Credit: Rick Barrett (Ambitious Studio)
Academics are divided over the South Australian government’s decision to ban junk food advertising on Adelaide Metro buses, trains and trams from July 1.
The Malinauskas Labor Government says the policy, a first of its kind in Australia, will help combat rising obesity rates, especially among children.
Michael Klaehn, discipline lead at QUT College, said the decision to ban junk food advertising on public transport is a bold statement about prioritising public health, but its effectiveness in addressing obesity deserves closer scrutiny.
“History shows that banning advertising alone often falls short of driving meaningful behavioural change, as seen with smoking, vaping, and alcohol,” he said.
“For instance, tobacco ad bans helped reduce smoking rates, but only when combined with higher taxes, graphic health warnings, plain packaging, and robust education campaigns.
“Similarly, alcohol consumption remains a public health challenge despite strict advertising regulations due to cultural acceptance and widespread availability.
“Vaping restrictions also highlight the limits of ad bans; youth uptake continues, influenced by factors like accessibility and social trends.”
Klaehn believes obesity is similarly multifaceted and that the advertising industry’s concerns about the narrow scope of this ban are valid.
“While reducing exposure to junk food ads is a positive step, it won’t address the socioeconomic barriers, lack of access to affordable healthy foods, and ingrained eating habits that contribute to rising obesity rates,” he said.
“This policy risks being more symbolic than transformative without complementary measures - such as subsidies for nutritious food, public education campaigns, and urban planning to promote active lifestyles.
“To truly make an impact, South Australia must integrate this initiative into a broader, evidence-based strategy. Otherwise, its long-term effectiveness in reducing obesity remains questionable.”
Karen Murphy, an associate professor in nutrition and dietetics at the University of South Australia, supports the ban.
With research showing that around 25% of Australian children are either overweight or obese, she asked, why not ban images of unhealthy foods on public transport?
“We know childhood obesity can lead to poor health and wellbeing, impact performance in school and lead to obesity in adulthood, increasing risk of chronic disease like Type 2 diabetes,” Murphy told AdNews.
“Children are still exposed to hundreds of junk food ads on TV alone influencing their food choices, even though we know there is a link between junk food advertising and childhood obesity.
Murphy has called on advertisers to stop “bombarding” children with junk food ads.
“We need to be advertising healthier foods and healthier ways of eating to help our children grow and live well by getting adequate nutrition, healthy fats and vitamins and minerals,” she said.
“These ‘junk’ foods otherwise known as discretionary foods by our dietary guidelines, should be eaten infrequently and in small amounts.
“These kinds of foods such as takeaway foods, fast foods, soft drinks, cakes, chocolate, and confectionery offer little or nutritional value for our children for growth and wellbeing as they are high in added sugars, salt, and unhealthy fats.”
Murphy suggests reducing children’s exposure to unhealthy food and drink marketing could have a similar impact on public health as the tobacco taxes in recent decades.
“We need to help families and children make the healthy choice the easy choice,” she said.
“We need to provide our children with healthy supportive environments that help them and their families grow and live well.”
Amanda Spry, a senior marketing lecturer at RMIT University, agrees that government intervention is a positive step but also acknowledged the complexity of the issue.
“Though the advertising industry is overseen by key bodies and ethical codes, it remains largely self-regulated in Australia,” she said.
“While advertisers may oppose this ban for various reasons, one of those is certainly how lucrative these media vehicles are for targeting children.
“Brands must also play a role and take responsibility for promoting critical outcomes, especially amidst rising pressure to engage with social issues.”
Spry said this ban could reduce “pester power” and mitigate the cumulative effects of children’s exposure to ads for “harmful” products.
However, she’s concerned that advertising bans often disproportionately target inexpensive junk foods consumed by the masses, including lower socioeconomic groups, while leaving more expensive but nutritionally similar equivalents unregulated.
“This intersects with issues of autonomy and equity without addressing systemic factors, such as food access and affordability,” Spry said.
“Bans remove opportunities to challenge diet culture and advance body neutrality.
“Governments, brands and advertisers could contextualise foods as part of a spectrum of choices without moralising or reinforcing ‘good’ or ‘bad’ labels.
“Greater focus on structural changes - such as improving access to nutritious, affordable food - would address root causes of health disparities instead of placing blame on individual choices.”
Have something to say on this? Share your views in the comments section below. Or if you have a news story or tip-off, drop us a line at adnews@yaffa.com.au
Sign up to the AdNews newsletter, like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter for breaking stories and campaigns throughout the day.