You didn’t have to read the 1,300-page report by the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition, nor the three-page idiot’s guide that accompanied it, to realise this was going to be a bombshell - the expressions on the faces of the industry sources who got to see it an hour earlier than the journos said it all.

“Ministers will soon realise they are better off working with companies to cut sugar, rather than demonising their products”

Ian Quinn, chief reporter

Rarely can a report seven years in the making have lived up to the hype - nor made those who accused its authors of being in league with the industry look more misguided.

SACN’s call for the government to slash the daily recommended sugar intake in half is anything but a cosy put-up job - instead it poses major questions about the future of one of Britain’s biggest sectors. It’s not just fizzy drinks companies that will be rattled, either. Public Health England has already said it will review the place of smoothies and fruit juices on the Eat Well plate, and while it clearly shied away from presenting its warts-and-all proposals, after The Grocer got hold of a leaked version of what it was planning two weeks ago, the list of products on its hit list is eye-watering. Confectionery - despite the FDF’s moves to cap portions - brewers, biscuits, pastries and breakfast cereals are all in line for a public beating.

So should Coca-Cola, Heineken, Mars, Kellogg’s etc just pack up and go home? That is where the report starts to look ever so slightly detached from reality. With politicians on both sides already sworn against taxation - which most agree doesn’t work anyway - and given the overwhelming progress in sugar reduction achieved by suppliers and retailers, ministers will soon realise they are better off working with them rather than demonising them and their products.

If only it was so simple as putting a bottle of water on the table, or swapping a chocolate bar for a banana, we would not be in a situation where sugar makes up 15.4% of 11 to 18-year-olds’ energy intake (for those non-scientists that’s three times more than SACN wants). So on the theme of wishful thinking, surely the way forward now is for government, health groups and industry to start digesting those 1,300 pages and getting to work - together.

Topics