The audit, which was commissioned by the government and released on Wednesday, found close to three-quarters of adverts within 200 metres of ACT schools featured products not suitable for sale in school canteens.

According to the report, nearly four out of five food and drink adverts aimed at children in shopping centres, supermarkets and near schools promoted unhealthy products.

ACT Health Minister Simon Corbell said the report – which cost taxpayers $25,000 - would form the basis of a consultation program to test support for advertising restrictions.

"It is the sort of question we need to ask and I am determined to make sure that is canvassed as part of the consultation process," he said.

"It hasn't been done anywhere else in the country and whether or not it is controversial will depend on public feedback.

"There is a very clear and compelling case from this report to look closely at where junk food is advertised and how and more importantly, where it should not be because of the influence it has on kids and the links to a growth in obesity among kids."

Heart Foundation ACT chief executive Tony Stubbs said he was surprised by the amount of adverts targeting children close to their schools.

"The thing I hadn't really noticed or appreciated in the past was that some of the schools that were particularly close to supermarkets had a lot more advertising," he said.

"I didn't appreciate the lengths the industry was going to [in order] to get children to look at unhealthy food options."

Mr Stubbs said he had asked researchers to double check their findings after being surprised by the prevalence of advertising targeting children.

Mark De Carvalho, a father of three from Fisher, said it was becoming more difficult to avoid unhealthy foods, with his five-year-old son Samuel susceptible to product placement.

The audit found food and drink companies had begun seeing children and adolescents as consumers capable of lobbying their parents to purchase products on their behalf.

"I think the companies do target where they put products because they are either down low at kid's height or at the cashier," Mr De Carvalho said.

"He does know where Spiderman or Lightning McQueen chocolate eggs are and on a good day I might give him one but if he doesn't need it I won't."

The report found unhealthy products were strategically positioned in supermarkets to encourage children to pester their parents to buy the items for them.

"They do target [children] and they know what they are doing. There is a mountain of research and focused groups behind them," Mr De Carvalho said.

Mr Corbell said restrictions on tobacco advertising proved there was a precedent from controlling food and drink promotions, although extensive community consultation would be needed.

"It has been done before but whether or not the same approach can be adopted with food is a more complex question," he said.

"It comes down to relative values of different foods and the role of parents, of families and food and health education."

Mr Corbell said the role of advertising with sporting franchises was also a complex issue that would require further consideration.

The Heart Foundation report found four of nine ACT sporting organisations were sponsored by companies selling unhealthy food or drink items, either through cash contributions, uniforms, equipment, or vouchers.

"Sporting codes rely on large sponsors for their livelihood to put their games on, so we need to look carefully at those issues and we need to talk with those industries about it," Mr Corbell said.

Mr Stubbs said the government did not need to restrict everything but the role of advertising needed to be understood by parents and children.

"Some of things that could possibly be looked at are restrictions of advertising particularly in the purview of government, so that might be on ad shells or on ACTION buses," he said.

"We think there is an opportunity to replace some sponsorship, especially in junior sports, which might be some healthier advertising."