Gino Kenny urges front-of-pack labelling for ultra-processed foods

A very interesting subject matter. My first question is in terms of ultra-processed foods and there's been much commentary in relation to processed foods that are high in salt, high in saturates and so forth and there's commentary in terms of that these foods should be labelled. Now I know in South America in some countries they are labelled with very distinctive labelling in terms of these foods. Would you consider that some of these foods that are again ultra-processed and not particularly good for your health should be labelled in any form in Ireland? It's a general question to anybody. Yes, there's been a huge amount of media attention on ultra-processed foods and to be fair, you know, we've been talking about people eating healthier foods that are minimally processed for the last 30 years probably. The amount of research is growing but at the moment most of those studies are still at an observational level. So when they try to interrogate the reasons for the relationship between ultra-processed foods and ill health, which there is, what they really find is that the key mechanism is the amount of sugar, fat and salt in the food. So ultra-processed foods are also high in sugar, fat and salt. So it's very difficult to distinguish between the nutritional quality of the food and the fact that it's been processed. So at the moment I think it's premature to base a labelling strategy on the processing level until we have some more research and that of course is evolving. But it does go back to Deputy Durkin's point earlier on that the kind of front of pack labelling so that people can easily identify what is healthy and what is unhealthy could be a very important part of our strategy to create a healthier environment for people where it's easier to make healthier choices. And again there's been commentary in terms of ultra-processed foods that these are such a present danger that it's something akin to what tobacco was doing to adults 50-60 years ago. And obviously if children are consuming these products because obviously the marketing that goes behind these products is absolutely insidious and there's a war going on and we're losing that war. The people that are winning that war are the marketeers, the profiteers of these huge companies that are really kind of basically drug dealers essentially. And they're putting out this food and trying to sell it as much as possible to get people hooked. Do you kind of see any sort of parallel between what's happened to the tobacco industry and the kind of ultra-processed food industry? I absolutely see parallels between the tobacco industry and the industry that produce foods that are high in sugar, fat and salt. And I actually think we can learn a lot from the journey of tobacco over the last 40 to 50 years, although I hope it wouldn't take us as long. I think the ban on advertising of tobacco was really important many years ago at this stage. You know, when we banned smoking in pubs and restaurants, that was with the protection of the worker at the centre of the policy. Now we want the protection of children at the centre of our policy. And I think banning unhealthy food from areas where children gather could be a really important part of our policy. And the last piece is the removal of tobacco products that are from being visible within a retail setting. And I, you know, at the moment, if you go into a supermarket, you're 16 times more likely to see an unhealthy food at the end of an aisle or at a till than a healthy food. And what you should do when you go into a supermarket is actually have to seek out those unhealthy food, which have a place in our diet, you know, for occasions and so on. But they should be hidden in the same way that tobacco is hidden. So I think your parallel drawing that parallel is exactly right in terms of how we respond as well as the journey. Obviously, there's a responsibility on these huge companies to have responsibility in terms of marketing, in terms of actually how they kind of sell these products. But it just seems to be kind of just the Wild West in terms of how actually this food is marketed. If you go into a supermarket, it's like they play mind games with you, especially children, when we go into this space. Well, obviously, we have to go in because it's necessary evil. It's just you just look around. It's just madness, absolutely madness what's going on in terms of how food is placed and how food is marketed towards just young children. We totally agree. And I think that's really the essence of the campaign that we're running at the moment. I don't know if you were here at the beginning when we mentioned that as part of our formative research, that 72 percent of parents had seen offers of unhealthy food in non-food locations. So DIY stores, leisure centers. So even if you try to do the right thing with your child, you go into the leisure center and you're faced with the vending machine at the door. So the child, of course, makes the beeline for the sweets. Of course, of course, the child does. We're all human. So, you know, these are the kinds of protections we would love to see in places where children gather specifically. And we think that could be a very important part of how we move forward. OK. I think Colin wants to go in. Yeah, Colin. Just on the front of PAC labelling, it's been considered in the context of European Commission's proposal. Now, the Commission is to review the food information to consumers regulation under both the farm-to-fork strategy and Europe's beating cancer plan. Unfortunately, that has been deferred by DeSanta. There has been no revised date provided to progress to draft proposals. But it's something obviously would be extremely beneficial. The Ireland welcomes the proposal to review the food information to consumers regulation. And basically, we would be in favour of a front of PAC labelling that was, you know, in under the European Commission's proposal. So, I mean, there is a proposal at a European level, and that's something that we need to work on and try and get through. OK, thanks. Thanks, Miss. Just on the issue around social determinants, and I think this is an enormous issue, because obviously in working-class areas where, kind of, you know, people are kind of finding it difficult to put food on the table, you know, there will be a situation where, you know, people will buy food but at lower quality. And obviously that's kind of feeding into childhood obesity and so forth. And, yeah, and that's obviously having, you know, that will have a kind of trigger effect in terms of a child. When they're grown up, they will have access to kind of poorer and ultra-processed foods. And again, that's kind of a socio-economical factor in terms of what we kind of consume. Now, obviously, how you kind of address that is obviously if people have better incomes and the food is better, rather than the ultra-processed foods and so forth. Just in terms of all the kind of the marketing that goes with this kind of processed foods, it's pretty staggering that the amount of money that goes into the marketing of these type of foods. And obviously the people that are behind this are quite smart. Actually, they're very, very smart. They're too smart. Because they want to make you consume certain products, not just in kind of small quantities, but they want you to eat as much as you want. And that is the fact. That is the biggest fact of all. These foods actually become addictive, particularly for small children. And once, you know, you consume so much of these products, then you will have health difficulties, not only in the present time, but obviously in the future time in terms of diabetes and obesity. But just in terms of, because we're all losing the war on marketing. The people that are winning this war are the marketeers of these huge companies that are hugely possible. How can we kind of address that and also challenge it through legislation and kind of get better marketing in terms of what they're trying to say? Again, it's a general question. I know. Just in relation to the foods, you know, community food and nutrition, you know, we have provided funding for 19 community food and nutrition workers to be appointed in existing staunch care. As many people have taken that post up? Pardon? 18. Has that post been taken up? 18. 18 are filled. 18 are filled. Sorry, 18 of those posts are filled. Oh, that's fine. OK. So the whole idea is to, you know, you can bring all the legislation you like, but at the same time you also need, as I said, outlined already about the tax in relation to sugar content and drinks, how that has worked. And it's about the way marketing is done. How much does that work per year? Pardon? How much does that generate as revenue? That generated £32 million in 2000, and it went from £16.3 million initially in 2018 up to £32 million in 2022. But it's now coming back down. Because, as you see, when it was introduced, the whole issue is about the code in relation to that is the – I just wanted to check the – the tax is imposed with the different rate of sugar content in a drink. So the higher sugar content, the more tax is paid. Right. And the whole idea is to reduce down the sugar content. And that's only in fizzy drinks, is it? That's in drinks, yes. It's not on, like, food products. And there's no – there's no – there's no – there's no thoughts of a salt tax or – now, I don't want to be kind of in the 90's day here, but some of these foods are just absolutely crazy. It isn't in relation to salt tax, this is specifically in relation to sugar, because, remember, in relation to the whole issue is about, you know, the health issues that can arise if people consume excessive amounts of products which have, you know, excessive amounts of sugar. And the whole idea is to try and reduce that down, but not only by campaigns advising people how to, you know, that they need to eat healthy, but also making sure the foods that are available have reduced sugar content in them. And that's basically what the whole idea of the tax is. And there – as there was – there was an evaluation currently being done in relation to the progress that has been made on that, and that report should be out in the next five to six weeks. As regards, what is the success or, you know, are there further things that need to be done in order to improve it further? Maybe – I'm happy to. Go to. Yeah. Sorry. Thank you very much. I'm Catherine Curran, and I work for the Minister. I work for the Department on the Obesity Policy and Action Plan, the implementation of it. But I think just to speak specifically to the evaluation that has been carried out on the Sugar Sweet and Drinks Tax, we have a draft of the report already. It hasn't yet been released. It hopefully will be released in the next coming weeks. But I suppose I can give you a preliminary kind of indications of what the findings are. And the tax was introduced in 2018 with two policy objectives. To reduce consumption of sugar in carbonated drinks and to encourage reformulation of products. And what we have seen in those years, what the figures are showing us is – and we have the tax-take figures. We have figures from Euromonitor in terms of levels of sugar, volumes being consumed, but also the levels of sugar compared to volumes being consumed. And we can see that there has been radical reformulation of the products of sugar sweetened drinks over the past number of years. It was already beginning to happen, and this is what industry argued with us, that it was already happening, was already in place from about 2008, 2009. We were already seeing reformulation of sugar sweetened drinks. However, it has accelerated since the introduction of the tax. What we can also see is – so we have four out of the five top brands don't pay – they fall below the tax. Their normal full sugar as such product, not their diet product or their zero sugar product, falls below the five grams per 100 ml tax threshold. So that is encouraging to see. We have also seen – so the consumption of sugar has gone down, and already we see, as Minister has said, the tax take is reducing because the level of consumption of sugar is falling. As more products fall out of the tax bracket or move from the higher tax bracket into the five to eight grams of sugar per 100 ml, which is the lower tax bracket, above eight grams is the higher tax threshold. So it is very encouraging to see this, and we hope to have those results published in the coming weeks, and we can circulate them. We will make sure that the committee gets copies of the report when it is published. Thank you.