Health Committee on Feb. 19th, 2007

[Deirdre Hutton]

—so that they understand why they're doing it. Interestingly enough, there is, quite counterintuitively, some evidence of a company's thinking about the fact that its products will be entirely red, but putting that on there because they're clearly placing their product as a treat product, an indulgence product. So in terms of red, it doesn't necessarily work quite the way you would expect it to work.

If the voluntary approach doesn't work over the longer term, would we want to, if we were able to, move to a mandatory system? I think we would certainly want to think about it, but I am not personally convinced that mandatory is best. What you then find is that companies devote a lot of energy to trying to get around the rules, rather than understanding why you're doing it and joining in. We're very anxious to partner with industry so that they genuinely believe and feel and see that they're part of the solution and part of the whole drive towards health, rather than being somebody outside who's dragged kicking and screaming into a new arena.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

We have two more members of the committee whose flights were delayed and who are now at the committee, and I'll just yield the floor to see if they are interested in asking a question.

I believe Mr. Dykstra has a question.

The floor is yours.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I hope I'm not going to repeat a couple of things that have been asked already. My apologies for not being able to get here a little earlier.

One of the points you made in your last response was with respect to partnering with industry. It's one of the things we've talked about almost without exception on a number of occasions when we've had witnesses present, and I wanted to get your thoughts on this. In terms of partnering, what do you mean by that exactly? There are two ways of looking at this.

The first is yes, we want to work with industry, and we're government and therefore we want to work with you to an achievable end, and we collaborate and work at it. The second is that you're both investing money into this, both from an overall federal government perspective and also from a private sector business perspective, and I wonder if you could comment on both.

[Gill Fine]

We're taking quite a broad definition of working in partnership. It is very much about encouraging others to take action where we can't actually make an impact. We don't manufacture any foods ourselves. We don't label it. But what we can do is help set the parameters that other people are working into. It's about encouraging those people to share the same objectives of helping to improve the U.K. diet and the health of individuals.

Earlier on, we were talking about the role of the industry and how more and more of the industry are recognizing they are part of the solution. It's helping to ensure there's a common language and actually getting movements in the right direction.

In terms of making it work, there are different ways in which we're doing that. Some people will not be able to change their products, but they might be able to have smaller portions, or they might be able to provide more information. It's about getting clarity around how we can work together. On the front-of-pack labelling we were able to recommend four core principles, but we didn't say, “It must be in this particular format.” We left some flexibility to enable the companies to say how that would fit with their brand image. That I think is the example of how there was some flexibility and dialogue going on with the different industry partners, and also of course with the health organizations and consumer groups, because they are part of this partnership approach.

[Deirdre Hutton]

Would it be helpful if I gave you an example?

One of the more successful campaigns we've run has been around the reduction of salt in food. That has been done completely in partnership with industry. It starts by recognizing that industry has to sell products; it has to be profitable. It's no good just telling industry to reduce the amount of salt if they then find there isn't a market for it because consumers don't want to eat it. So at the same time, it's working with industry to reformulate. We've worked very hard with consumers to help them understand that they need to eat less salt and how to work out which foods have less salt. You create a kind of market circle, where we are both incentivizing consumers and incentivizing the industry. The end result for the industry is a win. It is no good trying to push them somewhere that is just going to cost them money and not get them sales.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

From the perspective of government investment, one of the things we have struggled with here is whether we should be doing it in that manner, and I think that's what is supported overall around the table.

One of the difficulties we struggle with is how much investment or how much money does the federal government actually invest in this issue.

My question to you is, what has the government done from a federal perspective in terms of financial investments into this issue since you started in 2004?

[Gill Fine]

It's very difficult to put actual costs to that basis, but what we have done is invest time and resources from the agency staff for meetings one to one, meetings with trade associations, follow-up discussions, stakeholder fora, and consultations. That we would see as part of our general way of doing business in the nutrition agenda.

We are going to provide some figures about the cost of the campaign. We are going to find that information and send it to you.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

If I understand it correctly, it is more of a partnership with business, which doesn't mean you're throwing millions of dollars at this from a budgeted line item perspective from government.

[Deirdre Hutton]

No, we're not.

I think the total budget for our communications department, for example, is about £5 million, but not all of that will be on nutrition.

Actually, the amounts of money involved are really quite small. One of the reasons we work in partnership with community bodies, for example, is that they can deliver the message for us through a cascade system. We have a formidable organization here called the Women's Institute, which has branches in every town in the U.K., and we work with them. You have the same.

We've engaged them to talk to groups in their own towns about topics like labelling and nutrition. That doesn't cost us anything, but it's a very powerful tool.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you.

I have one further question, and again I don't know whether this has been asked or not. I noticed that obviously you've taken a multifaceted approach and that there are up to 20 interventions that you've used.

I don't mean to put any of the three of you on the spot, but if you had to determine, out of the 20 interventions, the top two or three or four that worked extremely well, what would those be?

[Deirdre Hutton]

I'd think the salt campaign and the reduction of salt is the campaign that is furthest on, and therefore the one where we know most about how effectively it's working. So I think one could choose it from that point.

In 18 months' time you'll need to ask us the question again about traffic light labelling, because I think the early straws in the wind about that are really quite exciting. But we couldn't give you chapter and verse about that for another 18 months or so, until the research has been done.

Do you want to add something, Gill?

[Gill Fine]

All I would say is that in terms of measuring effectiveness, it's still very early days for the signposting. We are beginning to measure what's happened on the salt awareness. We have tracked that and we do know where that's going, so I would agree with Deirdre, that has been a very effective one, but as the years go by there'll be different measures of effectiveness we can report on.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Davidson.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and hello, everyone. I'm sorry I missed the presentations this morning; the plane was late, but I'm here now, and I have a question for you. I hope I'm not repeating everything that's been said.

The one thing I struggle with, and I think the committee has been struggling with, is the fact that we're dealing with childhood obesity. We know there are family implications in controlling childhood obesity, but my question to you is, what consultation or what interaction, if any, did you have with kids when you were developing the signpost strategy, and how do they relate to it? How does it help them?

[Rosemary Hignett]

We did a lot of qualitative and quantitative consumer research that included some focus group work with young people, not with children but with young people, teenagers, and they, like the rest of the population, found the traffic light, colour-coded approach very helpful. They were very attracted to it and felt they could use it to help them make healthier choices.

[Deirdre Hutton]

I think it might also be worth saying that one of the ways in which we're targeting younger children is around restraints on the television advertising of food that's high in salt, fat, and sugar, because at the moment the advertising to young children is predominantly for food we would consider to be less healthy. To try to shift that balance toward healthier food, we've produced a nutrient profile that is used as a benchmark for companies wanting to advertising their food to children. So if the food is below the benchmark, they're able to advertise. If it's above the benchmark, it means it's less healthy food and they won't be able to advertise. That system is being introduced over the next couple of months.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Thank you.

Going back to your advertising, does Ofcom regulate or control the advertising?

[Rosemary Hignett]

Ofcom is the broadcast regulator, and their restrictions on television advertising are going to be introduced, so they're in the lead on that.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

And I believe the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice is contracted by Ofcom to regulate the content. Is that correct?

[Rosemary Hignett]

Yes, that's right.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

And they only regulate the channels and stations licensed by Ofcom? I'm not familiar with your system, so is that--

[Rosemary Hignett]

As opposed to satellite channels that might be beamed throughout the country, you mean?

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Yes. I'm wondering what percentage of advertising is regulated.

[Rosemary Hignett]

As far as the U.K. is concerned? The vast majority of the television channels received and used in U.K. homes are regulated by Ofcom. The rules that are going to be introduced will have a very significant effect, a huge effect, on television advertising to children in the U.K. It isn't the same situation as pertains, for instance, to Sweden, where they had restrictions on advertising to children. This had a relatively small effect on exposure to advertising because of the many satellite channels received from outside the country. It's a completely different situation in the U.K.

[Patricia Davidson, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

It is much easier to control in the U.K.