BMJ 2015;350:h676 doi: 10.1136/bmj.h676 (Published 5 February 2015)
Page 1 of 1
News
NEWS Food “responsibility deal” has cost 6000 lives, professor tells meeting Nigel Hawkes London
A “responsibility deal,” under which food manufacturers and retailers agree to sell healthier products if the government refrains from legislation, has achieved gains “worth celebrating,” a meeting in London heard on 3 February.
The deal has been criticised as being soft on the food industry and easily manipulated, but Susan Jebb, of the University of Oxford, who chairs the deal’s food network, put up a stout defence of its record at a Westminster Food and Nutrition Forum held at the Royal Aeronautical Society. “It’s a judgement call, but I personally don’t buy the case that it would have been better done by legislation,” she said. “That’s very difficult when you’re talking about product composition.” Parliament would have been unlikely to find the time for legislation, which would have been difficult to draft effectively, added Jebb. The risk, she said, would have been passing legislation that put limits only on foods marketed to children—“a tiny bit of partial action, which is not going to change the vast majority of foods which are marketed, which is what we’ve been trying to do.”
But Graham MacGregor, a professor who has campaigned on salt and sugar in food, disagreed. He said that the “responsibility deal” formulated by Andrew Lansley, the former health secretary, had been a disaster—delaying progress on salt reduction begun by the Food Standards Agency and costing, by his reckoning, 6000 lives. The food industry was slowly poisoning people and the responsibility deal was rubbish, he said. MacGregor added, “We need a ban on the marketing of unhealthy foods. Jeremy Hunt [the current health secretary] doesn’t want to do it. We’ve got to force him. We’ve got to prepare for war, and then the industry will give way.”
Jebb gave examples of how she thought the deal had worked. She said that 70% of high street chains were now committed to
For personal use only: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions
calorie labelling and that two thirds of manufacturers had signed up to salt reductions. Regarding saturated fats half of manufacturers were committed to reductions, she said, and a good start had been made in reducing sugar in soft drinks, as well as portion sizes in confectionery.
“If individual companies had just done that on their own it would have been a drop in the ocean, but by marshalling collective action we’ve begun to achieve something on portion size, which I think stands a chance of putting a brake on supersizing and helping to reframe social norms about portion size,” Jebb said.
She admitted, however, that the deal had failed to reach any generic commitment on the responsible promotion of foods, adding, “I recognise the pressures on business, and promotion goes to the heart of business competitiveness, but nevertheless I think that a pledge would have been good. We haven’t achieved that. The lack of a commitment is deeply disappointing. We may now need to look at harder policy options.” Andrea Martinez-Inchausti, of the British Retail Consortium, agreed that voluntary agreements could work, arguing that the reduction in trans fats in foods had been better managed in the United Kingdom than in Denmark, where legislation had been introduced. “We’re not strongly opposed to legislation, but it has to be practical, proportionate and targeted,” she said. Lansley had wanted to make progress more quickly, she noted, and the outcome had been largely successful. thebmj.com. News: Action is needed to tackle UK’s “astonishing” abundance of food, MPs are told (BMJ 2015;350:h665; doi:10.1136/ bmj.h665) Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h676 © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2015
Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe
Page 1 of 1
News
NEWS Food “responsibility deal” has cost 6000 lives, professor tells meeting Nigel Hawkes London
A “responsibility deal,” under which food manufacturers and retailers agree to sell healthier products if the government refrains from legislation, has achieved gains “worth celebrating,” a meeting in London heard on 3 February.
The deal has been criticised as being soft on the food industry and easily manipulated, but Susan Jebb, of the University of Oxford, who chairs the deal’s food network, put up a stout defence of its record at a Westminster Food and Nutrition Forum held at the Royal Aeronautical Society. “It’s a judgement call, but I personally don’t buy the case that it would have been better done by legislation,” she said. “That’s very difficult when you’re talking about product composition.” Parliament would have been unlikely to find the time for legislation, which would have been difficult to draft effectively, added Jebb. The risk, she said, would have been passing legislation that put limits only on foods marketed to children—“a tiny bit of partial action, which is not going to change the vast majority of foods which are marketed, which is what we’ve been trying to do.”
But Graham MacGregor, a professor who has campaigned on salt and sugar in food, disagreed. He said that the “responsibility deal” formulated by Andrew Lansley, the former health secretary, had been a disaster—delaying progress on salt reduction begun by the Food Standards Agency and costing, by his reckoning, 6000 lives. The food industry was slowly poisoning people and the responsibility deal was rubbish, he said. MacGregor added, “We need a ban on the marketing of unhealthy foods. Jeremy Hunt [the current health secretary] doesn’t want to do it. We’ve got to force him. We’ve got to prepare for war, and then the industry will give way.”
Jebb gave examples of how she thought the deal had worked. She said that 70% of high street chains were now committed to
For personal use only: See rights and reprints http://www.bmj.com/permissions
calorie labelling and that two thirds of manufacturers had signed up to salt reductions. Regarding saturated fats half of manufacturers were committed to reductions, she said, and a good start had been made in reducing sugar in soft drinks, as well as portion sizes in confectionery.
“If individual companies had just done that on their own it would have been a drop in the ocean, but by marshalling collective action we’ve begun to achieve something on portion size, which I think stands a chance of putting a brake on supersizing and helping to reframe social norms about portion size,” Jebb said.
She admitted, however, that the deal had failed to reach any generic commitment on the responsible promotion of foods, adding, “I recognise the pressures on business, and promotion goes to the heart of business competitiveness, but nevertheless I think that a pledge would have been good. We haven’t achieved that. The lack of a commitment is deeply disappointing. We may now need to look at harder policy options.” Andrea Martinez-Inchausti, of the British Retail Consortium, agreed that voluntary agreements could work, arguing that the reduction in trans fats in foods had been better managed in the United Kingdom than in Denmark, where legislation had been introduced. “We’re not strongly opposed to legislation, but it has to be practical, proportionate and targeted,” she said. Lansley had wanted to make progress more quickly, she noted, and the outcome had been largely successful. thebmj.com. News: Action is needed to tackle UK’s “astonishing” abundance of food, MPs are told (BMJ 2015;350:h665; doi:10.1136/ bmj.h665) Cite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h676 © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2015
Subscribe: http://www.bmj.com/subscribe
