EDITORIAL: Food Commission clubs football with one-sided attack

The Food Commission made national headlines this week for its 'expose' on sponsorship links between fast-food companies and Premier League football clubs. For an organisation that purports to campaign against "poor labelling" and "advertising hype" it was a masterful feat of spin.

Even given the column inches the Food Commission gained, it is unlikely that Marketing would have chosen to add to them were it not for the colourful writing style of its report. On Pepsi's sponsorship of Manchester United it says: "Thankfully these highly paid players can afford the best dental care, so tooth decay shouldn't be a problem for them, although it may be for their millions of fans around the world."

The reason that it doesn't read like a report from a typical commission is that the Food Commission is not typical. Nor, in all fairness, is it a commission. While it may share a title word with the Audit, Equal Opportunities or even Forestry Commission this is an organisation that has none of their official status.

Of course, it doesn't claim that it has. No, the "UK's leading independent watchdog on food issues" proudly positions itself as "funded entirely by public subscriptions and donations, allowing us to be completely independent from the government and the food industry".

In my book this makes it a club or, at best, a society - and while either moniker might sound more gastronomically enticing than the Food Commission they would not carry the same gravitas.

This is about more than semantics. There are many serious challenges being laid down by official bodies, such as the Food Standards Agency and World Health Organisation, which, to their credit, food marketers are making real efforts to address. Child obesity is a serious concern, and charges of inappropriate marketing messages are to be met, as the industry is doing with initiatives such as Media-Smart. These efforts run the risk of being lost in the fog of hyperbole being spread by the Food Commission.

In three clean steps of illogic, its 'Football sells out ...' report jumps to the conclusion that best suits its agenda. Football clubs and players do major deals with snack food brands, clubs promote healthy eating to children, ergo football clubs are helping promote snack foods to children.

A more fair-minded interpretation might have made more of the millions of fans who are not children; or the fact that such sponsorships allow the clubs to buy top players, which give the clubs authority when endorsing health and fitness campaigns; or the plus side of snack foods encouraging participation in sport.

But fair-minded is another thing that the Food Commission is not.

Topics

Market Reports

Get unprecedented new-business intelligence with access to ±±¾©Èü³µpk10’s new Advertising Intelligence Market Reports.

Find out more

Enjoying ±±¾©Èü³µpk10’s content?

 Get unlimited access to ±±¾©Èü³µpk10’s premium content for your whole company with a corporate licence.

Upgrade access

Looking for a new job?

Get the latest creative jobs in advertising, media, marketing and digital delivered directly to your inbox each day.

Create an alert now

Partner content