Walk down the confectionery aisle of any supermarket and you’ll find products subject to government restrictions on advertising and promotions. Move a few aisles along to the breakfast spreads, however, and it’s a different story.
Take Maltesers. The confectionery bag falls within the government’s restrictions on less healthy food advertising and promotions. Yet Maltesers Spread escapes those same rules.
For Sugar Awareness Week, Action on Salt & Sugar examined 834 spreads sold in UK supermarkets, including chocolate spreads, jams, honey, syrups and nut butters. The findings expose a significant gap in the rules designed to protect people, particularly children, from the promotion and advertising of less healthy foods.
Of the 78 chocolate spreads analysed, 99% were classified as ‘less healthy’ under the fovernment’s current nutrient profiling model. Yet chocolate spreads are not among the product categories covered by advertising and promotions restrictions.
Our analysis found that 87% of chocolate spreads were high in sugars and 91% were high in saturated fat. An average 15g serving contained 6.1g of sugars, but some contained considerably more.
M&S Whipped Chocolate Spread contained 9.3g of sugar per 15g standardised serving, even though on pack their recommended serving is more than that at 20g per serving. Hazella Choco Swirl 8.9g and Nutella Hazelnut Spread with Cocoa 8.5g. Each contains more than two teaspoons’ worth of sugar. For context, the maximum recommended daily free sugars intake for children aged seven to 10 is 24g, or six teaspoons.
But the problem extends beyond chocolate spreads. We found that 98% of jams and fruit spreads and 97% of syrups were also high in sugars. Across all 834 products, 86% were estimated to be less healthy under the NPM.
Government restrictions on advertising and promotions exist because marketing influences purchasing decisions, particularly among children. Food businesses have invested time and money preparing for these restrictions, which makes consistency all the more important. Manufacturers should be working towards clear standards that apply fairly to comparable products, rather than benefiting from exemptions.
Removing the gaps in the legislation
The findings also reinforce calls made in the Recipe for Change Citizens’ Charter, recently delivered to MPs at Downing Street, urging greater accountability from food companies and stronger government action to make healthier diets more accessible and affordable. The charter reflects public frustration with a food system that too often makes less healthy choices the easiest ones.
If we want food companies to improve the nutritional quality of their products, we cannot continue with regulations that leave obvious gaps. Nor should manufacturers gain a commercial advantage because a sugary product falls outside a particular category.
Nobody is suggesting people should be prevented from buying chocolate spread. Parents can make their own decisions, but those decisions are influenced by the products company’s manufacture, market and promote.
Reducing added sugar and developing healthier alternatives should be encouraged, rather than rewarding products that happen to fall outside the rules.
If those rules are intended to limit the promotion of less healthy foods, they should apply consistently. A Cadbury bar rightfully faces advertising restrictions, and a Cadbury chocolate spread shouldn’t get a free pass.
It’s time to close the loophole.
Kawther Hashem is head of research and impact at Action on Salt & Sugar, Queen Mary University of London
No comments yet