Health Canada is paring back its plans to restrict the marketing of unhealthy foods and drinks to children. It probably comes as no surprise, but the food and drink and advertising industries took issue with the proposed revisions, and the food and drink industry in particular has a lot of clout, probably much more clout than Health Canada.
Currently, there is a system of self-regulation in place, whereby those advertisers participating in the Canadian Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Inititative limit advertising to children under 13 for foods that do not meet the Inititative's own nutritional standards. Health Canada is merely seeking to extend and broaden that idea. But, predictably, there has been some serious push-back from industry, which sees its profit margins being potentially squeezed, and unwarranted government interference taking hold, both of which are absolute no-no's.
The government agency wants to limit advertising of foods that have more than a prescribed thresholds of salt, sugar and saturated fats to children, specifically on TV programs where children typically make up a certain percentage of the audience. It also wants to ban the sponsorship of childrens sports by the makers of such foods and drinks, which would include such heavy hitters as Unilever, Nestlé and the Dairy Farmers of Canada. It may sound laudable in principle, but the practice is beset with any number of difficulties, drawbacks and challenges, challenges that the food industry made the most of in their consultations and submissions in response to Health Canada's proposals.
Many of the points raised by the food industry were more or less valid, and I do have a certain amount of sympathy with the idea expressed by many companies that "there is no such thing as good foods and bad foods; instead, there are good diets and bad diets". They argue that, even if their products are not healthy per se, people should be allowed to have them as treats from time to time. Which is all good and fine, except that it presupposes that people are rational, restrained beings, and that they are definitely not (children least of all). And, after all no-one is seeking to ban unhealthy food - well, some people are, but that is another battle and another issue - merely to rein in some of the more questionable advertising practices.
Some points made buy commentators were not so valid, though. The Association of Canadian Advertisers and the Food and Consumer Products of Canada lobby group both argued that Health Canada's proposals would restrict advertiser's freedom of expression, and thereby contravene the country's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It seems to me that, that way, madness lies. Advertisers can not just say anything they like, claiming that they have freedom of expression - there are rules and there are ethics. Surely, advertisers have to operate within the laws of the land, and if Health Canada or the government (theoretically, at least, reflecting the will of the people) change that law, then the advertisers must change with it. And surely Health Canada has the authority to impose rules that the industry does not like, where the health of the Canadian people is involved - otherwise what is its value?
Be that as it may, the upshot appears to be that Health Canada has agreed to water down its initial recommendations substantially. It is a classic battle of free markets versus government regulation, much like we have seen many times before. We do need regulation - unbridled capitalism has repeatedly shown itself to have too narrow a purview. This particular battle, though, seems to be going towards a victory of corporate might over regulatory purpose, you might say.
No comments:
Post a Comment