While Defra gets bogged down in the minutiae of environmental data, a conference heard how mandatory reporting of healthy food sales is powering ahead. By Nick Hughes.
Steady as she goes. When Boris Johnson’s government launched the food data transparency partnership (FDTP) in its 2022 food strategy it was described as “a unique opportunity to leverage the collective energy and enthusiasm found across the food system and drive a real transformation in health, animal welfare and environmental outcomes through our food”. Fast-forward three years and the hard reality of delivering this transformation has become apparent. Speaking at a Westminster Food and Nutrition Forum last week on priorities for data and transparency in the food system, Defra’s FDTP lead Lindsay Roome struck an altogether less bullish tone as she detailed the current focus of the partnership’s eco-working group. The original plan to develop a mandatory methodology for voluntary eco-labels has been shelved for the time being with Defra now focused on improving the quality and harmonisation of raw data at a farm and product level. This is effectively a case of Defra learning to walk before it can run. Roome explained that if poor quality data is being used to develop eco-labels “the results that you get out could be meaningless or misrepresentative for consumers”; hence the decision to park a mandatory methodology until the challenges in generating good quality, consistent data and making it more accessible throughout the value chain have been overcome.
Patrolling the ‘Wild West’. Laying this groundwork will take time. Roome suggested a soon-to-be-commissioned piece of research looking specifically at data governance would likely not report back before 2027; all the while voluntary eco-labelling schemes continue to operate (albeit they are perhaps not proliferating at the pace predicted back when the FDTP first launched). For some, the lack of guardrails around eco-labels is a problem that needs to be tackled now. Another speaker, Catherine Chong, ESG and engagement lead for Clear, highlighted the coalition’s recent research into existing eco-labelling schemes which identified a range of limitations including a lack of standardised methodologies, over-reliance on modelled (secondary) rather than supply chain specific data, and limited consideration of impacts such as biodiversity, soil health and water quality. Chong spoke of the danger of there being a “transparency gap” whereby the ratings displayed on eco-labels may not accurately reflect the environmental benefits or harms of the specific product supply chain. “If consumers cannot tell the difference between products with better environmental credentials and those that are much less environmentally sound in the way it was produced, trust cannot be built,” she said. Roome, however, made clear that Defra does not intend to act as adjudicator of existing eco-labels during the time it takes to develop its own policy. “Where companies can see a benefit in providing that consumer information, we’re not asking them to stop doing that,” she said. Indeed, proponents of eco-labelling have long insisted that perfect data need not be the enemy of good data.
Health sets the pace. Slow progress on regulating environmental data stands in contrast to the pace of change in the health sphere. The government’s recent 10-year health plan for England included the headline (from a food policy perspective) proposal to introduce mandatory healthy food sales reporting for all large companies in the food sector, followed by targets to increase the healthiness of sales. Attention has now turned to what data businesses will be required to report and how they will set about hitting future targets? Rebecca Tobi, head of food business transformation at The Food Foundation, suggested the metrics are expected to be those that have already been identified by the FDTP health working group as being most relevant and accessible. These are: the percentage of a business’s total sales that come from HFSS foods, the sales weighted average nutrient profiling model score (essentially the average NPM score a business would achieve across its entire product portfolio), and sales-weighted calorie content per 100g (the last of which has the out of home sector specifically in mind, Tobi noted). The government is said to be agnostic about how businesses meet these targets. Tobi recounted how, at a Nesta conference held the previous week, health secretary Wes Streeting reiterated that businesses would be free to meet the targets in any way they see fit, whether that’s through product reformulation, promotional strategies or other interventions. Looking ahead, Tobi said The Food Foundation would also like to see businesses required to disclose information on the balance of sales between plant and animal proteins to support the shift to more sustainable diets.
Stability and enforcement, please. Responsible investors have welcomed the level playing field that mandatory health reporting will create. However, Sophie Lawrence, stewardship and engagement lead at Greenbank Investments, warned that once requirements and targets are set it is vital they are not delayed or watered down further down the line. “When we engage with businesses, they tell us they’re supportive of the reporting requirements but they need [them] to remain consistent over the long term so that they can plan adequately and not spend money on continuously adapting to new expectations,” she said. Lawrence also called for a proper enforcement framework for health reporting and targets to be overseen by an independent body with penalties for businesses that don’t comply.
Boost for business. Prior to the publication of the health plan, a number of businesses including big names like Tesco and Danone had called publicly for the introduction of mandatory reporting. Speaking at the forum, David Moore, head of ESG at The Compleat Food Group, said not only does the business back mandatory reporting on health but it is also broadly supportive of disclosure of key environmental and sustainability indicators. Compleat, which supplies retail and foodservice businesses with a wide range of food products ranging from cakes and savoury pastries to dips and plant-based meat alternatives, has a target to be net-zero in its own operations by 2035 and across its value chain by 2040. “We have to publicly report on our progress, but it’s really difficult to do that when you have inconsistencies of data throughout your value chain,” said Moore. Manufacturers, he explained, are “pretty data heavy” but light on data infrastructure. Having a centrally-managed, government-mandated system for reporting would help businesses like Compleat drive systemic change by increasing data transparency and allowing them “to make sustainable choices with confidence”.
Materiality matters. Moore also spoke of the need to link demands on suppliers to provide robust data with their materiality to the business. Last year, Compleat acquired Harvey & Brockless, a speciality food producer and distributor that has over 300 artisan cheesemakers within its supply chain. “I’m not going to be asking every single one of those tiny cheese suppliers exactly the same information I’m asking from my biggest suppliers,” said Moore. He did, however, suggest there is a journey SMEs need to take that over time leads towards more transparent disclosure.
