Day 065 - 09 Dec 94 - Page 20
1 does that lie alongside the very reasonable and moderate
2 exegesis you have just given of your motivation in this
3 matter?
4 A. I think "Advertisers' Dream" are the words which are
5 used in this report here. We wanted the report to be
6 widely read. It was written as an accessible report.
7 I think anybody who takes the time to read it realises
8 that. The title of the report was perhaps -----
9
10 Q. It is way over the top, is it not?
11 A. It has a question mark at the end.
12
13 Q. Why use the words "nutrition nightmare" at all? Why not
14 just say: "This is a discussion paper about the effects of
15 advertising on children and whether that has any bearing
16 upon the overall health of the nation". That is what it
17 should have been headed, something along those prosaic
18 boring lines, should it not?
19 A. The report makes it perfectly clear inside what it is
20 about. As you know, reports have catchy titles. That is
21 how reports generally are named.
22
23 Q. Would you have us believe that this is a thorough,
24 objective and scholarly piece of work upon which people can
25 safely rely for information about this topic; is that
26 right?
27 A. This report was put together to be an accessible report
28 that was putting the public health perspective on
29 children's diets, childhood nutrition, the relative
30 influence of advertising, looking at the context with which
31 advertising is regulated. It is a broad report in that
32 sense and covers a lot of ground which has not previously
33 been brought together.
34
35 What it does not do (and it does not purport to do) is to,
36 for example, present a viewpoint that might have been put
37 forward, and is put forward, by parties that have an
38 interest from a different perspective. As I say, it is put
39 forward from a public health and a public interest
40 perspective.
41
42 Q. But, surely, Ms. Dibb, leaving out people with a special
43 interest, whether it be the health food lobby or the
44 advertisers' lobby or the food industry lobby, there are
45 people, true academics, who have studied these questions
46 with some care and in some depth, are there not?
47 A. I do not know of an academic who has studied the broad
48 spectrum from childhood nutrition through to the regulation
49 of advertising in one document.
50
51 Q. But there are people who have studied the effects of
52 advertising on children in some considerable depth, are
53 there not?
54 A. Yes.
55
56 Q. You cite a number of them in this report, including some
57 research done by a gentleman called Philip (sic) Rossiter
58 and some research done by two gentlemen called Gianinno and
59 Zuckerman; am I right?
60 A. Yes.
