BY PLAN or providence, the theme of this year's conference of the Food Advertising Unit couldn't have been more apt. Just days after consumer group Which? renewed its high-profile campaign for all junk food commercials to be banned from television airwaves before the 9pm watershed, industry leaders from the other side of the debate took the platform to tackle the issue head-on.

While speakers at the Advertising Association-backed gathering in London talked about "protecting commercial freedoms" in food marketing, another industry trade body was attacking calls for bans on alcohol advertising in the UK. The ISBA, which represents advertisers spending more than £1 billion annually, said the newly established Alcohol Health Alliance was misguided in believing that further restrictions would help curb alcohol misuse.

"The very real problem with calls for bans and telling people what adverts they are allowed to see is that this approach does not work," says Ian Twinn, director of public affairs at ISBA. "In fact, government and regulators will know from their own evidence that it can have unforeseen consequences.

"Restricting further the advertising of alcohol would see the viability of commercial television significantly undermined, and the sponsorship deals behind the broadcasting of high-profile sporting events evaporate."

Indeed, concern about the impact of lost advertising revenue was one of the reasons why communications regulator Ofcom resisted pressure last year to introduce a blanket ban on junk food ads before 9pm.

Although Ofcom is required by statute to protect audiences against offensive or harmful material, it is also charged by law with ensuring variety and quality within the broadcasting sector. This effectively means that while it regulates the sector, Ofcom must also look after its long-term interests. This has led some to argue during the past couple of years' debate about junk food advertising that the regulator was never suited to setting the law in this area in the first place.

Either way, in defence of the commercial broadcasters, Ofcom has estimated that a total ban on junk food ads before the watershed would cost the television industry £250 million annually. In a market where advertising pounds are increasingly harder to come by - the Advertising Association says total expenditure on television fell 4.7% between 2005 and 2006 - this would come as a further blow.

"We cannot ignore our legal obligations towards broadcasting, as some have suggested we should; the stewardship of quality broadcasting is one of our primary duties, set down by parliament," Ofcom said in its final statement on the measures currently being implemented.

Proponents of tougher restrictions cast the debate as a battle of health versus profits, particularly as television dominates marketing spend for less healthy eating choices such as fast food, crisps, sweets, pre-sweetened cereals and fizzy drinks. The makers of these and other products affected by tighter advertising controls brought in earlier this year say market trends and existing codes are already significantly cutting back on the volume of junk food advertising viewed by UK youth.

But according to Which? it's not enough. The consumer group says a loophole is exposing children under the age of 10 to advertisements for products such as Cheestrings, Coco Pops, Smarties and McDonald's Toffee Sundays.

Those under the age of 10 are already meant to be shielded from such messages by restrictions introduced by Ofcom in April of this year. The first stage of its phased implementation bans ads for foods high in fat, salt or sugar around programmes made for children, and programmes of "particular appeal" to children under the age of 10.

This led Which? to look at other types of programmes where audiences were not dominated by children, yet still attracted high numbers of youngsters. It analysed viewing figures during two weeks in September across ITV1, Channel 4 and Channel 5, and found that only two of the top 10 most popular shows watched by under-10s were subject to the new restrictions.

Which? said Ant And Dec's Saturday Night Takeaway, with more than 442,000 viewers younger than 10 years old, featured ads for foods such as Milky Way, Twix and McDonald's Apple Pie. The next-most popular programme, with nearly 413,000 under-10 viewers, was The X-Factor. Milky Way and Twix commercials were also featured here, as well as Kinder Bueno and Maltesers.

A spokeswoman for Ofcom says that the possibility of advertisers shifting towards these family-oriented programmes had been raised during last year's consultation process. However, in accordance with the regulator's further statutory duty to intervene in a "proportionate" manner, the watershed ban was rejected.

"Many of the consumer bodies did argue for a 9pm watershed while this work was being carried out by Ofcom," says the spokeswoman.

"In this case, the new regulations were required to be targeted at children, and in the 6pm to 9pm period, for every child viewer, there were nine adults also watching, so clearly it would disproportionately affect adults."

That said, food companies are not discounting the possibility of a pre-watershed ban now. With the government, Ofcom and the Food Standards Agency all due to review the effects of the current restrictions in the coming year, there has been speculation that such a move is not a matter of if, but when it might happen.

"We are calling on the government to act now because there is a real health crisis," says a spokesman for Which?, referring to recent reports about rising obesity rates across the UK. "We have evidence that the new restrictions are not working, so there is no reason to wait until 2008 to do something about it."

Although a complete pre-watershed ban seems unlikely in the timeframe that Which? is calling for - January 2008, when current restrictions will be extended to programming directed at those up to the age of 15 - there have reportedly been rumours that the government will move on this issue sooner rather than later.

Trade organisations representing the advertising industry deny such a move is "inevitable", but admit the research from Which? has unsettled the market.

"This has all created a great deal of uncertainty for the television companies," says Jonathan Collett of the Advertising Association, in a week where ITV's share price was bumping along at all-time lows. "But also, the food advertisers want some certainty to plan their marketing strategies and budgets. Obviously, this latest upheaval is not helping that at all, particularly as we see a total ban as being completely unnecessary."

According to the Advertising Association, spending on so-called "scrutiny" products - fast food, sweets, crisps and so forth - within television advertising is down by roughly one-third since the new rules took effect earlier this year. This comes on top of declines between 2003 and 2006, when the industry says its self-regulation led to fewer junk foods ads being viewed by younger consumers.

In response to the Which? research, Advertising Association chief executive Peta Buscombe says: "A recent Advertising Association report showed that there have been clear and consistent falls in TV food ad spend for the last three years, together with a significant reduction in the amount of food advertising children are watching. Furthermore that many food manufacturers have significantly re-formulated their products to reduce salt, fat or sugar content.

"In many cases, the product being advertised is very different from before,"added Buscombe.

According to figures from her organisation compiled by Nielsen Media Research, more than £500m was spent in the UK on television ads promoting all food and soft drink products in 2006. The next nearest category to that, the press, received less than half that amount.

While the proportion of overall advertising spending on scrutiny products fell by more than 10 percentage points between 2003 and 2006, spending on television ads for such products dropped further, down by 12% during the same period. However, the "less healthy " sector remains dominant, with television commercials for confectionery clocking up a value of £78.3m in 2006.

This was followed by fast food at £56.1m, full-sugar carbonated drinks at £20.5m, crisps and snacks at £19.9m, and pre-sweetened cereals at £15.1m. There is therefore plenty of scope to cook the numbers in either direction.

The direction in which the government swings will be a key test of how far Gordon Brown is prepared to depart from his predecessor Tony Blair's preference for light-touch regulation.

For Kellogg's Frosties and so many other foodstuffs in the dock, the final crunch could still be yet to come.