Objective: To model the health benefits and cost-effectiveness of banning television (TV) advertisements in Australia for energy-dense, nutrient-poor food and beverages during children\u27s peak viewing times.Methods: Benefits were modelled as changes in body mass index (BMI) and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) saved. Intervention costs (AUD)werecomparedwithfuturehealth−carecostoffsetsfromreducedprevalenceofobesity−relatedhealthconditions.ChangesinBMIwereassumedtobemaintainedthroughtoadulthood.Thecomparatorwascurrentpractice,thereferenceyearwas2001,andthediscountrateforcostsandbenefitswas3 3.70 (95% uncertainty interval (UI) 2.40,7.70) per DALY. Total DALYs saved were 37 000 (95% UI 16 000, 59 000). When the present value of potential savings in future health-care costs was considered (AUD300m(95130m, $480m), the intervention was \u27dominant\u27, because it resulted in both a health gain and a cost offset compared with current practice.Conclusions: Although recognizing the limitations of the available evidence, restricting TV food advertising to children would be one of the most cost-effective population-based interventions available to governments today. Despite its economic credentials from a public health perspective, the initiative is strongly opposed by food and advertising industries and is under review by the current Australian government.<br /