Leading nutritionists have joined industry critics in questioning whether the Public Health White Paper can help to halt obesity, reports Siân Harrington
Food and drink retailers and manufacturers will finally discover next month what the government expects them to do to help improve the nation’s diet.
The Food and Health Action Plan, expected out on March 9, is one component in the delivery programme for the Public Health White Paper, Choosing Health. As well as focusing heavily on nutrition, it will also be linked to delivery of the Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food.
Key to meeting government targets is the current work on nutrient profiling being undertaken by the Food Standards Agency. This sets out to define foods high in fat, sugar and salt as well as healthier options and will underpin any signposting system developed to help consumers buy healthier food.
But the concept of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ food is contentious. At a round table discussion, organised last week by the Snack, Nut & Crisp Manufacturers Association (SNACMA), Professor Thomas Sanders, director of the Nutrition, Food & Health Research Centre, said MPs’ conviction that signposting would work was “misjudged”.
“If you have a traffic light system only about 10% of foods would be green. It’s like having a skull and crossbones on the pack,” he commented, adding that experience in Australia showed consumers preferred a tick-box approach.
“The real problem with attempting to integrate the whole of nutrition into a profile is that you can’t do it,” agreed Dr Susan Jebb, head of nutrition at the Medical Research
Council. On top of this, many people are confusing signposting with labelling, she says. And when it comes to the latter Jebb agrees with Professor Sanders that Guideline Daily Amounts (GDAs) are the most useful and practical solution for consumers.
This approach is favoured by industry but Jebb said manufacturers had missed a “golden opportunity”. Jebb said: “If it had offered a GDA-based approach at the beginning it wouldn’t be in this mess.”
While agreeing GDA was the best way forward, Dr David Haslam, chair of the National Obesity Forum, could not believe the many “marketing geniuses” could not come up with a signposting scheme that worked. “With all the great minds in the industry, I cannot believe it can’t come up with something like a colour-based scheme. It’s not easy, but it must be possible,” he said.
However, his experience has shown there are bigger issues to tackle. “Focusing all issues on labelling is missing the point. The population needs to be made remotely interested in tackling the problem.”
He also took issue with the industry’s view that there is no such thing as bad food and that obesity is all about activity. But Procter & Gamble market operations director snacks, Jerry Hogg, countered there had been too little debate about lifestyle changes.
SNACMA wanted to take a lead in finding practical solutions to the issue and the discussion was just one way in which it was working with relevant parties to help devise such solutions, said director general Steve Chandler. But as he pointed out, while obesity was growing, the snacks industry had seen no growth for the past five years.
P&G’s strategy is to show consumers how snacks can fit into a healthy, balanced lifestyle. Transparent and responsible communication, re-sealable packs and portioning were all considerations, said Hogg, who added: “We will not make heroes of characters like Homer Simpson.”
In the US, P&G was involved in campaigns to educate consumers on diet and health, said Hogg, but in the UK it was “very nervous post-Cadbury”, referring to the backlash against the company’s Get Active campaign.
While a ban on advertising was widely seen as ineffective, advertising was regarded as part of the culture that sets the agenda, so a voluntary code was supported, provided the spirit of the code was adhered to.
However, like labelling, advertising was seen as a minute issue that did not tackle the deep roots of the obesity problem. The key was altering consumers’ behaviour. So while the White Paper was welcomed for signalling that public health was on the agenda like never before, the participants viewed it as “astonishingly green”.
Sanders thought it exaggerated the extent of obesity in children while ignoring the more worrying 18 to 25-year-old group.
“Alcohol was down-played because government wants the income, but it is linked to weight gain. Pubs are then blamed when the problem is widespread availability. The real blame is on retailing practice. Retailers need to clean up their act.”
Manufacturers did come in for criticism regarding pack size, especially multipacks on sale in chains in which the poorest people shop. However, government was said to be blaming industry for obesity and diverting attention away from itself.
“There are real implementation issues at all levels,” said Jebb. “It does not look at how consumers change behaviour. I am not widely optimistic and it is hard to say it is more than spin.”
Food and drink retailers and manufacturers will finally discover next month what the government expects them to do to help improve the nation’s diet.
The Food and Health Action Plan, expected out on March 9, is one component in the delivery programme for the Public Health White Paper, Choosing Health. As well as focusing heavily on nutrition, it will also be linked to delivery of the Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food.
Key to meeting government targets is the current work on nutrient profiling being undertaken by the Food Standards Agency. This sets out to define foods high in fat, sugar and salt as well as healthier options and will underpin any signposting system developed to help consumers buy healthier food.
But the concept of ‘good’ or ‘bad’ food is contentious. At a round table discussion, organised last week by the Snack, Nut & Crisp Manufacturers Association (SNACMA), Professor Thomas Sanders, director of the Nutrition, Food & Health Research Centre, said MPs’ conviction that signposting would work was “misjudged”.
“If you have a traffic light system only about 10% of foods would be green. It’s like having a skull and crossbones on the pack,” he commented, adding that experience in Australia showed consumers preferred a tick-box approach.
“The real problem with attempting to integrate the whole of nutrition into a profile is that you can’t do it,” agreed Dr Susan Jebb, head of nutrition at the Medical Research
Council. On top of this, many people are confusing signposting with labelling, she says. And when it comes to the latter Jebb agrees with Professor Sanders that Guideline Daily Amounts (GDAs) are the most useful and practical solution for consumers.
This approach is favoured by industry but Jebb said manufacturers had missed a “golden opportunity”. Jebb said: “If it had offered a GDA-based approach at the beginning it wouldn’t be in this mess.”
While agreeing GDA was the best way forward, Dr David Haslam, chair of the National Obesity Forum, could not believe the many “marketing geniuses” could not come up with a signposting scheme that worked. “With all the great minds in the industry, I cannot believe it can’t come up with something like a colour-based scheme. It’s not easy, but it must be possible,” he said.
However, his experience has shown there are bigger issues to tackle. “Focusing all issues on labelling is missing the point. The population needs to be made remotely interested in tackling the problem.”
He also took issue with the industry’s view that there is no such thing as bad food and that obesity is all about activity. But Procter & Gamble market operations director snacks, Jerry Hogg, countered there had been too little debate about lifestyle changes.
SNACMA wanted to take a lead in finding practical solutions to the issue and the discussion was just one way in which it was working with relevant parties to help devise such solutions, said director general Steve Chandler. But as he pointed out, while obesity was growing, the snacks industry had seen no growth for the past five years.
P&G’s strategy is to show consumers how snacks can fit into a healthy, balanced lifestyle. Transparent and responsible communication, re-sealable packs and portioning were all considerations, said Hogg, who added: “We will not make heroes of characters like Homer Simpson.”
In the US, P&G was involved in campaigns to educate consumers on diet and health, said Hogg, but in the UK it was “very nervous post-Cadbury”, referring to the backlash against the company’s Get Active campaign.
While a ban on advertising was widely seen as ineffective, advertising was regarded as part of the culture that sets the agenda, so a voluntary code was supported, provided the spirit of the code was adhered to.
However, like labelling, advertising was seen as a minute issue that did not tackle the deep roots of the obesity problem. The key was altering consumers’ behaviour. So while the White Paper was welcomed for signalling that public health was on the agenda like never before, the participants viewed it as “astonishingly green”.
Sanders thought it exaggerated the extent of obesity in children while ignoring the more worrying 18 to 25-year-old group.
“Alcohol was down-played because government wants the income, but it is linked to weight gain. Pubs are then blamed when the problem is widespread availability. The real blame is on retailing practice. Retailers need to clean up their act.”
Manufacturers did come in for criticism regarding pack size, especially multipacks on sale in chains in which the poorest people shop. However, government was said to be blaming industry for obesity and diverting attention away from itself.
“There are real implementation issues at all levels,” said Jebb. “It does not look at how consumers change behaviour. I am not widely optimistic and it is hard to say it is more than spin.”
No comments yet