10/02/2017 Select Committees


Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS


10/02/2017

Recorded coverage of the Health Committee's session on childhood obesity, with evidence from Coca-Cola and public health minister Nicola Blackwood, from Tuesday 7 February.


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 10/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Good afternoon. Thank you for coming to this afternoon's follow-up

:00:27.:00:32.

session on the Government's childhood obesity plan and thank

:00:33.:00:37.

you, too, to all of you for agreeing to reschedule this afternoon's

:00:38.:00:39.

session. Can you all hear me? Sorry you were

:00:40.:00:44.

indicating you couldn't hear me? Is there anything we can do about the

:00:45.:00:46.

sound levels? There is no amplification. So we are

:00:47.:00:51.

all going to have to project a bit more. Can you hear me all right now,

:00:52.:00:54.

Sir? Joonchts yes, ma'am. Right. So, before we get started,

:00:55.:01:00.

can I please ask each of the panel to introduce themselves to those

:01:01.:01:03.

following from outside the world, stating with yourself Paul Dobson

:01:04.:01:08.

son I am Professor of business Strategy and public policy and also

:01:09.:01:13.

head of Norwich Business School at the University of East Anglia. I'm

:01:14.:01:18.

dre director of the committee's of advertising practice. They are the

:01:19.:01:21.

committees that right the UK advertising codes.

:01:22.:01:26.

Thank you. Good afternoon, I'm John skad Woods, the general manager of

:01:27.:01:31.

Coca-Cola Great Britain and Ireland. I'm the deputy director for Food and

:01:32.:01:37.

Sustainability at the British Retail Consortium, the trade organisation

:01:38.:01:39.

representing the retail industry. Thank you to all of you for coming.

:01:40.:01:46.

We open the questioning. I'm wearing two hats, a Chair of

:01:47.:01:53.

this committee but also on the all-party group on adult and

:01:54.:01:57.

childhood obesity. In November 2015, this committee

:01:58.:02:00.

published their report calling for bold and brave action, do you think

:02:01.:02:04.

the Government's childhood obesity plan fulfils that call? We start

:02:05.:02:07.

with Professor Dobson? Thank you very much for the question. No, I

:02:08.:02:12.

don't think it goes far enough. I think there is one decisive measure,

:02:13.:02:18.

and it is very clear will you the soft drinks industry levy. I think

:02:19.:02:23.

there are other measures which wouldn't to provide incentives which

:02:24.:02:27.

would hopefully reduce consumption food and encourage children to

:02:28.:02:33.

undertake more physical activity but for myself I would've wanted firmer

:02:34.:02:38.

objectives, with clearly defined milestones and bench marks. I

:02:39.:02:45.

would've wanted to see some positive actions actions particularly around

:02:46.:02:51.

the retail environment, which would help consumers adjust their

:02:52.:02:53.

consumption and purchasing patterns and I'm sure there are other

:02:54.:02:57.

activities as well but my main interest is really around the retail

:02:58.:03:01.

environment and I would've liked to have seen some firmer policy

:03:02.:03:10.

measures in that context. From my perspective, the plan

:03:11.:03:16.

contains a range of measures intended to tackle obese yant we're

:03:17.:03:20.

supportive of that. In terms of my professional expertise, the plan

:03:21.:03:25.

looks forward to the work that would be undertaken in temples

:03:26.:03:28.

non-broadcast advertising of food and soft drinks high and fat, salty

:03:29.:03:33.

for children and since the plan was published, we have now introduced a

:03:34.:03:40.

been on such products in a number non-broadcast advertising.

:03:41.:03:43.

I thank you for the opportunity to be here. I talked on the committee's

:03:44.:03:52.

work gave, was well-thought through, considered and measured on a

:03:53.:03:55.

complicated, complex issue. There was a lot of things in the scald

:03:56.:04:01.

bopd and brave report. Some of which I agreed with and some of which I

:04:02.:04:05.

didn't agree with but I was surprised then when the obesity

:04:06.:04:09.

strategy Kim came out, the only concrete measure was the soft drinks

:04:10.:04:12.

industry levy, which in itself I don't think is going to make any

:04:13.:04:20.

meaningful impact on obesity rates for either children or adults. From

:04:21.:04:23.

our side I was interested to see that for the first time, the

:04:24.:04:27.

strategy uses the balance of regulation verses volume tri. With

:04:28.:04:30.

the regulatory measures on the levy, however we were a little bit

:04:31.:04:34.

dispointed that that of level of regulation was not expanded to areas

:04:35.:04:38.

of product improvement as we had been calling for. We are a little

:04:39.:04:42.

bit concerned that the plan does not specify how we are going to achieve

:04:43.:04:46.

the level playing field which we believe is so important.

:04:47.:04:57.

Thank you. I'm an ex-retailer, I spent 18 years

:04:58.:05:01.

in retail, so this next section is very important to me, really. I know

:05:02.:05:06.

all the secret ways to get people to spend more. My first question really

:05:07.:05:12.

is to Professor Dobson - does your work on the impact of retail pricing

:05:13.:05:16.

on overeating support our recommendation for action on price

:05:17.:05:20.

promotion and the promotion of food within a retail environment? Yes. It

:05:21.:05:27.

does. Let me explain what I think is the crucial issue - we have to think

:05:28.:05:31.

of the general public as both shoppers and consumers. The two

:05:32.:05:34.

things are not exactly identical. Because what people buy is not

:05:35.:05:37.

necessarily what they eat. They could be buying products for other

:05:38.:05:42.

people in the household to eat but, also, storing products that they may

:05:43.:05:47.

consume at some later point or core share but the key point about

:05:48.:05:53.

overeating starts really with overpurchasing because with wns

:05:54.:05:57.

you've bought the product, then the greater likelihood is you are

:05:58.:06:00.

actually going to consume it. This is where price something really

:06:01.:06:04.

quite vital because of all the instruments of marketing, it is

:06:05.:06:06.

actually pricing that drives the most around what West End up

:06:07.:06:10.

purchasing. So, the pricing inp sentives you put into the market and

:06:11.:06:16.

the way that you steer con-- pricing incentive you put into the market

:06:17.:06:19.

and the way you steer consumers to goods matters. So my work focuses on

:06:20.:06:24.

a quite a lot on quantity discounts. They could take various forms, in

:06:25.:06:29.

the form of multi-buys, where you, for example, buy three for the price

:06:30.:06:33.

of two. But they could be quantity discounts just on a very large

:06:34.:06:38.

container. You get a cheaper unit price than on a smaller one. That

:06:39.:06:44.

clearly steers consumers towards buying large amounts. Once they

:06:45.:06:47.

purchase the large amounts, then there is a likelihood they are going

:06:48.:06:52.

to consume those large amounts. So there is plenty of evidence that

:06:53.:06:56.

suggests that portion sizes and the way that consumers view them as the

:06:57.:07:02.

norm dictate how much they eat and we know that over time, what are

:07:03.:07:07.

perceived as the form has increased and, therefore, portion sizes, in

:07:08.:07:12.

particular, seem to be a major driver in encouraging overeating,

:07:13.:07:14.

along with snacking. Just on that point about portion sizes. Obviously

:07:15.:07:21.

in the news recently, about a certain chocolate brand making their

:07:22.:07:26.

chocolate bars forward do you think this is a good way forward? Yes.

:07:27.:07:32.

There are two aspect to this, one is whether firms do it in a sneaky

:07:33.:07:36.

fashion so, they don't actually tell you what goes on in the form of

:07:37.:07:44.

shrinkflation, so you reduce the quantity but don't inform the

:07:45.:07:48.

public, so they don't know until after they published it. There is an

:07:49.:07:53.

alternative, you could signal a size reduction and use it as marketing

:07:54.:07:56.

and say - we are doing this, because we want to reduce the number of

:07:57.:08:00.

calories that are perceived in a portion. So there is potentially two

:08:01.:08:03.

benefits that could arise. Thank you. Carrying on with this question,

:08:04.:08:09.

are there any regulatory actions which could be taken or do you think

:08:10.:08:15.

it is too difficult to find a way to curb price promotion? If I come back

:08:16.:08:19.

to the quantity discount dilemma, we see it in every retail environment.

:08:20.:08:24.

I don't just mean when you go into a supermarket and purchase. When you

:08:25.:08:28.

go into a fast-food outlet, you are face with the same issue, for a few

:08:29.:08:35.

pence more, you can get a bhoel lot more food and drink so. This issue

:08:36.:08:40.

of inconsistent unit prices prevads retail environments. You could

:08:41.:08:44.

regulate to ask that they set a common unit price, regardless of the

:08:45.:08:48.

size. That would be quite a drastic measure to do that. But there are -

:08:49.:08:54.

the ways that you could seek to control particular extreme cases, so

:08:55.:08:58.

e for example n France my understanding is they've recently

:08:59.:09:01.

banned free refills of drinks. That would be a measure. You may think

:09:02.:09:06.

that buying buy one get one free offers would solve the same problem

:09:07.:09:10.

but they could charge you an extra penny for the extra amount. So that

:09:11.:09:14.

doesn't resolve around it, there are ways to work around it. I think that

:09:15.:09:20.

adds a critical issue, you need to think through what the ramifications

:09:21.:09:23.

of any measure would be. You certainly don't want to have effects

:09:24.:09:29.

which could be dely tierous because you have not reasoned through how

:09:30.:09:33.

the venders would respond to the measureses.

:09:34.:09:38.

Does the rest of the panel want to add anything? No? If the government

:09:39.:09:49.

right to claim that a lot of forward-thinking businesses are

:09:50.:09:52.

already making changes? You have mentioned a couple. There are a

:09:53.:09:59.

number of instances where some companies have recognised that there

:10:00.:10:04.

is a direction towards encouragement towards sugar production for example

:10:05.:10:09.

all they are trying to reformulate their products, sizes accordingly,

:10:10.:10:22.

signalling a benefit. Any voluntary agreement, the problem is that

:10:23.:10:27.

companies first and foremost, profit motivated, will focus on revenue and

:10:28.:10:32.

profits. They will only go so far as it suits their bottom line. Clearly

:10:33.:10:39.

they have to think of what competitors will do if they

:10:40.:10:42.

co-ordinated move together that might not be quite a disadvantage to

:10:43.:10:49.

reducing size but if you left it to an individual firm they might be

:10:50.:10:52.

reluctant to do it until other firms follow suit and this is where

:10:53.:10:58.

government policy can act as a co-ordinator, overcoming natural

:10:59.:11:02.

competition through lack of coordination because you are

:11:03.:11:07.

requiring the industry to move in that way. This is what is

:11:08.:11:10.

interesting about the soft drinks levy. It applies to the industry

:11:11.:11:15.

together so they will all have to respond than take account of that

:11:16.:11:24.

measure. Leading the way for years in the way of nutrition values, in

:11:25.:11:34.

terms of whether changes have been introduced in areas like marketing

:11:35.:11:38.

and promotions our members have been trying hard to move away from

:11:39.:11:46.

certain type of marketing and promotion that customers do not one

:11:47.:11:49.

announcements have been made by a number of our members in the press,

:11:50.:11:55.

moving away from buy one get one free. There has been progress. Some

:11:56.:12:02.

of those shows in the figures. When the committee met last the evidence

:12:03.:12:04.

from Public Health England had just been published and 40% of food was

:12:05.:12:10.

being sold on promotion and the latest figures show a deep case in

:12:11.:12:22.

-- a fall down to 27%. There has been a move away from promotions and

:12:23.:12:28.

certain types of promotions. There has been changed taken by individual

:12:29.:12:34.

companies. Do you have any evidence that the government's action will

:12:35.:12:40.

accelerate a shifting market? For the purpose of achieving that level

:12:41.:12:43.

playing field and getting everybody to the same, there needs to be

:12:44.:12:47.

intervention. Last couple of questions. To the same panel

:12:48.:12:54.

members. What more could or should the retail industry be doing to

:12:55.:12:59.

reduce the impact on purchase of unhealthy food? Turning it on its

:13:00.:13:04.

head, what more could be done to make sure that people promote

:13:05.:13:13.

healthy food options? Do you want to go first? One of the issues is about

:13:14.:13:20.

these quantity discounts. You have to ask yourself why it is mostly

:13:21.:13:24.

unhealthy foods you get this. This is because of the nature of the

:13:25.:13:29.

dilemma in the consumer's mind. They want to have a bargain so tempted to

:13:30.:13:34.

go large but the angel on their shoulder is suggesting that they

:13:35.:13:42.

restrain from how much they purchase and consume. It is because of that

:13:43.:13:46.

tension that you get these incredibly different unit prices.

:13:47.:13:53.

One example, if you went to a very well-known large retailer today and

:13:54.:13:56.

purchased a very well-known carbonated drinks brand you would

:13:57.:14:00.

see a fourfold difference in the unit price between a small size and

:14:01.:14:08.

a large size or multi-buy. That kind of incentive, even on an unhealthy

:14:09.:14:15.

product, is going to drive bargain hunters to purchase that, the

:14:16.:14:20.

extremity of that. Or unhealthy foods you do not tend to see that,

:14:21.:14:26.

one reason is the products are often perishable. We all about their

:14:27.:14:31.

products of not consuming fresh fruit and vegetables quickly, they

:14:32.:14:34.

will perish and end up being thrown away. That limits them to some

:14:35.:14:40.

extent but equally there is not this kind of tension in somebody's mind

:14:41.:14:44.

about the difference between wanting a bargain but knowing that actually

:14:45.:14:50.

it could be harmful. You will always get this problem with unhealthy

:14:51.:14:54.

products. There will be this tension. There is a further aspect

:14:55.:14:58.

unhealthy products and that is that they tend to have expandable demand.

:14:59.:15:03.

That is where you see those products which have the largest proportion of

:15:04.:15:14.

sales driven by promotions on price because they are expandable and

:15:15.:15:18.

consumers will grab bargains. Price promotions lies at the heart of this

:15:19.:15:24.

problem in the retail environment. Do you have anything to add? Every

:15:25.:15:31.

single retailer has an internal policy that would make them balance

:15:32.:15:37.

the quantity of products, if you want to describe them as high fat,

:15:38.:15:41.

sugar and salt, and every retailer has a commitment to promote

:15:42.:15:48.

healthier moderates. That was incredibly obvious over Christmas

:15:49.:15:54.

when there was a price war over the vegetables that were to be used in

:15:55.:15:59.

the Christmas dinner. It was one of the first time where there was a

:16:00.:16:03.

real place war over carrots for example and that was certainly well

:16:04.:16:07.

received by customers. The percentage of customers at the

:16:08.:16:13.

acceptability of what customers want to see has changed and with that the

:16:14.:16:17.

manner and type of products being promoted and how they are being

:16:18.:16:21.

promoted by the majority of members are looking at different ways of

:16:22.:16:26.

positively promoting and providing information on healthier products.

:16:27.:16:34.

We have heard a lot in the press and media focusing on products displayed

:16:35.:16:38.

at the checkout. I saw a study that says that we collectively purchase a

:16:39.:16:43.

third of our sugar and saturated fat as a result of the products we see

:16:44.:16:48.

on end of while promotions. Would you call that? -- agony. Should

:16:49.:16:56.

there be a different area to focus on? Interesting question. Part of

:16:57.:17:06.

the importance of place within the retail environment and what we see.

:17:07.:17:17.

End of isles, they are noticeable and we have to navigate around them

:17:18.:17:22.

and they draw our attention and that lends itself to the possibility of

:17:23.:17:29.

impulse purchases. Up to 40% of what consumers buy is an impulse

:17:30.:17:33.

purchase. That means that when they go into a supermarket we typically

:17:34.:17:38.

have a mental shopping list or maybe a written shopping list but in

:17:39.:17:41.

addition to that we will make purchases on the spur of the moment

:17:42.:17:46.

depending on what we see. Those signals of them come with bright

:17:47.:17:51.

yellow, orange and red signs grabbing our visual attention but

:17:52.:17:58.

there is often framing, that when we see 50% off, 40% off, it attracts as

:17:59.:18:02.

as a potential bargain because of that framing and we end up putting

:18:03.:18:06.

those products in our shopping baskets as a result. I have

:18:07.:18:12.

understood cases that I have looked at as part of my analysis that there

:18:13.:18:17.

has been a 30 fold increase because of products being put on the end of

:18:18.:18:25.

isles. The volume increase could be massive on these displays and could

:18:26.:18:31.

be particularly successful if placed in a position very well. Did you

:18:32.:18:40.

have a follow-up question? I did and I have some questions on

:18:41.:18:49.

advertising. I have one as well. Could you go further? You have

:18:50.:18:52.

touched on a couple of things in what you feel the government, what

:18:53.:18:57.

further action you would like to see in terms of creating a level playing

:18:58.:19:05.

field. The level playing field aspect is important whenever you

:19:06.:19:07.

look at agreements with the industry. If I am honest one of the

:19:08.:19:14.

problems with the responsibility deal is it was bilateral, agreed

:19:15.:19:21.

between... As part of the deal, with the manufacturer or individual

:19:22.:19:25.

retailer what would happen. To be honest, the incentive to come

:19:26.:19:30.

forward with such an offer to reduce the amount of sugar in your products

:19:31.:19:34.

or price it in a particular way is only going to come about if it is in

:19:35.:19:38.

your individual interest to do that. There is this collective problem.

:19:39.:19:44.

Anything which helps coordinate, I will qualify this, action which

:19:45.:19:52.

leads to a benefit, whether it be re-formulation or changing in the

:19:53.:19:55.

pricing structure, is to be welcomed. The caveat is you do not

:19:56.:19:59.

want to coordinate in the wrong direction. For example if you

:20:00.:20:09.

imposed a tax on ingredients like sugar so all sugar products become

:20:10.:20:13.

higher price than the worry would be Edward coordinate prices on

:20:14.:20:19.

non-sugar products. You get an umbrella pricing problem. You raise

:20:20.:20:23.

the prices of some products and that reframes the prices of others which

:20:24.:20:29.

softens competition to raise them. You have to think through what

:20:30.:20:33.

coordination effects are. You want them to be beneficial and not work

:20:34.:20:39.

against you. In terms of things like price promotions and activities,

:20:40.:20:46.

there are ways to do that to encourage. My big issue is the

:20:47.:20:52.

volume of what we purchase. I believe consuming all goods and

:20:53.:20:56.

moderation cannot be that harmful, it is consuming in excess, so we

:20:57.:21:01.

have to work on aspects. There has been a movement of some retailers

:21:02.:21:07.

moving away from multi-buys, but if that is replaced with one-off

:21:08.:21:10.

discounts on large volumes it is not going to be helpful either. It is

:21:11.:21:15.

around coordination to get the ideal benefits. Is there anything you

:21:16.:21:27.

would like to add? I have a short follow-up on this issue. It is to do

:21:28.:21:34.

with the nontraditional outlets where you might go into a garage to

:21:35.:21:38.

buy petrol but to come out with a bag of doughnuts because it is

:21:39.:21:43.

placed at the counter. I wonder what assessment has been done about the

:21:44.:21:50.

extent to which those impulse buys not in the supermarkets can have a

:21:51.:21:53.

detrimental effect and what of anything you believe should be done

:21:54.:21:58.

to tackle something like that? Yes. I have been guilty of this myself, I

:21:59.:22:06.

confess. Expertise does not stop you being tempted. I have not seen a

:22:07.:22:14.

particular study. I am aware of different retail environments where

:22:15.:22:17.

there is an incentive to make an add-on sale so you comment by one

:22:18.:22:21.

thing like a newspaper and you are giving a deal on buying a bar of

:22:22.:22:26.

chocolate and it is the same with doughnuts on top of petrol. All

:22:27.:22:32.

retailers are trying to create sales if they enhance profits or generate

:22:33.:22:37.

repeat business. That is one of the other benefits promotions,

:22:38.:22:42.

encourages loyalty. There are aspects around that. It is worrying

:22:43.:22:47.

yet again we see an example of an expandable demand product, in this

:22:48.:22:52.

case doughnuts, where if temptation will allow us to make that purchase,

:22:53.:22:56.

where if it was a healthy purchase we might not choose to the same

:22:57.:23:02.

extent. We are caught in an environment where we are directed to

:23:03.:23:06.

a product we were not miss a thoroughly expecting to be that,

:23:07.:23:11.

there may not be an alternative healthy option, so we are steered to

:23:12.:23:17.

making that purchase. It applies in that unconventional shopping

:23:18.:23:20.

environment for food as much to a shopping environment in a

:23:21.:23:21.

supermarket. You could equally make similar

:23:22.:23:29.

cases, for example, in fast-food outlets where you might go in for

:23:30.:23:34.

one products but are tempted by the value deal that is on offer for the

:23:35.:23:40.

entire meal. As a bundle deal. It is exactly the same problem, they are

:23:41.:23:44.

encouraging you to add on an extra purchase.

:23:45.:23:50.

Moving to advertising, if I could just ask you a couple of quick

:23:51.:23:54.

questions. Public Health England made a whole range of

:23:55.:24:00.

recommendations about changes to advertising with respect to high

:24:01.:24:09.

sugar and fat products, salt products. I know you have announced

:24:10.:24:13.

some new initiative back in December, I think it was, could you

:24:14.:24:18.

just explain to me what was recommended by Public Health England

:24:19.:24:23.

that you have not taken account of in the announcement that she made in

:24:24.:24:29.

December? -- that you made? I am not sure we

:24:30.:24:34.

have done an evaluation with what we came out with contends of everything

:24:35.:24:40.

that Ph.D. Said, we took their review into account and we look at

:24:41.:24:45.

the evidence of advertising on children's food preferences. In

:24:46.:24:51.

general terms we have a legal obligation to try to balance

:24:52.:24:55.

commercial free speech with restrictions that are necessary,

:24:56.:24:59.

particularly pertinent, of course, in terms of our democratic society

:25:00.:25:03.

because advertising helps to pay for some of the things that we enjoy. We

:25:04.:25:09.

did an evidence -based review, taking into account the PHE's

:25:10.:25:15.

concerns, we concluded that whilst the evidence of advertising's impact

:25:16.:25:20.

on children's food preferences has not changed, context certainly has

:25:21.:25:25.

the context in which we view the evidence certainly has, most

:25:26.:25:27.

significantly in nonbroadcast advertising where we have seen the

:25:28.:25:31.

role of the Internet in children's lives. Today children spend more

:25:32.:25:34.

time online than watching television. TV is still holding up,

:25:35.:25:39.

they are still watching it but they are adding to that their viewership

:25:40.:25:45.

of online material as well. That has fundamentally changed. Whilst, as I

:25:46.:25:51.

say, the evidence shows a modest effect on children's viewing

:25:52.:25:57.

practices and simmering towards their diet, there is no digestion of

:25:58.:26:01.

a direct link with obesity itself. Unless we thought because of the

:26:02.:26:04.

changing circumstances it was appropriate to announce in December

:26:05.:26:08.

from July this year we will be introducing a ban on certain product

:26:09.:26:18.

adverts in all children's nonbroadcast media, which brings

:26:19.:26:21.

that into line with the TB restrictions that have been placed

:26:22.:26:27.

for the last ten years. -- with the TV restrictions. One suggestion in

:26:28.:26:31.

the past has been that you extend a ban on advertising of high sugar,

:26:32.:26:39.

salt and fat products. Up to the 90 watershed. That is to take account

:26:40.:26:43.

of the programmes that children might be watching, but lots of

:26:44.:26:47.

adults might be watching as well -- up to the 9pm watershed. Is that

:26:48.:26:51.

something you will consider, because you have not taken that step today?

:26:52.:26:57.

The consultation was from the nonbroadcast body. In terms of our

:26:58.:27:05.

general approach to this, we have a genuine concern to put the

:27:06.:27:08.

protection of children first, but that has to be mindful of avoiding

:27:09.:27:18.

inefficient, unwarranted or perhaps even counter-productive restrictions

:27:19.:27:27.

in terms of advertising. Between 2004 and 2007, Ofcom undertook the

:27:28.:27:33.

most there are exploration of this type of advertising and it concluded

:27:34.:27:38.

that it was merited to place a ban within children's programmes and

:27:39.:27:40.

programmes of particular appeal to children. It considered that further

:27:41.:27:47.

restrictions were not warranted because of two things, first of all

:27:48.:27:51.

that the public health benefits were uncertain and the cost of extra

:27:52.:27:59.

regulations were, in the view of Ofcom, too great. For example, a 9pm

:28:00.:28:03.

restriction, off, calculated that would lead to a loss of broadcast

:28:04.:28:11.

revenue to the tuna ?211 million net, which clearly has consequences

:28:12.:28:17.

for UK original programming, including children's programming.,

:28:18.:28:19.

was concerned about the blunt instrument of nine watershed. Off,

:28:20.:28:29.

lets many channels which have a negligible child audience and it

:28:30.:28:33.

would seem unwarranted to impose restrictions on them. To the

:28:34.:28:37.

broadcast committee of advertising practice has not seen evidence in

:28:38.:28:42.

order to convince itself that it should challenge the conclusion that

:28:43.:28:49.

Ofcom came to. But they are open to new evidence. Basically you are

:28:50.:28:53.

saying that the broadcaster's bottom line is more important than

:28:54.:28:58.

children's waistlines? Absolutely not, we are saying that we have a

:28:59.:29:03.

legal obligation to balance the protection of children together with

:29:04.:29:08.

commercial freedom of speech. What we can do is put in place

:29:09.:29:13.

disproportionate and unjustified regulation. Ofcom's concern was to

:29:14.:29:18.

reduce children's exposure to this type of appetising, and it feels

:29:19.:29:21.

that the measures were proportional to do so. -- this type of

:29:22.:29:27.

advertising. To go beyond these measures, it was felt that the

:29:28.:29:30.

public health benefits would be too uncertain from that and the loss of

:29:31.:29:35.

revenue to broadcasters would be too great. The public health benefits on

:29:36.:29:44.

that, Ofcom found through its research that there was only a

:29:45.:29:50.

modest direct influence on children's food preferences arising

:29:51.:29:54.

out of television advertising, therefore if one was to eliminate

:29:55.:29:58.

all of this appetising from the schedule, one would only be

:29:59.:30:04.

eliminating a modest direct influence on their preferences, so

:30:05.:30:07.

clearly that was unwarranted to have such a level of restriction, which

:30:08.:30:12.

is why it concluded overall that a restriction on children's

:30:13.:30:17.

programming was appropriate. Just to ask you about the

:30:18.:30:21.

restrictions which you have announced nonbroadcast advertising,

:30:22.:30:28.

in the cinema and online, as I understand it, a threshold applies

:30:29.:30:33.

with regard to the proportion of the audience which is children. Can you

:30:34.:30:41.

just explain exactly how that would work, and whether you have any

:30:42.:30:44.

intentions to go further in that regard? The proportion we propose is

:30:45.:30:53.

25% rule, what we do is we reverse the burden of proof, we invite get

:30:54.:30:57.

the tasered to prove to the ASA that it is scheduling or placing this

:30:58.:31:02.

appetising appropriately and it can use various measures to relate to

:31:03.:31:07.

the ASA what it believes the audience composition of that

:31:08.:31:11.

particular mediators. In most cases it is quite clear where media is

:31:12.:31:17.

director just to a child audience or to a predominantly adult audience.

:31:18.:31:21.

In borderline cases the ASA requires advertisers to substantiate what the

:31:22.:31:26.

audience profile of that is, and where over 25% of the audience is

:31:27.:31:33.

aged under 16, they cannot place adverts for these products in the

:31:34.:31:37.

media. How will this be enforced online? It

:31:38.:31:43.

is already in force. We have had the 25% rule in place for some time, the

:31:44.:31:48.

ASA has been regulating online advertising for nigh on 20 years

:31:49.:31:57.

now, and since 2011 it as regulated online advertising in non-pay for

:31:58.:32:01.

space on social media and apps, for example. The 25% rule also applies

:32:02.:32:06.

to gambling and alcohol products, they cannot be shown where more than

:32:07.:32:11.

25% of the audience are aged 18 or younger. It has already been

:32:12.:32:16.

applied. Advertisers understand that when the contract with media they

:32:17.:32:20.

had to know the ordinance profile of that media. -- the audience profile.

:32:21.:32:25.

In the case of inappropriately placed advertising we would ask the

:32:26.:32:30.

advertiser to substantiate the audience profile.

:32:31.:32:35.

It is a very high bar, 25%, that is quite some demand to bring the bar

:32:36.:32:40.

down from 25%? It is a very high threshold? For children, 25% of the

:32:41.:32:49.

audience being under 16, do you feel there was a case... Did you look at

:32:50.:32:54.

bringing back down? We did not get a lot of pushback in consultation for

:32:55.:32:59.

lowering the bar, 25% is a figure known to advertisers and seem to

:33:00.:33:03.

work. Looking at it through the other end of the telescope, what

:33:04.:33:08.

that would do would be to ban this sort of advertising in media where

:33:09.:33:11.

up to 75% of the audience were adults. I think it is felt that

:33:12.:33:19.

extending back to 80, 90% or higher of adults would be disproportionate

:33:20.:33:23.

given the added an -- evidence of the impact of advertising on

:33:24.:33:27.

children's food preferences. Can I ask how much is spent in the United

:33:28.:33:33.

Kingdom on advertising, particularly advertising these kinds of products?

:33:34.:33:39.

Do you have any sense? I am afraid I don't know. You don't know that

:33:40.:33:44.

figure. I know it is a considerable sum, we had it when we did being

:33:45.:33:49.

Majri the first time, so I can't member, but you are suggesting that

:33:50.:33:53.

advertising did not work and we should not be worried about

:33:54.:33:58.

advertising high fat and sugary foods to children because

:33:59.:34:01.

advertising does not really influence them. As someone involved

:34:02.:34:05.

in advertising, I am sure you are really not trying to send out the

:34:06.:34:08.

message that advertising does not work? I am involved in the

:34:09.:34:14.

regulation of appetising, and both are legal duties and responsibility

:34:15.:34:21.

is to prevent advertising that lead to misleading, harmful or offensive

:34:22.:34:25.

information. We are concerned about the potential harm that might arise

:34:26.:34:28.

from the advertising of these sorts of products and what could be

:34:29.:34:33.

responsible measures to mitigate that harm. The evidence of

:34:34.:34:38.

appetising's impact suggests there is a modest direct influence on

:34:39.:34:43.

children's food preferences and some link with children's diets. The

:34:44.:34:52.

evidence is out as to what that contributes to obesity. We are not

:34:53.:34:57.

saying it does not have effect, quite the opposite, albeit a modest

:34:58.:35:01.

one, together with stubbornly high rates of child obesity that we have

:35:02.:35:06.

in this country, we need to form a restriction which includes both

:35:07.:35:09.

restrictions on the placement and scheduling of adverts and on the

:35:10.:35:14.

contact -- content of adverts. Rule still prevent children from seeing

:35:15.:35:18.

adverts in other media, but where they do see those adverts we have

:35:19.:35:22.

rules in place ensuring they do not encourage and in healthy lifestyle

:35:23.:35:26.

in children or invite them to pester their children about products etc.

:35:27.:35:32.

-- they do not encourage and unhealthy lifestyle in children or

:35:33.:35:35.

invite them to pester their parents about products etc. We think this

:35:36.:35:39.

appropriately mitigate the potential harm that can arise. Do you think

:35:40.:35:44.

the balance is right, parents do not get pestered to buy whatever, not to

:35:45.:35:50.

name any products? How does a regulated know they have the balance

:35:51.:35:54.

right? Spend some time in the supermarket listening to children

:35:55.:35:59.

nagging their parents, can I have this, can I have that? Where did

:36:00.:36:03.

they get the name of that cereal, drink, chocolate bar if they have

:36:04.:36:10.

not seen the appetising? We do not regulate retail in-store. At the

:36:11.:36:13.

child comes into the store knowing the name of what they want, so to

:36:14.:36:18.

suggest that advertising is not having an effect on the children

:36:19.:36:21.

nagging the parent. As somebody who has struggled with her weight since

:36:22.:36:25.

mid-teens I would not think there was some charming adults having a

:36:26.:36:29.

little bit less high-fat and sugar advertising put into their nose,

:36:30.:36:35.

either. -- I would not think there was some harm in adults having. Were

:36:36.:36:41.

concerned that any advertising... Sorry, any regulation should not

:36:42.:36:44.

have unwarranted intrusion into adult viewing time. That would be

:36:45.:36:51.

our concern as well in terms of non-broadcast. How does it inhibits

:36:52.:36:55.

the pleasure of viewing the programme to have maybe fractionally

:36:56.:37:03.

fewer HFSS adverts? We don't advertise cigarettes or drink, we

:37:04.:37:09.

try to tackle something that is now a public health issue. Lots of

:37:10.:37:13.

adults just fast forward through the adverts. Going back to our legal

:37:14.:37:19.

responsibility, there is a writer for commercial free speech and for

:37:20.:37:23.

people to receive information about products that might be of interest

:37:24.:37:29.

to them. That is, of course, important in terms of adults

:37:30.:37:35.

receiving such information. So you think the adverts work on adults but

:37:36.:37:40.

it does not have a big impact on children? I think the adverts do

:37:41.:37:45.

work, both on children and adults, but we are talking about effect in

:37:46.:37:49.

terms of food preferences. The concern here is more about obesity

:37:50.:37:53.

and there are clearly more primary factors involved in the causes

:37:54.:37:58.

underlying obesity, parenting, schools policy, public understanding

:37:59.:38:03.

of nutrition etc. Public Health England put advertising and

:38:04.:38:06.

promotion as the top two when they give evidence to us, they say the

:38:07.:38:12.

evidence showed... Higher than the sugar levy, number four, I think,

:38:13.:38:16.

was advertising and promotion, both of which are not really much in the

:38:17.:38:22.

new strategy. I can't speak for the new strategy but I can say we think

:38:23.:38:27.

advertising has a role to play, we think advertising regulation is

:38:28.:38:30.

playing its role in putting in a very strict balance, some of the

:38:31.:38:34.

toughest in the world, in terms of appetising for HFSS products to

:38:35.:38:37.

children and broadcast and non-broadcast, so from July this

:38:38.:38:41.

year, all media directed to children will not be able to... At some

:38:42.:38:44.

countries don't have anything like this before the 9pm watershed. So we

:38:45.:38:51.

can't be the strictest in the world, if there are countries that do not

:38:52.:38:53.

advertise on television before 9pm? We are among the strictest in the

:38:54.:39:02.

world and that is the language of the strategy. You had a follow-up.

:39:03.:39:12.

Do you accept or does the adverse died in standard laboratory except

:39:13.:39:17.

that while in proportion terms fewer children might be exposed to adverts

:39:18.:39:24.

of foods high in fat, sugar and salt on both broadcast and nonbroadcast

:39:25.:39:31.

in absolute terms there are plenty of examples, larger numbers of

:39:32.:39:33.

children would be exposed to these adverts? That is clearly the case.

:39:34.:39:46.

Ofcom's prerogative and ours was was to introduce rules that

:39:47.:39:50.

significantly reduce children's exposure to advertising. Clearly by

:39:51.:40:02.

banning HFSS ads we are reducing exposure. Media which is popular and

:40:03.:40:09.

attracts a large childhood audience, delivering a handful of adds to

:40:10.:40:17.

them, our view is that the measures we have putting place have

:40:18.:40:19.

significantly reduced children's exposure. I do not know if it is

:40:20.:40:28.

because of the non-fragmentation of broadcast media we have precise

:40:29.:40:32.

figures on what would be the reduction in children's exposure to

:40:33.:40:37.

nonbroadcast HFSS adverts. Will there be times when children still

:40:38.:40:43.

see adverts? Yes. Content restrictions are in place. For under

:40:44.:40:53.

12 is, any HFSS adverts cannot include promotions or celebrities

:40:54.:41:01.

popular with children. I was watching Saturday night television

:41:02.:41:07.

the other week and I counted seven adverts that are high in fat sugar

:41:08.:41:10.

and salt in one segment of advertising on The Voice. I know

:41:11.:41:15.

from audience figures that the threshold... It is below the

:41:16.:41:22.

threshold, it is the proportion, but total numbers are thousands of

:41:23.:41:25.

thousands of children exposed to these adverts. What is your view on

:41:26.:41:33.

the impact? I would probably go back to Ofcom's consultation and its view

:41:34.:41:37.

was that restrictions beyond those that are proposed around children's

:41:38.:41:41.

programming were not merited on the basis that public health was

:41:42.:41:47.

uncertain from restrictions and the lot of broadcasters was too great

:41:48.:41:54.

including the loss in terms of reduction in UK originated

:41:55.:41:56.

programming including children's programming. I imagine the committee

:41:57.:42:03.

are passionate about programming in the regions and what might happen to

:42:04.:42:07.

our advertising sector but we are equally if not more concerned about

:42:08.:42:11.

the burden the NHS had to contend with as a result of that advertising

:42:12.:42:15.

and wonder what the view is of how we reconcile both two contrasting

:42:16.:42:23.

and conflicting differences. I have been speaking for a long time. Our

:42:24.:42:29.

concern would be that if the evidence suggested that advertising

:42:30.:42:33.

had a greater effect on children's food preferences and the evidence

:42:34.:42:38.

seems to suggest I think I have much greater sympathy with that view.

:42:39.:42:42.

Evidence suggests that it has a modest impact on children's food

:42:43.:42:46.

preferences, some length with children's diet but the evidence

:42:47.:42:51.

falls short of establishing a link with obesity. The calculation that

:42:52.:42:55.

seeing adverts equals obesity is not proven. Multiple and complex

:42:56.:43:07.

factors, schools policy, parental, public understanding of the

:43:08.:43:10.

division, perhaps more in the dock and advertising. Does anyone else

:43:11.:43:19.

want to respond? I would not put the benefits of advertising above the

:43:20.:43:24.

health of our children. That is the last thing I'd want to do. We have

:43:25.:43:31.

tried advertising control, a global standard, the UK's tight advertising

:43:32.:43:36.

market. We are compliant with all of the gods and practices that exist

:43:37.:43:44.

and have been very supportive of the latest change particularly trying to

:43:45.:43:51.

bring that cold in line with the broadcast code is important. It is

:43:52.:43:57.

difficult to understand exactly how you prevent it happening online. It

:43:58.:44:01.

is a much more difficult environment. I do not have an answer

:44:02.:44:07.

how to make it better online. It think it is better on broadcast TV,

:44:08.:44:12.

much tighter ability to regulate, but if you look at where children

:44:13.:44:17.

are consuming media, it is increasingly online so it is

:44:18.:44:22.

important we have brought the codes together. As a company we would go a

:44:23.:44:27.

step further, the vast majority of her marketing money goes behind zero

:44:28.:44:32.

sugar and zero calorie variants to try to encourage it. I am conscious

:44:33.:44:37.

of the issue around high fat, sugar and salt and we have deliberately

:44:38.:44:41.

changed the way in which we do our marketing to try to support zero

:44:42.:44:48.

sugar variants much more to encourage people to make some

:44:49.:44:51.

lighter choices of that is what they want to do. To conclude, does that

:44:52.:44:59.

than you have mentioned that is going to be introduced on all

:45:00.:45:06.

nonbroadcast media extent to games and apps connected to foods that are

:45:07.:45:11.

high in fat, sugar and salt? Very much so. Anything tied to a

:45:12.:45:21.

childhood audience. Does that mean the food companies themselves cannot

:45:22.:45:30.

sponsor those games? Correct. The soft drinks industry levy is perhaps

:45:31.:45:34.

the eye-catching element of the childhood obesity plan published by

:45:35.:45:40.

the government. Something that we as a committee supported, albeit in a

:45:41.:45:44.

different form. What would you say is likely to be the impact of the

:45:45.:45:50.

levy on the soft drinks industry? I know that it was part of the

:45:51.:45:57.

committee's report and it became the only hard and fast action that I can

:45:58.:46:03.

see in the charter strategy as it came out. I do not think it is an

:46:04.:46:08.

effective measure on its own for tackling obesity rates of childhood

:46:09.:46:13.

obesity rates. If you look at the soft drinks industry over the last

:46:14.:46:17.

decade and the shape of their soft drinks industry and how it has

:46:18.:46:21.

changed, it is remarkable. If you turn back the clock ten years we

:46:22.:46:25.

were selling three regular sugared soft drinks for everyone zero sugar

:46:26.:46:32.

or diet drink and today it is 1-1. That is a massive shift in the

:46:33.:46:38.

make-up of the industry. Selling 44% less sugared soft drinks today than

:46:39.:46:44.

a decade ago. Yet obesity rates are up. It is hard to draw a causal link

:46:45.:46:49.

solely between soft drinks consumption and obesity rates. The

:46:50.:46:55.

levy itself is designed to encourage reformulation. The report in the

:46:56.:47:06.

area of obesity I have felt most affinity with this the Mackenzie

:47:07.:47:10.

Institute report and it said there were two primary things

:47:11.:47:12.

manufacturers could do, one was reformulate products and the other

:47:13.:47:18.

was portion sizes which poll has referred to. On reformulation the

:47:19.:47:23.

soft drinks industry has been on a very rapid process of re-formulating

:47:24.:47:27.

products without a levy. We are competing ultimately in the

:47:28.:47:32.

marketplace to provide drinks that people want to buy and increasingly

:47:33.:47:35.

people want to buy lower sugar low calorie drinks so we are competing

:47:36.:47:41.

and the market is encouraging us to change recipes and reduce sugar

:47:42.:47:46.

content and I am sure that will continue. As a company I do not

:47:47.:47:51.

think it is going to persuade me to do something I was not planning to

:47:52.:47:54.

do something already because we were planning to be the formulating

:47:55.:47:57.

products, changing recipes, and indeed since I started we have

:47:58.:48:04.

reformulated 28 of our leading drinks, it reducing sugar and

:48:05.:48:11.

calories, and 50% of what we sell is zero calorie. Reformulation is being

:48:12.:48:15.

done already. Portion control of the other big thing. From the Mackenzie

:48:16.:48:25.

work it seemed top of manufacturers. It will have less impact on portion

:48:26.:48:33.

control. Man on reformulation. Could I extend the question in terms of

:48:34.:48:36.

the British Retail Consortium's stance? We did not express a very

:48:37.:48:44.

strong view either way when the levy was suggested. We have accepted it

:48:45.:48:47.

and never really expressed disappointment of support, we

:48:48.:48:52.

accepted the measure was coming in and our response to the consultation

:48:53.:48:56.

focused on the practical implications, definitions, scope and

:48:57.:49:01.

so on. I agree with everything John has said, both drinks has been one

:49:02.:49:09.

of the categories in which most work has been done in terms of sugar

:49:10.:49:16.

production. A number of the members are working or have stepped up the

:49:17.:49:20.

reformulation approach to soft drinks ahead of the levy in 2018. If

:49:21.:49:33.

you could also give your views with regard to impact on the industry but

:49:34.:49:40.

also on public health. Thank you for asking me the question. It is

:49:41.:49:44.

something I have reflected on and done research on. I come back to two

:49:45.:49:52.

points. I raised one when I was talking about umbrella. If you set

:49:53.:49:58.

the levy to Lord then you the price of sugared drinks but not so high

:49:59.:50:04.

that it may deter people buying and equally you make to provide

:50:05.:50:10.

incentives for non-sugar reduced sugared drinks to sit under that

:50:11.:50:15.

umbrella of the higher price. You could end up raising all prices

:50:16.:50:19.

which is not the desired effect. The desired effect is maths

:50:20.:50:22.

substitution, to get consumers to move from buying sugared products to

:50:23.:50:28.

zero sugar products. Pricing incentives have to be right. Be

:50:29.:50:34.

clear. I do not want to punish the industry by arguing for a high levy,

:50:35.:50:39.

I just want to make sure that they actually do formulations and

:50:40.:50:43.

consumers shift to those re-formulations. The secondary

:50:44.:50:50.

aspect, the higher you make the levy, the more difficult it is to

:50:51.:50:54.

give a really generous bargain discount on larger quantities

:50:55.:50:57.

because those large quantities of also got to carry the levy into them

:50:58.:51:02.

as well. I see a double benefit of the high levy. Firstly you raise

:51:03.:51:07.

prices in such a way that it steers consumers to buying the reformulated

:51:08.:51:15.

products. Secondly it reduces the generosity of the quantity discounts

:51:16.:51:20.

simply by virtue of those larger quantities having to pass on the

:51:21.:51:28.

levy you are raising. What is your view in terms of the way it has been

:51:29.:51:34.

designed and tiered? There are two alternatives. One is to introduce

:51:35.:51:38.

the levy on the manufacturers and importers which is the route that

:51:39.:51:42.

has been proposed and chosen. Secondly you could introduce it

:51:43.:51:47.

through a value-added tax at retail level. I have argued that the

:51:48.:51:51.

appropriate level is so directed towards manufacturers and treated

:51:52.:51:58.

almost as an excise duty like alcohol. Because of this problem

:51:59.:52:01.

that when it comes to retail pricing the retailer will steer consumers

:52:02.:52:09.

towards taking very large volumes of drinks and if you are only doing

:52:10.:52:13.

that percentage basis on that you are not achieving what you want to

:52:14.:52:18.

do, in fact you might encourage more consumption. I can see a perverse

:52:19.:52:22.

effect of that was applied at retail level. I am well aware that there is

:52:23.:52:28.

no guarantee necessarily that retailers will pass on the levy in

:52:29.:52:32.

the percentage amount that is expected, they could pass on more or

:52:33.:52:40.

less. If you set the level high enough, one way or another they have

:52:41.:52:45.

to pass it on. They cannot cross subsidise with other products, that

:52:46.:52:49.

would be a risk I would be concerned about. What do you think the level

:52:50.:52:57.

needs to be said that is? The Office for Budget Responsibility has

:52:58.:53:00.

estimated that it might equate to 18p per litre or 24p per litre

:53:01.:53:04.

depending on the concentration of sugar.

:53:05.:53:07.

I think that is the minimum. If you really wanted to be effective, those

:53:08.:53:17.

are what we want in encouraging reformulation and encouraging

:53:18.:53:20.

substitute products, I would look at a double. That would make a very

:53:21.:53:25.

profound effect and act as a really clear signal to everybody, that is

:53:26.:53:31.

the general public, consumers making purchases, as well as the industry.

:53:32.:53:36.

I know it sounds drastic and hard hitting the industry, but as I think

:53:37.:53:41.

we have already heard from John, for the industry, they are moving in the

:53:42.:53:45.

direction anyway of reducing sugar in drinks. If you structure it

:53:46.:53:49.

right, all it will do is accelerate that reformulation and move towards

:53:50.:53:55.

less sugar consumption. I know you doubt the effectiveness

:53:56.:54:00.

of this whole idea in any case, but what level do you think the lobby

:54:01.:54:05.

would have to be set out to have an impact of some kind? I don't know, I

:54:06.:54:10.

think it is a hypothetical question. I am not sure I am particularly well

:54:11.:54:16.

placed to guess what level you are looking for. I would say it is a

:54:17.:54:26.

pretty hefty levy exactly as it is. On a sector of our food consumption

:54:27.:54:32.

and drink consumption where sugar is collapsing as a percentage, down 44%

:54:33.:54:39.

in the last decade. And by every measure, manufacturers like Koepka

:54:40.:54:43.

are doing the right thing and taking things out of their products. --

:54:44.:54:51.

manufacturers like Coke. The total sugar consumption is not declining

:54:52.:54:55.

at the rate that it is from soft drinks. So it seems strange to me

:54:56.:55:01.

that a ban on what is already an extensive levy by international

:55:02.:55:04.

standards on the one part of the food and drink industry where sugar

:55:05.:55:10.

has really fallen fast. Assuming the levy goes ahead next

:55:11.:55:15.

year, what encouragement can you give that the associated cost will

:55:16.:55:20.

actually be passed on those consuming the high sugar drinks in

:55:21.:55:24.

particular, as opposed to other drinks within your brand? I can't

:55:25.:55:29.

make many specific references to retail pricing -- I can't make any.

:55:30.:55:34.

Prices in stores are at the discretion of the retailer, not

:55:35.:55:38.

bound by manufacturers. I would observe that it is a very

:55:39.:55:40.

significant additional cost to my business. I am in business and need

:55:41.:55:47.

to recover my costs. So between that and the other costs we are having

:55:48.:55:52.

added to our business over the next year also, I will seek to make sure

:55:53.:55:57.

those costs get covered. Sorry, can I just clarify, we have

:55:58.:56:01.

heard about it being an umbrella costs spread over your entire

:56:02.:56:04.

product range, we have heard very clear evidence that it... For it to

:56:05.:56:10.

be effective there needs to be a price differential, will you pass

:56:11.:56:14.

that on to retailers? It is very important. I will not go into our

:56:15.:56:19.

commercial relationships with customers, but the principle which I

:56:20.:56:23.

think you are trying to get to, I understand, I think the principle

:56:24.:56:26.

which you are trying to get to, given how hard I am working to try

:56:27.:56:31.

to reduce sugar in my portfolio it would not be in my interests to try

:56:32.:56:38.

to fight the way the levy is passed. At we want to hear that you will

:56:39.:56:41.

pass that differential onto the retailer. You can't control what the

:56:42.:56:46.

retailers do, but if you spread it across your whole product range as

:56:47.:56:51.

an umbrella increase to observe it into other parts of the product

:56:52.:56:56.

range and subsidise the sugar, that would be unreasonable. That is not

:56:57.:57:02.

our intent. Would it be passed on in full proportion? Genuinely, it is up

:57:03.:57:07.

to the retailer. From the point that you still retain control, would you

:57:08.:57:11.

be passing on... I will look to recover my costs... Broadly in line

:57:12.:57:19.

with how the levy is applied, I will seek to recover it. Broadly in line,

:57:20.:57:26.

or in line? It is very important. I am not seeking to do anything other

:57:27.:57:30.

than exactly what you suggest, to pass it on as it has been

:57:31.:57:33.

recommended by the government. That is what you seek to do? Thanks,

:57:34.:57:39.

James. What is the perception of other panel members in terms of the

:57:40.:57:45.

likelihood that the high sugar drinks will be the ones that

:57:46.:57:48.

experience the price increases in the shops?

:57:49.:57:55.

At the moment my members are trying to understand what projects will be

:57:56.:58:03.

affected and 2018, because as I specified before, it is going ahead

:58:04.:58:08.

and plan to conclude before 2018, so it is hoped that the quantity of

:58:09.:58:12.

products affected by the levy would be the minority. We accept that some

:58:13.:58:16.

would-be cupboard, the retailer would have to decide how they

:58:17.:58:19.

approach that and how that translates in terms of cost.

:58:20.:58:24.

Professor Dobson, what is your thought as to a proportion of the

:58:25.:58:31.

soft rinks industry, how the proportions will change between high

:58:32.:58:36.

sugar and low sugar, do you think there will be a market alternation

:58:37.:58:41.

in consumption between the two? Yes, I think looking at this

:58:42.:58:48.

particular industry, I want to separate out children and young

:58:49.:58:54.

adults market, what they might be substituting between the other soft

:58:55.:58:58.

drinks as opposed to maybe some adults, particularly in a non-retail

:58:59.:59:06.

environments like going out, an opportunity where they might be

:59:07.:59:11.

substituting alcohol. There might be two different effects. It would lead

:59:12.:59:15.

a situation where if the levy was sufficiently high and was passed on

:59:16.:59:19.

and then the retailer was also prepared to pass that on, you would

:59:20.:59:24.

get a premium price for the sugary product. That would be for the

:59:25.:59:28.

industry to decide how they approach that premium priced products, that

:59:29.:59:33.

they would clearly seek to position it as a premium product. So for

:59:34.:59:36.

special occasions when you might need a high level of sugar, I would

:59:37.:59:40.

suggest that that would then appeal more to an adult market. The crucial

:59:41.:59:45.

issue we have discussed today is about childhood obesity. I think

:59:46.:59:50.

that bad, clearly, the effects are likely to be much more about

:59:51.:59:57.

substitution towards reduced sugar products for two reasons, one is the

:59:58.:00:00.

pricing incentive and secondly there is a very strong signal to consumers

:00:01.:00:04.

and the public that the right thing to do is to substitute. So the

:00:05.:00:11.

default does not become a sugary drink, the default becomes a low

:00:12.:00:15.

sugar or reduce sugar drink. That is what we are trying to achieve here,

:00:16.:00:20.

I think. There are issues about speed, Ireland assemble the industry

:00:21.:00:23.

we are talking about major investment and time to adjust. I

:00:24.:00:27.

thought it was an interesting move to design the levy with

:00:28.:00:30.

forward-thinking in mind and allow for that adjustment rather than be

:00:31.:00:36.

automatically introduced. But we want to see that perhaps switch in

:00:37.:00:42.

consumption patterns. I predict we will see just sugar drinks become

:00:43.:00:46.

the minority, they will either be left with energy drinks, where you

:00:47.:00:50.

need to sugar for performing in sports and working out, or as a

:00:51.:00:54.

premium product designed for adults where they have a high sugar

:00:55.:01:03.

content. Do you worry about the emergence of mid-sugar drinks such

:01:04.:01:07.

as Coca-Cola Life, which at 30% lower sugar than standard Coca-Cola

:01:08.:01:13.

but nevertheless are still quite sugary, and the mixed messages that

:01:14.:01:16.

sends out and whether actually there is a risk that sugar intake could

:01:17.:01:21.

increase among some people who are currently drinking the zero sugar

:01:22.:01:26.

alternative? Any improvement is an improvement. I

:01:27.:01:30.

think it is a sizeable improvement. I think that is the critical issue.

:01:31.:01:36.

The message has to, cross, reduce the sugar content. One of the issues

:01:37.:01:41.

we have touched on, let me reinforce, is about portion sizes --

:01:42.:01:46.

the message has to, cross, reduce the sugar content. I am delighted to

:01:47.:01:50.

see new products coming onto the market where they are being

:01:51.:01:55.

repositioned for a reduced norm. The advent of 250 ML pounds as opposed

:01:56.:02:07.

to 330, for example. -- 250 ml cans. If it says that the recommended

:02:08.:02:16.

portion surfing is ml -- two in June 50 ml, they will consume more when

:02:17.:02:23.

the norm is 330 ml. Encouraging drinks to be packaged as 250 ml will

:02:24.:02:28.

be a step in the right direction. I think the industry is making that

:02:29.:02:31.

move, encouragement to move quicker would also be helpful. I come back

:02:32.:02:37.

to the great enormous disparity in units pricing. B make this concrete

:02:38.:02:41.

so we really know what we are talking about. A small bottle of a

:02:42.:02:50.

carbonated drink, working at 25p per 100 ml, compared to a multi-buy

:02:51.:02:55.

after working out at 5.7 p, that is a huge comet huge -- huge, huge

:02:56.:03:03.

incentive to bulk buy, and edit the many consumers adhere to just

:03:04.:03:08.

consuming one or two too rigid and 50 ml portions. As to the mid-sugar

:03:09.:03:15.

drinks, do you think there is the possibility of consumer confusion

:03:16.:03:17.

where those on zero sugar products do not quite appreciate that the

:03:18.:03:23.

mid-sugar brands are full of far more sugar? Coca-Cola Life, if that

:03:24.:03:34.

is your example, it is a tiny proportion of the Coke business,

:03:35.:03:41.

less than 1%. The majority of people who have tried Coke Life had

:03:42.:03:46.

switched from Coke Classic, but it is a tiny part of the business. The

:03:47.:03:51.

focus for me, earning the business, is the best products to help people

:03:52.:03:54.

make lighter choices are the zero sugar and zero calorie versions, so

:03:55.:04:00.

if I take a much bigger part of the portfolio, which is Coke Zero, it

:04:01.:04:08.

has done OK but it never really set the world alight. When we asked

:04:09.:04:12.

consumers why it was not working, why are you not effectively moving

:04:13.:04:19.

from Coke Classic to Zero, 50% of consumers did not realise that the

:04:20.:04:22.

zero men zero sugar. So we relaunched at last year, we have

:04:23.:04:28.

called it Coca-Cola Zero Sugar, sales are 40% up. You think it is a

:04:29.:04:37.

light bulb moment, that is the intent, to try and encourage and

:04:38.:04:40.

nudge consumers into lighter options, that is the intent. It is

:04:41.:04:44.

definitely the intended Coke, I believe it is the intent in the soft

:04:45.:04:50.

rinks industry, therefore, again, back to my earlier point, it is

:04:51.:04:55.

strange to focus in on the one part of the food and drink industry that

:04:56.:04:59.

has been so successful at reducing sugar levels versus any other part

:05:00.:05:04.

of the food and drink industry. You have a follow-up question? Professor

:05:05.:05:07.

Dobson almost made my case for me, it is coming back this in thing you

:05:08.:05:15.

mentioned, Mr Woods, control. Portion It is easier to shrink

:05:16.:05:19.

individual servings and shrink chocolate bars, but when you buy a

:05:20.:05:22.

large bottle it is very hard for people to know how much is 250 ml,

:05:23.:05:28.

if you ask the majority of people hear how much is in my classic glass

:05:29.:05:33.

of water, I think a few of us would get it right. One of the things that

:05:34.:05:41.

came out of the report was that the link needs to be much more simple,

:05:42.:05:45.

on the labelling, spoonfuls of sugar, so it is very visual. That

:05:46.:05:50.

does not help to divide the bottle up. Is there more the industry could

:05:51.:05:55.

do on a voluntary basis, especially lines on the labelling, especially

:05:56.:05:59.

now we are coming away from EU regulations, that would help? I

:06:00.:06:05.

think that 250 ml cancers are very interesting area, we launched those

:06:06.:06:10.

three years ago and we now have 250 ml cans in 12,000 stores up and down

:06:11.:06:14.

the country, distribution is growing. They are becoming more and

:06:15.:06:18.

more available. On the larger sharing bottles it is quite

:06:19.:06:24.

difficult. People do not share, that is the problem. People do share,

:06:25.:06:28.

that is what they do, but you are right, it is quite difficult to

:06:29.:06:33.

judge. We have looked at the idea but not implemented it off-putting

:06:34.:06:36.

portion markers on the side of the bottle, which I think you see

:06:37.:06:40.

answered juices. On the side of all our packs we have just introduced

:06:41.:06:43.

the number of portions which the pack contains, so a label that says

:06:44.:06:49.

on a one litre bottle, this is ball portions. It is not quite where you

:06:50.:06:54.

are going but it is starting to move in that direction. As for labelling

:06:55.:06:59.

in the general sense, the Government has a recommended labelling scheme

:07:00.:07:04.

which is colour-coded GDAs. At Coke B were one of the first companies to

:07:05.:07:09.

adopt that and are still in only around a third of major packaged

:07:10.:07:14.

goods companies which have adopted the Government scheme. The issue is

:07:15.:07:20.

not, could we have a new labelling scheme question it is, can we all

:07:21.:07:25.

use the same one? There is a Government recommended scheme and it

:07:26.:07:28.

should be incumbent on manufacturers and retailers to use that, then

:07:29.:07:32.

there would be a clearer understanding at a level playing

:07:33.:07:36.

field. Does the Government scheme need more teeth if people are not

:07:37.:07:42.

complying with it? I just wish more people... I don't how to make more

:07:43.:07:46.

people comply, I guess that is for you to decide. I know at Coke the

:07:47.:07:50.

decision we made was that consumers found it useful to put that

:07:51.:07:55.

labelling scheme on our packs. So we put that labelling scheme on the

:07:56.:08:01.

packs. It was less about the numbers on the GDA labelling and more about

:08:02.:08:06.

the colour codes, the colour codes are quite intuitive. It is the

:08:07.:08:12.

visual side, isn't it? Moving on to Andrew.

:08:13.:08:16.

Thank you, starting with Professor Dobson, we focused a lot on the soft

:08:17.:08:20.

rinks levy, it is important number Government's aspiration to take 20%

:08:21.:08:29.

of sugar out of breakfast cereals, yoghurt, biscuits, cakes,

:08:30.:08:34.

confectionery, puddings, ice cream and other sweet goods as well. What

:08:35.:08:40.

impact do you expect those measures to have on the food and drink

:08:41.:08:41.

industry? Measures will fail because they are

:08:42.:08:51.

not targeted. They will have the same problems as the responsibility

:08:52.:08:55.

deal relying on one-to-one agreements as opposed to an industry

:08:56.:09:00.

requirement to do it. The reason I think the soft drinks industry levy

:09:01.:09:04.

will work is because it applies to the industry. You either adjust and

:09:05.:09:12.

reformulate or pay a tax. There's a clear incentive on everybody to move

:09:13.:09:18.

in a direction. A vague statement we want to just without identifying

:09:19.:09:24.

where, how you're going to achieve it, that is not clear from what is

:09:25.:09:31.

stated, is clearly not going to be a successful strategy because it does

:09:32.:09:35.

not even tell you where the starting point is of where you are going to

:09:36.:09:42.

go with it. I have grave concerns about almost a broad aim rather than

:09:43.:09:47.

an action by which this was supposed to be about. It needs to be much

:09:48.:09:55.

more categorical on the product categories where they would like to

:09:56.:09:58.

see the reductions at work on it on that basis. Thank you for being so

:09:59.:10:07.

Frank. To be specific, what further teeth would you propose that apply

:10:08.:10:15.

to measures that would result in successful outcomes in achieving

:10:16.:10:19.

this 20% reduction across those nine categories mentioned? There is no

:10:20.:10:26.

stick here. What is the threat if you do not comply? It depends of the

:10:27.:10:34.

targeted nutrient in this case sugar, there should be some implied

:10:35.:10:39.

threat that if you do not reduce by this level by a set period then

:10:40.:10:46.

there would be sugar tax introduced for your particular category. The

:10:47.:10:51.

government has said, it is vague, but said we will use other levers to

:10:52.:10:55.

achieve the same aims if there has not been sufficient progress by

:10:56.:10:59.

2020. Specifically what do you think we need? To make a threat credible

:11:00.:11:06.

you have to sure what the stick is on this. To make vague suggestions

:11:07.:11:11.

that there could be further action is not enough. You give the industry

:11:12.:11:17.

a clear timeline when you would want them to re-formulate and you worked

:11:18.:11:20.

on that basis and see what will happen. I am pressing you on what

:11:21.:11:25.

you think should happen, and other tax? Yes. Why stop at soft drinks,

:11:26.:11:36.

is what you are saying? Yes. In my mind it is not about the tax-raising

:11:37.:11:42.

aspect of what you want, it is about incentive structure that you want.

:11:43.:11:46.

You want to change the incentives in the way the industry formulates its

:11:47.:11:50.

products, the way in which they are sold under way in which consumers

:11:51.:11:54.

buy them. You want all of them to substitute something that is reduced

:11:55.:11:59.

sugar. That is what your ultimate aim is. We have seen the

:12:00.:12:02.

effectiveness of the soft drinks industry levy because we are aware

:12:03.:12:07.

some companies are already be formulating and planning, whether

:12:08.:12:12.

brand manufacturers or own label. We are seeing the effectiveness. It is

:12:13.:12:18.

a very good device if you are clear on it, provide the incentive and say

:12:19.:12:24.

the way to avoid this is to make the changes now or work a structured

:12:25.:12:27.

plan with a clear timeline. It is the lack of a clear timeline and the

:12:28.:12:32.

lack of consequences if you do not work to it that troubles me. You

:12:33.:12:38.

have been admirably clear. Can I ask from a comment from the British

:12:39.:12:42.

Retail Consortium? We are more optimistic. I would not say the plan

:12:43.:12:47.

is going to feel. I think it will have certain success. To get full

:12:48.:12:51.

success certain things need to be introduced. We have called for a

:12:52.:12:57.

level playing field. We understand that this time around more

:12:58.:13:00.

conversations are being had with companies that perhaps have not been

:13:01.:13:06.

engaged before. We strongly believe that the regional ambition, which

:13:07.:13:10.

was to engage with every single company that has 15 plus outlets in

:13:11.:13:14.

the country, should be pursued, and that is the minimum level of

:13:15.:13:20.

engagement we need. To challenge you, the soft drink levy has been

:13:21.:13:25.

really effective already, why not replicated for these other nine food

:13:26.:13:31.

categories? I believe there is a way we can reform. We add in the process

:13:32.:13:35.

of moving towards products that are lower in sugar unlike in the soft

:13:36.:13:42.

drink category is not alternatives in the case of sweeteners or other

:13:43.:13:49.

ingredients are freely available to get products that are lower than

:13:50.:13:52.

sugar. The driver that has been acknowledged to reduce sugar in some

:13:53.:13:57.

of the categories, for example chocolate, it is different

:13:58.:13:59.

approaches being used for different categories. The additional element

:14:00.:14:05.

that we believe is required, having gone through detailed category

:14:06.:14:09.

meetings for over ten categories that have been identified, is a

:14:10.:14:14.

little bit more detail. We feel the approach of having maximum targets

:14:15.:14:19.

in the way we have for assault, as opposed to overall production of 20%

:14:20.:14:24.

per category, we feel these will enable companies to have a bit more

:14:25.:14:29.

guidance as to what a reasonable level for certain types of

:14:30.:14:32.

subcategory would be. What is achievable and reasonable as the

:14:33.:14:41.

quantity of sugar. To finish, to ask each of you how you think this

:14:42.:14:45.

should be evaluated and success measured? It is a really interesting

:14:46.:14:53.

question. There's a number of elements and this is being

:14:54.:14:56.

discussed. The focus at the moment is on the reformulation element.

:14:57.:15:00.

There is some measuring tools that have been discussed that will show

:15:01.:15:05.

how much we are progressing. There is talk about measuring the baseline

:15:06.:15:11.

for each one of the categories and measuring it in a year and that

:15:12.:15:14.

would give is an indication of whether we are progressing in the

:15:15.:15:19.

right direction. There is other aspects such as how we make sure or

:15:20.:15:24.

understand that we are moving in the right direction for portion sizes.

:15:25.:15:27.

It is more difficult to understand what that measure would look like.

:15:28.:15:31.

Talks about volume of sugar but that would not necessarily specified or

:15:32.:15:39.

correlates directly. That element is unclear. We are thinking about what

:15:40.:15:45.

that measurement might be. It has been suggested that sales figures

:15:46.:15:50.

might go a long way in indicating that progress is being achieved. I

:15:51.:16:02.

am not sure a tax is a good way to achieve the goals set out. I am

:16:03.:16:05.

talking about the whole plan. In 2020. It is not about raising

:16:06.:16:13.

revenue. This is about trying to reduce childhood obesity rates. You

:16:14.:16:18.

have to find a way, I do not know what the measure is, but that is the

:16:19.:16:22.

goal. It strikes me that what we have is a very narrow firm policy

:16:23.:16:27.

which is the soft drinks industry levy which is targeting a sector

:16:28.:16:33.

where sugar consumption is the cleaning very fast so I would be

:16:34.:16:37.

surprised if you use childhood abuse AT should end goal of the measures

:16:38.:16:42.

that have been argued so far been make much of a difference. You need

:16:43.:16:46.

measures, the end measure has to be whether we see the curve coming back

:16:47.:16:50.

down, and that was why there had been a call for extending the

:16:51.:16:54.

measurement programme of children, but that will take quite some time,

:16:55.:16:58.

so you need short-term measures. I am not sure what they are four

:16:59.:17:07.

sectors outside of soft drinks. OK. Evaluating the approach, not just

:17:08.:17:15.

one piece of it. My comments are specific to advertising regulation

:17:16.:17:17.

and clearly one of our concerns would be to monitor whatever the

:17:18.:17:23.

consequences of the ban coming in, Ofcom was concerned about other

:17:24.:17:31.

areas where HFSS came to. We need to be vigilant about changes in the

:17:32.:17:33.

market. We need to stay on top of the evidence base. As we always do,

:17:34.:17:41.

we want the success of any measure we take, to try to improve on any

:17:42.:17:50.

kind of ambiguity in the rules. Talking about the extent to which it

:17:51.:17:53.

is clear to advertisers there are clear audience measures they can use

:17:54.:18:00.

to apply the 25% test. It is the concern to remain vigilant.

:18:01.:18:09.

Professor. I reflected that there are aspects that trouble me about

:18:10.:18:13.

the action plan in terms of its lack of direction beyond the soft drinks

:18:14.:18:19.

industry levy. I like to see very clear targets and milestones to

:18:20.:18:27.

achieving those so it is a very clearly understood plan that

:18:28.:18:29.

everybody who is involved in the industries and consumers can see. It

:18:30.:18:35.

is that lack of commitment and direction that troubles me, that we

:18:36.:18:39.

could be here in a few years, nothing is improved, nothing is

:18:40.:18:43.

changed. There has been reformulation of some products but

:18:44.:18:47.

not enough to stop what is an epidemic. Whichever way you look at

:18:48.:18:53.

it, that is what has happened. We know that these children and

:18:54.:18:57.

overweight children are likely to become obese and overweight adults.

:18:58.:19:03.

That imposes huge health costs, has the burden on society and reduces

:19:04.:19:07.

the quality of peoples lifestyles and living. This is the fundamental

:19:08.:19:15.

that we as a nation get this right and we have an opportunity and we

:19:16.:19:19.

have to seize that opportunity. I would like to see more direction on

:19:20.:19:26.

price promotions. They are an issue. Why? Because of temptation.

:19:27.:19:30.

Temptation awaits us all. I suffer from the doughnuts in the petrol

:19:31.:19:35.

station. I suffer from temptation all the time. I am always reminded

:19:36.:19:40.

that the success of many industries and companies relies on

:19:41.:19:45.

availability. Coca-Cola has been enormously successful. Amazingly

:19:46.:19:49.

successful company, because of trying to keep products within arms

:19:50.:19:54.

reach, accessible, and that is the same for many food and drinks

:19:55.:20:00.

companies. The one thing that is not even mentioned in the policy as far

:20:01.:20:06.

as I can see is about food, drinks and nutrients in and physical

:20:07.:20:10.

activity, is the thing that is in this container in front of us, tap

:20:11.:20:13.

water. Not bottled water necessarily. Almost free. If we

:20:14.:20:22.

encourage parents and children to drink more, make sure we put it

:20:23.:20:26.

within arms reach for them, what a difference it would make. For

:20:27.:20:32.

example, why is it you cannot go to a fast-food restaurant and be served

:20:33.:20:36.

tap water? You have to order a value meal, and burger, fries and a

:20:37.:20:43.

carbonated drink. Why are they not giving you tap water and taking off

:20:44.:20:46.

the price of the carbonated drink in the value deal? You are being

:20:47.:20:53.

encouraged. Why is there not a water fountain available there so that

:20:54.:20:57.

rather than have a freebie fill of a sugary drink you can have free

:20:58.:21:02.

water? There are other environments. Make it a policy that for children

:21:03.:21:06.

everywhere and schools everywhere, there is freely available tap water

:21:07.:21:12.

available to them. Get that message over to parents of that when they

:21:13.:21:16.

sit down in the evenings ready for dinner they are serving water, not

:21:17.:21:24.

another drink. We are doing our bit. We are. I reflected on that. I am

:21:25.:21:30.

conscious of the time. One final question. I imagine you will be

:21:31.:21:42.

aware of the Channel 4 dispatches programme that was on our screens

:21:43.:21:46.

just over a three months ago, the secret plan to save that Britain.

:21:47.:21:53.

The original draft obesity strategy. I thoroughly recommend the

:21:54.:21:59.

programme. It should want the government originally intended to

:22:00.:22:04.

present in their strategy. Many things in the draft unfortunately

:22:05.:22:06.

did not make it to the final strategy. In the draft plan there

:22:07.:22:12.

was a sentence which said that we must recognise increasing amount of

:22:13.:22:18.

exercise children undertake will not in itself solve childhood obesity,

:22:19.:22:22.

the number of calories you burn through physical activity is dwarfed

:22:23.:22:26.

by the amount we can easily consume through what we eat and drink. Would

:22:27.:22:34.

you agree? That exercise on its own will fix obesity? No. That what you

:22:35.:22:44.

burn through physical it ever day is dwarfed by the amount you need to

:22:45.:22:49.

drink. That is why we are getting bigger, we consume more calories

:22:50.:22:58.

than we burn. That seems clear. We have few before us as one of the

:22:59.:23:02.

companies, of which there are many, who do your bit in the field of

:23:03.:23:06.

tackling obesity. Perhaps you can share with us why it is that you the

:23:07.:23:12.

company spent so much of your income on physical activity programmes? On

:23:13.:23:14.

your website it is over ?6 million. Subtitles will resume on 'This Week

:23:15.:23:20.

In Parliament' at 2300.

:23:21.:23:31.

Recorded coverage of the Health Committee's session on childhood obesity, with evidence from academics, Coca-Cola and public health minister Nicola Blackwood, from Tuesday 7 February.