Key points
There are few areas of food policy that provoke as much angst as the links between diet and children’s health. At the end of April, research published in the International Journal of Obesity suggested that we face not one, but two obesity epidemics, with parents being the biggest influence on the habits of younger children, while adolescents’ ability to make their own bad choices leads to a second wave of obesity among teens.
And it’s not just obesity that’s raising the blood pressure of worried parents. March saw the publication of the latest Children’s Dental Health (CDH) survey, which showed that in 2013, nearly half of 15 year-olds and a third of 12 year-olds had “obvious decay” in their permanent teeth.
However, when it comes to children, most players acknowledge that youngsters and their parents need support. The marketing of food to children is under particular scrutiny.
Industry argues that it has already gone a long way towards addressing the marketing issue through the EU Pledge, which restricts the marketing of foods to children via television, print and the internet unless products conform to common nutrition criteria. From December 31 2016, the Pledge will apply to radio, cinema, DVD, direct marketing, product placement, games and mobile marketing.
Exposure (Return to top)
The Pledge members represent over 80% of food and beverage advertisement spend within the EU. The latest figures show that children’s exposure to products outside the nutrition criteria through children’s programmes (those aimed at under-12s) fell by 88% between 2005 and 2014. Exposure across all programmes fell by 52% and exposure to advertising for EU Pledge companies’ products was down 42%.
Nevertheless, calls to legislate are getting louder. With this in mind, the World Health Organisation (WHO) Europe published a nutrient profile model in February for Member States to use or adapt when designing their own policies. “It is still early days, but the tool should be useful for countries when designing policies at the national level and it has already generated significant interest,” says WHO spokeswoman Tina Kiaer.
The WHO Europe model is not yet binding on anyone but, if it’s adopted, it would explicitly exclude several broad product categories from being marketed to children. Some of these are unsurprising, such as chocolate and energy drinks. However, the exclusion of 100% fruit and vegetable juices has raised some eyebrows.
There is also concern that the thresholds for certain nutrients in other categories may constitute a ban in all but name. For example, the limit for salt levels in savoury snacks is 0.1g/100g, compared with the EU Pledge’s 900mg/100g of sodium for extruded snacks (that’s 2.25g/100g of salt). Similarly, the marketing to kids of products in the ‘milk drinks’ and ‘other drinks’ categories are only permitted if they contain zero sugar and zero alternative sweeteners, leaving little room for reformulation.
WHO Europe stresses that marketing is the primary target of the new model, not promoting reformulation, and Kiaer explains the thinking behind the inclusion of drinks sweetened with calorie-free sugar alternatives in the banned category: “Much marketing is carried out with the aim of building brand awareness/recognition and brand loyalty, particularly among children.
“Based on this evidence, and the existence of strong brand identity in the beverage sector that cuts across beverages containing caloric sweeteners and non-sugar sweeteners, the decision was taken to extend the criteria for beverages to include non-sugar sweeteners,” she adds.
“The primary aim is to reduce the potential for cross-product effects of brand marketing, given that caloric and non-caloric beverages are very close substitutes with similar taste and palatability profiles, especially for children who are at a critical stage in developing their taste preferences.”
Health benefits (Return to top)
EU Pledge spokesman Rocco Renaldi points out that some of the other categories affected are foods that have significant health benefits. For instance, the salt threshold for cheese effectively rules out the entire category of hard and semi-hard cheese. “Despite the relatively high salt content of these products necessary for conservation, cheese is consumed in small quantities and is not therefore a large contributor to salt intake among children. On the contrary, it is an important contributor to children’s intake of positive nutrients such as protein, calcium and B vitamins,” he says. Similarly, drinks and yogurts made with full-fat milk would be excluded by their fat content.
“We share WHO Europe’s intention to protect children from being exposed to the marketing of foods that are high in salt, sugar and fat and acknowledge that the WHO’s nutrient profile model is based on sound scientific principles,” says Sarah Sheppard, head of communications, research, for Nestlé. “We are, however, disappointed that the exclusion of entire categories of products and very low thresholds chosen by WHO Europe do not allow for innovation and reformulation within a category.
“Improving products and diets is a journey for food and beverage companies and for consumers. It is important to have stretched targets, but not unachievable ones.”
Sheppard highlights that, in addition to its marketing commitments as a member of the EU Pledge (which the company now applies globally), Nestlé has already been working for years to reformulate its children's products (among others).
It measures its progress against Nestlé Nutritional Foundation (NNF) criteria, which is a set of standards established in 2005 that have evolved over time in line with research.
“At the end of 2014, 98% of our children’s products met the NNF criteria. Action plans are in place for the remaining 2% – either to reformulate or discontinue the products – and we confirmed the commitment to maintain NNF for 100% of our children’s products.
“We are on target to reach the goal to reduce the sugar content of young people’s breakfast cereals to 9g or less by the end of 2015,” she adds. This goes beyond the WHO model requirements of 15g or less.
Area of importance (Return to top)
One important way the WHO model differs from the EU Pledge and Nestlé’s NNF criteria is that it focuses on limiting “undesirable” nutrients, rather than encouraging those that are positively beneficial. One area Nestlé is focusing on is raising the level of whole grains in its cereals. “Regarding making whole grain the chief ingredient, at the end of 2014 we had reached 95% and are on target to reach the [100%] goal by the end of this year,” says Sheppard.
This type of industry initiative demonstrates that some companies are willing to act without the “big stick” of regulation behind them. It’s also true that some rules offer opportunities as well as challenges. For example, the UK introduced new nutritional standards for school food last year and companies have been reformulating products to comply.
The Juiceburst brand from Purity Soft Drinks launched a new school-approved range of 330ml packs that contain 150ml of juice and no added sugar ahead of the new rules. “The Juiceburst no added sugar schools range has been instrumental in driving the Juiceburst brand forward and broadening our appeal through targeting school goers,” says marketing director Jon Evans.
“Since launching the range in October 2014, it has become a £2M brand and with continued support we expect this success to continue.”
Meanwhile, Renaldi warns that the WHO’s “big stick” model would be largely unaccompanied by any “carrots” to promote any new product development.