Lord’s committee “fails to recognise” responsibility deal benefits: FDF
Barbara Gallani, FDF director of food safety and science, said: “Whilst this is a comprehensive report into behaviour change, recognising the wide range of interventions on offer, the committee have failed to recognise the benefits of the Public Health Responsibility Deal or to understand the phased approach of the Food Network within it.”
Although Gallani supported the committee’s recommendation to understand more about which interventions will effect how people behave, she said: “With the monitoring methodology still to be agreed, the committee is rushing, against its own advice about the amount of time required to change behaviours, to judge the effectiveness of the RD (Responsibility Deal).”
Healthier lifestyles
After a year-long investigation, the sub committee behaviour change report concluded that plans to get people to adopt healthier lifestyles – via persuasion or ‘nudging’ – are unlikely to be successful unless backed by legislation.
Committee chair, Baroness Neuberger, said in a statement: “There are all manner of things that the government want us to do – lose weight, give up smoking, use the car less, give blood – but how can they get us to do them?
“It won’t be easy and this inquiry has shown that it certainly won't be achieved through using ‘nudges’, or any other sort of intervention, in isolation.”
The government should be “braver about mixing and matching policy,” measures, added Neuberger. It should use both incentives and disincentives to bring about change and become more effective at evaluating its measures.
Her committee also recommended that government:
- Appoint an independent chief social scientist to prove independent scientific advice.
- Implement legislation if voluntary agreements prove ineffective.
- Implement a traffic light system of nutritional labelling on all food packaging.
Robust evidence
Responding to the last recommendation, Gallani said: “Additionally the committee appears to have been informed by anecdotal rather than robust evidence on front of pack nutritional labelling to make the recommendation that a traffic light system should be implemented over any other system and appear to be unsighted on the recent National Heart Forum work which demonstrates the extent to which marketing is already subject to regulation and self-regulation.”
Dr Tom MacMillan, executive director of the Food Ethics Council welcomed the report. "Like the Sub-Committee, we are worried that the coalition government seems to be shedding its regulatory responsibilities in favour of 'nudges',” said MacMillan. “The available evidence shows that nudge theory can be an effective way to encourage healthier and greener behaviour, but it should complement and enhance traditional approaches to policy, not simply replace them.”
The government launched its Public Health Responsibility Deal designed to encourage people to make healthier choices in March. In the Department of Health’s document, The Public Health Responsibility Deal, Andrew Lansley, secretary of state for health wrote: “By working in partnership, public health, commercial, and voluntary organisations can agree practical actions to secure more progress, more quickly, with less cost than legislation.”
Meanwhile, last month FoodManufacture.co.uk reported comments from former chief scientist Sir David King who said voluntary measures might not be enough to achieve the objectives of the responsibility deal.
Speaking at the Institute of Food Science and Technology’s annual lecture in May, Sir David said: “I don’t think governments can stand back. We need to, for example, be looking at the availability of sports fields in all our schools.”
