As everyone by now has probably read, Ofcom last Thursday announced the details of its restrictions on certain television advertisements for foods high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS). I thought I would wait a few days and assemble some of the more notable or interesting reactions. Here are a few:

The Times (Feb 23): “Ofcom’s answer to this problem is unnecessarily confusing. Advertisers will not be allowed to use celebrities who appeal to young people, nor licensed characters such as Winnie-the-Pooh. But they will be able to use manufacturers’ own characters, such as that breakfast-time staple Tony the Tiger, of Frosties fame. They will be able to advertise the brand (such as McDonald’s), but not always the product. They will be permitted to advertise during Coronation Street, but not during Friends, which has a higher proportion of young viewers. There is some junk logic here.”

Center for Science in the Public Interest (Feb 23): “The new British regulations are far superior to the situation here, where the [U.S.] Federal Trade Commission continues to support a failed self-regulatory system,” said CSPI legal affairs director Bruce Silverglade. “If food companies and the advertising industry can survive under the new British standards, they could certainly survive under similarly tough standards in the United States.”

Children’s Commissioner for England (Feb 22): “Ofcom’s final decision is unsatisfactory and lacks clarity and force. The measures introduced do not go far enough in restricting children and young people’s exposure to the advertising of high fat, salt and sugar food and drinks. The use of the index measure means that there will be no advertising restrictions for programmes such as X-factor and Coronation Street, which are watched by large numbers of children and young people, unless it can be proved that 20% more children than adults are watching.”

Food and Drink Federation (Feb 22): “We are disappointed that Ofcom has decided to extend the restrictions on advertising to cover young people. This is a disproportionate response given that the issue has always been about young children – and industry responded to Ofcom’s initial consultation on that basis. And we are concerned that the regulations continue to be based on a scientifically flawed nutrient profiling model that has rightly come under fire from the media, MPs and nutritionists.”

Institute of Practitioners in Advertising (Feb 22): “The IPA is disappointed but not surprised at Ofcom’s decision to extend the broadcast advertising scheduling restrictions from primary school children to children up to the age of 15. However IPA member agencies are already working to comply with the new content and scheduling rules for commercials for foods identified by the Food Standards Agency as ‘bad’, even though the flawed criteria mean that foods such as Marmite get caught by the restrictions. The IPA is also dedicated, through its membership of CAP (Committee of Advertising Practice), to introducing similar content restrictions into the non-broadcast media.”