For food and drink businesses, the most important message in the recent Health and Social Care Committee’s report is not that more regulation is coming, it’s that unclear, delayed and uneven regulation is failing everyone, including companies trying to plan, invest and compete.
That delay is not hypothetical. The commitment to introduce healthy food standards was announced more than a year ago, yet the consultation promised for spring 2026 has still not appeared. That creates uncertainty for businesses trying to plan, invest and reformulate. Businesses already investing in healthier sales should not be left waiting while competitors that do less continue to gain a commercial advantage.
The committee is right to argue that regulation can create a level playing field. At present, businesses that invest in healthier products, reformulation, clearer labelling or more balanced promotions can find themselves commercially disadvantaged by competitors that do less. Voluntary action has produced pockets of progress, but it has not established consistent expectations across the market.
The benefits of food regulation
The proposed mandatory healthy sales reporting system could begin to change that. Requiring all large food businesses to report the proportion of healthier products sold would give government, investors and the public a picture of progress. Just as importantly, it would give companies a common measurement framework against which to plan.
Furthermore, the government needs to define clearly which products count as healthier, how sales are measured, how own-label and branded products are treated, and how different retail formats are compared. Targets must be credible, proportionate and phased, with sufficient lead time for businesses to adjust ranges, promotions and supply chains.
The same ambiguity runs through several of the committee’s other recommendations. Reporting the balance of promotions offered on HFSS products compared with fruit & vegetables would help close the gap because promotional strategy drives purchasing. A consistent reporting requirement would allow retailers to understand whether their commercial activity is supporting or undermining their health commitments and prevent companies making selective claims based on a few healthier promotions while the overall promotional mix remains weighted towards less healthy products.
Product placement and advertising need the same treatment. Extending the regulations to require fruit & vegetables in prominent locations, and to include online special-offer pages, would update the rules for how people shop. Retailers should not face one set of expectations in store and another online. Clear, channel-neutral rules would make implementation simpler and reduce opportunities for competitors to exploit loopholes.
On advertising, the restrictions on identifiable HFSS products are weakened as brand and range advertising remain outside scope. That creates ambiguity for advertisers and rewards those best able to work around the intention of the rules. Bringing brand and range advertising within scope, alongside a review of social media and outdoor advertising, would create greater consistency across platforms.
Mandatory front-of-pack labelling would also offer greater certainty. The committee favours the traffic-light system, with implementation by January 2028. Many businesses already use it, which should reduce disruption. A single mandatory system would also remove inconsistency in which similar products can present nutritional information in different ways, making comparison harder for shoppers.
The risks of delay
None of this means regulation should be designed without regard to cost or reality. The committee acknowledges that changes to labelling, promotions and reporting require investment and lead time. Industry expertise should inform implementation. But consultation cannot become a route to delay, dilution or exemptions that undermine compliant businesses.
The practical opportunity is to replace fragmented voluntary action with clear, measurable rules applied fairly and delivered to firm deadlines. Companies need to know what data they must collect, what standards they will be expected to meet and when those requirements will take effect.
Good regulation does not remove competition. It changes the basis of competition, encouraging companies to compete on innovation, value and healthier products rather than on who can exploit gaps in the rules. That is the level playing field the sector clearly and urgently needs.
Katharine Jenner is executive director of the Obesity Health Alliance
No comments yet