After two years of deliberation, the NPM panel recommended removing the protein cap. So why has the FSA disregarded this advice, asks Nick Hughes
Maverick football manager Brian Clough, when asked how he dealt with dissenting players, famously replied: “We sit down, talk about it for 20 minutes, then decide I was right.”
The quote sprang to mind this week when the Food Standards Agency pulled rank in Clough-like fashion. After two years of protracted consultation, the FSA board ignored scientific evidence to vote against the recommendations of the Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM) review panel of experts.
The main recommendation – the removal of the protein cap, which prevents a food’s protein value being taken into account if it scores too heavily on saturated fat, sugar, salt and energy – may not have had huge ramifications for manufacturers (around 25 more products, mostly cereals and savoury snacks, would have passed, while many other leading brands would still have been barred from advertising to children).
But the arbitrary way the FSA reached its decision – acknowledges there is “scientific justification for removing the protein cap”, but claiming “the wider public health arguments for maintaining the status quo are more persuasive” – has provoked fury.
“The decision not to remove the protein cap flies in the face of the advice of the Independent Review Panel, which has spent two years, at taxpayers’ expense, assessing the effectiveness of the nutrient profiling model,” says Melanie Leech, director general of the Food and Drink Federation.
It’s a blatant departure from the FSA’s previous position. In a fiery letter to The Grocer in March 2007, Gill Fine, director of nutrition and dietary health at the FSA, defended the NPM against criticism with the statement: “we make decisions on the best scientific evidence available”. Not any more, apparently.
“I don’t understand how scientific justification that is substantive can be overruled by a public health argument,” says Kellogg’s communications director Chris Wermann. “I can make a public health argument myself, but it doesn’t mean it’s justified.”
It is a view shared by Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley. “It is concerning that the FSA appears to have disregarded the scientific evidence – in a report that it commissioned,” he says.
The process of reviewing the NPM began in May 2007 when the review panel, made up of academics and food scientists, was established to assess its effectiveness and recommend ways to improve it. Last summer, it concluded that the protein cap could be removed from the model with little impact on the classification of a number of so-called junk foods, adding that its removal could even provide an incentive for further product reformulation in snacks that narrowly failed the model on their salt and sugar content. While not the outcome manufacturers wanted – the majority of whom rejected the 100g base – at least it proved the FSA was willing to make concessions.
Yet it now transpires that the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, the body that advises both the FSA and the Department of Health on nutrition, was asked to discuss the NPM panel’s advice at a telephone conference on 28 November. It was attended by just four of the 14-strong SACN panel. Indeed, SACN chair Professor Alan Jackson admits “it was not richly participated in by members”. Yet the concerns expressed – that removing the cap would reclassify a number of “crisps and sugary breakfast cereals” as healthy – were sufficient for the FSA to urge the board to vote against the findings.
The FSA points out that removing the cap would enable four kids-oriented cereals – Oatibix Bitesize, Nestlé Coco Shreddies, Kellogg’s Chocolate Wheats and Nestlé Frosted Shreddies – to pass the model. Three more – Quaker Sugar Puffs, Kellogg’s Corn Flakes and Nestlé Nesquik – would move closer to the pass boundary.
But as well as ignoring the higher bran content of these cereals, the ban also punishes Walkers Lights, Kallo Savoury Rice Cakes and Kellogg’s All Bran – products developed with health specifically in mind.
Talking science
It’s not the first time the FSA has been accused of failing in its commitment to be governed by science. Nor the first time it has changed its tune. In September 2007, the agency refused to ban six food colourings, despite evidence from Southampton University of links with hyperactivity in children, a study it had commissioned itself. Under pressure from lobby groups last April, it announced a volte face, banning the six food colourings based apparently on the same evidence.
In July, it followed this up with proposals on salt-reduction targets on cured meats, ham and bacon – targets that were not only “totally unrealistic” according to the Provisions Trade Federation, but also presented a serious threat to public health.
An FSA spokesperson defended its position on this latest case, saying: “Science is rarely clear cut and views often differ, but the agency is trying to get a balance of views and consensus in scientific opinion.” Yet there it is, in black and white in the FSA paper, the “scientific justification” for removing the cap.
Who's pulling the strings?
Is it therefore the case that the position adopted by the 'independent' FSA is politically driven? The "public health concerns" cited by the agency are "childhood obesity and excessive intakes of saturated fat, salt and added sugar among children". If these sound familiar, it's because they mirror the concerns identified by the Government in its Change4Life campaign. Indeed, the FSA admits: "It is crucial that Change4Life messages relating to reducing sugar intake are not undermined."
Industry sources believe the FSA has come under pressure from the Department of Health to toe the party line on health. The last thing the Government wants is to be seen advocating sugary cereals that could, in the words of one source, "generate Daily Mail headlines" and fire up the NGOs.
Wermann argues that if the FSA's mandate is to improve the quality of kids' food, its decision to retain the protein cap could have the opposite effect. "I think it's a huge missed opportunity for public health. Removing the protein cap would have moved some of our products into an area where it would have been more realistic to reformulate so we could market them in children's airtime. "
The scientists on the NPM review panel agreed, suggesting the inclusion of the protein cap was hampering potential reformulation. By denying science its place in the debate, then, the FSA may be defeating its own efforts to encourage healthier product development and driving a further wedge between itself and the food industry.
As one industry source says: "I think the FSA has already alienated the industry, not just on this but on salt and saturated fat campaigns. More and more it seems there is no incentive for the cost involved in reformulation."
With targets potentially looming for saturated fat and sugar reduction, now more than ever the FSA needs the food industry on its side. Decisions like this only serve to push it further away.
Maverick football manager Brian Clough, when asked how he dealt with dissenting players, famously replied: “We sit down, talk about it for 20 minutes, then decide I was right.”
The quote sprang to mind this week when the Food Standards Agency pulled rank in Clough-like fashion. After two years of protracted consultation, the FSA board ignored scientific evidence to vote against the recommendations of the Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM) review panel of experts.
The main recommendation – the removal of the protein cap, which prevents a food’s protein value being taken into account if it scores too heavily on saturated fat, sugar, salt and energy – may not have had huge ramifications for manufacturers (around 25 more products, mostly cereals and savoury snacks, would have passed, while many other leading brands would still have been barred from advertising to children).
But the arbitrary way the FSA reached its decision – acknowledges there is “scientific justification for removing the protein cap”, but claiming “the wider public health arguments for maintaining the status quo are more persuasive” – has provoked fury.
“The decision not to remove the protein cap flies in the face of the advice of the Independent Review Panel, which has spent two years, at taxpayers’ expense, assessing the effectiveness of the nutrient profiling model,” says Melanie Leech, director general of the Food and Drink Federation.
It’s a blatant departure from the FSA’s previous position. In a fiery letter to The Grocer in March 2007, Gill Fine, director of nutrition and dietary health at the FSA, defended the NPM against criticism with the statement: “we make decisions on the best scientific evidence available”. Not any more, apparently.
“I don’t understand how scientific justification that is substantive can be overruled by a public health argument,” says Kellogg’s communications director Chris Wermann. “I can make a public health argument myself, but it doesn’t mean it’s justified.”
It is a view shared by Shadow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley. “It is concerning that the FSA appears to have disregarded the scientific evidence – in a report that it commissioned,” he says.
The process of reviewing the NPM began in May 2007 when the review panel, made up of academics and food scientists, was established to assess its effectiveness and recommend ways to improve it. Last summer, it concluded that the protein cap could be removed from the model with little impact on the classification of a number of so-called junk foods, adding that its removal could even provide an incentive for further product reformulation in snacks that narrowly failed the model on their salt and sugar content. While not the outcome manufacturers wanted – the majority of whom rejected the 100g base – at least it proved the FSA was willing to make concessions.
Yet it now transpires that the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, the body that advises both the FSA and the Department of Health on nutrition, was asked to discuss the NPM panel’s advice at a telephone conference on 28 November. It was attended by just four of the 14-strong SACN panel. Indeed, SACN chair Professor Alan Jackson admits “it was not richly participated in by members”. Yet the concerns expressed – that removing the cap would reclassify a number of “crisps and sugary breakfast cereals” as healthy – were sufficient for the FSA to urge the board to vote against the findings.
The FSA points out that removing the cap would enable four kids-oriented cereals – Oatibix Bitesize, Nestlé Coco Shreddies, Kellogg’s Chocolate Wheats and Nestlé Frosted Shreddies – to pass the model. Three more – Quaker Sugar Puffs, Kellogg’s Corn Flakes and Nestlé Nesquik – would move closer to the pass boundary.
But as well as ignoring the higher bran content of these cereals, the ban also punishes Walkers Lights, Kallo Savoury Rice Cakes and Kellogg’s All Bran – products developed with health specifically in mind.
Talking science
It’s not the first time the FSA has been accused of failing in its commitment to be governed by science. Nor the first time it has changed its tune. In September 2007, the agency refused to ban six food colourings, despite evidence from Southampton University of links with hyperactivity in children, a study it had commissioned itself. Under pressure from lobby groups last April, it announced a volte face, banning the six food colourings based apparently on the same evidence.
In July, it followed this up with proposals on salt-reduction targets on cured meats, ham and bacon – targets that were not only “totally unrealistic” according to the Provisions Trade Federation, but also presented a serious threat to public health.
An FSA spokesperson defended its position on this latest case, saying: “Science is rarely clear cut and views often differ, but the agency is trying to get a balance of views and consensus in scientific opinion.” Yet there it is, in black and white in the FSA paper, the “scientific justification” for removing the cap.
Who's pulling the strings?
Is it therefore the case that the position adopted by the 'independent' FSA is politically driven? The "public health concerns" cited by the agency are "childhood obesity and excessive intakes of saturated fat, salt and added sugar among children". If these sound familiar, it's because they mirror the concerns identified by the Government in its Change4Life campaign. Indeed, the FSA admits: "It is crucial that Change4Life messages relating to reducing sugar intake are not undermined."
Industry sources believe the FSA has come under pressure from the Department of Health to toe the party line on health. The last thing the Government wants is to be seen advocating sugary cereals that could, in the words of one source, "generate Daily Mail headlines" and fire up the NGOs.
Wermann argues that if the FSA's mandate is to improve the quality of kids' food, its decision to retain the protein cap could have the opposite effect. "I think it's a huge missed opportunity for public health. Removing the protein cap would have moved some of our products into an area where it would have been more realistic to reformulate so we could market them in children's airtime. "
The scientists on the NPM review panel agreed, suggesting the inclusion of the protein cap was hampering potential reformulation. By denying science its place in the debate, then, the FSA may be defeating its own efforts to encourage healthier product development and driving a further wedge between itself and the food industry.
As one industry source says: "I think the FSA has already alienated the industry, not just on this but on salt and saturated fat campaigns. More and more it seems there is no incentive for the cost involved in reformulation."
With targets potentially looming for saturated fat and sugar reduction, now more than ever the FSA needs the food industry on its side. Decisions like this only serve to push it further away.
No comments yet