Kellogg’s has launched legal action against the UK government over the new HFSS (high fat, salt or sugar) rules that will restrict the promotion and placement of some of its cereals in supermarkets and convenience stores.
The restrictions are due to come into force in October as part of the government’s plan to tackle obesity. Products covered by the regulations will not be allowed to feature in volume-based promotions or be displayed in key sales locations such as checkouts, store entrances, aisle ends, and their online equivalents.
Kellogg’s is arguing that the rules fail to take into account that most people eat cereal with milk or yoghurt, which changes the nutritional profile of its products and means they would not be classified as unhealthy.
“We believe the formula being used by the government to measure the nutritional value of breakfast cereals is wrong and not implemented legally,” said Chris Silcock, UK Managing Director at Kellogg’s.
“It measures cereals dry when they are almost always eaten with milk. All of this matters because, unless you take account of the nutritional elements added when cereal is eaten with milk, the full nutritional value of the meal is not measured.”
Kellogg’s, which begins its legal action against the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) today, said it has turned to the courts after attempts to “have a reasonable conversation” with the government failed.
However, some food campaigners disagreed with Kellogg’s argument.
Caroline Cerny, from the Obesity Health Alliance, said: “This is a blatant attempt by a multinational food company to wriggle out of vital new regulations that will limit their ability to profit from marketing their unhealthy products.
“It’s shocking that a company like Kellogg’s would sue the government over its plans to help people be healthier rather than investing in removing sugar from their cereals.”
A DHSC spokesperson commented: “Breakfast cereals contribute 7% – a significant amount – to the average daily free sugar intakes of children.
“Restricting the promotion and advertising of less healthy foods is an important part of the cross-government strategy to halve childhood obesity by 2030, prevent harmful diseases and improve healthy life expectancy, so we can continue to level up health across the nation.”
Reports suggested that the government is determined to fight Kellogg’s legal case as it could lead to other food and drink producers arguing that their products’ fat, sugar, or salt content is reduced if served with other ingredients, which could undermine the new regulations.
NAM Implications:
- Kellogg’s patience has patently been reduced to a point where they have embarked on a long, costly and distracting route…
- …that will make them look bad (anti-health) in the eyes of the public.
- (hence the attacks already underway)
- Against a Government that has to win [at any cost] in order to avoid creating a precedent in terms of providing a potential loophole for other brands.
- (especially via a definition that should have been defined by the government in the early stages of the HFSS initiative…)
