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

6. Places that would be subject to restrictions (Qs 14-16)

6.1. The consultation paper proposed to apply restrictions to any place where pre-packed targeted foods, and non-pre-packed soft drinks with added sugar in respect of unlimited refills for a fixed charge, are sold to the public in the course of business. The consultation sought views on (i) specific locations that the restrictions should apply to, (ii) whether there are any other places/types of business to which the restrictions should apply and (iii) whether there are any other places/types of business which the restrictions should not apply to.

Places where targeted foods are sold to the public

6.2. The consultation paper sought views on a number of specific places where targeted foods are sold to the public (retail, out of home, wholesale - where sales are also made to the public, other outlets), including physical premises and online sales.

6.3. The consultation paper noted that UK Government regulations for restrictions in England includes all retail businesses which sell food and drink within scope of the regulations, including their franchises and online outlets. For out of home outlets only free refill promotions are in scope of the regulations for England.

Question 14: Which places, where targeted foods are sold to the public, should promotion restrictions apply to?

• Retail
• Out of home
• Wholesale (where sales are also made to the public)
• Other outlets

Overview

6.4. Non-industry respondents tended to support promotion restrictions applying to all four places explored in the consultation to ensure consistency across the locations where HFSS products are sold to the public so that the restrictions are effective. Individual respondents answered in a similar fashion although support for restrictions applying to 'other outlets' was more muted (but with no clear reason why). Industry respondents tended to agree with restrictions applying to retail but were more mixed in respect of the other three places, with some believing all four should be included to ensure a level playing field across businesses but others believing there should be alignment with England where the primary focus is on retail. There were also some specific concerns about the inclusion of the out of home sector that meant that overall there was a small level of preference among industry not to include the out of home sector.

Non-industry respondent views on places

6.5. Non-industry respondents tended to support promotion restrictions applying to all four places explored – i.e. retail (81%), out of home (71%), wholesale (81%) and other outlets (65%). Table 6.1 displays the results.

Individual respondent views on places

6.6. Individual respondents tended to support promotion restrictions applying to retail (74%), out of home (63%), and wholesale (61%). They were less certain in respect of other outlets, with 47% agreeing and 16% selecting 'don't know' although there was a lack of feedback to explain why. Table 6.2 displays the results.

Industry respondent views on places

6.7. The views of industry respondents were somewhat complex. A number of industry respondents that did not select a tick box indicated support for consistency across all locations so that there is a level playing field, suggesting that agreement with all four places is higher than the tick box responses indicate. However, there was also a number of industry respondents that did not select a tick box that indicated preference for alignment with England which suggests that support for restrictions to apply to retail was even higher still, but that disagreement with restrictions applying to out of home, wholesale and other outlets was also higher than the tick box answers indicate. Consequently, industry respondents tended to support promotion restrictions applying to retail; responses were more mixed in respect of the other three places – there was some preference for restriction to apply to wholesale; and some preference for restrictions not to apply to out of home (some respondents had other specific concerns about the potential inclusion of out of home). Table 6.3 displays the tick box responses.

Agreement with the places

6.8. Non-industry and individual respondents that provided an explanation for their responses typically agreed with all four places being within scope of restrictions to ensure consistency across all places where the public purchase food and drink in order for the approach to be effective.

6.9. The most common viewpoint for supporting the inclusion of these places among industry respondents that commented was that there should be a level playing field across all businesses to prevent certain businesses from being disadvantaged. Notably, this view was not held by any out of home providers.

6.10. Other points raised included:

• Restrictions should apply only to retail (and not the other three places) indicating that retail is 'enough'; (individual)
• There should be an exemption for businesses that are substantially different to retail e.g. out of home where food is prepared onsite. (manufacturer)

Disagreement with the places

6.11. Only four individual respondents explained their reasons for disagreeing with the places explored by the consultation. Predominantly this was due to overall disagreement with applying any form of restrictions.

6.12. The main reason for disagreement among industry respondents was preference for alignment with the restrictions for England.

6.13. One manufacturer that only agreed with restrictions applying to retail suggested that the other locations do not reflect the same behaviours in terms of causing over-consumption.

Specific disagreement with including the out of home sector

6.14. A number of industry respondents indicated specific disagreement with restrictions applying to the out of home sector (with each point made by one or two respondents):

• Because the out of home sector would already be addressed by proposals for mandatory calorie labelling;
• Insufficient evidence had been presented to show that restricting promotions in the out of home sector would contribute to a reduction in obesity;
• The out of home sector is very different to the retail environment, for example, customers do not purchase items in the same way (they make a selection for immediate consumption) and are not equivalent to retail in terms of driving over-consumption;
• Regardless of overall size of the business the layout and limited space in the out of home sector for displaying products meant that products are displayed near entrances and the till by necessity and therefore it is not practical to comply with location-based restrictions.

6.15. A further two respondents (public sector and individual) suggested the out of home sector should be excluded as people go with the intention of treating themselves.

Specific disagreement with including wholesale

6.16. One manufacturer expressed specific concerns in respect of wholesale, for example that customers may travel to UK based wholesalers to make their purchases thereby disadvantaging Scottish wholesalers and also that the restrictions may impact negatively on the hospitality sector which use wholesalers to buy goods in bulk. An industry representative body also held specific concerns in respect of wholesale, as they were aware of a wholesaler that sells large bulk packs, mainly to trade customers, but also to individual club members (that follow a qualifying application process and pay membership fees). The respondent suggested that wholesaler would be penalised for its different business model.

Specific disagreement with including 'other outlets'

6.17. Two public sector respondents thought 'other outlets' should be excluded, one on the basis that it would be excessive to include them and the other on the basis that more specialist outlets should be exempt if individuals have purposely visited the outlet with the existing intention to buy a particular product. One individual suggested other outlets should not be included as they would be difficult to monitor and people were unlikely to purchase a lot of HFSS products from them.

Other places/types of business to include

Question 15: Are there other places/types of business to which the restrictions should apply?

Overview

6.18. Views were very mixed, in respect of whether restrictions should apply to any other places/types of business. Non-industry respondents (61%) tended to identify other places to be considered. Individuals were evenly split between disagreement (40%) and uncertainty (40%). Industry respondents disagreed (49%) with many not providing a definitive answer (52%). The vast majority of respondents selecting 'don't know' or not selecting a tick box did not provide a comment/view. Table 6.4 displays the results.

Other places to include in restrictions

6.19. A number of other places were proposed by non-industry and individual respondents:

• Transport and transport hubs; (suggested by 8 respondents)
• Education settings (e.g. schools, universities); (7)
• Places visited by children (e.g. parks, children's party venues); (7)
• Entertainment venues (e.g. cinemas); (5)
• Attractions and museums; (4)
• Delivery companies/takeaways; (3)
• Everywhere. (3)

Disagreement with including other places

6.20. Typically, industry respondents that were not in favour of additional places being included, expressed that they supported alignment with the restrictions in England (which additional places would not be consistent with) or that they did not support restrictions in general. Individuals rarely explained their reasons for disagreement, where they did it was due to overall disagreement with introducing restrictions.

6.21. One retailer noted an interest in understanding how the restrictions would affect charity events/promotions in stores where the store and products are both in scope, but the sales go to the charity rather than the store facilitating the event.

Other places/types of business to exclude

Question 16: Are there any other places/types of business which should not be within the scope of the restrictions?

Overview

6.22. Around half of each respondent type (industry, non-industry and individuals) did not express a view in respect of this question. Non-industry (42%) and individuals (34%) tended to disagree with any other exclusions; industry respondents were mixed between indicating there should be other exclusions (29%) and there should not (20%). Table 6.5 displays the results.

Other places to exclude

6.23. Among respondents that provided a suggestion, other places that should be excluded from restrictions (predominantly by industry respondents) included:

• Small businesses; (suggested by 7 respondents)
• Places where other regulation already applies (such as healthcare); (4)
• Out of home sector; (3)
• 'Airside' stores (located in airports having gone through security checks); (1)
• 'Economically vulnerable' locations on the high street; (1)
• Workplace canteens. (1)

Disagreement with excluding other places

6.24. Respondents that provided a comment on why they disagreed with other places being excluded from restrictions tended to reiterate the need for consistency across places that sell HFSS products (particularly non-industry respondents) and that there should be a level playing field among businesses (particularly industry respondents). A number of non-industry respondents highlighted their view that there should be no 'exemptions'.

6.25. A small number of non-industry respondents indicated uncertainty in respect of charity sales as these are small in scale but do promote HFSS foods. One industry representative body indicated that there is a need to carefully define charity events to ensure that their exclusion does not prevent fundraising for causes that are not 'formal OSCR charities' – to ensure fairness across different causes.