot schemes on the grounds of cost. So what new and workable move will they propose to flush junk food from Scottish life? Westminster prevarication doesn’t justify St Andrews House inaction.