Hard-hitting blueprint to improve diet

already revealed that people from more deprived backgrounds have a diet that is higher in sugar while those from better-off areas eat more saturated fat.

Ogle said: “We have spoken about diet too generically at population level. It allows people to say, ‘ They don’t mean me’. “So we’ll be looking at different groups and saying what the message is for those particular groups.”

The first of those direct messages is unlikely to emerge in the advertising campaign, which will be launched this autumn.

But Ogle promises they will make people “sit up and think”.

In the meantime, watchdogs a re in discussions with the food industry about how they can work towards reducing the fat, sugar and salt in their foods.

Ogle says he has encountered little resistance so far from the manufacturers he has engaged with.

He said: “We can’t just say it’s up to industry or individuals or politicians to sort out the problems. It is clear what we need to do on reformulation, portion control and promotions.

“I think there’s an acceptance that sugar reformulation has to be on the agenda. I don’t sense any strong push back against that.”

Evidence suggests that sugar reformulation – changing the make-up of products by reducing the sugar content – would offer a big win in the obesity battle.

For now, the proposed sugar tax would only apply to soft drinks.

Ogle believes the FSS board are likely to recommend the extension of the tax to confectionery.

He said: “We are speaking to the various stakeholders before coming to a conclusion on whether we need regulation. Some are indicating that is their preferred choice.

“If it’s not enough, we will put regulation on the table. But if there’s a possibility you can get to the outcomes you want without regulation, then it is right to pursue them first.

“The retail market is tight and competitive and retail promotions are used to entice people into store so there probably would be some push back. If you are doing anything which they feel threatens their abi lity to be competitive, the industry will be concerned about it.”

Ogle admitted that it is difficult to shift the focus of the industry beyond the here and now – but he believes the sugar tax is an important way to challenge the status quo.

He said: “There is too much focus on the shorter term. But that’s not just from retailers. I think tax sends a signal. If it makes people think about sugar, it’s worth having.

“The board suppor t a soft drinks levy because they support a sugar tax. Given what the board have decided so far, I think they’d be more inclined to support an extension of a tax on other high-sugar products such as cakes and biscuits than not.

“The risk is that some larger companies will just absorb the hit, in which case we might have to think again about what we do.”

As discussions continue and the food watchdogs work on influencing and changing habits, Ogle’s hope is that parents and consumers start to take heed of what they are eating.

He said: “I think the wake-up call has to be around what is happening to our children.

“We can be blase around our own health but children’s diet is influenced by what their parents do and let them consume.

“Our campaignpg work later in the year will make people sit up and ref lect on the way in which we present our diet and the consequences of diet.

“It is hard-hitting and the feedback has been that iswhatiswhat is needed.”