ACMA report hard to digest

Experts in Australian Communications and Media Authority are obviously big fans of pro-smoking spoof flick Thank-You for Smoking.
And what's more they inhaled.
How else do you explain that in the Children's Television Standards review released last week, the ACMA refused to ban junk food ads during children's television on the grounds that there is no strong evidence between obesity and television advertising?
This is despite last year's finding by the University of Sydney that our kids are exposed to 10 junk food ads an hour during children’s television periods.
So just as the tobacco industry tried to convince us for years that cigarette advertising in no way encouraged people to smoke only to change brands, we are now expected to believe that the millions of dollars spend on pushing salt, fat and sugar to our children doesn't actually make them eat more junk food.
Really?
In explaining its decision the ACMA said restricting food and beverage advertising would be “a blunt form of regulatory intervention” which would “also prevent healthy food and beverage products from being advertised”.
That may be true but exactly when was the last time an advertisement promoting healthy food options to children aired during children’s viewing time.
If such an ad exists you can bet your bottom dollar that the product being promoted is something like a “natural” confectionary – apparently healthy because it is 99% fat free conveniently ignoring the massive sugar content.
The AMAC also notes that restrictions on junk food advertising would result in “significant cost to the commercial television sector”.
Even a one hour daily ban on food ads would, according to the report, result in a drop in commercial television revenue of up to 4%. That just goes to show what a huge industry selling life-limiting food options to children is.
And it goes straight to the crux of the matter. A review supposedly looking into children’s television standards puts more weight on the bottom line of commercial television stations’ profits than in the bottom line of our children.
This is despite the fact that one of the core objectives of the Broadcasting Services Act is to “place a high priority on protecting children from program material that may be harmful to them including advertising and sponsorship matter”.
The Cancer Council believed so strongly that junk food advertising was harmful to children that it mobilised a campaign resulting in 20 521 postcards being lodged with the AMCA.
In addition, a further 67 of the 76 submissions to the review highlighted the need for restrictions on junk food advertising directed at children.
It would seem that just about everyone except the AMCA sees a link between junk food advertising and dangerously high levels of childhood obesity.
Like the tobacco companies of old, the ACMA continues to push the line that as long as the product is legal so too should advertising it.
We can only hope that eventually the regulators will follow the lead of the United Kingdom, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Greece, Ireland and Quebec all of which have some restrictions on advertising of junk food.
Surely the weight of evidence is irrefutable. Where’s there’s smoke there’s fire.