Ban on advertising sweets – lawyers benefit more from this than children

Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir was visibly looking forward to the dispute. When he presented his plan to ban children's advertising for sugary, fatty and salty snacks on Monday, he enthusiastically anticipated the arguments of his critics. The coalition partner FDP promptly did him a favour: the Greens politician was guided by the strict guidelines of the World Health Organization and hit far too many foods, said parliamentary group Vice President Carina Konrad.

But the fact that the struggle is only over details shows that the food industry has basically lost the years-long battle over advertising bans for children. Özdemir proposes the strictest rules in Europe: on television, for example, advertising for crisps and gummy bears should only run from 11 p.m. Even adults will hardly see any sugar spots. The industry rightly recognizes an “almost general advertising ban”.

The problem of the enraged industry in the battle of opinions: The business model of some manufacturers, to talk unhealthy stuff to small children, is fundamentally unappealing. That is why the industry is constantly losing support for its arguments against the advertising ban, which are presented with great freedom pathos. And aren't the cigarette advertising bans also having an effect without sacrificing freedom of speech?

But regulating sugar, fat and salt is by no means that easy. Unlike the addictive substance tobacco, it is not only about a lot of money, but also about the basic building blocks of food. It is foreseeable that the law will be followed by years of legal rearguard action.

It won't turn out to be a freedom killer, but it will prove to be a legal monster. Because many questions can only be clarified in individual cases: What type of advertising is aimed at children? Haribo, for example, advertises with adults who speak with children's voices. Who is the target group there?

Özdemir hopes that the industry will make children's snacks healthier so that it can continue to advertise. But what does that mean? Will it be enough to produce a single low-fat variant to be allowed to advertise a brand of chips - like breweries with non-alcoholic beer spots bypass alcohol advertising restrictions? What about image advertising for a fast food chain that doesn't show a specific product? There is a lot to do for future generations of lawyers.