SPIEGEL:
Mr. Effertz, the Green Food Minister, Cem Özdemir, wants to ban advertising for unhealthy food aimed at children on TV from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m.
FDP and Union see "government paternalism."
Right?
Effertz:
What the critics protect is rather the freedom from manipulation in the food industry.
There is clear scientific evidence that advertising directed at children has a strong impact on them and draws them to brands in the long term.
SPIEGEL:
The industry claims that they no longer target children when advertising sweets, junk food or soft drinks, and that bans restrict competition and innovation.
Nutrition coaches in schools would be better.
Effertz:
When it comes to children's advertising, companies are cynical.
The kids should sacrifice time in other subjects for advertising?
For years, manufacturers have wanted to limit their advertising voluntarily, and yet children see an average of 15 commercials for unhealthy things a day.
They are lured with toys, competitions or popular characters.
More and more often with additional digital gifts that can be redeemed in the form of skins or accessories in online computer games.
SPIEGEL:
The CDU asks how products that are aimed at children are to be recognized.
Effertz:
There are clear design elements, such as cartoons and funny, childlike characters.
Combined with the nutritional value models of the WHO for children's advertising, this can be clearly regulated.
They don't want to ban gummy bears, but the unfair ensnaring of children.
Surely we don't think it's right when the youngest are seduced into overly unhealthy food with emotionally charged commercials so that companies can make more profits from it.
Diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular diseases caused by too much fat and sugar cost our healthcare system more than 63 billion euros every year.
And in childhood the course is set for nutrition.
SPIEGEL:
In their voluntary commitments, food manufacturers made it their goal years ago to only broadcast advertising for products with too much sugar, salt and fat where a maximum of 30 percent of the viewers are under the age of 13.
Why is that not enough for you as a limit in a law?
Effertz:
This viewer quota is much too high, the proportion of children in the population is far lower and children also watch many programs for adults, such as sports programs or entertainment shows.
SPIEGEL:
Would a compromise be conceivable if the clear ban doesn't get through in the traffic light coalition?
Effertz:
If it has to be a quota, then it should be much lower than 30 percent of the children's audience.
That would then be a concession to the companies, where you have to be careful that the regulation is not circumvented by tricks.
We have often seen companies resort to fallback strategies when gaps are left unattended.
So I would be for clear conditions.
Why would we even want advertising for unhealthy foods aimed at children and young people?
SPIEGEL:
Is it even possible to combat advertising clips on the Internet and social media that inspire children to indulge in delicious sins?
Effertz:
Facebook, YouTube and also the TV programs measure their viewers precisely, they know how many children are watching and can often even identify them directly on social media.
The analytics departments there are very good.
Platforms should be mandated to ensure that influencer videos and unhealthy ads are not targeted at children.
We should hold accountable those who make the money: companies, broadcasters and social media providers.
