Last week’s discussion of the Agency’s Nutrient Profiling Model has stimulated some discussion of the role of science in developing policy. The Agency has a proud record of being an evidence-based organisation and the starting point for any food-related issue is to consider the scientific evidence, taking account of the views of independent experts. But getting a robust analysis of the science is just the start. The journey from science to policy decisions and advice will quite properly take into account wider issues beyond the confines of science.
The Nutrient Profiling Model was developed by the Agency for Ofcom to use to enable it to target its restrictions on ‘less healthy’ food advertising to children on TV. These restrictions seek to improve the balance of foods being advertised to children on TV and is just one of a number of interventions addressing the issue of childhood obesity. Clearly, there are important commercial considerations at stake here.
A lengthy independent review recommended that the model was scientifically robust, which is excellent news because it has been called into question in the past, so we can now lay these criticisms to rest. One recommendation was that the ‘protein cap’ could be removed because the review panel questioned the degree of scientific justification for it being there. Without going into too much technical detail about how the protein cap works, it was added to the model as a safeguard to mitigate against the possibility that foods high in fat, salt and or sugar could pass the model by virtue of their high protein content, for example, burgers. However, if the Board had agreed to remove the cap, a number of other products, such as sugary breakfast cereals and savoury snacks would have been reclassified as ‘healthier’ and been eligible to be advertised on children’s TV. The message this may have sent to the food industry and children alike was a concern.
So there were two options on the table – relax the model and follow the science rigidly, or think about the wider Government messaging in the context of children’s diets and health, and keep the protein cap in place. The review was thorough and robust, but against a backdrop of rising childhood obesity, the Board decided to keep the protein cap in place.
As the Chair put it during the meeting, if the Board only endorsed scientific findings there would be no point in having a Board. The various scientific committees do the risk assessment, while the Agency does the risk management. And it’s the latter which takes into account a whole range of other issues, including our need to put the consumer – and in this case, the challenge of tackling the rising levels of childhood obesity – first.
