ARB Rules Against Health Department’s Sugar Ad for Sending Misleading Message to Kids

The Advertising Regulatory Board (ARB) has upheld a consumer complaint against a Department of Health television advertisement, stating that the ad risks sending a confusing message to children about democracy and personal choice.

The controversial ad features a father explaining to his daughter why sugar isn’t banned despite its health risks, framing the issue as a matter of democratic freedom. However, the ARB found this messaging problematic, arguing that it could be misinterpreted by young viewers to justify harmful behaviors beyond just sugar consumption.

Why Was the Ad Flagged?

The complainant raised concerns that the ad’s wording might encourage dangerous decision-making.

“My fear with this father’s response is that it might send the wrong message to already vulnerable youth,” the complainant stated. “It might create the impression that they have the right to make wrong choices, including drugs and other illegal activities, in the name of democracy.”

The ARB Directorate agreed, noting that the ad’s attempt to link sugar consumption with democratic choice was unclear and potentially misleading. The ruling pointed out that while South Africans have the freedom to choose their sugar intake, this isn’t uniquely tied to democracy—many less democratic nations also allow sugar consumption.

Additionally, the Directorate highlighted that even democratic countries impose restrictions on harmful substances, such as hard drugs, contradicting the ad’s implied message that personal choice should always prevail.

No Response from the Department of Health

The Department of Health did not respond to the complaint, leaving the ARB to base its decision solely on the concerns raised. The Board concluded that the ad failed to properly communicate the dangers of sugar while introducing an unclear and potentially harmful analogy.

While the ruling provides guidance for ARB members, it does not legally bind non-members, meaning the Department of Health could choose to ignore the decision.

What’s Next?

This case raises questions about how public health messages should be framed, especially when targeting children. With South Africa already implementing policies like the sugar tax, the contradiction between the ad’s messaging and the government’s own regulations adds another layer of complexity.

Will the Department of Health revise its approach, or will it stand by its controversial ad? For now, the debate continues.

{Source Bizcommunity}

Follow Joburg ETC on Facebook, Twitter , TikTok and Instagram

For more News in Johannesburg, visit joburgetc.com