HFSS sector risks the ‘tobacco playbook’
We’ve spent 15 months working a few feet from the fridge. Not because we’ve wanted to, but because we were told to by the government.
While gyms, exercise classes, swimming pools, tennis courts and golf courses were out of bounds, it’s no surprise that so many people piled on the pounds during COVID. A survey by King’s College London and Ipsos MORI showed that half of respondents had put on weight last year.
Nor is it a surprise that the government has made obesity its next big thing.
But it is strange that one of the government’s opening salvos in its “War on Obesity” is a proposed advertising ban on HFSS foods, rather than incentives for people to get outside and move around more (restrictions allowing).
Instead, health officials have grabbed the “tobacco playbook”, despite evidence that education is a far more effective deterrent than bans and taxes. According to the government’s own estimates, the TV ad bans will reduce a child’s calorie intake by 2 calories per day; that’s roughly half a Smartie.
Brands need to be wary of the trajectory this will take - advertising bans in tobacco were followed by plain packaging, higher taxes and consumption and sales restrictions. It might not be long until we’re buying expensive unbranded Easter Eggs from the cigarette counter. Instead of the cheery Easter Bunny that has delighted kids for generations, we could be served up health warnings and age restrictions.
Before you dismiss the comparison between chocolate and cigarettes, remember that there are already more obesity-related deaths per year in England and Scotland than from smoking, according to a recent study by the University of Glasgow.
It’ll be easy for Public Health England and other national equivalents to argue for tobacco-style interventionism as being necessary. An Editorial in The Times backed this approach just the other week.
This points to a looming problem for food brands - the stigma of tobacco-style controls could easily rub off on the sector. It doesn’t require a huge leap of the imagination to see “Big Sugar” as the next big reputational challenge facing the industry.
Of course, there is a limit to what the public will accept from the health establishment, and brands should bear this in mind as they navigate these challenges. They need to harness public feeling now, before it is too late, and ensure that their loyal customers have a say in the direction of travel. A snap poll we conducted showed that only 22% of people support plain packaging restrictions on chocolate as a means of tackling obesity. That’s despite research by this magazine that suggests a majority of Brits support the proposed ad bans.
Instead of rolling over and accepting the damage to brand value and corporate reputation, manufacturers and retailers should come together in genuine partnership with government, where all interests are considered and taken into account, to solve the problem.
After all, if all parties are at risk – governments from rising healthcare and loss of productivity costs, consumers from an early demise, manufacturers from onerous restrictions, and retailers from falling sales – then they should all have a say in the solution.
The pandemic has been a horrible wake-up call and it has highlighted that we need to tackle obesity quickly if we’re to live without fear again. But to avoid a checkmate moment where bad policy outcomes coincide with harmful stereotypes, the decision-makers must understand the limits to what people will accept. Brands need to turn their business and regulatory challenges into issues of public interest, creating jeopardy and giving policymakers cause to rethink.
They need to make these issues publicly relevant, because if the people care, then so will the decision-makers.