Food bosses have called for urgent talks to discuss the “disastrous” implications of moves confirmed today to toughen the government’s junk food ad ban and promotions clampdown.
After the DHSC published a new nutrient profiling model this morning, industry leaders warned the move would put at risk the future of vast swathes of products, many that have had huge investment in reformulation to make them healthier.
The government is to launch a further consultation in the spring to decide how the new model is applied to existing regulations, including the in-store promotions ban and the HFSS advertising ban on TV and online, which only came into force at the start of this month.
The DHSC says it wants to bring in the new model by the end of the Parliament, along with other moves including mandatory health reporting, under health secretary Wes Streeting’s 10-year NHS plan.
“Food and drink manufacturers have made multimillion-pound investments to meet the nutrient profile model that underpins the new promotion and advertising restrictions, the latest of which only came into force in this month,” said FDF chief executive Karen Betts.
“This includes developing new options that make it easier for consumers to swap to healthier choices.
“We have serious concerns that changing to the new model will mean many healthier options could no longer be promoted or advertised to consumers, which runs the risk of them being delisted by retailers.
“It also undermines investment decisions that businesses thought they were making in the longer term, and the uncertainty is causing companies to pause investment in developing healthier products.”
Betts added: “We urge government to meet industry as soon as possible to discuss our concerns and how we can work together to help shift consumers towards healthier diets.”
Another leading industry source said the government’s move would be a “disaster” for the industry if it went ahead.
“This proposed NPM risks confusing shoppers and stores by classifying foods as unhealthy that can clearly be part of a healthy, balanced diet, and turning back the tide on reformulation,” the source said.
“The department urgently needs to engage manufacturers and retailers about what’s technically and realistically possible, rather than imposing a model that might fit dietary guidelines, but doesn’t fit real life.
Free sugars focus
The new model shifts from an NPM based on total sugars to free sugars. It introduces a lower threshold for free sugars intake based around the pivotal ruling by SACN in 2015 that free sugars should make up no more than 5% of energy intake.
It will cover free sugars naturally present in syrups, honey, and unsweetened fruit and vegetable juices, smoothies, purées and pastes.
The DHSC said it hoped to rope in more desserts and foods that parents mistakenly thought of as healthier options, including sweetened breakfast cereals and fruit-flavoured yoghurts that were being marketed to children.
It claimed the move could reduce childhood obesity by 170,000 cases a year.
“The soft drinks sector is playing its part in tackling the complex problem of obesity. But introducing the new Nutrient Profiling Model could lead to significant unintended consequences, undermining the drive to improve the nation’s health,” warned British Soft Drinks Association director general Andy Bagnall.
“Extending the range of products captured by the model to include fruit juice, which has widely recognised health benefits, sends mixed messages – especially when more than nine out of ten 11-18-year-olds fail to meet the target of 5 A Day, which a 150ml serving of fruit juice counts towards.
“Changing the model will also undermine the extensive investment in reformulation to reduce sugar by the wider soft drinks industry over the last decade. Classifying many more lower-sugar drinks as ‘less healthy’ and risking them being delisted as a result, would make it harder for people to make sensible choices about their diet.
“It is essential that government now engages with soft drinks manufacturers and the wider food industry to ensure application of the new model avoids these negative impacts.”
And while industry bosses expressed anger over the moves, they were warmly greeted by a string of health NGOs.
“Right now, too many parts of the food system are set up to fool young people instead of fuel them,” said D’Arcy Williams, CEO of Bite Back.
“Chocolate cereal, porridge soaked in golden syrup and sugary yoghurts are masquerading as healthy options, at a time when a third of 10/11-year-olds leave primary school at risk of food-related ill health in their future, and children are consuming 50% more free sugars than recommended.
“We welcome the government’s move to update the nutrient profiling model so that products containing sneaky sugars are taken out of the spotlight, making room for healthier products to be promoted instead.”
Dr Kath Roberts, senior lecturer in public health nutrition, University of York and co-chair of the NPM working group, said: “The updated nutrient profiling model reflects where the science is now, not where it was 15 years ago.
“It provides a far more accurate way of identifying foods that undermine health, particularly for children, and if it is applied to policy in the future, will ensure that advertising and promotions are based on evidence rather than outdated thresholds. Delaying its implementation would mean knowingly maintaining a food environment that drives poor diet and widening health inequalities.”
Lindsey Marston, policy and campaign manager at the British Dietetic Association, said: “Updating the model in line with the latest science is an important step forward. It helps close loopholes and ensures our approach reflects current nutrition evidence. This clarity strengthens efforts to improve our overall food environment. Crucially, it supports healthier options coming more to the forefront. We’re excited to see this progress shaping a healthier future.”
Sonia Pombo, head of research and impact at Action on Salt & Sugar, said: “We welcome the government’s long-awaited update to the nutrient profile model, which represents a clear improvement on the outdated 2004 model and better reflects current evidence on free sugars.
“No model is perfect, but this update is a necessary step forward and provides a stronger, more evidence-based foundation for food policy – and one that should come as no surprise to industry, having first been consulted on in 2018.”
No comments yet