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
| 
