Select Committee on Health Written Evidence


Memorandum by Debra Shipley MP (WP 72)

1.  INTRODUCTION

  1.1  I am currently the main parliamentary sponsor of the campaign for the Children's Food Bill, which seeks to improve children's diet related health through a range of statutory measures, including banning the promotion of unsuitable food and drink to children and introducing new nutritional standards for school meals. [137]The campaign is coordinated by Sustain and backed by 125 national organisations (including three Royal Colleges of medicine, the BMA, the Women's Institute, National Consumer Council, NUT and the National Heart Forum) and 248 MPs (signatories of EDM 1256 in the last session). I plan to reintroduce the bill during February 2005.

  1.2  In summary, I welcome the Public Health White Paper's recognition of the need to improve children's diet-related health by restricting food promotion to children and improving school meals. But I am disappointed by the failure to commit to a statutory approach to the problems that exist. I would argue instead that the Government should adopt the measures contained in the Children's Food Bill and I urge the Health Select Committee to support such an approach.

2.   Whether the proposals will enable the Government to achieve its public health goals?

  2.1  Obesity is caused by a mismatch between energy consumed as food or drink and energy expended on physical activity. There is a widespread consensus, which I support, that children's exercise levels must be increased, primarily through increasing the quantity and quality of PE in schools. However, the issue of what children eat is at least equally as important.

  2.2  As well as declining exercise levels, recent decades have seen a sharp rise in the consumption of pre-packaged foods. These foods, usually high in fat, sugar or salt, not only mean that children are often consuming far more calories than they need, they are also likely to suffer increasingly from the health consequences of obesity. FSA research has shown that the vast majority of children consume more saturated fat, added sugar and salt than the Government's recommended amounts for adults. [138]The Government's Public Health White Paper represents a potential landmark in the battle to tackle the "epidemic" of childhood obesity as it recognises for the first time the need to restrict the promotion to children of foods high in fat, sugar and salt. I welcome the Government's recognition of the scale of the problem and its desire to restrict food promotion in a comprehensive manner, including, for example, sponsorship of sporting events and through school vending machines.

  2.3  I welcome the Government's acceptance of the conclusions of the FSA review of research on the Effects of Food Promotion to Children, which found that the influence of television advertising on children's food preferences, behaviour and consumption is significant. [139]This had previously been resisted by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Ofcom, which both refused to implement significant controls on advertising to children prior to the White Paper.

  2.4  However, compared to the scale of the problem identified in the White Paper, reliance by Government on a voluntary code for industry is weak and unsatisfactory. The food industry has shown itself to be incapable of responding to numerous past calls from Government for more responsible behaviour. This is shown by the lack of positive responses to previous attempts to change practice, such as the FSA's attempts in 2000 to negotiate a voluntary code, the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport's public exhortations for more responsible behaviour in 2004, and the Health Select Committee's recommendation in its inquiry into obesity that industry voluntarily withdraw from television advertising of unsuitable foods to children. Indeed, industry to this day continues to strenuously argue and lobby against any restrictions on its actions in relation to children, rather than arguing for a level playing field where all companies can compete on an equally responsible footing.

  2.5  To take one recent example of continuing unsuitable food promotion to children, Kellogg's continues to use a deal with the Amateur Swimming Association to promote its highly processed high-sugar product, Frosties, to children. The Food Standards Agency states that 10g of sugar and 0.5g of sodium per 100g of food represents "a lot" of sugar or salt (respectively) within a food product. Kellogg's Frosties are 37g/100g sugar and 0.6g/100g sodium, which exceeds (and sugar drastically so) both of these thresholds. However, Kellogg's has branded children's swimming with its character Tony the Tiger, including having large banners at swimming pools, logos on children's swimming badges and ASA logos on its cereal boxes. This seeks to associate a highly inappropriate food with a healthy activity in a way designed to appeal to small children and mislead their parents. The deal goes against the current FSA guidance on promotion to children, which says that food manufacturers should only associate cartoon characters and sporting activities with healthy products. [140]The fact that a major company like Kellogg's can so blatantly disregard official guidance in this way, shows the urgent need for statutory controls.

  2.6  On the related issue of food in schools, I welcome the White Paper's aim of reducing consumption of fat, salt and sugar and of requiring Ofsted inspectors to look at healthy eating and school meals. It is disappointing, however, that the goal for all schools to achieve healthy school status is 2009—too late for the millions of children now attending these schools.

  2.7  The current standard of meals in many schools is abysmal—unsurprising given the small amounts of funding provided for the purpose. I therefore welcome the decision to revise primary and secondary meal standards and the promised consideration of introducing nutrient-based standards. Exacting nutrient-based standards are absolutely vital for ensuring that food is healthy and of high enough quality so that children actually wish to eat school meals. The Government should go further in prioritising school meals and indicate that it will provide LEAs and schools with additional funding to allow high-quality, balanced and nutritious meals to be provided for all children.

3.   Whether the proposals are appropriate, will be effective and whether they represent value for money?

  3.1  Given the scale of the obesity problem and the refusal of the food industry to make meaningful change to its behaviour, I am deeply concerned that the White Paper gives responsibility for introducing the new regime to Ofcom. Ofcom is a body that is highly sympathetic to the TV and advertising industries and ill-equipped to act decisively against its stakeholders in the interests of public health. Its lack of impartiality was demonstrated following its previous evaluation of the need to more tightly regulate advertising to children, as requested by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in December 2003. Ofcom chose to carry out unnecessary and secretive new research on the effects of advertising, in spite of the recent publication of the far more comprehensive and extensively peer-reviewed FSA review. Following the review, Ofcom also issued a misleading media release concerning its research and the conclusions that could be drawn, which resulted in newspapers inaccurately reporting that Ofcom had already decided not to restrict food advertising to children. Ofcom has also, in the past, engaged in differential treatment of industry compared to health and public interest groups.

  3.2  Ofcom's annual plan consultation document for 2005-06 illustrates why it is unsuitable for the task it has been given. Admitting that it operates with a bias against intervention, Ofcom's operational principles state "Ofcom will intervene where there is a specific statutory duty to work towards a public policy goal markets alone cannot achieve." [141]The Government proposes no such statutory duty in respect of restricting food advertising to children. The Public Health White Paper is not mentioned in Ofcom's annual plan consultation document. There is merely a single sentence commitment to take forward a review of the rules on food advertising to children and a promise to continue to work to understand and assess options for protecting children. [142]This illustrates the low priority Ofcom attaches to the review it has been asked to undertake. There is also still no recognition from Ofcom that tough restrictions are needed on food promotion to children, and no evidence that the contents of the White Paper have been accepted or have produced a change in the organisation's policy.

4.   WHETHER THE NECESSARY PUBLIC HEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE AND MECHANISMS EXIST TO ENSURE THAT PROPOSALS WILL BE IMPLEMENTED AND GOALS ACHIEVED

  4.1  If Ofcom is to fulfil the role it has been given, I would strongly urge the Government to give the FSA joint control of the process and to issue far firmer guidance to Ofcom on how its new review is to be carried out and evaluated. The Government also needs to be clearer on the situation that it is seeking to create by 2007 and provide information on how it will independently monitor whether the voluntary approach has succeeded. A far quicker and more effective method of achieving the Government's public health goals would simply be to introduce the measures contained in the Children's Food Bill.

January 2005











137   See www.sustainweb.org/child_index.asp. Back

138   Food Standards Agency (2000) National Diet and Nutrition Survey of Young People 4-18 years, TSO, London. Back

139   Food Standards Agency (2003) Review of research on the effects of food promotion to children, FSA, London. Back

140   Food Standards Agency (2004) Action Plan on Food Promotion and Children's Diets. Back

141   Ofcom Ofcom's Annual Plan 2005/06 Consultation Document, p 5. Back

142   Ofcom Ofcom's Annual Plan 2005/06 Consultation Document, p 18. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 2 June 2005