Ban food and drink ads aimed at kids
Bill would deliver on Liberal promise, write Tom Warshawski and Mary Lewis.
In the early days of the automobile, there were few rules of the road, let alone laws. People tried to figure it out as they went; many died doing so.
Eventually, it was decided drivers weren’t doing so well at regulating themselves for things such as speeding and impaired driving. Neither were car manufacturers, who would skimp on safety for higher profits. Laws — backed up by meaningful penalties — were necessary.
In fact, we’ve discovered that in most areas where people or companies are competing — be it for road space or market share — selfregulation doesn’t work. Most of our laws were created for that reason.
Which is why we applaud Sen. Nancy Greene Raine for her introduction last week of a bill in the Senate to prohibit the advertising of all food and beverages to children age 12 and under. We would prefer the senator’s bill would apply to children and youth 16 years and younger, but her proposal is a very good start.
The arguments for such a law are as clear as the need for traffic laws: to prevent harm to innocent Canadians. Far ahead of its time, Quebec since 1980 has banned the commercial advertising of all goods and services to children under 13. The result? A 2011 study concluded that the law is associated with a 13-percent reduction in the likelihood to purchase fast food and that “the social-welfare impact of such a ban can be significant.” Quebec has the lowest obesity rate in Canada among children age six to 11 and the highest rate of fruit and vegetable consumption. All this despite Quebec children having among the most sedentary lifestyles.
We now have the opportunity to bring the benefits of Quebec’s legislation to the rest of Canada. But the effort will not be easy. The Quebec experience has given the powerful food and beverage industry decades to plan its defence.
One of their key arguments is that they are responsible companies and can self-regulate to act responsibly. They have, indeed, created some self-regulation so they can make this argument. But the loopholes are plentiful and many companies are not even included in this self-regulatory initiative.
Where have we heard this before? Well, from pretty well every industry that was benefiting from causing harm and didn’t want to have to stop. Tobacco certainly comes to mind. The pharmaceutical industry has also had to be reined in with strict rules, and even then all possible loopholes are fully exploited. Likewise, as we know all too well, financial markets.
Why should we believe food and beverage manufacturers will be the exception and voluntarily put public interest ahead of their self-interest? Indeed, doesn’t their obligation to shareholders to maximize profits in all legal ways explicitly prevent them from doing so?
Conscientious companies strictly abiding by the selfimposed rules will soon be taken advantage of by those which see an easy way (i.e. little risk of meaningful punishment) to disobey the selfregulation for their benefit. The reason we have laws, and governments to enforce them with meaningful penalties, is to create a level playing field for all. Why should we accept otherwise in the vital area of ensuring the health and future well-being of our children?
In their election platform last year, the federal Liberal party committed to enacting a food and beverage advertising ban similar to the one in Quebec. In Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s mandate letter to his health minister last November, that promise was made one of her goals. Raine’s bill is a step to achieving that goal. It is now up to the health minister and prime minister to improve the bill to extend protection to teens, then pass it into law.