"In another ad which ran for several weeks, [Bluebird] potato chips were promoted as 'an ideal addition to a healthy balanced school lunch', which is totally inconsistent with Government policy on healthy eating. They upheld the complaint, but the point we were making is there aren't any penalties for advertisers. They just pull the ad. It may have run for a week, so it's a weak system." said Ms Thornley who is advocating for stronger punitive measures for advertisers who are not following the advertising codes.

Louise Thornley also said that they believe some of the authority's decisions are unjustified, inconsistent and too lenient. "It's really just a slap on the wrist. They voluntarily withdraw the ad, but there are no sanctions or fines for the companies that breach the codes."

The chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority, Mr Rick Osbone said that withdrawing an ad was a penalty because of the amount spent on preparing the ad. "It comes at a cost to the agency and the client. In one case recently it was $1 million. There are large incentives to comply with the codes."

Mr Osbone also commented that the organization was about to introduce a new code which would place more responsibility on those manufacturing and advertising for food products. He also said that the new code would be able to allay the concern of the public health researchers who have undertaken this study.