Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government on the basis of what health
evidence, if any, they have postponed the planned ban on
two-for-one offers for foods high in fat, salt and sugar.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health
and Social Care () (Con)
The volume price promotion restrictions have been delayed for two
years while we prioritise the implementation of the location
restrictions. This is the most impactful policy for reducing
children’s calorie consumption, and accounts for 96% of the
expected health benefits of the promotions policy. Kantar data
suggests that it is working. The evidence suggests that this will
have the biggest impact on tackling obesity.
(LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply, but according to the Food
Foundation’s most recent Broken Plate report, the most deprived
20% of families would have to spend half of their disposable
income on food to comply with the Government’s healthy diet
advice. Bearing that in mind, why are the Government continuing
to allow retailers to sell HFSS foods, which can make people ill,
at a discount? Do the government really want to encourage people
to buy cheap food that could, in the end, kill them?
(Con)
First, I thank the noble Baroness for her tireless work in this
space. I think we have shown that our restrictions are absolutely
placed to inform and educate people so that they can have a
healthy diet. I mentioned what we have done on location—the
so-called pester power avoidance. It is estimated that these
measures will reduce calorific intake by 96%. That is the prize
that we are looking at here.
(Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State
for Health actually believes in public health policy, because his
recent speech at the Centre for Policy Studies—I watched all of
it—indicates he does not?
(Con)
He definitely does. He was very much behind these measures. Just
look at what we are doing in the smoking space, through the
swapping out of cigarettes for vapes—another example of where we
are taking action. As I mentioned, the evidence from Kantar
suggests that it is working.
(Con)
My Lords, if a product is marketed legally in the United Kingdom,
why should His Majesty’s Government feel they have to interfere
at all with the marketing of that product? I understand the point
about education and totally accept it, but is it not wrong for
His Majesty’s Government to restrict what is a legally marketed
product?
(Con)
We are trying to educate, inform and nudge. The best example of
all is encouraging the industry to reformulate its foods to be
healthier. At this point, I am glad to say that, since we
introduced these restrictions, Mars, Galaxy, Bounty and Snickers
have reformulated, and even Mr Kipling’s Deliciously Good cakes
are compliant.
(LD)
My Lords, next week it will be three years since the Government
committed to legislate to end the promotion of high-fat, salt and
sugar foods by volume. Would a reasonable person think that this
commitment has been met when the legislation has been passed but
not implemented, and will not be for another couple of years?
(Con)
As I mentioned, the key is giving industry time to adjust so that
it can reformulate. We would all agree that, if you can get the
same taste but it is a lot healthier, with less fat, salt and
sugar, that must be a good outcome. The examples that I just gave
show that, and it is working.
(CB)
The NHS Food Scanner is promoting to children a number of
ultra-processed food items. Do the Government not think that this
is quite perverse given the new knowledge about what exactly
ultra-processed food means? It is not just about the sugars,
salts and fat but about the chemical destruction and
reformulation of foodstuffs into something else.
(Con)
As I mentioned in answer to a Question on ultra-processed food
yesterday, as a definition that is not particularly helpful
because wholemeal bread, baked beans and cereals are all examples
of ultra-processed food. The real point is the content of the
food, and that is what our regulations should look to.
(Lab)
My Lords, when the anti-obesity strategy was published, this ban
was said to be supporting food affordability, citing evidence
that multi-buy offers such as “buy one, get one free” increase
the amount that people spend on foods by around 20% but often on
foods high in fat, sugar and salt. With the Government now making
the opposite argument to support this postponement, do they no
longer stand by the evidence? Would a ban on these deals make it
easier or harder for those who are struggling to get by?
(Con)
As we have mentioned before, our general direction of travel is
to educate, reformulate and give people the best chances through
having choices, and a good start in life through the fresh fruit
and vegetables that we have in schools. Those are the things that
will really make the difference.
(Con)
Does my noble friend the Minister recall, on that exact point
about access to fresh fruit and vegetables, the very successful
scheme that we pioneered about 12 years ago with the Association
of Convenience Stores so that corner shops would carry fresh
fruit and vegetables close to the till and make them accessible,
with us carrying the risk of wastage? That led to a significant
increase in corner shops selling fresh fruit and vegetables.
(Con)
To me, that is a great example of how working in co-operation to
allow people to make the right choices is the best way. For
instance, 78% of shoppers have said that they are in favour of
not having unhealthy items at the till because they know that
they give in to pester power. That is why this has been focus of
what we have done.
(CB)
My Lords, notwithstanding the interesting “legal but harmful”
point made by the noble Lord, , I think that most of the House
would agree that reducing high-fat, sugar and salt content is a
good idea. However, the Minister has at least twice mentioned
reduction of calories. Does he acknowledge and recognise that
while one way to address obesity is calorie reduction, it is not
an appropriate message for everybody and it certainly is not the
sole cause of obesity across this country?
(Con)
The noble Baroness is correct; this is a complicated area, and a
number of measures need to be taken. The best thing is the
promotion of healthy foods, and the fresh fruit and veg
initiatives that we have talked about today are perfect examples
of that.
(Lab)
My Lords, some years ago, the British-Irish Parliamentary
Assembly looked at obesity in children, during the course of
which we went to Amsterdam to look at what was going on there.
Two of the things that were very enlightening were educating
children in schools and educating pregnant mothers. What about
that?
(Con)
I am aware of the Amsterdam initiative. Off the back of that, the
OECD said that there were four main strands to what countries
should be doing: first, information and education, such as the
good examples I spoke about; secondly, increasing healthy choices
through the reformulation of foods, which again is something we
are doing; thirdly, the modifying of costs—the sugar tax, which
has reduced sugar consumption by as much as 40%, is a perfect
example of that; and, fourthly, restrictions on where product
placement should take place. I am absolutely familiar with the
initiative in Amsterdam, and am pleased to see that we have taken
action on a lot of those things.
(Lab)
Is the Minister not ashamed about what has happened to children’s
health while the Conservatives have been in power since 2010? We
have more obese children than ever before, and a plethora of
policies which would work if implemented, yet so many are
delayed. Will the Minister give a commitment to go back and look
at the regulations governing children’s school meals? They were
changed in 2014, with permission granted to give children more
sugar. The Government were reviewing this in 2019 and 2020, but
that stopped because of Covid. Will the Minister give a
commitment again to start a review? Even if they cannot implement
it, the next Government could.
(Con)
The noble Lord is correct: good school meals are fundamental to
all of this. My understanding is that the review is something
that the Government are looking to do, but I will happily provide
more details on what the plan is.
(CB)
My Lords, can I just test with the Minister whether there is
still a commitment to the policy of banning two-for-one
promotions? If there is, is there an effective deal going on with
the food producers that they will change certain processes if
this ban continues to be pushed backwards and effectively talked
out of effect?
(Con)
There is absolutely the commitment for October 2025. The tactic
behind that is to give industry the time to make its food
healthier. That is exactly what it is doing in the examples I
mentioned, including the Deliciously Good cakes. It is good to
see industry respond in that way.
