Difference between revisions of "Children’s Food Campaign"

From Harridanic
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 4: Line 4:
 
== Attempts to use the [[ASA]] to get parts of websites shut down ==
 
== Attempts to use the [[ASA]] to get parts of websites shut down ==
 
In August of 2012, they decided to attempt to shut down parts of websites that had [[Grandad's Law|children's]] games on them by complaining to the [[ASA]]. One was Chewit's:
 
In August of 2012, they decided to attempt to shut down parts of websites that had [[Grandad's Law|children's]] games on them by complaining to the [[ASA]]. One was Chewit's:
−
{{quote|The Children's Food Campaign (Sustain) challenged whether the game encouraged excessive consumption of the product and poor nutritional habits in children.<ref>[http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2012/8/Leaf-Italia-SRL/SHP_ADJ_196056.aspx ASA Adjudication on Leaf Italia SRL ]</ref>}}
+
{{quote|The Children's Food Campaign (Sustain) challenged whether the game encouraged excessive consumption of the product and poor nutritional habits in children.<ref>[http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2012/8/Leaf-Italia-SRL/SHP_ADJ_196056.aspx ASA Adjudication on Leaf Italia SRL ] - ASA Adjudication on Chewits</ref>}}
  
 
The second was against Sugar Puffs:
 
The second was against Sugar Puffs:
−
{{quote|The Children's Food Campaign (Sustain) challenged whether the game encouraged excessive consumption of the product and poor nutritional habits in children<ref>[http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2012/8/Honey-Monster-Foods-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_196046.aspx ASA Adjudication on Honey Monster Foods Ltd ]</ref>}}
+
{{quote|The Children's Food Campaign (Sustain) challenged whether the game encouraged excessive consumption of the product and poor nutritional habits in children<ref>[http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2012/8/Honey-Monster-Foods-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_196046.aspx ASA Adjudication on Honey Monster Foods Ltd] - ASA Adjudication on Sugar Puffs</ref>}}
  
 
Strange how both complaints appear identical. Presumably there were others which the [[ASA]] haven't yet gotten round to deal with.
 
Strange how both complaints appear identical. Presumably there were others which the [[ASA]] haven't yet gotten round to deal with.
Line 29: Line 29:
 
[...]Over three levels the game's character could collect almost one hundred cola bottle sweets. If the character was caught by the "angry parents" they would lose a life. We considered that the game, which was relatively long in duration, was aimed at young children and condoned eating a large number of sweets whilst hiding this fact from one's parents.
 
[...]Over three levels the game's character could collect almost one hundred cola bottle sweets. If the character was caught by the "angry parents" they would lose a life. We considered that the game, which was relatively long in duration, was aimed at young children and condoned eating a large number of sweets whilst hiding this fact from one's parents.
  
−
2. Upheld<ref>[http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2012/8/Swizzels-Matlow-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_196069.aspx ASA Adjudication on Swizzels Matlow Ltd]</ref>}}
+
2. Upheld<ref>[http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2012/8/Swizzels-Matlow-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_196069.aspx ASA Adjudication on Swizzels Matlow Ltd] - ASA Adjudication on Swizzles</ref>}}
 +
 
 +
A few weeks later another ruling came out, this time for Fanta
 +
{{quote|
 +
 
 +
The Children's Food Campaign (Sustain) challenged whether the ad:
 +
 
 +
1. condoned or encouraged excessive consumption of Fanta;
 +
 
 +
2. condoned or encouraged poor nutritional habits among children; and
 +
 
 +
3. suggested that by consuming Fanta, children would be more confident and popular.
 +
 
 +
[...]
 +
 
 +
Three issues were investigated, all were Not upheld.<ref>[http://www.asa.org.uk/Rulings/Adjudications/2012/9/Beverage-Services-Ltd/SHP_ADJ_196066.aspx ASA Adjudication on Beverage Services Ltd] - ASA  Adjudication on Fanta</ref>}}
  
 
==References==
 
==References==

Revision as of 09:03, 27 September 2012

Children’s Food Campaign is a part of Sustain - an 'alliance' partially funded from grants from government and government related sources[1]. For the financial year ending 2011, of £2.1M income, at least £0.64M was from either government directly, or government funded organisations. This number rises to at least £1.3M if funds from national lotteries are included.[2]


Attempts to use the ASA to get parts of websites shut down

In August of 2012, they decided to attempt to shut down parts of websites that had children's games on them by complaining to the ASA. One was Chewit's:

The Children's Food Campaign (Sustain) challenged whether the game encouraged excessive consumption of the product and poor nutritional habits in children.[3]

The second was against Sugar Puffs:

The Children's Food Campaign (Sustain) challenged whether the game encouraged excessive consumption of the product and poor nutritional habits in children[4]

Strange how both complaints appear identical. Presumably there were others which the ASA haven't yet gotten round to deal with.

Both were thrown out - both concluding, strangely, with the same reason (though the ASA replies tend to be formulaic anyway)

We investigated the ad under CAP Code (Edition 12) rule 15.4 (Food, food supplements and associated health and nutrition claims) and 15.11 (Food and soft drink product marketing communications and children) but did not find it in breach.

The next week an adjudication on a complaint about a Scooby Doo game was upheld:

The Children's Food Campaign (Sustain) objected that:

1. the website encouraged poor nutritional habits in children; and

2. the website was irresponsible because it used a licensed character to promote sweets to children.

[...]

1. Upheld (in relation to the Cola Capers section only)

[...]We considered that the majority of the content in Swizzels Town did not encourage either an increase in consumption of sweets or any other poor nutritional habits.

[...]Over three levels the game's character could collect almost one hundred cola bottle sweets. If the character was caught by the "angry parents" they would lose a life. We considered that the game, which was relatively long in duration, was aimed at young children and condoned eating a large number of sweets whilst hiding this fact from one's parents.

2. Upheld[5]

A few weeks later another ruling came out, this time for Fanta


The Children's Food Campaign (Sustain) challenged whether the ad:

1. condoned or encouraged excessive consumption of Fanta;

2. condoned or encouraged poor nutritional habits among children; and

3. suggested that by consuming Fanta, children would be more confident and popular.

[...]

Three issues were investigated, all were Not upheld.[6]

References

  1. ↑ http://www.sustainweb.org/about/
  2. ↑ http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends43%5C0001018643_ac_20110331_e_c.pdf
  3. ↑ ASA Adjudication on Leaf Italia SRL - ASA Adjudication on Chewits
  4. ↑ ASA Adjudication on Honey Monster Foods Ltd - ASA Adjudication on Sugar Puffs
  5. ↑ ASA Adjudication on Swizzels Matlow Ltd - ASA Adjudication on Swizzles
  6. ↑ ASA Adjudication on Beverage Services Ltd - ASA Adjudication on Fanta
Retrieved from ‘https://harridanic.com/w/index.php?title=Children’s_Food_Campaign&oldid=788’