Warnings about advertising ban are not justified

Even the food industry can no longer deny that consuming too much sugar or fat and too many highly processed foods and convenience products is unhealthy. But: "When it comes to prevention and health promotion, Germany performs poorly in an international comparison. This is a major political omission, especially when it comes to child protection," says Dorlach in an article for Table Media. The conditions for more prevention have already been created: "In future, advertising aimed at children for foods with a high sugar, fat and salt content must no longer be included in programs and formats for under 14-year-olds." This is stated on page 36 of the coalition agreement of the traffic light coalition. A year ago, Federal Minister of Agriculture Cem Özdemir presented a draft law to this effect, and the debate has been raging ever since: The resistance of the food and media industries is strong. The demise of entire branches of industry with thousands of jobs is being predicted. "Evaluations from the pioneering country of Chile show that advertising restrictions work well - without the often predicted economic damage," says Tim Dorlach.

He reports that in 2016, the Chilean government introduced the strictest food labeling law in the world at the time, implementing extensive measures to prevent diet-related chronic diseases. Chile has rigorously introduced the labels that are particularly feared by retailers in this country: "If a food contains more than ten grams of sugar per 100 grams, the packaging is adorned with an octagonal 'high sugar content' symbol," reports Dorlach. This has proven to be very effective in consumer tests. At the same time, the Chilean Ministry of Health launched an awareness campaign with the slogan "Choose foods with fewer warning labels. And if they don't have any, all the better."

In addition to food labeling and sales restrictions in schools, there were also advertising bans. Dorlach explains: "Chile has introduced the various rules in stages: in 2016, a target group ban was implemented in a first phase, which prohibited advertising specifically aimed at children. Following this, the actual measured exposure of children to television advertising for unhealthy foods fell by two thirds in the children's program and by half in the overall program. In 2018, an additional time ban was introduced in a second phase, which prohibited all advertising for foods defined as unhealthy between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. After that, this exposure fell by around two thirds in the children's program and by half in the overall program." Dorlach is certain: "There is hardly any scientific doubt that advertising restrictions effectively protect children from advertising for unhealthy foods and thus contribute to a healthier diet."

Nevertheless, the proposed legislation is being criticized and discredited in Germany. "Özdemir is trampling on the principles of the free market," writes the farmers' publication "top agrar online", while private broadcaster representatives deny that the project is evidence-based - they fear a loss of advertising revenue. This was also the case ten years ago in Chile, where devastating economic damage was predicted. But now it turns out that everything is not so bad. Researchers led by Guillermo Paraje from the University Adolfo Ibáñez in Chile examined the impact on the labor market back in 2019. And came to the conclusion: "Neither overall employment nor average real wages were affected by the food labeling regulations." This is despite the fact that the Chilean measures were much more extensive overall than the advertising restrictions currently being discussed in Germany. "Another study indicates that there was also no decline in the overall volume of advertising, but that advertising for unhealthy foods was replaced by advertising for healthier foods," says Dorlach.

His positive outlook: "So overall, the food industry is adaptable and economic fears seem unfounded." But he emphasizes: "Even if stricter regulation were to result in economic losses: The effective protection of children's health justifies it. As there is no strong evidence that advertising restrictions actually cause such damage to the food and media industry, it would be particularly negligent not to pass the law proposed by the BMEL on stricter regulation of food advertising immediately."