Ultra-processed Food

Lord Allan of Hallam Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Markham (Con)]

The rationale was very clear. The measures that we introduced by the modelling showed that in what we were trying to do we were attacking the things that cause 95% of the reduction in calories—namely, the product positioning, which has the support of 78% of people to reduce the so-called pester power. Early evidence shows that it is working, because foods that are not high in the bad stuff have gone up by 16% and those with high sugar, salt and fat content have gone down by 6%, all through the product positioning. It is working, but the most important thing is that we have gone after the big numbers, those that effect 95% reductions in calorific intake.

[Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)]

My Lords, to follow on from the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, there is a public expectation that the delayed junk food advertising regulations will mean that children will be less likely to see ads for products from companies such as KFC and McDonald’s. But my understanding from the Minister’s previous comments is that the Government’s expectation now is that the advertising will carry on as before and children will continue to see just as many ads, albeit with the products reformulated to get around the ad ban. Is that correct?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

I have said many times that the prize is reformulation. I do not think that any of us should have a problem per se with the food if the bad stuff is taken out. Diet Coke is a perfect example. It is not particularly good for you but not bad for you either, so why should Coca-Cola not be able to advertise Diet Coke? If you take out the bad stuff, we should encourage industry because advertising works. It wants to advertise, so if it is encouraged to take out the bad stuff, that is a big incentive.