Ministers ‘cave in’ to junk food lobby in battle against obesity

MINISTERS were last night accused of ‘caving in’ to the junk food lobby over plans to tackle child obesity.

Two-for- one deals on junk food could be banned and parents no longer forced to run the gauntlet of sweet racks at supermarket checkouts under the Government’s Childhood Obesity Plan.

The sugar tax could be extended to milk- based drinks such as milkshakes.

But a controversial ‘challenge’ to the food industry to cut sugar levels by a fifth before 2020 remains in place.

Ministers have failed to force companies to reach the target, despite a report showing last month that just a third of the 20 biggest-selling-brands of sweet treats have reduced their sugar content. Some foods have, in fact, become sweeter, with MPs claiming a voluntary policy has ‘failed miserably’.

The new strategy, unveiled in full today, aims to halve childhood obesity by 2030. The Government is to launch consultations on a range of measures by the end of the year.

The strategy has been welcomed for radical proposals which could see restaurants and takeaways forced to put calorie counts on menus and a ban on caffeinated energy drinks being sold to children.

However, critics say it falls short on ‘reformulation’, which would see firms cutting sugar from their products by shrinking their size or altering their ingredients.

Professor Graham McGregor, chairman of campaign group Action on Sugar, said: ‘This target must be mandated, which means regulation so everyone has to do it and there is no getting out of it.

‘The supermarkets have agreed to it but a lot of the branded industry is not doing it at all. The Government has caved in again to the big food industry.’

The Government has said it will monitor industry progress on reformulation until 2020 and has not ruled out mandatory guidelines or further taxes.

The precursor of the Childhood Obesity Plan, 2016’s Childhood Obesity Strategy, was criticised for its reliance on voluntary action by the food industry.

The new proposals go further in aiming to tackle ‘pester power’ ridding supermarkets of ‘guilt aisles’ stacked with sweets near the checkout.

And the pre-watershed ban on nudity and violence in television shows before 9pm could be expanded to include advertising for some unhealthy foods. But the wording on challenging the food industry to reduce sugar has stayed exactly the same.

Tam Fry, chairman of the National Obesity Forum, said: ‘I believe that at some point the Government will have to legislate on reformulation, particuby larly for breakfast cereals, milkshakes and similarly unhealthy foods, just as it did with the sugar tax. Legislation, rather than a “challenge” to reduce sugar, should have been in this strategy. Bold measures were promised by the Department of Health but in fact this strategy is very namby-pamby.’

Last month Public Health England published the results of the first year of the challenge to reduce sugar. It set an initial target of 5 per cent, but the results showed firms had only achieved 2 per cent overall.

Trade body the Food and Drink Federation said: ‘Government figures showed encouraging progress is being made in sugar reduction, and a new calorie reduction programme will commence next year, again with the full backing of industry.’

‘Strategy is very namby-pamby’