On 15th February, the Health Ministry of Malaysia decided to impose a ban on fast food advertisements broad casted through media channels like the television, billboards and newspapers. Health minister Dr. Chua Soi Lek said in a statement that the move was taken to remedy health-related problems stemming from fast food.
I opine that the move will not be effective in solving the problem at hand. On the contrary, I believe it makes Malaysia worse off for a number of reasons.
The annual revenue yielded from fast food advertising by advertising agencies in Malaysia is estimated at RM100 million. Assuming the ban has been implemented, it forgoes a large chunk of income, especially for those involved in the advertising industry. The Malaysian economy is likely to experience a recession as decreases in FDIs (foreign direct investments), specifically from multinational FMCG firms, are expected. In addition, social ills will inevitably worsen due to soaring unemployment and inflation rates.
The effectiveness of the proposal by the Ministry is highly questionable. One cannot help but to be reminded of the tobacco and alcohol advertising ban (hereinafter referred to as 'ad ban') implemented fifteen years ago by the government. Despite the implementation of ad bans, 'sin taxes' and numerous clamps on contraband, the Malaysian smoking population has continued to reach unprecedented figures over the years. With 48% of males and just over 21% of females in Malaysia being smokers, the country has one of the highest smoking prevalences in the region. The current point of contention is whether the ad ban will bring about a health improvement, or will it merely follow in the footsteps of the tobacco and alcohol ad ban and worsen the status quo?
Let us assume the ad ban had been fully implemented by the government and all fast food corporations are no longer permitted to advertise their products. It can now be deduced that savings on advertising costs will allow corporations to achieve operational cost savings. Based on simple economic theories, if operational costs are reduced, the firm can now afford to mark down its products to achieve price competitiveness. Hence, producers can now supply fast food at a lower cost; the lowered price will subsequently attract consumers which in turn increases the demand for fast food.
The issue of consumer sovereignty and lifestyle is nearly impossible to justify as Malaysia's economy is one of which is mixed; whereby, both the private and public sector have ownership of resources, with government intervention to a certain extent (unlike a communist state, where government has complete control over). This indicates that consumers have the power to consume which ever good and service that yields the highest satisfaction. Irregardless of the ban, a loyal customer will continue to consume fast food, so long as consumer freedom prevails, or if the practice has been entrenched as a lifestyle.
Furthermore, fast food corporations can divert their advertising efforts to the Internet since the innovation of online advertising can easily replace restricted media channels mentioned earlier.
Ad bans and the like with their loopholes present, are merely short term solutions which only serve to perpetuate greater health issues in Malaysia in the near future. It is time the government reassessed its strategy; to diverge from unrealistic solutions and look beyond to establish practical ones. To overcome this obstacle, the fundamentals of fast food demand must be thoroughly considered.
To begin, the demanding work and school schedules, the perpetual traffic jams in KL and an inefficient public transport system causes the lack of personal time and the greater need for convenience - all of which are factors that contribute to fast food consumption. Instead of simply bringing in the ad ban, the government could resort to more effective and definite solutions. For instance, the public transportation system must be revamped; effectual urban planning for roads, buildings and housing must be carried out with a long run perspective; the use of healthy living campaigns, comparable to the 'Tak Nak' campaign used to combat smoking; the implementation of reward oriented remedies (as opposed to the current penalty oriented approach) could serve as encouragements to living and eating more healthily.
By analogy, if the government is the doctor and the health issues are the disease, it would be logical to say that the relevant medication prescribed would cure the disease. Similarly, if the disease was wrongly treated, dire consequences could follow, like death, for instance. Based on the above, whose the real killer you think?