Skip to main content

Table 4 Implementation of the law – key elements

From: Designing legislative responses to restrict children’s exposure to unhealthy food and non-alcoholic beverage marketing: a case study analysis of Chile, Canada and the United Kingdom

  Monitoring Enforcement Evaluation
Chile The Law delegated responsibility for monitoring to the Ministry of Health. The Ministry then trained and delegated the Regional Ministry of Health Officers (the Regional Health Ministerial Secretary) to monitor compliance. Other agencies were also used to help monitor and enforce the Law [53]. Enforcement of the law was delayed one year to allow industry to prepare.
First breach of law – warnings issued
Subsequent breaches - withdrawal or removal of the advertisement or a legal ‘administrative summario’ was issued, which is accompanied by a fine [68].
Liability - Advertisers
The Ministry of Health carried out an evaluation of the implementation process of the law after six months. A second evaluation took place one year after the law was in place, with the results of the evaluation being made publicly available [53].
Canada As the Bill did not pass, the mechanics of how to monitor the regulations were not established. Resources were earmarked to be allocated to the relevant government agencies to aid with data collection, analysis and annual reporting on children’s exposure and emerging advertising techniques. Tactics, settings and techniques not covered by the regulatory framework were to be monitored to see whether the scope of the law needed to be amended. The enforcement powers had not been decided, but under the Food and Drug Act there are a range of enforcement powers that the Government would have carefully selected from in relation to the jurisdiction they had including to inspect, seize, and forfeit contravening items as well as the power to remedy any contravention of the Act. As the Food and Drug Act is a criminal law, any contravention of the Act could result in a conviction which could lead to a fine or imprisonment term.
Liability - Advertisers
A five-year review was planned at the outset to assess the law overall, but to also determine whether unregulated areas needed to be incorporated into the scope of the law.
United Kingdom [60,61,62, 75] The detail of how the law will be monitored were to be outlined in forthcoming regulations that are subject to delay. The Office of Communications (OFCOM) is the appointed statutory regulator and it is anticipated they will delegate this authority to the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). The Law does give the regulator power to request information to allow it to carry out its functions such as monitoring for enforcement. Broadcast and online: The law stipulates two enforcement provisions: an enforcement notification or a fine. The maximum penalty is the greater of 5% of the turnover of the person’s relevant business for the relevant period, and £250,000.
Liability - Broadcasters and on-demand platform services under UK jurisdiction (including video-on-demand) will be liable for breaches of the TV watershed. For non-UK on-demand platform services, the advertiser will be liable for breaches of the online restriction on these platforms.
Retail settings: Regional enforcement officers can issue an improvement notice before any penalty can be levied, affording businesses an opportunity to take steps to comply with the requirements. Non-compliance with an improvement notice is an offence; in such cases enforcement officers may impose a fixed monetary penalty of £2500 using powers under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. This is intended to provide food authorities with a proportionate alternative means of enforcement to criminal prosecution under the Food Safety Act 1990.
The law states it will be reviewed and evaluated within five years post-implementation.