National Good Food Nation Plan: consultation analysis

Main Findings

Views on the Outcomes

22. The consultation paper noted that the Scottish Government has developed a set of six overarching Outcomes. These Outcomes are ambitious and not meant to be achieved during the first iteration of the Plan. They are broad in nature as they are designed to be applicable to policies from across a wide range of areas. The Outcomes are designed to be high-level aspirations for a GFN, rather than a list of detailed instructions. They represent what the Scottish Government would like a food system in Scotland to look like.

23. The consultation paper went on to note that the Outcomes reflect the continued need to consider and adapt how food is produced, processed, distributed, and disposed of to address the challenges facing Scotland’s food system. These challenges include climate change, environmental degradation, inequitable access to food and diet-related health inequalities. The transition to a more sustainable food system also needs to be managed in a just and fair manner. They also acknowledged that everyone deserves dignified access to good food and that the food system should create a healthy population.

24. These Outcomes were:

• Outcome 1: Everyone in Scotland eats well with reliable access to safe, nutritious, affordable, sustainable, and age and culturally appropriate food.
• Outcome 2: Scotland’s food system is sustainable^[2] and contributes to a flourishing natural environment. It supports our net zero ambitions, and plays an important role in maintaining and improving animal welfare and in restoring and regenerating biodiversity.
• Outcome 3: Scotland’s food system encourages a physically and mentally healthy population, leading to a reduction in diet-related conditions.
• Outcome 4: Our food and drink sector is prosperous, diverse, innovative, and vital to national and local economic and social wellbeing. It is key to making Scotland food secure and food resilient, and creates and sustains jobs and businesses underpinned by Fair Work standards.
• Outcome 5: Scotland has a thriving food culture with a population who are interested in and educated about good and sustainable food.
• Outcome 6: Scotland has a global reputation for high-quality food that we want to continue to grow. Decisions we make in Scotland contribute positively to local and global food systems transformation. We share and learn from best practice internationally.

25. The first question of the consultation asked:

Q1: Does each individual Good Food Nation Outcome describe the kind of Scottish food system you would like to see?

26. The following table provides a summary of the responses to this question. A full breakdown of the data is provided in Appendix 2. As the table shows, organisations were more positive about all of the Outcomes than individuals were.

Summary: Level of agreement with each Outcome

Outcome	% strongly / mostly agreeing Total sample	% strongly / mostly agreeing Organisations		% strongly / mostly agreeing Individuals
Outcome 1: Everyone in Scotland eats well with reliable access to safe, nutritious, affordable, sustainable, and age and culturally appropriate food	69	80	61
Outcome 2: Scotland’s food system is sustainable and contributes to a flourishing natural environment. It supports our net zero ambitions, and plays an important role in maintaining and improving animal welfare and in restoring and regenerating biodiversity	65	76	60
Outcome 3: Scotland’s food system encourages a physically and mentally healthy population, leading to a reduction in diet-related conditions	66	79	58
Outcome 4: Our food and drink sector is prosperous, diverse, innovative, and vital to national and local economic and social wellbeing. It is key to making Scotland food secure and food resilient, and creates and sustains jobs and businesses underpinned by Fair Work standards	69	77	64
Outcome 5: Scotland has a thriving food culture with a population who are interested in and educated about good and sustainable food	63	74	56
Outcome 6: Scotland has a global reputation for high-quality food that we want to continue to grow. Decisions we make in Scotland contribute positively to local and global food systems transformation. We share and learn from best practice internationally	64	71	59

27. The next question went onto ask:

Q2: What, if anything, would you change about the Good Food Nation Outcomes and why?

28. A total of 303 consultation respondents responded to this question. Almost all commented on the Outcomes as a whole, while around half also commented on individual Outcomes.

General Comments

29. A large minority (mainly organisations) gave their general agreement with the Outcomes in principle, commenting they were ambitious and laudable.

30. Larger numbers however made general criticisms, in particular about a perceived need for more specifics on how to achieve the Outcomes. Details regarding pathways, measures, timeframes and a need to follow the SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound) methodology of goal setting were cited. Other criticisms were as follows:

• The Outcomes themselves are too general and vague.
• The Outcomes are too aspirational or challenging to achieve.
• A lack of information about where support and funding to deliver the Outcomes is coming from. There were comments that this must be sufficient to enable local authorities and partner agencies to deliver.

31. Concerns were also expressed, particularly by health boards, regarding the requirements and demands placed on food system partners such as the NHS and local authorities. Issues regarding the need to develop their own GFN plans, and difficulties coordinating plans between health boards and multiple local authorities were foreseen, as well as with the overall national GFN plan.

32. Similarly, a significant minority (mainly organisations) voiced concerns about how the GFN Outcomes would link into other strategies and plans. A whole system approach was advocated in this respect. On this subject, the National Planning Framework 4, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the Community Wealth Building Agenda were all mentioned more than once.

33. A small minority foresaw conflicts between the Outcomes themselves, citing examples. Most commonly mentioned was affordability (Outcome 1) being incompatible with sustainability and maintaining and improving animal welfare (Outcome 2).

34. A small number of individuals disagreed with the Outcomes and the draft national GFN Plan overall, citing bureaucracy, wasted government spending and restricted freedoms of choice.

35. Only a very small number suggested brand new Outcomes (see Appendix 3).

36. Large numbers of comments specified areas which were perceived to have been largely ignored in the Outcomes and needed to be addressed, albeit without specifying under which Outcome. The largest numbers of comments (a large minority across all sub-groups and supported by workshop participants) urged a greater emphasis on the production and the use of local food within the Outcomes. The role of public procurement in particular was seen as an important enabler for the local food supply chain. Respondents also commented more generally on a need to facilitate supply and availability of local food to consumers at affordable prices. The stated advantages to this included having less reliance on imported food and minimising the need for transport. This would also support small scale producers and enable more fresh and seasonal foods to be available. As an Oban workshop respondent put it:

“Starting from a very poor local situation. There would be vibrant primary production feeding into local markets, farmers markets, retail, wholesale and food service. Public provisions and procurement with a presumption in favour of local, quality assured, nutrient dense, sustainably produced food.”

37. A significant minority from across all sub-groups wanted more support and recognition of the needs of primary producers and the food supply chain within the Outcomes. Industry pressures were cited regarding fair returns, costs to conform to the GFN goals, workforce training, and inspection, enforcement and compliance regarding environmental safety. Further perceived issues were in relation to the need to adapt in terms of market shifts and climate change.

38. Similar numbers (again across all groupings and broadly supported by workshop participants) sought better facilitation of access to healthy, good foods, in particular by addressing concerns over costs and affordability. Associated with this were concerns (mainly from individuals) over current perceived poor food quality. It was suggested that action to address issues such as ultra-processed food (UPF), and the prevalence of fast-food outlets, ready meals and sugar should be overt within the Outcomes.

39. The above issues appeared to be particularly acute in rural and island areas, according to workshop participants from these localities. Pricing issues and a lack of fresh food were caused by the need for and cost of transport over large distances. An Orkney workshop participant commented:

“Reliable access in very rural areas is difficult – there is usually one shop with limited produce. Fragility of the system should be an Outcome as in something to be fixed. Development of the plan needs to consider needs of local areas. As there are access problems – one size does not fit all…”

40. Along with the above, mentions of actions within the Outcomes to resolve food poverty and food inequalities was recommended (notably by community groups and health boards). They cited an overreliance on food banks and the third sector. Food poverty was also a common topic at the workshops. A Dumfries participant highlighted particular issues in rural areas as follows:

“For rural areas we struggle to access food providers due to food deserts and rural bus travel is unreliable. In Dumfries and Galloway we have an extremely high rate of children living in low income households. This means we struggle to buy healthy food as it can be three times more expensive. For example, if you want to buy vegetables they are far more expensive than bread.”

41. A reference to the role of communities was requested by a significant minority, again including a large proportion of health boards and community groups. Community participation was considered to be an overlooked facilitator to achieving a GFN. This could include people growing their own food, cooking, foraging and tending allotments and orchards. This also was perceived as providing social benefits and connections. An emphasis on community involvement was also an overarching theme from the workshops.

42. A further significant minority wanted to see more emphasis on better education and understanding about good food. This would include, for example, food safety and nutrition, to help bring about cultural change to help achieve the Outcomes. Allied to this, a small minority proposed giving people more self-responsibility about food in terms of taking control and having a say in decision-making.

43. Small minorities of mainly third sector and individual respondents urged a transition away from animal farming and fishing to a plant-based dietary system, also advocating the importance of animal welfare standards. A few respondents wanted to prioritise organic farming and production, and small numbers wanted an emphasis on marine food and environmental issues.

44. A further small minority, including several community groups and local authorities, supported a bigger role for cutting down food and packaging waste within the Outcomes.

45. The following sections outline comments made about specific Outcomes. Some respondents also suggested wording alterations to each of the Outcomes. These are provided in Appendix 3.

Outcome 1

46. A few organisations cited their general support for Outcome 1, but a greater number – a significant minority overall across all sub-groups - saw this Outcome as being too vague. In particular, respondents focused on the lack of mention of the need to reduce the prevalence of ultra-processed or other unhealthy foods compared to healthy ones in the food environment. As one individual stated:

“It's not enough simply to educate people if all you have near you is fried chicken and chips in an urban jungle.”

47. Additionally, respondents perceived a lack of actions to achieve the desired results. There was also a perceived lack of clarity about the meanings of ‘eat well’, ’sustainable’, ‘safe’, ‘nutritious’, ’culturally appropriate’ and ‘reliable’.

48. A significant minority (particularly third sector organisations and community groups) wanted the Outcome to focus more on the ‘right to food’, in terms of dignified access. It was pointed out that this is a key principle of government policy.

49. A small minority of mainly third sector, community groups and local authority respondents pinpointed issues regarding affordability. They queried how the Outcome will be achieved, given a premium exists for local or sustainable foods amid the current cost of living crisis. Coordination with other plans such as Best Start, Bright Futures and the Child Poverty Delivery Plan was recommended, along with a need for cash-first support.

50. Similar numbers urged a more overt role for local food and its environmental and health benefits in this Outcome. A few respondents again urged emphasis on a role for community involvement. There were also a few mentions of support for action to help enable better access to cuisines from different cultures.

Outcome 2

51. Again a few respondents offered general support for this Outcome, but a few described it as being too opaque, requesting clarity on the terms used.

52. The largest numbers of respondents (a significant minority broadly spread across organisations) chose to focus on a need for improved standards and target setting. In this context, a few respondents wanted the wording for ‘animal welfare’ changed to say ‘improving’ or ‘continuous improvement in’ rather than ‘maintaining’.

53. Concerns over exporting Scotland’s environmental footprint were expressed by similar numbers of respondents. It was proposed that the Outcome be extended to encompass other countries from which Scotland imports goods. A need to take a global view and collaborate internationally was pinpointed.

54. A small minority of concerns were raised about the effect of this Outcome (particularly regarding sustainability) on food security. Adapting to climate change and diversifying (e.g. agrobiodiversity) were seen as necessary steps to ensure the resilience of the food system. Allied to this were perceived conflicts regarding food security with Net Zero ambitions, and requests for more balance in the Outcome to recognise that productive agriculture and sustainable land management can co-exist.

55. A small number (mainly trade associations/representative bodies) had concerns that support for the economic and social system would be lost behind the goals of Outcome 2. For this reason, reference to a profitable agricultural sector was suggested.

56. There were also a small minority of suggested actions to enhance animal welfare, together with negative comments over the sustainability of fish farming. Support for organic food was also urged.

Outcome 3

57. A few (mainly third sector and community group respondents) gave their general support to this Outcome, particularly approving of mental health being given equal acknowledgement with physical health.

58. By far the most comments – a significant minority which included many community groups and health organisations – perceived that Outcome 3 needed underpinning from improvements to the food environment. Systemic issues needed to be tackled to produce the necessary change. Proposals focused on creating an environment where healthy foods are the easier dietary choice. Suggestions were made to tax or ban unhealthy foods and/or their promotion, restrict supermarket control and to reduce the adverse health impacts caused by alcohol. Allied to this were suggestions to eradicate other contributing factors to poor diet such as the expense of using household appliances to cook.

59. More positivity in the Outcome was advocated by a small minority, i.e. that there should reference to improving health. There was particular resistance to the use of the word ‘encourage’. A few respondents wanted the text to read ‘enables’ rather than ‘encourages’.

60. A few respondents each recommended the following:

• Specific mention of the prevention of poor health outcomes. It was thought this would help reduce demand on the NHS and other public services.
• Incorporation of nutrition into the wording of the Outcome as this is perceived as the key element for health and therefore needs targeted policy actions.
• An emphasis on weight and its relation to diet, with specific mention of healthy weight advocated in the Outcome.

Outcome 4

61. Again, small numbers offered general support to this Outcome. However, a small minority wished to see more definition of the terms used. ‘Prosperity’, ‘diverse’, ‘food resilient’, ‘food secure’ and ‘food and drink sector’ were all queried in this context.

62. By far the most comments (a significant minority across all organisation sub-groups) wanted an emphasis on producers (e.g. farmers) and their role in the Outcome. These respondents wanted to see a level regulatory playing field for primary producers, opening procurement channels to small scale producers and embedding a role for social enterprises. Allied to this were requests for appropriate support for food and drink suppliers to be in place to achieve the Outcome, amid concerns over an increasing cost base in the sector.

63. A small minority (particularly community groups and health bodies) wanted to emphasise the local economy rather than export markets. Many advantages were perceived in doing this. These included sustainability, responsiveness to local needs, community wealth-building, supporting small businesses and the community food sector, and shortening supply chains. This was seen as being key to food resilience. According to workshop respondents, this would be especially important in rural and island areas. A South Uist respondent commented:

“less deliverables to islands/monopoly on deliveries means more expensive, lack of variety in suppliers, fuel tax increases the total cost of food, fair pay for food and drink sector – example: picking jobs, career choice in hospitality – need to supply free accommodation in islands, enable food needs supply as locally provided as possible – cut red tape for small businesses to supply local, haulage costs dictate everything.”

64. Further comments from respondents in island workshops indicated a need for more local processing facilities, in particular abattoirs.

65. A balance between economic prosperity on the one hand and public health and the environment on the other was sought by a small minority of respondents. However, there were a few views that a healthy environment and sustainability would be a prerequisite for having a prosperous food and drink sector.

66. There were also a few requests for reference to research and innovation and to highlight the role of new food technology. This included using plant–based alternatives to meat. A small number (mainly trade association/representative bodies) wanted a reference to the importance of tourism to the food and drink sector.

67. A few respondents had concerns over the perceived negative influence of fast food, soft drinks and alcohol companies and supermarkets in guiding policy.

Outcome 5

68. A few respondents voiced general support for this Outcome, citing the importance of educating the population about food, though there were a couple of requests to define ‘good’. Similar numbers of organisations noted that support and investment would be required to educate the Early Years and integrate more food education into the school curriculum generally, as well as at all life stages.

69. A small minority (particularly health bodies, health boards and community groups) wanted specific mention made of learning about cooking, growing and preparing food as an essential life skill. Learning about nutrition and diets was also highlighted in this context. There were also a few comments about emphasising getting ‘joy’ out of food.

70. There were a small minority of requests (from across subgroups) to again highlight a positive role for producers in this Outcome, by way of education as to where food comes from.

71. The largest numbers (a significant minority across all groups) however maintained that education alone would be insufficient to drive behavioural change. Other determinants of food choices such as affordability and convenience of food access would need to be tackled as a priority. There was therefore some disagreement about this Outcome among these respondents.

Outcome 6

72. A few organisations cited their general agreement with this Outcome and its sentiments. However, a larger number disagreed, deeming it as unnecessary or failing to add value. There were views that Outcome 6 overarched the other Outcomes or would be the long-term result of achieving the other Outcomes. There were also a few views that Outcome 6 should be part of a wider governance outcome, given that not all food-related policy is devolved from the UK. The Scottish Food Coalition (and respondents supporting its opinions) had this to say:

“…we feel a key omission in the plan is a ‘governance’ outcome; the draft plan says: “As well as setting out our ambitions for a Good Food Nation and the policies we will use to achieve them, the Plan also has a key role to play in driving greater coherence in food-related policymaking across both national and local levels.’ However, this isn’t explicit as an outcome. Leaving it as implicit means that there will be less focus on a key element of the change (and the underlying rationale for the Good Food Nation Act). Making it explicit also provides an important focus for the Scottish Food Commission’s work. With this in mind, we suggest revising Outcome 6 as such: ‘Food policymaking is coherent, rights-based, long-term and joined up, both within Scottish Government and between national government and local public bodies. Decisions we make in Scotland contribute positively to local and global food systems transformation. The process for developing policy and reporting on progress is inclusive, transparent, based on international as well as local evidence; and trusted by all stakeholders.’”

73. The largest number of responses (a small minority across all respondent groups) wanted a focus on local systems as a priority. Making and consuming more of Scotland’s own food was considered to be more important than its global reputation. Allied to this were a few concerns about exporting, its impact on the environment and whether this contributed to a good food world. High end products such as salmon and whisky were thought to be detrimental to other aspects of Scotland’s food system. A Glasgow workshop participant commented:

“Environmental, social and economic need to be equally considered when looking at global reputations. Salmon is good food but not currently sustainable. Whisky is good for exports but linked with land use and pesticide use and monoculture. Outcome 6 should be about food resilience rather than reputation.”

74. A small minority of respondents, primarily in the third sector, trade associations/representative bodies, community groups and individuals agreed with the need for a more international perspective within the draft national Plan. They felt that the draft national Plan lacks any international perspective, for example, by including a commitment to include food policy as part of their contribution to mitigate climate change as per other COP28 countries. They also would like to see the draft national Plan include learning from other countries’ experiences. A few respondents gave examples of policies followed in other countries including Denmark and Finland.

Good Food Nation Measures

75. The consultation paper noted that a set of indicators and targets already in existence will be used to show if Scotland is making progress towards achieving the Outcomes. The paper went onto say that additional ways of measuring progress will be developed as work on the GFN continues. Targets and indicators will continue to evolve during the life of the national GFN Plan and future iterations will contain updated indicators and targets.

Views on the Targets

76. Question 3 asked:

Q3: Do you think that these targets will contribute to achieving the overall Good Food Nation Outcomes?

77. The following table shows that across the sample as a whole, just under half of respondents (48%) agreed these targets will contribute to achieving the overall GFN Outcomes. This compared to 15% who disagreed. Almost a quarter of respondents (23%) did not answer this question.

78. Across organisation sub-groups, the most positive were health boards, other health organisations and local authorities. The least positive types of organisation were in the third sector.

 

Q3: Extent of agreement that the targets will contribute to achieving the overall Good Food Nation Outcomes

Respondent type	Strongly agree (No. (%))	Mostly agree (No. (%))	Neither agree nor disagree (No. (%))	Mostly disagree (No. (%))	Strongly disagree (No. (%))	Not answered / don’t know (No. (%))
Total organisations (171)	14 (8%)	76 (44%)	20 (12%)	21 (12%)	10 (6%)	30 (18%)
Community Group (27)	2 (7%)	13 (48%)	3 (11%)	4 (15%)	2 (7%)	3 (11%)
Education / Academic / Research (7)	-	3 (43%)	1 (14%)	1 (14%)	1 (14%)	1 (14%)
Food / food retail / producer / distributor (13)	1 (8%)	6 (46%)	-	2 (15%)	2 (15%)	2 (15%)
Health Board (8)	1 (13%)	4 (50%)	2 (25%)	1 (13%)	-	-
Other Health (11)	-	6 (55%)	2 (18%)	2 (18%)	-	1 (9%)
Local authority (22)	3 (14%)	14 (64%)	4 (18%)	-	-	1 (5%)
Public sector (7)	1 (14%)	3 (43%)	-	1 (14%)	-	2 (29%)
Third sector (32)	1 (3%)	8 (25%)	4 (13%)	9 (28%)	4 (13%)	6 (19%)
Trade association / representative body (36)	4 (11%)	16 (44%)	4 (11%)	1 (3%)	1 (3%)	10 (28%)
Other (8)	1 (13%)	3 (38%)	-	-	-	4 (50%)
Individuals (281)	30 (11%)	94 (33%)	40 (14%)	21 (7%)	18 (6%)	78 (28%)
Total (452)	44 (10%)	170 (38%)	60 (13%)	42 (9%)	28 (6%)	108 (24%)

Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding

79. Question 4 then asked:

Q4: Would achieving these targets contribute to making the kind of Scottish food system you would like to see?

80. As the following table shows, just over half of respondents (51%) agreed with this question, compared to 13% who disagreed. As with the previous question, almost a quarter of respondents did not answer.

81. Across organisation sub-groups, the most positive were health boards and local authorities. The least positive were in the third sector.

Q4: Extent of agreement that achieving these targets will contribute to making the kind of Scottish food system respondents would like to see

Respondent type	Strongly agree (No. (%))	Mostly agree (No. (%))	Neither agree nor disagree (No. (%))	Mostly disagree (No. (%))	Strongly disagree (No. (%))	Not answered / don’t know (No. (%))
Total organisations (171)	25 (15%)	71 (42%)	22 (13%)	12 (7%)	10 (6%)	31 (18%)
Community Group (27)	4 (15%)	12 (44%)	5 (19%)	2 (7%)	1 (4%)	3 (11%)
Education / Academic / Research (7)	-	4 (57%)	1 (14%)	-	1 (14%)	1 (14%)
Food / food retail / producer / distributor (13)	2 (15%)	5 (38%)	1 (8%)	3 (23%)	-	2 (15%)
Health Board (8)	2 (25%)	5 (63%)	1 (13%)	-	-	-
Other Health (11)	4 (36%)	2 (18%)	2 (18%)	2 (18%)	-	1 (9%)
Local authority (22)	5 (23%)	13 (59%)	3 (14%)	-	-	1 (5%)
Public sector (7)	-	5 (71%)	-	-	-	2 (29%)
Third sector (32)	1 (3%)	8 (25%)	4 (13%)	5 (16%)	7 (22%)	7 (22%)
Trade association / representative body (36)	6 (17%)	15 (42%)	4 (11%)	-	1 (3%)	10 (28%)
Other (8)	1 (13%)	2 (25%)	1 (13%)	-	-	4 (50%)
Individuals (281)	46 (16%)	89 (32%)	34 (12%)	20 (7%)	16 (6%)	76 (27%)
Total (452)	71 (16%)	160 (35%)	56 (12%)	32 (7%)	26 (6%)	107 (24%)

Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding

82. Question 5 then asked:

Q5: If you have other comments on the suggested Good Food Nation targets, please comment

83. A total of 290 consultation respondents provided a response to this question.

General Comments

84. While a significant minority generally welcomed the targets, a large minority (mainly organisations, including a majority of local authorities) thought they were too vague. Points were made about needing more baseline data, more dates to achieve targets by and more quantitative targets generally. There was also a perceived need to align the targets with SMART^[3] principles and a need for information on how to measure and enforce these.

85. According to a significant minority of respondents, the targets were too aspirational or challenging to deliver. This was allied to requests for more actions to achieve the targets or more information regarding the actions to achieve the targets. However, only slightly fewer respondents thought the targets were too unambitious and therefore incapable of achieving meaningful or transformational change. A significant number of organisations pointed out that the targets in general were not new.

86. A significant minority, including a majority of local authorities, and with broad workshop participant support, voiced concerns over where support (e.g. funding) for the targets and Outcomes might come from, noting limited resources and budgets. Slightly fewer but still significant numbers saw a need for a collaborative working approach to incorporate aspects of the targets. In particular, there were some concerns about conflicts between targets. This was exemplified by food security clashing with sustainability and Net Zero targets, and food waste and global footprint targets with an increase in food and drink enterprises.

87. A small minority perceived a lack of linkage of targets to Outcomes and indicators. Similarly, linkage to other plans and strategies was urged in order to progress targets. A large number of different plans were raised in this respect, with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals mentioned by three respondents. Two workshop participants suggested linkage to 20-minute neighbourhood targets. Slightly fewer numbers voiced criticisms over abandoned, missed or obsolete government targets, specifying the 75% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 in particular.

88. There were also a small number of requests to make specific reference to, or allowances for, rural communities within the targets. For instance, a South Uist workshop respondent suggested a target for (types of) food available to purchase on islands including in schools.

89. Regarding perceived subject areas for targets (without generally mentioning a link to an Outcome), the most mentioned (by a significant minority across all groups) was the need to discourage poor quality foods. In particular, there were a couple of indications of support for the Scottish Soil Association’s call for a percentage reduction target to be set for the consumption of ultra-processed food in national dietary guidance. Target-setting was suggested for removing or reducing over-processed food from schools, hospitals and food banks. Action was also recommended to be taken against producers and supermarkets selling unhealthy food, and against the prevalence of sugar, artificial sweeteners and additives. Linked to this were proposals of targets to improve the food environment, with views that unhealthy foods tend to be cheaper and more accessible. These included restricting fast-food outlets opening near schools, hospitals and community centres. Tackling restrictions on access for disabled people was also mentioned. An Orkney workshop respondent stated:

“There is no specific provision or mention of issues faced by disabled people when accessing and preparing food. The term good food can be problematic for people having to use emergency or local food support where it is primarily bad food that is distributed.”

90. Conversely, facilitating access to healthy or good foods was a priority for similar numbers of respondents, including a majority of community groups.

91. A significant minority commented about possible public procurement targets. These included large proportions of local authorities, health boards and public sector bodies. Public procurement targets were regarded as an important addition, though it was noted that current compliance procedures, resources and the quantities required all worked against access for small and local food providers. Collaboration was recommended to help facilitate access for these types of enterprises. A few targets were suggested as follows:

• 40% of all food procured using Government funds to be plant-based by 2030.
• 50% of public procurement to be organic and Scottish by 2030.
• 15% of publicly procured food to be organic, including 10% from Scotland, by 2035.
• A minimum percentage of UK produce.

92. A smaller but still significant minority (particularly third sector organisations) welcomed ongoing work to include animal welfare targets. There were calls to include targets on improved living conditions for fish, cattle, pigs and poultry. Other comments suggested a link to the Five Domains Model of animal welfare, or a target based on the recommendations of the Farm Animal Welfare Council in 2012 that every farmed animal should have at least a life worth living. Slightly fewer numbers of respondents however wanted to see targets introduced relating to the reduction or elimination of meat consumption and animal agriculture. One suggestion was for a 20% reduction in the consumption of meat and dairy products by 2030. However, similar numbers cited the importance of meat production: these argued that much of Scotland’s land is most suitable for raising livestock, that meat is an important dietary component, and that farmers’ livings would be adversely affected.

93. Slightly fewer respondents wanted to highlight the importance of local food. A small number wanted targets for numbers of small and local producers or local or seasonal supply. Similarly, targets were proposed for reducing imports and low food miles.

94. Other targets were suggested by a small minority. These were generally not in relation to specific Outcomes and are in Appendix 3.

95. The following sections outline comments made about specific Outcomes. Some respondents also suggested wording alterations to each of the Outcomes. These are provided in Appendix 3.

Outcome 1 Targets

96. The most comments received were in relation to poverty targets. Significant numbers of respondents, including a majority of community groups, wanted more or stiffer targets to resolve food poverty and food inequalities. A small number of these said that poverty should be eradicated completely. However, there were a small number of opinions that meeting the poverty-related targets by 2030 was unrealistic. There were also some suggestions that adult and elderly poverty should have targets as well as children. Additionally, a few respondents perceived that the targets needed to take a wider view to tackle poverty, to encompass benefits, wages, childcare and reduced food bank use. An Alloa workshop participant commented:

“Need to have targets to reduce poverty first and all the factors that relate to/create poverty – such as low income, fuel costs, transport, time available for eating, working schedules. The emphasis on poverty targets are welcomed but we need these additional targets to ensure that poverty is reduced before achieving Outcome 1.”

97. The obesity targets elicited a significant minority of responses. The ‘halving childhood obesity’ target was largely welcomed though there was some suggestion that achieving this by 2030 was not possible. There were a few recommendations to break this down into age-related targets or to test this at P7 rather than P1. A couple of respondents thought the focus should be on healthy weight rather than obesity. A target of 85% of children having a healthy weight at P1 and at P6 or P7, with the gap between the quintiles reduced to 5%, was suggested by respondents supporting the Scottish Food Coalition’s response.

98. Only a small minority commented on the food security targets. Amid approval, there were calls for more measures and targets in this area. A group of respondents allied to the Scottish Food Coalition response proposed aligning the target to Scottish Dietary Goals 2 (to eliminate severe food insecurity by 2030). ‘Reducing the reported number of households accessing emergency food provision’ was thought to be too vague; it was suggested to measure this through food bank use.

99. The ‘reducing adult diet-related health inequalities’ target elicited only a few comments. There were remarks that more specific health–related measures were needed (e.g. to include a reduction in cases of diet-related illness) and that it should align with child targets.

100. Other single alterations or additions to Outcome 1 targets were suggested by a small minority of respondents (see Appendix 3).

Outcome 2 Targets

101. Respondents generally approved of having food waste reduction targets. While a small number thought these should be more ambitious (e.g. halving food waste by 2025), a greater number thought this target was not attainable or was obsolete given the proximity of 2025. An alternative suggestion from small numbers was that there should be a target aligned to Sustainable Development Goal 12.3 (50% reduction by 2030 plus reduction in food loss). A community group recommended a specific target for public sector bodies/or large food businesses to reduce food waste going to general waste streams.

102. The greatest numbers (a significant minority of respondents from across all sub-groups) commented on the organic target, mostly in favour of embedding a commitment to organic farming. There were some concerns about demand given that organic food is perceived as expensive. A few respondents wanted to see a target related to the demand for organic food. There were also single suggestions for targets related to the number of food producers accredited as organic, the proportion of Scottish organic food in public procurement, or to a reduction in pesticide and fertiliser use by 50%. A few concerns were raised related to food security and the costs of organic certification.

103. A small minority wanted to see targets for regenerative, agro-ecological or other improved farming methods which are not necessarily organic. Suggestions were to base these on increases in the number of regenerative farms, or on soil health or regeneration.

104. Amid general requests for commitments to emissions targets, there were a few calls for a specific food system emissions target to help reduce energy use and food waste in the supply chain. There was also a recommendation to have a net emissions target for emissions produced by the agricultural sector. Other single suggestions were to halve nitrogen loss and waste by 2030, or to have an ammonia reduction target to improve air quality. A small number of respondents wanted to extend targets to encompass a global footprint (i.e. to include imports).

105. On biodiversity commitments, there were a few comments that the target was too general. Suggestions included having a target related to reducing biodiversity loss and for targets relating to specific food sectors.

106. A small minority of respondents commented that Outcome 2 had no or few new targets.

Outcome 3 Targets

107. The small minority of comments about breastfeeding rates were generally supportive, although there were a few calls to make them more ambitious. There were single suggestions for a target to reduce inequalities in breastfeeding or for a target on exclusive breastfeeding.

108. There were a small minority of calls from organisations across sub-groups to create a target based on nutrition rather than having this as an indicator. This could be based on consumption of fruit and vegetables per day as per the Scottish Dietary Goals, or on ‘easy access to the right nutrition people need to live healthy and fulfilling lives’, according to a small number of suggestions. Specific targets for groups or types of people were also proposed.

109. There was some disquiet among respondents regarding the weight targets. Small numbers commented that adult weight was not always a good indicator of health. Instead, these respondents supported actions on the drivers of overconsumption of food. A health organisation said:

“The weight targets do not support ‘a population that enjoys food; and can access, prepare and (if they wish) share what they eat”.

110. And an Alloa workshop respondent said:

“We need a whole range of well-being targets to ensure we have a thriving food culture; we cannot track it only according to weight related targets.”

111. A few respondents wanted to focus targets on reducing related diseases rather than obesity itself as this was seen as too narrow an objective. Illnesses mentioned by several respondents in this context were type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and related cancers.

112. Small numbers proposed new targets based on dental health (e.g. to reduce incidence of dental decay by half). Similar numbers suggested having a mental health target.

Outcome 4 Targets

113. A small minority of respondents welcomed support and funding for producers, processors and the food supply chain generally. Fair Work standards were regarded as an essential component of this, together with the real living wage and fair and sustainable pricing for suppliers and producers as well as retailers. There was some concern about the types of food and drink that would benefit (e.g. alcohol). One comment was that this needs to be in line with Sustainable Development Goal 3 targets on reducing dependence on toxic substances.

114. There were a small minority of suggestions for other targets for Outcome 4, with some comment that there were currently no targets, only commitments. Several alluded to quantities of food and drink produced and sold in Scotland (i.e. not including exports). Other single mentions were for targets regarding diversity of employment, increasing the number of sustainable businesses and numbers of Fair Trade accredited foods.

Outcome 5 Targets

115. A few respondents perceived that there were no current targets specific to Outcome 5.

116. A significant minority (across all groups and in workshops) wanted targets for the provision of better education and knowledge about food, in order to promote better understanding, though nothing specific was suggested. Recommendations of areas to focus on included meal planning and teaching of cooking skills at schools.

117. Significant support, particularly from community groups and local authorities, was given to encouraging community roles to facilitate target attainments. Suggestions were made to create targets for the release of public land for growing or allotments, and for the numbers of community enterprises such as food cooperatives and kitchens, community gardens and cooking initiatives, under Outcome 5.

Outcome 6 Targets

118. A small minority wanted to include a commitment to learn from other countries and develop contacts. Small numbers of respondents proposed alternative targets, as follows:

• By the end of 2025, local public bodies and Scottish Government have agreed a joint set of metrics for assessing the food system at local and national level and a process for collecting and publishing data.
• By the end of 2025 the Scottish Human Rights Commission and the Scottish Food Commission have jointly produced guidance on implementing and monitoring the right to food and ensuring the human rights of all those working in our food supply chains are upheld.
• By mid-2026, Scotland has benchmarked its food system against other OECD countries.
• A target to encourage food research and development.

Other Comments

119. A significant number of respondents across all sub-groups and particularly in workshops raised affordability issues, arguing that people can only buy what they can afford. A small number of individuals voiced resentment over perceived government interference with freedom of choice over food.

Views on the Indicators

120. Question 6 went onto ask:

Q6: Do you think these indicators will be useful for measuring progress towards the Good Food Nation Outcomes?

121. As demonstrated in the following table, just under half of respondents (44%) agreed that these indicators will be useful for measuring progress towards the GFN Outcomes. This compared to only 15% who disagreed. Again, a quarter of respondents did not answer this question or gave an answer of ‘don’t know’. Across organisations, those in the public sector were most positive and those in the third sector were least positive.

Q6: Extent of agreement that the indicators will be useful for measuring progress towards the Good Food Nation Outcomes

Respondent type	Strongly agree (No. (%))	Mostly agree (No. (%))	Neither agree nor disagree (No. (%))	Mostly disagree (No. (%))	Strongly disagree (No. (%))	Not answered / don’t know (No. (%))
Total organisations (171)	12 (7%)	67 (39%)	26 (15%)	24 (14%)	8 (5%)	34 (20%)
Community Group (27)	2 (7%)	13 (48%)	6 (22%)	1 (4%)	1 (4%)	4 (15%)
Education / Academic / Research (7)	-	4 (57%)	1 (14%)	-	-	2 (29%)
Food / food retail / producer / distributor (13)	1 (8%)	6 (46%)	1 (8%)	2 (15%)	1 (8%)	2 (15%)
Health Board (8)	-	5 (63%)	2 (25%)	1 (13%)	-	-
Other Health (11)	1 (9%)	4 (36%)	1 (9%)	3 (27%)	-	2 (18%)
Local authority (22)	4 (18%)	9 (41%)	3 (14%)	4 (18%)	-	2 (9%)
Public sector (7)	-	5 (71%)	--	-	-	2 (29%)
Third sector (32)	1 (3%)	3 (9%)	6 (19%)	10 (31%)	5 (16%)	7 (22%)
Trade association / representative body (36)	2 (6%)	16 (44%)	5 (14%)	3 (8%)	1 (3%)	9 (25%)
Other (8)	1 (13%)	2 (25%)	1 (13%)	-	-	4 (50%)
Individuals (281)	32 (11%)	86 (31%)	47 (17%)	17 (6%)	20 (7%)	79 (28%)
Total (452)	44 (10%)	153 (34%)	73 (16%)	41 (9%)	28 (6%)	113 (25%)

Percentages may not add to 100% due to rounding

122. Having ascertained views on whether the indicators would be useful for measuring progress towards the GFN Outcomes, respondents were then asked why they did or did not agree that the indicators would be useful. A total of 212 consultation respondents provided a response to this question.

General Comments

123. Although a large minority broadly agreed with the indicators, a similar number (almost half of commenting respondents) felt that the indicators were too narrow to give a full picture and therefore additional ones would be needed. The most mentioned areas in which indicators were lacking were animal welfare, local supply and food networks, plant-based vs animal-based food, organic production and consumption and progress in reducing ultra-processed and foods high in fat, sugar or salt (HFSS). A small number mentioned a need for indicators to be broken down, for example by local authority area.

124. Further criticisms (from significant minorities) repeated comments about Outcomes and targets in that they were seen as too vague. More timescales, quantities and baseline figures were needed. Similar numbers perceived them as lacking relevance in that they failed to address the root cause of problems and did not address the things that make a GFN. Further commentary saw them as lacking impact and as being unconnected with Outcomes and targets.

125. There were also a significant number of concerns as to how indicators will be measured, monitored and evidenced. Other respondents commented that the indicators just summarise what is already measured in other strategies and plans. There was a positive aspect to this in that new data collection will not be required for the most part, but clarity would be required as to whether the indicators will be useful in measuring progress against Outcomes. A couple of respondents pointed out that indicators suffered significant skews due to Covid and queried what ‘the new normal’ might be as a baseline.

126. Other general comments about the indicators were made by smaller numbers of respondents as follows:

• They need to be communicated clearly to ensure good engagement, for instance with food and drinks companies and government departments.
• There is a need for qualitative as well as quantitative elements, such as input from lived experience (e.g. referring to Outcome 6, the quality of engagements was felt to be more useful than the quantity).
• The current indicators should be a start only and there will be a need to increase the numbers of indicators over time.
• There is a danger of indicators becoming invalid due to looming short term targets.

127. Finally, a small minority of mainly individuals broadly disagreed with the indicators, viewing them as confusing or weak.

Comments about specific indicators

128. Relatively few comments were received concerning the individual indicators. A small minority commended the Food for Life Scotland Programme indicator. They felt this is effective, has tangible impact and demonstrates care about food provisioning. A trade association and a third sector organisation said this has led to a significant increase in percentage spending on Quality Meat Scotland farm-assured meat. However, a small number of respondents queried how to develop this further, considering that local authority budgets are limited and the programme is costly to run.

129. The Scottish Dietary Goals indicator was generally viewed more negatively. While conceding that this is a long-term measure of dietary health, there were concerns about a lack of alignment to sustainability and a lack of specificity. For instance, a trade association stated:

“If the focus here is better compliance with the 70g red meat/day target (and thereby achieving a reduction in the environmental impact of the national diet), then this should be spelt out.”

130. Additionally, there were perceptions of too much focus on red meat derived protein, with little mention of the importance of fibre in diet. Other criticisms were that the Scottish Dietary Goals indicator was not an indicator of dignified or reliable access, and obesity is still rising despite targets on dietary health.

131. The school meals indicators were regarded as useful, though there were a couple of suggestions that this should include a percentage of meals eaten compared with going to waste. There were concerns that the indicator might become outdated as universal free school meals are implemented. Other issues were that registration and entitlement for school meals continues to be problematic, is not a measure of uptake, and no longer has a meaningful correlation with food insecurity experiences for children.

132. The Eating Out, Eating Well indicator was mentioned by only small numbers. Perceptions were that it was weak and had little to do with food culture. There were also further concerns raised as to how data would be collected and measured.

133. A very small number of respondents regarded the ‘Number of day care settings and children registered to the Scottish Milk and Healthy Snack Scheme’ indicator as irrelevant to Outcome 1.

134. There was some criticism of the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by the agricultural sector indicator. A small number thought it would be more useful to look at overall food chain emissions. There was also a perceived threat to farming and fishing with associated adverse social and economic impacts. Views were stated about the indicator’s lack of correlation with producing and eating local food. Concerns about accurate emission baselines (e.g. consistency between carbon calculators) were also expressed.

135. On the nitrogen use indicator, there were concerns that this was too simplistic and there were queries about how to evidence and measure it. Alternatives were that it would be more useful to measure nitrogen balance per hectare, nitrogen loss and waste, or focus on the efficient use of fertilisers as measured by the nitrogen use efficiency indicator (NUE). There were also requests for clarity about whether the indicator refers to artificial nitrogen fertilisers, and a note that other harmful fertilisers need addressing. The dangers of increased food insecurity were also alluded to.

136. Reformulation was regarded as important in changing tastes, but the indicator was regarded as weak with a suggestion that overall sales would be a more powerful indicator.

137. Very small numbers commented that, while welcomed, the number of registered crofts indicator would be more relevant if it referred to active crofts.

138. The percentage of children at risk of obesity indicator was welcomed by very small numbers of respondents. There were concerns over how ‘at risk’ would be classified, and over difficulties in making progress due to Early Years Funding being discontinued.

139. A very small number commented that the ‘Percentage of adults and children consuming the recommended 5 portions of fruit and vegetables each day’ indicator was helpful, but they were concerned over data gathering methods. For instance, it was noted that the Scottish Health Survey is self-reporting.

140. The small minority who commented on the ‘Funding committed to food education and community food projects’ indicator regarded this as an important, though crude measure for the progress of Outcome 5. An individual intimated that:

“A 'thriving food culture' should not encompass having to rely on food aid projects to feed yourself or your family”.

Other Comments

141. Comments about Outcomes and targets were reiterated and included calls for clarity and requests for a mechanism to stimulate actual change. A few concerns reiterated that affordability was the main issue in trying to achieve a GFN. Similar numbers were concerned about where funding and support would come from.

142. Respondents were then invited to provide details of any other indicators they would like to see included. Question 7 asked:

Q7: What other indicators, if any, would you like to see included?

143. A total of 304 consultation respondents provided a response to this question.

General Comments

144. Most responses suggested areas where other indicators were needed. A minority proposed new indicators for these areas, though with little consensus and often without specifying for which targets or Outcomes these should measure progress towards.

145. A small minority wanted to emphasise the importance of mapping progress accurately. Elements to this included evidence and data sources, the need to reflect reality, be measurable, and establish reporting processes and accurate baselines.

146. A few respondents (mainly community groups and local authorities) wanted to see more qualitative, non-statistical, indicators included. Case studies and lived experiences were suggested as being useful. Similar numbers wanted indicators broken down into local areas to reflect geographical differences in needs.

Indicators in specific subject areas

147. The largest numbers of respondents (a significant minority from all sub-groups) wanted to see more indicators related to education and food skills. Most of these pertained to teaching at schools. They included numbers of schools teaching food subjects, numbers of young people achieving senior phase qualifications in food technology and the percentage of uptake of food subjects. Other suggestions were numbers of schools having kitchen gardens or organising visits to farms. More generally, the number of people with the ability to cook, grow, prepare and plan meals was suggested.

148. Almost as many respondents (particularly community groups, local authorities, health boards and health bodies) wanted to see indicators about community activity. Examples were numbers of people participating in allotments and community gardens, numbers of community growing officers in local authorities, and the amount of land in community growing hands per local authority. Other suggestions were to measure the increase in local authority partners working in partnership on solutions to support statutory obligations on meeting demand for allotments and community growing space, and to measure the decrease in community food projects which provide food aid.

149. Similar numbers from across all sub-groups wanted to see indicators relating to local supply and production and food networks, mainly with respect to Outcome 2. Small numbers suggested proportions of local food available in retail or hospitality settings (e.g. against imports). Single suggestions were for percentages of local food eaten by consumers, food miles (and their reduction), numbers and proximity of farmers markets, and numbers of local processing facilities.

150. Slightly fewer but still significant numbers wanted to see measures of progress on reducing UPF and HFSS foods. This was seen as an indicator for Outcomes 1 or 3, or both. The most wanted measures were in terms of reductions in availability (e.g. amount of floor space) and consumption (e.g. proportion of diet). A small number wanted indicators on marketing or advertising levels. A community group wanted a measure of the cost impacts of bad food habits on the wider system (e.g. the NHS). Allied to this, a small minority wanted a food environment indicator. Suggested measures for this were ease of access to fast food outlets (e.g. numbers within 300m of a school), the prevalence of junk food vending machines and percentages of the population living in ‘food deserts’. A small number suggested making use of the Food Environment Assessment Tool.

151. Similar numbers wanted to see an indicator related to good food access. Suggestions were similar to those for UPF and HFSS foods above, namely consumption and availability-related, as well as proximity. A few respondents suggested monitoring Best Start eligibility and uptake.

152. For a significant minority, affordability was again stated as the main issue. Suggestions included a food affordability indicator based on a ‘basket of goods’ and a cost-of-living indicator.

153. Linked to this, poverty-related measures were recommended, particularly by a majority of health boards, with respect to Outcome 1. Potential bases were the Scottish Index of Multiple Deprivation (SIMD), monitoring of inequalities, screening for malnutrition and poverty indicators in relation to non-child age groups. Monitoring the reduction of food banks, or the increase in or uptake of cash first resources were also suggested.

154. Food waste tracking was advocated by a significant minority. It was suggested that data quality would be facilitated by the implementation of digital waste tracking and mandatory reporting through provisions in the Circular Economy Bill. There was one proposal that food waste should be reported as a percentage of total landfill waste.

155. A variety of organic production and consumption-related indicators were mentioned by similar numbers but without consensus. These included percent of household spend, the price difference between organic and non-organic food, numbers of organic food producers and number of box schemes. Other proposed measures were the number of hectares of organic food grown and the market share of the Scottish supply chain. Also mentioned were the value of governmental financial support and the number of animals raised to organic standards. Non-organic environmentally friendly farming, in terms of numbers of regenerative farm producers, was also advocated. Respondents, particularly from the third sector, also suggested replacing the nitrogen fertiliser usage indicator with the nitrogen use efficiency indicator (NUE), as well as extending fertiliser monitoring to include the use of harmful chemical pesticides such as glyphosate and neonicotinoids.

156. Diet, in terms of nutrient consumption, was a topic raised by a similar number of respondents, as applied to Outcomes 1 or 3. There were a couple of mentions of HIS Food Fluid and Nutritional Care Standards (2014) as an indicator. One potential measure was the number of retailers with sales-weighted average converted Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM) scores of more than 69 across their food portfolio. Another was the percentages of people achieving their recommended daily intake of specific nutrients (e.g. fibre, protein), with data obtained via household surveys.

157. A small minority wanted an indicator monitoring the prevalence of plant-based foods. For instance, these could show improvements in the labelling of vegan food, a reduction in meat and dairy production, or increased availability of vegan options. The percentage of land used for horticulture year on year and the number of vegan or vegetarian households was also suggested.

158. More animal welfare measures were advocated in respect to Outcome 2. The monitoring of progress in reforming specific current agricultural practices had most references, with a specialised suite of indicators recommended for various livestock types. Other proposals were for animal cruelty figures and percentage of foods meeting higher welfare standards. A small minority, particularly third sector respondents, wanted to monitor vaccine and antibiotic use in livestock; the latter being measured in mg/population correction unit (PCU) to take the size of different livestock populations into account.

159. A significant minority wanted to monitor public procurement spending. Percentage spend on locally sourced food was the most mentioned indicator. Other proposals included organic food or plant-based food spending, average greenhouse gas emissions per plate and percentage of food spend meeting higher welfare standards. Respondents also referred to monitoring transport costs and the value of Fair Trade verified purchases.

160. A small minority wanted more indicators related to environmental issues and impacts. Suggestions included indicators relating to on farm carbon sequestration, supermarkets’ greenhouse gases, emission intensities of food or food production, and environmental impact reductions achieved through dietary shifts. Also proposed were sustainability-related indicators such as sustainable and ethical food accreditation for food and food-related businesses, or the number of outlets signed up to a sustainability commitment.

161. Bio-diversity-related indicators were recommended by a small minority, mainly in relation to Outcome 2. A few respondents urged monitoring of an increase in population numbers of farmland-dependent red and amber listed species. A further suggestion was to monitor the improving numbers of pollinators through use of farmland. A very small number wanted to monitor soil quality.

162. A significant minority (particularly community groups) were interested in having food worker conditions indicators in relation to Outcome 4. Measurements for this included the numbers of employers paying a real living wage or the increase in number of businesses meeting Fair Work standards. Also suggested were measuring the gap between the lowest and highest paid in the sector, along with training standards and job satisfaction levels.

163. Smaller minorities cited other business-related indicators such as Total Income from Farming (TIFF report, for indicating profitability) and numbers employed. Economic contributions by way of impact of food and drink tourism, investment in research and development and new business creation were also quoted. With respect to Outcome 6, the effectiveness of international collaborations was again raised along with the number and scale of international food research projects. The numbers of people and organisations engaged in reviewing and developing national and local GFN Plans was also suggested as an indicator for Outcome 6.

164. Cultural aspects needed to be represented, according to a small minority. Measures for availability, enjoyment, the social aspects of eating, percentages cooking and eating at home and access to culturally appropriate foods in rural and island communities were all suggested.

165. Small minorities, in particular health boards and health bodies, put forward extra health-related indicators. Physical health suggestions included population blood pressure monitoring, uptake of sport and physical activity, and (from a few respondents) dental health. Monitoring of the prevalence of diet-related diseases was recommended, particularly rates of type 2 diabetes, by a few respondents. A few respondents also mentioned indicators for mental health (child performance at school) and disaggregation of obesity indicators (connection with deprivation and rates among nursing staff and during maternity). Alcoholism rates were also mentioned by a couple of respondents.

166. Smaller numbers of respondents made mention of indicators in the following areas:

• Food security: measures for resilience, agricultural output per labour unit, specific indicators for key agricultural commodities, number of children at risk of food insecurity.
• School meals: percentage uptake, percentage free meal provision.
• Small producers: numbers qualifying for being registered and supported through international development funding, availability and affordability of land for crofting and small-scale agriculture.
• Retailing: proportions of supermarket spend vs independent retailers, food and drink retailing mirroring the Scottish Dietary Goals, the number of convenience retailers achieving the Scottish Grocer’s Federation Healthy Living Programme and the number of outlets complying with the Healthcare Retail Standard.

Other comments

167. Significant numbers of respondents reiterated their general agreement or disagreement with the suggested indicators, and previously made comments about Outcomes and targets.

168. The final question in this section of the consultation paper invited respondents to provide any further comments on the suggested GFN indicators.

Q8: If you have other comments on the suggested Good Food Nation indicators, please comment

169. Relatively few (110) respondents commented at this question. Responses very much echoed themes already expressed in relation to the indicators in previous questions.

General Comments

170. The largest numbers of respondents (a significant minority) reiterated the importance of mapping accurate progress. There were a few queries about how relevant data would be sourced and how this would be funded.

171. Smaller but still significant numbers raised concerns with the indicators generally, citing irrelevance to the Outcomes, a lack of ambition or measurability and a lack of specificity and detail.

172. There was also some comment about the need to ensure that the indicators are properly aligned with other strategies and their indicators. For instance, care must be taken to ensure they do not conflict with the current regulatory nutritional requirements, and to be tied closely to the future payment support structure being rolled out through the Agriculture Bill. Other plans mentioned in this context were the indicator framework for circular economy targets, the Environment Strategy for Scotland, and the Biodiversity Strategy Indicators.

Specific Comments

173. A significant minority perceived a need to focus on all parts of the supply chain, including aspects such as the traceability of local produce, food transport, retailers, safety and labelling regarding pesticides and chemicals. A trade association stated:

“The supply chain is vital to the survival of the food production sector and there is a critical mass: if it fails to maintain critical mass, food production cannot happen”.

174. Very small numbers of comments were made about each of the following:

• The Scottish Dietary Goals, while a valuable framework, are unclear and non-specific, with no details as to measurement of success.
• Tracking plastics and packaging pollution should be a part of the Outcomes and indicators.
• Liaising and learning from other countries is important.
• More support is needed for farmers to implement monitoring for disease prevention.

Other Comments

175. Respondents reiterated comments from the previous questions about focusing indicators in particular areas. The most mentioned ones were good food availability and access, plant-based eating, school meals, food education, nutrition and community activities.