The excellent session on “Sweeteners: The Next Level” organised by the IFST Food Science & Nutrition Group on June 25th has crystallised (sorry) some ideas I have had for a while.
We had pithy presentations on the current situation from Amy Glass (FDF), Jennifer Arthur (Leatherhead Research), Lindsey Bagley (Eureka) and Alex Rowberry (Kantar). Chair Kate Halliwell (FDF) then skillfully managed a lengthy discussion from a packed room of developers and nutritionists.
Amy gave us a useful update on how we got here. The 2015 recommendations of the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) lead to the two Childhood Obesity Plans (August 2016 and June 2018). Public Health England (PHE) then took the decision that the way to achieve the called-for reduction in childhood obesity was to reduce the amount of sugar in foods eaten by children. Since children eat the same foods as everybody else, this meant asking for the industry to reduce sugars in an intitial 13 key food categories. The PHE Year One report (May 2018) documented a 2% reduction in sugars across the 13 categories, with three categories – yoghurts and fromage frais, breakfast cereals and sweet spreads & sauces – achieving the 5% reduction in sugars PHE had specified. PHE were sympathetic to industry, pointing out that reformulation takes time. However the PHE Year Two report (due later this summer) is unlikely to be so tolerant if significant sugars reduction cannot be demonstrated and a “name and shame” approach is anticipated.
Whilst all this was going the Treasury announced (April 2016) and launched (April 2018) SIDL – the Soft Drinks Industry Levy. For drinks included in the scope an 11% reduction in sugars was seen from 2015-7. By taxing the sugars in soft drinks quarterly returns have so far raised £154m .
It seems to me that as an industry we have allowed ourself to be carried along in a wave of anti-sugar hysteria. Jennifer dated the start of the “War On Sugar” to 2014. When PHE decided that a reduction in obesity could be achieved through a reduction in the consumption of sugars they ignored the industry bodies who told them you have to deliver both a reduction in sugars and a reduction in calories. Why this is so is illustrated by the case of Nestle Wowsome. My earlier blog shows how the introduction of air has allowed Nestle to claim 30% less sugars for Wowsome, compared to the standard Nestle Milky Bar. But if you compare the nutritional content of the bars per 100g you will see the calories are virtually unchanged. Yet when Wowsome launched, the online comments from consumers clearly indicated they expected a 30% reduction in sugars to result in a 30% reduction in calories. As Lindsay pointed out this can never happen because of the calorific content of the fillers (inulin, starch, polyols) needed to replace the bulk of sugars.
The reality is that soft drinks are a special case because they are the only products where you can replace sugar without having a negative effect on cost or flavour (mostly). In no other product category is sugar replacement so easy. Alex highlighted that enjoyment remains the single most important motivation for buying food (73%), with convenience second (49%) and health coming third (31%).
By all means let’s carry on responding to the PHE initiatives of reducing portion size and NPD that provides an alternative to products high in sugars.
But thinking we are going to significantly reduce childhood obesity by forcing the industry to reformulate some very popular products is like trying to empty a bathtub with a teaspoon. It is calories that make us fat and it is calories we must reduce.
Meanwhile – SOS! (Save Our Sugar)