Mandatory reporting should cover sustainability metrics as well as healthy sales, say campaigners, but business groups are urging caution. By Nick Hughes.
The news that large food businesses will be required to report publicly on the healthiness of their food sales and meet future targets has been heralded as a key step towards tackling obesity by health experts – and has also been welcomed by certain businesses.
Since then, the focus has turned to the question of what exactly companies will – and should – be required to report. Scant details were offered in the government’s press announcement and the subsequent ‘10 year health plan for England’, however we can get a clue for what the key metrics are likely to be by looking at the work of the Food Data Transparency Partnership’s (FDTP) health working group.
The latest set of meeting minutes, published in April 2024 before the general election halted momentum behind the group’s work, revealed how member businesses – including the likes of Tesco, Nestlé and Mitchells and Butlers – had agreed to focus on three specific metrics for a proposed modelling exercise. These were sales weighted average (tonnes), nutrient profiling model (NFM) score (essentially the average NPM score a business would achieve across its entire product portfolio); percentage of total product sales (tonnage) from HFSS (high in fat, sugar and salt) products; and sales-weighted calorie content per 100g.
The idea to use a single NPM score to assess the relative healthiness of portfolios originally came from Nesta, the innovation agency for social good, which says the NPM is a recognised measure of how healthy food and drink products are based on their calorie content and nutrients like fat, sugar, salt, protein and fibre. Nesta has calculated the supermarket sector’s average converted NPM score on health is currently 67 out of 100 (with 0 being the worst and 100 the best). It says if businesses were required to meet a target of 69 under the new standard, this could lead to a reduction in obesity by around one fifth.
Beyond health
While campaigners have welcomed the commitment to transparent and standardised reporting and targets, they now want to ensure the government doesn’t stop at healthy sales. A policy paper coordinated by Eating Better and the Obesity Health Alliance, supported by alliances representing over 200 organisations, has called for additional health and sustainability metrics to be added to the mix including the split between plant and animal protein sales; the percentage of total fruit and vegetable sales; and climate emissions reporting across scopes 1, 2 and 3. The organisations are also seeking recognition that animal welfare, nature and further health metrics should follow as soon as possible.
“Every recommendation we make is currently implemented by leading businesses,” said Sarah Wakefield, executive director of Eating Better. “These measures are being used by organisations serious about change and accountability.”
The group is also calling for the detail behind the new standard to be agreed by experts rather than the food industry. Business representatives dominate both the FDTP health working group and the food strategy advisory board, which will support the government as it develops the mandatory reporting policy and sets targets. “Once those health-led targets are in place, big food businesses should be given the flexibility to meet them in ways that are meaningful and measurable,” said Kat Jenner, director of the Obesity Health Alliance.
Mandatory reporting represents a big step forward for the food industry and campaigners will know they are unlikely to see all of their demands met straight off the bat. Responding to the 10-year health plan, Kate Nicholls, UKHospitality chief executive, hinted at the line industry groups are set to take to ensure reporting requirements and future targets are considered proportionate to their potential impact.
“Collaboration with the sector will be key as enforcing blunt and ill-suited measures upon business will not deliver genuine change but will instead add further red tape and cost,” said Nicholls. “That cost will be passed onto the consumer, with hospitality businesses unable to absorb any further cost.”
Let the horse-trading over metrics – and timescales – begin.
