Restricting promotions of food and drink high in fat, sugar, or salt: consultation analysis

4. Price promotions (Qs 4-8)

4.1. The consultation paper explored the types of price promotions to be targeted by restrictions and sought views on (i) the proposal to include extra free and meal deals in the scope of 'multi-buy' restrictions, (ii) the proposal to restrict refills for a fixed charge on targeted soft drinks with added sugar; (iii) whether other targeted foods should be included in restrictions on unlimited amounts for a fixed charge, (iv) the proposal to restrict temporary price reductions (TPRs) and (v) whether there are any other forms of price promotion that should be within scope of restrictions.

Multi-buys

4.2. In addition to restricting multi-buy offers on pre-packed HFSS products (such as buy one get one free and 3 for 2 offers), the consultation paper proposed to include 'extra free' in restrictions on the basis that this promotion is also a way of indicating that the purchaser is getting something for free. It also proposed to include 'meal deals' because they are a form 'Y for £X' that could encourage consumers to purchase more than required in order to obtain the discount. Promotions on meal deals that do not contain targeted foods or the targeted foods included are not HFSS (as defined by the NPM) would not be restricted.

4.3. The consultation paper noted that while the UK Government regulations for restrictions in England encompass volume-based price promotions such as 'buy one get one free' or '3 for 2', they do not include meal deals.

Question 4: What are your views on the proposal to include the following within the scope of multi-buy restrictions:

• Extra Free
• Meal Deals

Overview

Extra free

4.4. Non-industry (81%) and individual (61%) respondents tended to support the inclusion of extra free in multi-buy restrictions. When taking in to account the number of industry respondents that selected 'agree' (27%) but also the number that selected 'don't know', 'disagree' or did not select a tick box but noted that if restrictions go ahead they support consistency with regulation in England, industry respondents showed some preference for including extra free. There was however also a notable level of disagreement among industry respondents (27%) on the basis that these offers do not drive over-consumption and/or that restricting them would undermine fair competition and hamper smaller businesses and new products. Table 4.1 provides the tick box responses.

Table 4.1 Views on the proposal to include extra free in multi-buy restrictions

Answer	Organisations				Individuals
	Industry		Non-industry
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Agree	11	27%	25	81%	23	61%
Disagree	11	27%	1	3%	12	32%
Don't know	4	10%	0	0%	3	8%
Not answered	15	37%	5	16%	0	0%
Total	41	101%	31	100%	38	101%

Meal deals

4.5. Non-industry (71%) and individual (58%) respondents tended to support the inclusion of meal deals in multi-buy restrictions. Industry respondents however opposed this (71%) either on the basis that this would not align with restrictions in England or the view that meal deals are distinct from other multi-buy offers and do not drive over-consumption. The full breakdown is provided in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 Views on the proposal to include meal deals in multi-buy restrictions

Answer	Organisations				Individuals
	Industry		Non-industry
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Agree	0	0%	22	71%	22	58%
Disagree	29	71%	1	3%	13	34%
Don't know	1	2%	3	10%	3	8%
Not answered	11	27%	5	16%	0	0%
Total	41	100%	31	100%	38	100%

Agreement with including 'extra free' and 'meal deals'

4.6. Non-industry respondents tended to direct their comments in respect of meal deals. They noted the prevalence of meal deal promotions and the need to include them as a result. One respondent pointed to how the sugar tax had not resulted in fewer soft drink sales, but driven change, and that the proposals could similarly lead to change in the food environment. A number suggested that restrictions on meal deals with HFSS items would motivate a shift to more healthy alternatives being offered as part of meal deals.

4.7. Individual respondents noted that these types of promotions encourage over consumption, and a few pointed to meal deals being particularly likely to encourage consumers to buy HFSS items that they would not have otherwise purchased. Some industry respondents acknowledged that extra free (but not meal deals) may drive overconsumption.

4.8. Respondents that were uncertain (i.e. selected 'don't know') tended to relate to the view that restrictions should apply to the most unhealthy foods i.e. that they would agree with these types of restriction if the foods subject to restrictions are limited to the most unhealthy but would disagree with this type of restriction if the foods subject to restrictions are extended to encompass a wider range.

Disagreement with including 'extra free' and 'meal deals'

4.9. Industry and individual respondents that disagreed with the inclusion of both offers expressed two main concerns: that there would be a potential negative impact on customers, particularly those in a low income household; and that they doubted whether these offers lead to overconsumption.

4.10. In respect of the latter point, industry respondents flagged that extra free offers drive 'value' rather than overconsumption. Also, that there is a lack of evidence to show that meal deals lead to overconsumption. They suggested meal deals instead ensure affordability and provide choice and convenience to customers. Meanwhile individuals pointed out that these promotions may be used to purchase products to be consumed over a number of days or by more than one person.

4.11. Industry respondents also held a number of concerns about the potential negative impacts of restricting these offers on:

• Fair competition which they thought would be undermined;
• Businesses that need to offer value to customers through promotions in order to be competitive;
• Local stores that may be unfairly impacted by the restrictions and being put at a competitive disadvantage against larger supermarkets who can use their purchase power to sell products cheaper;
• New companies that use these types of promotions to gain visibility and encourage trials of new products (including uptake of reformulated products).

4.12. There was again a view among industry respondents that if restrictions are implemented, they should align with England in order to avoid extra burden for Scottish businesses and consequently there was a level of support for including 'extra free' but excluding 'meal deals' (which are out of scope for England).

4.13. There were also a number of other specific reasons for disagreement in respect of meal deals (each expressed by one industry respondent):

• Including meal deals would be ineffective because many of the foods included in meal deals are exempt from restriction due to their category, or having been packed in store, or are non-HFSS;
• A distinction should be made for lunch time meal deals, and those designed for evening meals – which the respondent described as 'occasional' meal options. They felt that promotions of lunch time meal deals did encourage purchase of unhealthier items;
• Removing promotion on meal deals would not stop customers purchasing the items and they may spend more on the meal or buy treats in larger pack sizes instead;
• Independent takeaways use 'bundling' meals as a practical way of predicting order flows and that restrictions on this would increase food waste, creating financial and environmental costs;
• The definition of what constitutes a 'meal deal' needs to be made clear.

Unlimited refills for a fixed charge

4.14. Question 5 sought views on whether or not to include unlimited refills on soft drinks with added sugar for a fixed charge within scope of the restrictions. The basis for inclusion was that this type of promotion is an alternative form of 'buy one get x free' multi-buy offer. The consultation paper proposed that the restriction would apply to those that are HFSS as defined by the NPM (see question 3) and would include non-pre-packed as well as pre-packed drinks.

4.15. The consultation paper noted that the UK Government regulations for restrictions in England include free refills of non-pre-packed soft drinks that are HFSS or 'less healthy' (as defined by the NPM).

Question 5: What are your views on the proposal to restrict unlimited refills for a fixed charge on targeted soft drinks with added sugar?

Overview

4.16. Non-industry (77%) and individual (74%) respondents tended to support restricting unlimited refills for a fixed charge on targeted soft drinks with added sugar. A large proportion of industry respondents did not have a specific view on this issue (some noted this type of promotion was not relevant to the type of business(es) they represent). However, a level of support among industry was apparent when taking into account both those that selected 'agree' (22%) and those that selected 'other' or did not select a tick box but noted that the approach should align with England. The tick box responses are shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3 Views on restricting unlimited refills for a fixed charge

Answer	Organisations				Individuals
	Industry		Non-industry
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Agree	9	22%	24	77%	28	74%
Disagree	1	2%	1	3%	9	24%
Don't know	4	10%	1	3%	0	0%
Other	11	27%	1	3%	1	3%
Not answered	16	39%	4	13%	0	0%
Total	41	100%	31	99%	38	101%

Agreement with the restriction

4.17. Respondents across all categories tended to agree on the basis that they felt that unlimited refills for a fixed charge encourage over-consumption of unhealthy drinks. A number of industry respondents indicated that they favour parity with the regulations for England (where this type of restriction is in scope).

4.18. A number of non-industry respondents held concerns about whether this would result in a shift to promoting artificially sweetened drinks as they suggested that overconsumption of those would also be problematic for health. A number highlighted the need to promote healthy drinks.

4.19. Other comments included:

• If the approach is introduced it should not apply to 'no sugar' drinks (manufacturer);
• This restriction should be limited to purchases during a single visit and should exclude loyalty/reward schemes where a free drink may be acquired over a number of visits, on the basis that this rewards loyalty rather than increasing consumption (out of home provider).

Disagreement with the restriction

4.20. Reasons for disagreeing (typically among individuals) included that the proposal was unrealistic, unnecessary or would impact most on those on a low income. One manufacturer suggested that restricting free refills on HFSS drinks could lead to customers consuming more, on the basis that outlets may choose to increase the typical size of the single serve, the customer may purchase more regardless of size, and/or the customer may ask for less ice in order to receive more of the drink.

Including other foods in restrictions on unlimited refills for a fixed charge

4.21. The consultation paper sought views on whether any other targeted foods (i.e. beyond targeted soft drinks with added sugar) should be included in the 'unlimited amounts for a fixed charge' restriction.

Question 6: Should other targeted foods be included in restrictions on unlimited amounts for a fixed charge?

Overview

4.22. Views were mixed in respect of whether other targeted foods should be included in restrictions. Non-industry (55%) tended to indicate there are other foods to include. Individuals were split between agreement (42%) and disagreement (40%). Again, a very large proportion of industry respondents did not have a specific view on this issue (as this type of promotion was often not relevant to the type of business(es) they represent). Table 4.4 shows the tick box responses.

Table 4.4 Whether other targeted foods should be included in restrictions on unlimited amounts for a fixed charge

Answer	Organisations				Individuals
	Industry		Non-industry
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	2	5%	17	55%	16	42%
No	6	15%	2	7%	15	40%
Don't know	15	37%	4	13%	7	18%
Not answered	18	44%	8	26%	0	0%
Total	41	101%	31	101%	38	100%

Other foods to be included in 'unlimited refill' restrictions

4.23. Four main suggestions were made (predominantly by non-industry and individuals) for other foods to include within the scope of unlimited refill restrictions:

• All targeted HFSS foods; (expressed by 12 respondents)
• 'All you can eat' / buffet style options; (6)
• 'Diet' soft drinks; (3)
• Ice-cream/desserts. (2)

Disagreement with including other foods in 'unlimited refill' restrictions

4.24. Relatively few of those that disagreed provided a comment. Individual respondents tended to re-iterate the view that they did not think it appropriate to restrict any promotions. One public sector respondent suggested it would be too difficult to apply to situations such as 'all you can eat' buffets where there is a mixture of healthy and less healthy options. One industry representative body suggested that 'all you can eat' buffets should not be included because they are not pre-packed. A couple of industry respondents objected on the grounds that this would not align with the restrictions being applied in England. One manufacturer suggested specific examples would be needed to be able to comment.

Temporary price reductions (TPRs)

4.25. The consultation paper sought views on restricting TPRs on the basis that food purchases on TPRs have typically been greater than for other price promotions and therefore their inclusion may enhance the benefits of the restrictions.

4.26. The consultation paper noted that TPRs are not within scope of the UK Government regulations for restrictions in England.

Question 7: What are your views on the proposal to restrict temporary price reductions (TPRs)?

Overview

4.27. Non-industry respondents supported (74%) restricting TPRs primarily on the basis that they promote unhealthy products or encourage unintended purchases. Industry respondents were opposed (68%) primarily on the basis of insufficient evidence to justify their inclusion or a desire for alignment with England. The level of opposition increases when taking into account industry respondents that expressed the same view but did not select a tick box. Individuals were mixed between agreement (53%) – for the same reasons expressed by non-industry; and disagreement (42%) primarily due to concern for the potential impact on low-income households. Table 4.5 provides the tick box responses.

Table 4.5 Views on restricting TPRs

Answer	Organisations				Individuals
	Industry		Non-industry
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Agree	0	0%	23	74%	20	53%
Disagree	28	68%	1	3%	16	42%
Don't know	1	2%	2	7%	2	5%
Not answered	12	29%	5	16%	0	0%
Total	41	99%	31	100%	38	100%

Agreement with restricting TPRs

4.28. Both non-industry and individual respondents that agreed with restricting TPRs suggested they promote unhealthy products or encourage the purchase of an item people would not normally buy.

4.29. Non-industry respondents also reported that the widespread use of TPRs meant that it is important that they come under the scope of the legislation or there was a risk of creating a loophole which undermined its effectiveness.

4.30. Two third sector respondents refuted an argument against their inclusion, that TPRs are difficult to define. They pointed to using consumer protection guidance as a way of resolving definitions.

Disagreement with restricting TPRs

4.31. Industry and individual respondents held concerns that restricting TPRs would be detrimental to those on a low income and could inadvertently result in increased food wastage.

4.32. Industry respondents generally felt that evidence in favour of TPR restriction was weak, outdated, and did not take into account recent events that have changed consumption patterns, and that any restrictions should be based on up-to-date evidence. Some mentioned the need for clarity on the definition of TPRs, the time periods to be applied, and what constitutes promotion of TPRs. Again a need for parity with England was noted (where TPRs are not within scope). Other points included that:

• TPRs do not drive over-consumption rather a switch from one product to another;
• TPRs are used to shift stock close to durability date, or where packaging changes were required, and to showcase new products;
• Small businesses are more dependent on TPRs to attract customers and therefore may be unfairly disadvantaged if they are restricted.

Other considerations

4.33. Some of those that noted agreement held concerns about:

• The timing of implementation, during the cost-of-living crisis;
• The need to ensure that restricting TPRs does not reduce the affordability of nutrient dense healthy food and that TPRs should still be allowed for healthier items and cupboard essentials;
• One third sector respondent suggested prioritising other measures first and introducing TPR restrictions later after further research on the impacts.

4.34. One out of home provider (who was neither for or against TPRs being in scope) indicated that if TPR restrictions are introduced this should be applied to TPRs on specific products, and that there should be an exemption for TPRs for whole shopping basket. It was felt it would be too costly to create a technology solution able to apply the discount only to the total of the non-HFSS items included in the shopping basket.

Other forms of price promotion

Question 8: Are there any other forms of price promotion that should be within scope of this policy?

Overview

4.35. Views were mixed in respect of whether any other forms of price promotion should be included in restrictions. Non-industry respondents (61%) tended to indicate there are other forms of price promotion to include. Industry respondents tended to oppose including other price promotions (66%). Individuals were mixed between being unsure (45%) disagreeing (34%) and agreeing (21%). The vast majority of respondents that selected 'don't know' or did not select a tick box, did not provide a comment/view. The results are shown in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6 Whether other forms of price promotion should be in scope

Answer	Organisations				Individuals
	Industry		Non-industry
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Yes	0	0%	19	61%	8	21%
No	27	66%	1	3%	13	34%
Don't know	1	2%	5	16%	17	45%
Not answered	13	32%	6	19%	0	0%
Total	41	100%	31	99%	38	100%

Other forms of price promotion to restrict

4.36. Only non-industry and individual respondents indicated other forms of price promotion that they felt should be in scope of restrictions. Not all respondents that explained why they thought they should be in scope; those that did tended to point towards them also driving overconsumption of HFSS products.

4.37. Other forms of price promotion suggested included:

• Loyalty schemes/pricing (mentioned by 9 respondents)
• Multipacks (8)
• Price marked packs (7)
• Upselling (7)
• Shelf-edge labels (4)
• Money off vouchers (3)
• Offering a discount on an HFSS product when another item (such as a newspaper) is purchased (2)
• 'Family sized' items (2)
• Reductions on 'fresh items' that are reaching the end of their shelf life (2)
• Yellow label items (1)
• Free or discounted 'side' orders and discounts on larger portions (in the out of home sector) (1)

Disagreement with restricting other forms of price promotion

4.38. Individuals that disagreed with restricting other forms of price promotion tended to suggest that restrictions on promotions were not appropriate in general. Industry respondents typically indicated either that they support alignment with the promotion types included in the regulations for England or that they were against the introduction of restrictions on any forms of price promotions in general.

4.39. A number of industry respondents held the view that the proposals are already 'far reaching' and that, if implementation goes ahead, an independent assessment of the approach and its impact should subsequently be conducted to review their appropriateness and before considering any further restrictions. One industry representative body suggested that further restrictions would be particularly onerous for small and micro businesses.