The UK is no stranger to nutrition policies. From regulations on displays in stores, to limits on advertising to children, England has introduced a variety of measures designed to reduce exposure to foods high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS).
This makes it all the more surprising therefore that sweet spreads – a now breakfast staple – have managed to slip through the net for years unchanged.
Products such as jams, chocolate spreads, nut butters and syrups were once recognised by government as foods in need of sugar reduction. Yet today, despite many remaining high in sugars, sweet spreads sit outside key advertising and promotion restrictions.
So how did sweet spreads disappear from the policy agenda? And is it now time for government to take another look? This Sugar Awareness Week explores exactly that.
A background on spreads and sugar reduction policy
Too much sugar in our diets increases the risk of weight gain, type 2 diabetes, and tooth decay (10). Yet sugar consumption in the UK remains stubbornly high, with nine in ten children and four in five adults exceeding recommendations (2).
To address this, in 2016 the government launched its voluntary Sugar Reduction Programme (3) challenging the food industry to reduce sugar by 20% across nine food categories by 2020, including sweet spreads and sauces.
On paper, the spreads category achieved a 10.1% reduction in average sales-weighted sugar content, falling short of the target – although performing better than other categories (4). However, as the government’s final progress report highlights, much of this reduction was driven by peanut butter, which typically contains considerably less sugar than products such as jams and chocolate spreads (4). As a result, the apparent improvement did not reflect widespread reformulation across the category, and the programme’s voluntary nature very likely contributed by giving industry little incentive to reformulate.
So where did sweet spreads go?
Following the Sugar Reduction Programme, the government introduced further regulations designed to create healthier food environments – namely rules on the placement and promotion of HFSS products in retail spaces (6) and measures to limit their advertising on TV and online (7).
Yet, despite their high sugar content and limited progress through voluntary sugar reduction, sweet spreads were, rather unfortunately, excluded.
Though spreads were included in the original proposals, they were later removed following consultation and further analysis (8) (9). The government explanation for this was that they wanted to keep focus on the items most heavily promoted and advertised, and those considered of greatest concern for childhood obesity.
While the rationale may have seemed reasonable at the time, the evidence now suggests it is worth revisiting. This week’s Action on Salt & Sugar Sweet Spreads Report has shown that 78% of sweet spreads are high in total sugars and 86% are classified as ‘less healthy’ under the government’s own Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM). The findings raise an important question: if the majority of products in this category are classed as less healthy, why are they not subject to the same restrictions as other HFSS products?
The government committed to keeping the regulations under review and monitor any impact and unintended consequences (8). With the latest evidence showing that most sweet spreads remain high in sugars and fail the government’s own health criteria, the case for reconsidering their exclusion has become increasingly difficult to ignore.
How can this gap be addressed?
Closing this loophole does not require entirely new policies, instead it could be achieved through three measures that are already being explored elsewhere.
- Bring sweet spreads into advertising and promotion restrictions.
The most immediate step would be to expand the categories covered by the advertising and promotion restrictions to include sweet spreads. Doing so would ensure that products high in sugar are treated consistently across policy measures and would reduce consumers’ exposure to promotions that encourage HFSS purchases.
- Introduce healthy food sales reporting and nutrition targets.
Mandatory reporting would provide much-needed transparency by showing what proportion of a company’s sales come from healthier products (10). Clearer nutrition targets would also make progress easier to track whilst holding companies more accountable for improving their products.
Both measures should be introduced as quickly as possible, with sweet spreads included from the offset.
- Bring in the updated Nutrient Profiling Model
One crucial step would be to implement the updated 2018 NPM across all existing and future food policies (11).
The NPM determines which foods and drinks should be subject to restrictions, yet current policies continue to rely on the older 2004/05 model (12). This model predates more recent recommendations on free sugars and fibre, and bringing in an updated version that better reflects modern nutritional guidance would not only provide a far stronger basis for identifying less healthy products to subject to health-focused regulations, but also incentivise reformulation and better protect consumers overall.
Conclusion
Sweet spreads represent a clear gap in the UK’s efforts to create healthier food environments. Having once been recognised as a category for sugar-reduction concern, to now being tossed to the wayside, it’s time for government to revisit this cupboard staple and stop letting sweet spreads slip through the policy net.