The government has split the industry as well as outraging health campaigners after its childhood obesity plan saw proposals for a series of mandatory crackdowns ditched by Theresa May.
A leading supplier said the watered-down 13-page document, which came out this week, was a “victory for the industry”, adding companies would be delighted plans for regulating on reformulation, promotion of so-called junk food, marketing of high-sugar foods and mooted changes to the advertising watershed had all been dropped.
“There will be widespread relief that the government has not gone ahead with these measures,” said the source. “At points we were led to believe there were plans or mandatory measures on these areas. It’s clearly a victory for the industry.”
However, the plans have upset supermarket bosses, who had told the government only mandatory targets on reformulation would be enough to tackle the obesity crisis.
Sainsbury’s CEO Mike Coupe said ministers had failed to provide the “holistic approach” needed , saying there should have been “compulsory measured targets across all nutrients - not just sugar,” including compulsory use of the government’s front-of-pack traffic lights labelling scheme.
Soft drinks suppliers were also angry, claiming the focus was almost exclusively on a soft drinks levy in April 2018.
Sugar at heart of reduction programme
The nine categories with the largest contribution to children’s sugar intake will be “challenged” to slash sugar in products by 20% by 2020, with a 5% reduction in year one, under the government’s childhood obesity plan.
Suppliers of breakfast cereals, yoghurts, biscuits, cakes, confectionery, morning goods, puddings, ice cream and sweet spreads will be asked to reformulate - or cut portion sizes - in a PHE-supervised programme to be finalised in March 2017.
The Grocer understands the targets will be set against a baseline of sugar levels in 2015, meaning some companies that had already reformulated or reduced potion sizes will be forced to go further than others.
Soft drinks will be exempt because their contribution will be tackled via the soft drinks sugar levy.
One leading executive said: “The strategy is the soft drinks levy. There is nothing else there.”
Another drinks industry source said the tax, which the drinks industry claims will lead to 4,000 job loses, was being used to try to pacify campaigners about a strategy that otherwise lacked substantive content. “The government has decided to put the sugar levy front and centre of the strategy as this way it can try to turn around to people like Jamie Oliver and say it is being tough.”
Aside from the tax, the main industry-facing measure is set to be a raft of voluntary sugar reduction targets across products popular with children (see box, right).
Money raised from the levy will be invested in programmes to reduce obesity and encourage physical activity and balanced diets for schoolchildren.
The DH said it would double the primary PE and Sport Premium to help pupils be more active and inject a further £10m per year into school breakfast clubs.
Financial secretary Jane Ellison, the former health minister, said: “The soft drinks levy is an important step forward in the fight to halt our obesity crisis and will create a Britain fit for the future.
But Action on Sugar said it was “appalling”.
“The failed Responsibility Deal has already proved that voluntary measures do not work,” said AOS chairman Professor Graham MacGregor. “This is an unforgivable, missed opportunity.”
Malcolm Clark, director of the Children’s Food Campaign, added: “We have been promised that the strategy was primarily focused on nutrition, about sugar in our foods, about changing the way the industry acts - but now the focus is all about physical exercise.”
FDF director general Ian Wight called the sugar levy a “disappointing diversion from effective measures to tackle obesity”. He added: “The target set for sugars reduction is flawed. It focuses too strongly on the role of this single nutrient, when obesity is caused by excess calories from any nutrient. Moreover, the target is unlikely to be technically practical across all the selected food categories.”
No comments yet