Healthy Eating Strategy Health Canada. Restricting Marketing to Children

Transcription

1 Healthy Eating Strategy Health Canada Restricting Marketing to Children

2 1 QUESTION 4.2 QUESTION 1 Based on your knowledge of nutrients, should Health Canada s marketing restrictions focus on sodium, (salt), sugars, and saturated fat? - Yes - No - Not Sure ANSWER: No This question, like all questions in this on-line consultation, is based on the assumption that there is support for the definition of a child as under 17. Restaurants Canada supports strengthening current measures in place to limit the exposure of children to advertising. The mandate letter from the Minister states the government s intent to introduce new restrictions on the commercial marketing of unhealthy food and beverages to children, similar to those now in place in Quebec. Quebec s legislation applies to children under the age of 13, it does not apply to adolescents and teenagers. Unlike with child-directed marketing, it is almost impossible to isolate marketing directed at teenagers and young adults from marketing to everyone else. Therefore, each question must be considered from the perspective of restrictions that will curtail the ability of restaurants to communicate with their adult customers and to market their products and services to any audience in Canada. It may or may not be appropriate to focus on sodium, sugars, and saturated fat in marketing restrictions to children but because the proposals extend to a much broader audience, it is impossible to support such a narrow definition of what is healthy and what is not. Each of these nutrients can be consumed in moderation as part of a healthy diet. QUESTION 2 In your estimation, which is more appropriate as the basis for restricting marketing to children: Option 1 (<5%DV) or Option 2 (<15%DV) thresholds for sodium, sugar and saturated fats? - Option 1 - Option 2 - Neither Please explain ANSWER: Neither

3 2 As per question 1, because of the government s over-reaching definition of children, this question must be considered from the perspective of restrictions that will curtail the ability of restaurants to communicate with their adult customers and to market their products and services to any audience in Canada. Using 5% or 15% daily value to define unhealthy cannot be supported because they are arbitrary and do not relate to the amount of these nutrients that a person may take in on any given day. Both options would result in a de facto ban on restaurant marketing. Restaurants typically promote meals and a meal, whether breakfast, lunch, and particularly dinner, whether eaten at home or away from home would have more than 15% of the daily value of sodium, saturated fat or sugar. It can t realistically be expected that only 45% of daily value of these nutrients would be consumed at meal times and the other 65% would be consumed outside of meal periods. This very narrow definition of what could be classified as healthy would have far-reaching impacts on the restaurant, agriculture and tourism industries. It would impact our ability to develop and promote Canadian products, like our beef and dairy offerings as well as unique culinary experiences. QUESTION 3 Based on your understanding of non-sugar sweeteners (such as Aspartame and Sucralose), should Health Canada prohibit the marketing to children of all foods and beverages containing non-sugar sweeteners? - Yes - No - Not Sure Please explain ANSWER: No Artificial sweeteners are legal products, which are assessed for safety and subject to rigorous controls under the Food and Drugs Act and Regulations according to Health Canada. Restaurants Canada does not support the demonization of these products through this proposal. Artificial sweeteners are used in a wide variety of food and beverage products and there is nothing to suggest they are unhealthy from a nutrition perspective. In fact, products made with artificial sweeteners are successfully used in weight loss programs to help consumers manage their daily caloric intake. Sugar-free gum is also promoted as an alternative to regular gum for dental care reasons. It is counter-intuitive to propose restrictions that will prevent companies from directing consumers to less caloric products.

4 3 Section 4.3 QUESTION 4 Would the definitions proposed adequately protect children from unhealthy food and beverage marketing? - Yes - No - Not sure Please Explain ANSWER: No The question is impossible to answer given the far-reaching parameters of the proposal once you classify teenagers and adolescents as children. While it is possible to isolate child-directed programming (12 and under) for television advertising restrictions, once the restrictions are broadened to young adults, almost all remaining programming would be ruled out. Teenagers typically watch the same sporting events, sitcoms, dramas, comedies, etc. that their parents watch, which may fall outside the restricted hours proposed. Given that teens currently are exposed to alcohol, pro-gambling and lottery ads in shows they watch with their parents, we take issue with the idea that they would be harmed by an advertisement for a steak dinner. The times proposed are arbitrary and would greatly restrict the ability of restaurants to reach any customers or potential customers through advertising. The proposed internet restrictions are unworkable for the same reason. They essentially would ban all internet advertising in Canada because there would be few, if any internet channels that wouldn t have a mixed audience of young adults and adults. However, they wouldn t limit exposure to US internet channels, which comprise the majority that are accessed by Canadians. In today s media saturated world where there are no borders, it makes sense to give children and teens the tools they need to be responsible, discerning and media-wise rather than banning Canadian advertisement on adult- oriented programming when it will not prevent exposure. We also have concerns about the definition that was provided for child-directed settings and question why this was pre-determined and not part of the consultation process given the broadness of the definition. How for instance would fast food be defined since it is not a category that is recognized by the industry or in government statutes. Stats Canada uses the term limited service which they define as establishments where you pay before you eat. These establishments represent nearly 50% of commercial restaurants in Canada most of which would not be considered places where children gather.

5 4 Any regulatory framework for restricting advertisement that is directed to children must have criteria that is evidence-based and enforceable. Restrictions based on an arbitrary determination of what is popular with children, or when children may be exposed, if teens and adolescents were included in the definition of children, will result in a blanket restriction of food advertising that will be costly to a broad swath of industries and the Canadian economy. QUESTION 5 Based on your experience, are there any other marketing techniques that influence children and should be considered as part of the marketing restrictions? - Yes, please specify - No ANSWER: This is another Hobson s choice type question. It assumes alignment with the concept that all of the marketing techniques outlined in the pre-amble should be restricted, and we strongly disagree. There may be a rationale to introduce some limitations but there would be a spectrum of what would and wouldn t be appropriate in every category. We wish to call out a few examples of restrictions that would be extremely problematic for the restaurant industry and Canadians in general and would not contribute to the goal of healthier children and communities. PACKAGING AND LABELLING We are concerned about restrictions on marketing, labeling and in-restaurant marketing. Unlike in a retail environment, the packaging of a food item cannot be seen until post purchase. Menus and menu boards are the primary means to communicate what options are available for customers to order and are designed to sell menu items in a timely fashion. We are concerned about restrictions that could be placed on menus and menu boards, particularly if young adults are included in the definition of children. Currently, many restaurants offer smaller portion meals for kids at a reduced price. If kids meals were prohibited, parents would have no choice but to order adult sized portions for their children. SALES PROMOTIONS We are concerned that a common practice in restaurants to provide crayons to kids and other distractions to keep kids occupied so their parents can eat their meals in peace will be classified as a sales promotion. We do not consider this a sales promotion as it is not connected to a specific menu item or order or communicated in advance of the restaurant visit. We believe parents would find it absurd if restaurants were prohibited from accommodating parents in this way.

6 5 SPONSORSHIP Foodservice companies spend millions of dollars a year on activity-based sponsorships and promotions to help Canadians be more active and expend calories. This happens both nationally and in virtually every community in Canada. It includes family-owned businesses supporting minor league sports teams and sporting activities such as: hockey, soccer, baseball, basketball, lacrosse, football, skating, swimming, curling, cycling, golf, ballet, tennis, running, etc. Timbits Minor Sports, for example, supported more than 345,000 children playing minor sports last year. Restaurants, independents and chains are often the first to be tapped to sponsor events, such as fun runs and triathlons. Parents who depend on the funding from sponsorships to register their kids for sporting activities will be frustrated and disappointed if this is curtailed. Federal tax credits for kids sporting activities were cut in the budget, which would indicate that government isn t prepared to pick up the tab for these activities if they were to be restricted. Also at risk would be charitable donations to organizations such as Heart and Stroke Foundation, Special Olympics, Boys and Girls Clubs, Kiwanis, healthy eating workshops, learn-to-cook programs, and charities supporting families with a severely ill child and summer camps for needy kids. For example, McHappy Day has raised over $67 million to date for Ronald McDonald House Charities Canada and children s charities across the country, through donations such as $1 from the sale of a Happy Meal, Big Mac or Hot McCafe beverage on McHappy Day. This includes $5.6 million raised this year on McHappy Day. The contribution of $.10 cents from the sale of every Happy Meal to Ronald McDonald House Charities Canada, has created a sustainable revenue source for these respected charities. Similarly, in 2016, the Tim Horton Children s Foundation provided camp experiences to more than 19,000 children and youth at no cost to their families. Camp day raised over $13 million dollars last year. Other sponsorships impacted would be the Santa Clause Parade, rotary club picnics, music festivals, spring fairs, etc. Prohibiting these sponsorships and promotions, would result in a significant void for parents and their families. CHARACTERS AND CELEBRITIES We are concerned about the implications for mascots that have been at the core of some companies brands and in some cases have been in existence for decades. Clarification is required on how and why they would be restricted if they are not being used to promote food items.

7 6 Similarly, images of Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny and jack o lantern figures are used in Christmas, Easter and Halloween promotions to promote festivities and events associated with these holiday occasions. The Canadian public would find a regulatory ban of these images absurd. BRANDING Finally, we have concerns about comments in the pre-amble about branding and logos. How can there be a restriction on a brand logo if the company is only advertising products that meet the criteria for healthy or, as would be more likely if an over-reaching definition of child were used, did not advertise at all. For example advertising coffee, which falls below the 5% and 15% threshold in all categories, by a restaurant would be permitted, but this section suggests that all branding including logos would be considered marketing. Does this mean the logo of a brand that serves a single item that is over the 5 or 15% threshold would be banned? Restaurants, like grocery stores, offer a broad array of menu items, including low calorie items and products made with fresh fruit and vegetables. Does this mean that a grocery store chain would be prohibited from using their logo because they offer home-made style jam for purchase in addition to a variety of low-sodium items? QUESTION 6 Based on your experience, are there any other channels used for marketing to children that should be considered as part of the marketing restrictions? - Yes, please specify - No ANSWER: No Restaurants Canada is supportive of strengthening requirements to reduce the exposure of children to food marketing. This includes making changes to the Broadcast Code for Advertising to Children and updating and expanding the criteria for the Canadian Children s Food and Beverage Initiative (CAI) so that it includes additional channels but we cannot support extending the criteria to include teenagers and young adults. QUESTION 7 Are there certain situations where some marketing techniques should be exempted from broad marketing restrictions? Please explain - Yes - No - Not sure

8 7 ANSWER: This question is again not worded to allow for a simple yes or no answer. The current proposal is so sweeping and far-reaching that the implications for businesses, consumers, agriculture, tourism, charities, sports organizations, etc. have to be considered when determining how extensive the restrictions should be in all marketing channels. An approach that would result in little if any advertising of all food, beverage and restaurant products would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to businesses and the economy, putting Canadian jobs at risk. We know that broadcasters and print publishers are already faced with declining revenue and are competing for a smaller pool of advertisers. A withdrawal of sponsorship funding will also have a very negative impact on a broad range of sporting, artistic and cultural events along with charities and community activities. The fallout from this must be taken into consideration. The proposed restrictions would also have serious ramifications for very large sectors of the economy including the agri-food sector, which was called out in last year s federal budget as a potential growth industry. We believe that the government has an obligation to assess the economic impact of any proposed regulations on businesses, the economy, Canadians and the federal treasury before implementation. QUESTION 8 Do you have any other feedback? ANSWER: Restaurants Canada wishes to express its disappointment and frustration with the Marketing to Kids consultation process. Food and beverage industry associations have been shut-out from providing direct input on this issue to Health Canada. The on-line consultation uses leading questions with pre-amble suggesting policy direction has already been set. The commentary cites only references that support that direction, including non-published studies and research where the conclusions are disputed. For example: Advertising Standards Canada recommends exercising caution in drawing conclusions based on the Heart & Stroke Foundation s Report on the Health of Canadians, i.e. that Canadian children are being bombarded by unhealthy food and beverage advertising on websites, particularly by companies participating in the Children s Advertising Initiative. They state that this finding does not align with Ad Standards information. For instance the Report specifically mentioned two products as being among the most frequently advertised products on

9 8 popular websites. However, Ad Standard s compliance audits, found that the companies had not placed child directed advertising for these products in any Canadian medium, including children s websites, and in fact, one of the products is not even available for sale in Canada. In addition, Advertising Standards of Canada states that of the ten children s websites reviewed in this report, that it appears that only one is a Canadian website. The consultation document begins with a statement that This is a complicated issue and policy questions need to be fully considered before these new measures can be developed, specifically: - What is the right age limit for the restrictions?... However, this question, which is fundamental to the consultation, is never asked. As a result, as noted in earlier answers, we are most concerned that the mandate of restricting marketing to kids has turned into a ban on food and beverage marketing in Canada. There is credible criteria in Canada and internationally to allow child-directed marketing to be isolated and measured. An under-17 age limit is unworkable because of media data limitations and the blurred lines between what can be classified as directed at young adults versus all adults, making restrictions unenforceable. The rationale for protecting teens and adolescents from food and beverage marketing does not align with an abundance of academic research that indicates that children over the age of 12 have the critical thinking skills to understand and interpret the persuasive intent of advertising. After reviewing the scientific evidence on behalf of Ofcom, the UK communications regulatory authority, Sonia Livingstone, a professor at the London School of Economics found that by about 7 or 8 years of age, children have learned to identify the persuasive intent of advertising, distinguishing it from information. From 12 years of age, children can surely articulate a critical understanding of advertising, even becoming sceptical or distrustful of it. The consultation document lists some activities that are restricted by statute in Canada to those 17 and over as a rationale for the restriction. However, the list is not complete and excludes many other activities that teenagers are considered old enough to engage in. These include: baby-sit; play video games with cursing/violence/sexual content; drive a boat or off-road vehicle; get a student pilot license; stay home alone; have sex with someone less than two years older than them; go unaccompanied to a movie depicting violence, coarse language, casual or brief nudity, and sexually suggestive scenes. In addition, is the age when teenagers are seeking their first job, many gaining valuable workplace experience in restaurants. How can they, on the one hand, be old enough to learn about the preparation of and selling of food on the job, but on the other hand, not be old enough to be exposed to the same food products when not on the job?

10 9 CONCLUSION Restaurants Canada recognizes the seriousness of the childhood obesity problem and the challenge of developing policy solutions to such a challenging and complex issue. We believe there is much more to be gained by having industry at the table working with government and other stakeholders on solutions, than excluding them from any contact with government officials and any dialogue on approaches. The approach proposed to restrict the marketing of food and beverage to kids is so sweeping that it will cripple the food industry s ability to market their products and services with devastating consequences for Canadian industry, jobs and the economy. It will frustrate Canadians and particularly parents and could be open to legal challenges. We believe that the social, economic, health and legal impacts of the proposed approach must be carefully considered, and meaningful input from the industries most impacted by this significant policy initiative sought, before any regulations are developed.