Calorie labelling in the out of home sector: consultation analysis

8. Timescale and Support for Implementation

Q14. Support in addition to detailed written guidance

Question 14 - What support, in addition to detailed written guidance, would businesses need to implement calorie labelling effectively?

In total, 308 individuals and 67 organisations provided a response to question 14.

Financial support

The most frequently suggested support among respondents was financial support in the form of grants, subsidies or tax breaks to help businesses with implementation and ongoing monitoring. Financial aid would be necessary to help pay for additional staff training and time, as well as materials and infrastructure, it was felt. Re-imbursement of all such costs would also ensure that nothing was passed on to the consumer.

Linked to this were suggestions that the policy would need to be supported by additional free staffing resources for such things as administration, training and ongoing support rather than costs falling on small businesses.

Similarly, it was felt that financial help to provide access to nutritionists and other professionals would be key:

"If the legislation came into effect, businesses may need to hire professional nutritionist to [accurately] calculate how many calories are in a dish. If the legislation is mandatory, the government should be prepared to contribute the cost of this to the business." [Individual]

Training

Training also featured strongly in responses, especially among those representing larger businesses, and this included training for businesses and their staff in:

• nutrition and health and how calories interact with both;
• how to carry out nutritional analysis and/or where to go to get this done, including how to use the free online resources for calculating calories;
• understanding portion sizes; and
• explaining calorie content to customers/consumers in a reliable and accurate way, while also avoiding potentially triggering or harmful explanations.

Training such as this should be delivered in a variety of different formats, it was suggested, including in person, online, via webinars, workshops, tutorials, online videos, etc. and must be available on an ongoing basis to assist with different stages of implementation and maintenance of the policy.

Written guidance

Several respondents simply stated that they agreed that written guidance would be necessary and specified that this should:

• provide a clear step-by-step guide with FAQs sent directly to businesses and in collaboration with representative trade associations;
• include specific guidance on the application of the provisions to customised items;
• have guidance on substitution of food options when the menu ingredient is not listed in the software; and
• include a clear presentation of how the enforcement framework will work in Scotland would be welcomed so retailers and suppliers can understand how to comply with the regulations.

Other practical support

Dedicated advisers working at the national level to help businesses through the process of implementation was also suggested. This was seen as especially important for those in the food trade who have poor literacy levels, for whom proving leaflets and web links would not be robust standalone solutions.

Suggestions for other practical supports included:

• provision of calorie calculators, or similar;
• free access to specialists/nutritionists for advice, including visits from professionals to assist with implementation/help businesses understand if they are adhering to the guidelines;
• access to laboratories for testing items for calorie content/ a government sponsored laboratory where businesses or groups could have the calorie content accurately provided, free of charge and in a timely manner to minimise litigation concerns;
• administrative support;
• templates/automatic print out formats for relevant calorie information;
• promotion of/awareness raising of the free online resources for calculating calories;
• a helpline provided by Food Standards Scotland (FSS) or another body to support businesses with implementation issues and to make FSS aware of any issues; and
• ongoing support to help businesses with monitoring.

Time was also again stressed as being important in supporting the proposal, with sufficient time being given to small and micro businesses (including independent operators) in particular to help with implementation. A phasing in period was again encouraged.

Other less frequently mentioned and indirect support suggestions included:

• a consumer facing communications campaign/activity from the Scottish Government to alert consumers to the change;
• light touch approach to enforcement in the early days of any regulation coming into force, with a focus on education and how to successfully implement calorie labelling before any penalties are applied; and
• a supportive approach from local authorities in helping businesses at the local level.

Further consultation during the development of the policy and official, written implementation guidance was also encouraged. One respondent suggested that the sector might also find it useful to establish a working group or a roundtable where stakeholders can engage in ongoing and constructive dialogue with the policy makers and eventually enforcers to exchange information, share expertise, experiences and best practices.

Where people did not agree with the policy proposal, suggestions were often linked to earlier comments about public health risks and disordered eating, with ideas that support might include:

• a list of dietitians and therapists available in the area to help those with disordered eating;
• access to support and training on helping customers who are distressed of otherwise negatively impacted by the information businesses would be required to provide (including training for staff on disordered eating); and
• training for businesses to ensure they adopt a neutral stance, to ensure people still enjoy their meal, and not feeling like someone is watching/judging their meal.

This cohort again stressed that calorie labelling on its own would not suffice and would require to be accompanied with further additional nutritional information and other supportive measures.

A reasonable proportion of respondents indicated that they "did not know" or had no suggestions. Other comments again included that this question would be better addressed specifically to business owners only to help fully understand their needs. Following implementation, it was suggested that businesses would also benefit from feedback and evidence around if the policy was working and impacting as desired.

Q15. Timescale for implementation

Question 15 - From the publication of relevant guidance, what length of time would businesses need to prepare to implement calorie labelling effectively ahead of legislation coming into force?

Overview

Of all those who responded to question 15 (490 individuals and 68 organisations), 36% said that they did not know how long it would take for businesses to prepare for implementation and 22% said 'Other' (with several noting that they were not business owners and therefore felt they did not have sufficient experience to comment).

Of the organisations who responded 25% stated that they felt it would take 2 years to prepare for the legislation coming into force, 18% said 12 months and 16% said 18 months. A further 3% said 6 months while 12% said other and 26% said don't know. Across OOH providers and industry representative bodies there was a recognition that businesses would need at least 12 months to prepare and a higher number of each stating that 2 years would be more appropriate.

Individual responses were varied with more than a third (37%) who responded stating that they did not know how long businesses would need to prepare.

In total, 248 individuals and 58 organisations provided responses explaining their answer to question 15.

6 months

Very few suggested the shorter timescale of 6 months and among those who did it was because they perceived that the logistics of calculating calories and printing necessary signage/menus, etc. was relatively easy. This was considered to particularly be the case for larger chains already operating similarly in England.

Views were also put forward that a longer time period may lead to businesses simply leaving things to the last minute and that the response to the pandemic had proved that businesses could (if required) respond quickly to change.

12 Months

Those who suggested 12 months did so mainly on the basis that this was a "reasonable" timeframe that would accommodate businesses of different sizes including smaller businesses which may be seasonal and therefore closed for 6 months of the year.

A period of 12 months was seen as allowing businesses time to recover from the impacts of the pandemic before having to have the policy up and running, as well as giving them time to make the necessary adjustments (e.g. to menus) without impacting too much on existing capacity/staff responsibilities. It would also allow sufficient time for staff training.

A period of 12 months would also allow clear and frequent reminders to businesses about the legislation coming into force to allow them to prepare. A year would allow businesses to plan and budget for the next financial year, it was felt. It would also allow any outsourcing to be arranged such as if third parties are used to assist with generating calorie counts.

18 Months

Those who felt that 18 months was appropriate suggested that one year was too short and two years was too long, i.e. "If longer businesses will put on back burner and forget about. If shorter, not enough time to digest info and make changes." [Individual].

In addition to the points already raised above, 18 months was seen as being long enough to provide sufficient scope for 'preparation' including the purchase of necessary IT/software, recruitment and training of staff, and giving all those in the sector a chance to understand and absorb the policy and its implications.

2 Years

A reasonable proportion of respondents suggested a period of at least two years, on the basis that this would be complex for businesses to 'get right' and would require additional recruitment and infrastructure changes, as above. Supply chain issues were also mentioned, with a longer timescale perceived as necessary to help mitigate against this.

Other timescales and views

Other timeframes mentioned included 2-3 years, 3-5 years, 5 years and 'significantly longer'. It was also noted that the timescales in England^[12] had not been "long enough", and that lessons should be learnt:

"Industry would welcome as much time as possible to prepare, particularly given the multitude of issues the sector is currently facing. In England, the short timescale for implementation caused a number of problems due to the UK Government's underestimation of the complexity of the sector." [Organisation, Out of Home Provider]

Other comments and caveats included that:

• the timescales should be as long as possible to minimise burdens for businesses (and to allow for training, familiarisation, updating menus, etc.);
• timescales should be cognisant of the time that businesses need to recover from the pandemic and not compound an already difficult period of recovery;
• timescales should be long enough to allow businesses to 'use up' existing stock (e.g. labels) rather than waste what they already have;
• any timescale would only be achievable if relevant supports were put in place (and so would be dependent on how quickly necessary supports could be established);
• implementation would be easier in some settings compared to others (e.g. hospitals) and a flexible approach with different timescales for different businesses/organisations (of different sizes) may be appropriate;
• any decisions on timescales must also take into consideration other policy changes and demands being placed on the sector in the same period;
• regardless of timescales, a soft enforcement approach should be used for the initial bedding in period;
• the timescales imposed must take into account the need for local authorities (or others) to employ and train staff involved in enforcement;
• if the legislation was consistent with legislation in England it would be easier/quicker for cross-jurisdictional businesses to implement (but would take a lot longer if different rules applied in different countries); and
• timescales would necessarily be determined by the final scope of the regulations.

Among those who supported the proposal and answered this question, the main comment was that it should be implemented as soon as possible to help address the obesity crisis.

Again, several respondents suggested that business should be consulted separately/directly on this issue to get a more informed response. Many stressed that no timescale was desirable as the policy should not be implemented at all (i.e. 'never'). Comments were also made that the question was framed in a presumptive way and that this may not have been appropriate.