Table 3.
Implementation considerations, intervention to restrict HFSS TV advertising to children.
| Implementation Consideration: | Adjustments/Considerations | Overall Rating |
|---|---|---|
| Strength of evidence | Direct evidence of BMI effect of TV advertising of food and beverages HFSS from RCTs is currently not available. The intervention is modelled using an effect estimate derived from meta-analysis of non-naturalistic experimental evidence. | Low |
| Acceptability |
Food, media industry acceptability Likely to be low. Marketing and advertising drives sales. |
Low |
|
Political acceptability To date, political motivation to enact legislation has been low but may vary by political party and over time. International experience in countries such as Ireland and the United Kingdom suggests the potential for political acceptability. |
Low | |
|
Consumer acceptability Public support for government regulation of advertising of HFSS food and beverages to children is high [56]. |
High | |
| Feasibility | This legislative intervention is feasible to implement in the Australian setting. | High |
| Sustainability | The intervention is sustainable once implemented. The ACMA already has regulatory responsibilities and can oversee the regulation of TV HFSS advertising. The sustainability of potential BMI effect is unknown, and more evidence is required on the effects of TV advertising of HFSS food and beverages in adults. |
High |
| Equity | Children with low SEP may have more exposure to HFSS TV advertising than children with high SEP, due to differences in TV viewing practices. | Positive |
| Side effects |
Positive side effects The intervention may have an impact on the food preferences and consumption behaviours of older children and adults. |
Positive |
|
Negative side effects The intervention may result in loss of revenue to TV networks (likely to be short-term effect). The intervention may result in loss of revenue to food companies (although over the longer term it may be expected that companies adapt to market conditions). | ||
| Policy conclusion: The intervention demonstrates significant potential for cost-effectiveness, positive equity effects and is feasible, sustainable and acceptable to the Australian general public. | ||
ACMA = Australian Communications and Media Authority; BMI = body mass index; HFSS = High in fat, sugar or salt; PA = physical activity; RCT = randomised controlled trial; SEP = socioeconomic position; TV = television.