The government confirmed last week that promotions in supermarkets on food and drinks high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) will be restricted from April 2022.
The government put forward the proposals in July last year, saying they would help tackle the UK’s growing obesity crisis. It also recently set out plans for a total ban on online adverts for HFSS products.
Industry bodies have given a hostile response to the moves, pointing to data that suggested restrictions on promoting and advertising everyday food and drink will increase prices, reduce consumer choice and threaten jobs in the industry, with limited impact on people’s calorie consumption. Recent data from IRI has suggested that the makers of HFSS food and drinks could face a £3bn a year hit to sales from the promotions ban.
The new rules on promotions will prohibit retailers from offering multibuys such as ‘buy one get one free’ or ‘3 for 2’ offers on unhealthy products. Promotions on these products will also no longer be allowed to feature in key locations, such as at checkouts, store entrances, aisle ends and their online equivalents.
The rules about promotions will only apply to larger retailers, those with 50 or more employees. The location restrictions are for stores over 2,000 sq. ft, with exemptions for specialist retailers such as chocolate shops.
Meanwhile, it was also confirmed that free refills of sugary soft drinks will also be prohibited in the eating-out sector.
Public Health Minister Jo Churchill commented: “We know families want to be presented with healthier choices. This is why we are restricting promotions and introducing a range of measures to make sure the healthy choice is the easy choice.
“Creating an environment which helps everyone eat healthier foods more regularly is crucial to improving the health of the nation.”
The government has launched an 8-week technical consultation to seek views from industry stakeholders and enforcement bodies on how the policies can be implemented.
Following the announcement, the Food and Drink Federation (FDF) criticised the plan. Its Chief Operating Officer Tim Rycroft said: “Since these ideas were first mooted some 18 months ago, the FDF has produced copious evidence of the devastating impact these proposals will have for both industry and shoppers. The proposed restrictions will not only increase the cost of food for families but it will have harsh economic impacts for food and drink manufacturers who are already bracing themselves for the new costs of Brexit and the repercussions of the global pandemic – all for an average daily 15-calorie reduction.”
He added: “The Government’s efforts to improve public health are of course welcome, but true collaboration between industry and the Government is needed to agree the practicalities of implementation. The FDF has continually attempted to engage with the Government on these proposals, to share our ideas on how to implement them in a way which both works for businesses – and achieves better health outcomes – but we have continued to be ignored.
“We recognise that multibuy deals (e.g. 2 for £1) and placement of food and drinks at checkouts are best focussed on healthier options. However, other areas in store should not be restricted by such bans. These key selling locations help to make shoppers aware of new and seasonal products throughout the year, and incentivise competition between businesses.
“We are deeply concerned that these proposals risk hindering progress with voluntary reformulation, something industry has worked with Public Health England on for the past decade. Preventing manufacturers from promoting these reformulated, healthier options to shoppers is illogical – and completely contradicts the policy aim. It will be hard to persuade some manufacturers to continue to reformulate when their efforts are punished in this way.
“We urge the Government, even at this late stage, to engage with industry to ensure that the policies introduced will be practical and evidence-based, that a sufficient period of adjustment will be allowed and that disincentives to reformulate are withdrawn.”
NAM Implications:
- Any reversal/compromise re government policy on HFSS foods is unlikely to be driven by evidence-based arguments.
- Any compromise will be driven by consumer-voter demand…
- Meanwhile, suppliers need to anticipate a full application of the policy…
- …and optimise the category opportunities that remain.
