|
|
|
|
Boris Johnson scraps plans to curb junk food
A ban on “buy one get one free” deals on unhealthy snacks and a 9pm watershed for junk food advertising have both been ditched. The prime minister delayed the policies for at least a year and may axe them completely late on Friday 13th May, as he aims to focus on creating jobs and scrapping “un-Conservative” ideas.
In 2020 he set out plans to limit the promotion of foods high in sugar, salt and fat and to impose a 9pm TV and online advertising watershed on such products, insisting that this would protect children and save the NHS billions in treating obesity-linked illnesses such as heart disease and cancer. However, he has for months been under pressure from cabinet ministers and backbenchers to drop the plans. A majority of Tory MPs signalled their opposition to such policies in February as Johnson began courting backbenchers more assiduously as the stories about Downing Street parties were being reported.
The “Bogof” ban was due to come into effect in October, but it was increasingly seen as politically untenable to introduce a measure that might raise the price of a weekly shop at a time when the cost of living will rise significantly. Johnson has also agreed to a year’s delay to the advertising ban, which was due to come into effect in January. He is said to have been convinced by ministers who argued that, given the stuttering performance of the economy, now was the wrong time to pile costs on the broadcasting and food industries.
David Canzini, the prime minister’s deputy chief of staff, is also said to have expressed opposition to the policies as part of his drive to “get the barnacles off the boat” and focus on core priorities such as boosting growth. Sajid Javid, the health secretary, is said to have to offered little defence within government of the policy, which was associated with his predecessor, Matt Hancock. One source said that this “wasn’t a hill he wanted to die on”, after Javid joked about his lack of enthusiasm for healthy eating policies. He told a lunch for Tory activists this week: “Having a health secretary at this lunch might make you think it will all be kale smoothies but don’t worry, if I had it my way we’d be having curry and beer.” Another source said that Canzini had been “in [Johnson]’s ear, saying ‘this ain’t working for you, just drop it’. It’s such an obvious one to throw into the cost-of-living mix.”
Caroline Cerny, of the Obesity Health Alliance of doctors and charities, said that it was “an abysmal move”, adding: “Right now child obesity is at a devastating all-time high, and research shows restricting junk food adverts on TV alone would significantly reduce the number of children with excess weight. Big challenges like child obesity need bold leadership, not a government that shirks its responsibility and continues to let unscrupulous food companies bombard us with aggressive advertising and fake bargains at the expense of our health.”
Source: The Times, 13 May 2022
|
|
Boris Johnson is already facing a growing backlash within his party over his decision to shelve a plan to ban “buy-one-get-one-free” supermarket deals and pre-watershed TV advertising for junk food. Johnson reportedly believed introduced the policies was untenable in light of the cost of living crisis. However, senior Conservatives have warned the delay risks heaping more pressure on the NHS and contributing to serious disease.
Dan Poulter, a Conservative MP and former health minister, urged the prime minister to rethink. “The biggest health challenge facing the UK is obesity, which we know is linked to many chronic health conditions including diabetes, heart disease and high blood pressure – all of which can shorten lives and put tremendous pressure on the NHS,” he told the Observer. “Whilst there is no silver bullet, banning junk food advertisements and buy-one-get-one-free deals would be an important step forwards, so it is disappointing the government is shelving these plans, and I hope it reconsiders” Poulter added.
The decision is also likely to receive scrutiny from the Commons health select committee, chaired by Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative MP and former health secretary who once described the worsening childhood obesity problem as a “national emergency”. Another former health minister warned the decision could “blow a hole” in the government’s obesity strategy, which Johnson championed after his own weight put him at risk when he became ill with COVID-19.
Lord Bethell, a Conservative Peer and former health minister, described the move as a false economy, pointing to evidence that bogof deals actually increased shopping bills by encouraging people to buy food they did not need. He said dropping the plans would severely impact wider objectives: “The cancer 10-year plan, the extra five years of longevity and many more of our health targets are damaged by this.” “All of this illness that is caused by [being] overweight from junk food is being carried by the NHS and by the taxpayer. We do need to account for all of the costs of the obesity crisis in this country, and it is one way of mitigating those costs without actually banning things or taking more extreme measures.” Bethell warned that delaying the plans effectively meant they would not go ahead before the next election – putting them at risk indefinitely.
The Department of Health and Social Care has said the delayed ban on multi-buy promotions would come into effect in October 2023, and that on TV adverts before the 9pm watershed will now be in January 2024.
Source: The Guardian, 16 May 2022
|
|
Britain’s gambling industry has more than tripled its annual donations over two years to GambleAware, a charity that combats gambling harms, as it campaigns against calls for a statutory levy on betting firms. 680 firms donated £34.7m in 2022, compared to £10.05m in 2019-20, according to the charity’s figures.
While the industry hopes a rise in donations will help to fend off calls for an annual statutory levy, some of the betting firms sanctioned by the regulator for failing to protect high-risk gamblers donated no cash to the charity in the past financial year, or small amounts compared with their revenues. Campaigners say the current funding regime is not generating enough money to combat gambling harms and the distribution of the funds is not sufficiently independent.
Liz Ritchie, co-founder of the charity Gambling with Lives, said: “Gambling companies pay what they want when they want and can withdraw funding for health information, research or treatment they’re not happy with. An independently administered statutory levy will ensure many more resources are available to prevent and treat this devastating illness and … free from the influence of the very companies causing that devastation.”
The four biggest gambling companies, Entain, Flutter, William Hill and Bet365, have pledged to pay 1% of their gross gambling yield – which are the retained revenues after payment of winnings – for gambling prevention and treatment initiatives by 2024, but many firms make limited donations.
Zoë Osmond, chief executive of GambleAware, said: “GambleAware has been consistent in calling on the government to introduce a mandatory levy of 1% [of gross gambling yield] on the gambling industry as a condition of licence. We welcome the commitment from the ‘big four’ operators to increase their donations. However, the continuing uncertainty and inconsistency in the current funding system has a detrimental impact on services and fails to provide any organisation working to mitigate gambling harms with any level of long-term income to invest in critical prevention and treatment services.”
A government white paper on gambling reforms is due to be published shortly.
Source: The Guardian, 15 May 2022
|
|
Dr Naveed Chaudhary, who has previously worked in Director roles for tobacco giants Philip Morris, British American Tobacco and Imperial has said that “banning cigarettes tomorrow would force smokers to use e-cigarettes which will end up saving many, many lives.” Chaudhary said that “Unless we do something like this we will never see the change we require. We need to make combustible products like cocaine, and make them illegal.”
Chaudhary praised the UK's approach to e-cigarettes and said that while big tobacco companies talk about people going smokefree “combustible cigarettes are keeping the lights on” for their businesses and they need to be pushed into investing in safer vaping products. He suggested that a ban could address illicit markets in tobacco and that any losses in tax revenues could be covered by taxing e-cigarettes. Chaudhary, who works for the Broughton Group as chief scientific adviser, said “In the end banning combustion tobacco products will save the country money and you can make up the loss in tax revenue by increasing the tax on e-cigarettes.”
Source: Express, 12 May 2022
|
|
|
A new study from Duke University School of Medicine in North Carolina suggests that some e-cigarette users may be inhaling potentially dangerous levels of a synthetic cooling agent used to mimic mint and menthol flavours. The research revealed that e-cigarette makers are using the synthetic agents WS-3 and WS-23 in their products at levels higher than what the World Health Organisation considers safe.
The study researchers calculated the margin of exposure (MOE) to determine the risk of synthetic coolants in e-cigarette samples. Alarming MOEs were found for some of the e-cigarette samples. One of the study authors Professor Sven Jordt said: “Regulators such as FDA should consider reviewing product safety of the vaping devices and the e-cigarette refill liquids we tested. WS-3 and WS-23 are regulated by the FDA as food additives, but not for inhalation. E-cigarette manufacturers are ‘flying blind’ by adding these chemicals.”
Source: Wales Online, 16 May 2022
Editorial Note: ASH approached Professor Alan Boobis OBE, Emeritus Professor of Toxicology at Imperial College London and Chair of The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) for his views on this story. He said:
“It is useful to know that such substances are found in some ENDS [electronic nicotine delivery systems], to help in their continued evaluation. However, it is difficult to make any definitive comments on this, as information on the assumptions made in modelling exposure is not provided, nor on what toxicological values were used to assesses the MOEs.
These substances have not been assessed by COT and to determine the absolute risk to users of ENDS would require assessment using the procedure developed by COT for that purpose, including information on exposure of the UK population. Should there be a health concern, this should be addressed by manufacturers to the extent possible.
However, when considering the possible impact of constituents in ENDS on human health, it is important to determine the risk relative to that of continuing to smoke conventional cigarettes. Hence, the nature (severity and reversibility) of the adverse health effect of any constituent and the magnitude of exceedance of safe exposure values need to be taken into account."
|
|
Have you been forwarded this email? Subscribe to ASH Daily News here.
For more information email [email protected] or visit www.ash.org.uk
@ASHorguk
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
