|
|
|
|
Supermarkets in England could be stopped from placing chocolate and sweets as impulse purchases at the end of aisles as part of a government drive to improve the health of the nation in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Measures to try to nudge the public into healthier food-buying habits are among policies considered in what has been billed a “war against obesity” being drawn up by Downing Street.
According to reports, new restrictions could include an end to “buy one, get one free” supermarket promotions on unhealthy food, it is less clear if this will happen, with no policy announcement on the issue expected for some weeks. Less likely to form part of the plan would be further curbs on the advertising of unhealthy foods, or new taxes making them more expensive, with Downing Street having already denied plans to increase the tax on sugary drinks.
The Prime Minister said in May that He is now in support of a “more interventionist” public health drive, billed as a campaign against obesity, but potentially also including measures to encourage more healthy living. The idea followed Boris Johnson’s experience with coronavirus, in which he believes his weight exacerbated his symptoms.
Asked about the plans on Friday (10 July), a Downing Street spokesman, said: “The prime minister has talked a few times about obesity, and the fact that he views it as a serious national issue, and one that he is determined to tackle.” The Department of Health had consulted on protecting children from the advertising of fatty and sugary foods, the spokesman said, adding: “The response to that consultation will be published in due course.”
Source: The Guardian, 10 July 2020
|
|
Ministers will face demands on Monday (13 July), to require pubs and cafes to ban outdoor smoking in return for gaining permission to serve “pavement drinks” as the country emerges from the coronavirus lockdown. The Government is relaxing licensing laws temporarily to encourage al fresco eating and drinking to help the struggling hospitality industry revive after more than three months of complete closure.
A cross-party group of peers will today 13 July, table an amendment to the Business and Planning Bill, stipulating that pavement licences should only be granted by a local authority subject to the condition that smoking is banned. The group have gained the support of health campaigners who point out that ministers have set out an ambition for England to be smoke-free by 2030, while some local councils are understood to be sympathetic to the move.
The Liberal Democrat Baroness Northover said: “Reducing smoking in public places has been hugely important for improving public health in the UK. However, with pavement licences being introduced to help support our hospitality industry as we relax lockdown, the Government should not allow this to become an excuse for increasing smoking in public places. As a result of the pandemic, more and more people are spending time with friends, family and loved ones outside. We must ensure these new pavement areas can be enjoyed by all.”
Deborah Arnott, the chief executive of Action on Smoking and Health, said: “Making smoke-free status a condition for all pavement licences sets a level playing field for business and the public, and has strong public support, which will make it easy to enforce.”
A spokesman for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said: “We are helping our pubs, cafes and restaurants return to work safely by making it quicker, easier and cheaper for them to set up outdoor seating and street stalls to serve food and drink. As part of this process, councils will be able to set local conditions for licences. As set out in supporting guidance, councils should consider public health and safety when setting these conditions.”
Source: i News, 12 July 2020
See also: Metro News - Smoking areas could be banned so pubs can serve ‘pavement drinks’ instead
|
|
English local councils are set to shed thousands of jobs and cut services as they count the cost of lost revenue from multibillion-pound holdings in office blocks, retail parks, airports and cinemas, all badly hit by the coronavirus pandemic.
The commercial investments many acquired in a £7.6bn property spending spree in England over the past four years were part of councils’ effort to find alternative incomes and protect local services that faced cuts or closure during a decade of deep austerity cuts. But with COVID-19 lockdown measures closing shops, workplaces and cinemas and leaving some airports deserted, councils’ rents and other revenues have been affected, with two authorities – Manchester city council and Luton council – losing £100m in airport dividends alone.
A Guardian analysis of council finances using data from the Institute for Fiscal Studies indicates more than 30 local authorities receive at least a quarter of their annual income, which they spend on services, from commercial investments.
On Monday (13 July), a group of MPs will warn that some authorities have taken on “extreme” levels of debt to finance their commercial property spree, risking cuts to services and a big bill for local taxpayers. Members of the public accounts committee (PAC) are criticising the government for failing to rein in a handful of councils that have each borrowed more than £1bn to build up their property portfolio. English councils estimate they will lose £624m in commercial investment income this year as a direct result of the COVID-19 crisis. The government is refusing to offer financial support to cover the shortfall, putting pressure on highly exposed councils to balance their budgets through reserves or service and job cuts.
Meg Hillier, the chair of the PAC, said ministers should bear some of the blame for councils’ reliance on rents from offices and shops. “The [Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)] did not even bother to keep track of the underlying numbers or likely risk, but at the end of the day, [the] central government will have to step in if a council fails,” she said.
An MHCLG spokesperson said: “Councils are responsible for managing their finances and must properly consider the risks and opportunities when they make commercial decisions.” The MHCLG’s promise to tighten up the guidance to prevent councils taking huge, borderline legal risks on commercial investments was not reassuring, the PAC report says. “Ultimately, these proposals are four years late and many billions of pounds in borrowing and potentially risky investments too late.”
Source: The Guardian, 13 July 2020
|
|
Researchers from the University of Bath have found that the introduction of standardised packaging for cigarettes in the UK in 2017, combined with tougher taxes, caused the drop in cigarette sales at the rate of 20 million a month. Before the measures were introduced in May 2017, the number of cigarettes sold was falling by about 12m a month. But after the legislation took effect, sales began dropping off much more steeply. Monthly sales were almost 3.29bn individual cigarettes in May 2015 but fell to 3.16bn in April 2018.
The UK was the second country in the world to implement plain packaging laws, Australia was the first, despite suggestions from the tobacco industry that this would increase sales of smuggled cigarettes. But the decline in UK sales does not appear to have been offset by an increase in illicit tobacco, with HM Revenue & Customs reporting no increase over the period according to the Tobacco Control Research Group (TCRG) study.
Prof Anna Gilmore, Director of the TCRG at the University of Bath, said: “Governments around the world considering plain packaging can be reassured that this policy works and that the real reason the industry opposes this legislation so vehemently is because it threatens its profitability.”
She went on to say: “With coronavirus already posing a threat to tobacco company sales and plain packaging of tobacco taking off in other jurisdictions, our findings are more bad news for tobacco companies.”
The study, which was funded by Cancer Research UK and the British Heart Foundation, also found that net revenue for the tobacco industry fell by 13% after implementation of the tougher policies, from £231m to £198m a month. The study also found that smokers were moving away from higher-priced premium brands because the packaging was no longer being used to differentiate them from cheaper products.
Dr Rosemary Hiscock, the study’s lead, said: “For many years, the tobacco industry had used packaging to signal the difference between premium and cheap cigarette brands, with smokers often willing to pay markedly more for premium brands. This allowed the tobacco industry to make enough profit on premium brands to subsidise its cheap brands, keeping them cheap enough for young people to afford to start smoking and [preventing] price-conscious smokers from being incentivised to quit.”
Source: The Guardian, 13 July 2020
See also: BMJ Tobacco Control - Longitudinal evaluation of the impact of standardised packaging and minimum excise tax on tobacco sales and industry revenue in the UK.
|
|
Tobacco lobbyists are taking South Africa's government to court this week (July 15) over a ban on the sale of cigarettes implemented as part of its strategy for dealing with the coronavirus pandemic.
The unprecedented ban has been in place since March. It has already been subject to a legal challenge from the tobacco industry, with a lobby group called the Fair-trade Independent Tobacco Association (FITA) bringing proceedings against the South African government over the ban.
FITA is contending that cigarettes and other tobacco products are essential items, a point of view with which the South African government disagrees. That challenge was rejected, but it will now be subject to an appeal from FITA on Wednesday, July 15, 2020.
Source: Insider, 12 July 2020
|
|
Have you been forwarded this email? Subscribe to ASH Daily News here.
For more information call 020 7404 0242, email [email protected] or visit www.ash.org.uk
ASH Daily News is a digest of published news on smoking-related topics. ASH is not responsible for the content of external websites. ASH does not necessarily endorse the material contained in this bulletin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
