The idea of banning fast-food advertising has a certain appeal. It suggests that, with just a few strokes of the pen, we improve public health. But the reality is much more complicated – and the case for prohibition much weaker than it first appears. 

This Monday saw the implementation of a “junk food” advert ban in the UK. The stated goal is to address childhood obesity by removing adverts of soft drinks, sweets, pizzas and ice creams. The ban stops “junk food” adverts on television before 21:00, and at any time online. 

This might seem like a specific UK “nanny state” issue, but the trend of overzealous government control over the appetites, bodies and economic choices of citizens has been on the uptick in South Africa as well. Think of the sugar tax. Or recent legislative calls to ban all alcohol advertising outright.  

There are quite a few myths that need to be dispelled regarding an all-powerful state directing the health choices of its population, no matter how ostensibly well-intentioned. And, quite frankly, somebody has to stand up for the humble cheeseburger. 

First of all, advertising does not create hunger or desire out of thin air. It competes for market share and brand loyalty. It does not force anyone to eat a burger. People aren’t robots stripped of agency. They choose fast food because it is affordable, convenient, and – let’s be clear – very, very enjoyable. Removing adverts will not change these underlying drivers of consumer behaviour.  

One must also consider the economic impact sweeping bans can have on the marketing and advertising sector. Everybody from graphic designers to television stations will be impacted. Jobs are on the line. 

Another, more general, point deserves to be made. Government control and strict regulations on products deemed “unhealthy” can in certain circumstances create conditions for a thriving black market. In the cases of alcohol and tobacco, for instance, consumer demand persists, but illegal suppliers step in. As a result, black markets flourish, public health goals are undermined, tax revenue is reduced, and criminal networks are strengthened. Over-regulation is never the answer. 

Then there is the question of where this ban-frenzy would lead. If it’s burgers today, what about red meat tomorrow? Or cheese? Or white bread? Once we accept that the state should restrict advertising for our own good, the list of “unhealthy” products will only grow.  

And finally, there is the principle of choice. Freedom includes the freedom to make decisions some consider to be “bad”. A society that tries to legislate its way to health treats adults like children. Restricting speech because it might lead to an unwise decision sets a very troubling precedent. 

None of this is to deny that obesity and unhealthy eating are serious issues. They are. But the answer lies in education and personal responsibility, not in bans. When it comes to childhood obesity, good information, good parenting and good examples of moderation are solutions that are much more sensible. But, of course, they require a bit more effort and some creative thinking from governments, and they do not have the immediate political and moral thrill of a ban. 

A healthier society cannot be built on censorship – and certainly not on the illusion that adverts alone are to blame. 

Loftus Marais
– Chief Operating Officer