Unhealthy food advertising to children: a case for regulatory reform?

This thesis is an analysis of the current regulation of food and drink advertising to children in the United Kingdom. Based on public health evidence on the harmful contribution of advertising to epidemics of obesity and chronic disease, it examines whether current law and regulation is sufficient to protect children. This thesis concludes that there is a clear case for reform of regulation of food and drink advertising to children in the UK to take account of health evidence, recent rights arguments, principles of good regulation and theoretical accounts of regulatory legitimacy and design. Mapping of both EU and UK regulation identifies a complex array of relevant regulation, from 'hard law' to self-regulatory codes. It highlights a framework that is highly inconsistent and lacking in clear health-oriented goals. Focusing on regulation in the UK, it is argued that existing regulation does not meet the Government's own standards of ‘good regulation’. The central players, Government sanctioned ‘co-regulatory' and 'self-regulatory' industry regimes, are also lacking in key qualities that may be necessary in securing 'legitimacy' in the eyes of both public health advocates and the public. Considering theoretical accounts of 'regulatory space' and 'systems' in regulation, this thesis suggests that there is a case for reform of existing industry-led regulation to incorporate public health expertise. It is argued that these changes would not require intrusive Government intervention in self-regulation and, as systems theory suggests, an indirect approach may be more likely to succeed than attempts at wholesale reform. On a practical level, such reform is more likely than the abolition of self-regulation advocated by some campaigners, and more desirable than piecemeal adjustments that are likely to only displace, rather than reduce, unhealthy advertising to children.