July saw a surprise announcement from the UK Government as it revealed its intention to repeal legislation restricting volume price promotions and aisle placement on HFSS food and drink.
What’s happened so far?
The restriction of HFSS products by location came into force on 1 October 2022, with the regulations to include further limitations on HFSS buy one get one free (BOGOF) promotional activity by 1 October 2025.
In 2026, the ban’s scope will widen further to include TV and online advertising – rules which were postponed (again) earlier this year due to concerns over legal loopholes.
The HFSS rules are an action of the previous Tory government, with the original consultations held in 2019 and 2020.
Now, Labour has said it plans to repeal some of the regulations already in place and some still to come into force, namely aisle placement and BOGOF, in favour of what they’re calling ‘smarter regulation’.
The shift was outlined in its recently published 10-year health plan – Labour’s strategy to “get the NHS back on its feet”.
The strategy references the Government’s plans to introduce mandatory healthy food sales reporting for all large companies in the food sector. It will use this reporting to set new mandatory targets on the average healthiness of sales. This is likely to include changes to the 2004 Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM), which scores products based on their nutrient content. Food and drinks which exceed a set threshold are deemed HFSS.
At the same time, a cross-party group of MPs are looking at what public health interventions have been the most effective at reducing obesity and the consumption of less healthy foods – this includes looking into weight loss management injections.
The long and short of it is that health regulation in the UK is under review and, to be frank, it’s messy and confusing.
What’s the latest?
Whilst Labour has set out its intention to pivot on previous decisions made around BOGOF and store location rules, other restrictions will remain in place, including junk food advertising targeted at children. It has also promised the ban the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to under-16-year-olds, and to use its revised National Planning Policy Framework to give local councils stronger powers to block new fast-food outlets near schools. Mandatory health targets and review of the NPM have also been set out as key actions.
Mandatory reporting on healthy food sales have been something which industry figureheads have been calling out for, including Tesco and the Food and Drink Federation (FDF). It was also a recommendation following on from several House of Lords evidence gathering sessions.
What will mandatory health targets involve?
What’s unclear is how healthy F&B will be identified and measured, and who these targets will be imposed upon.
“We understand from other conversations that those targets are likely to be for retailers in the first instance and then maybe later, they’d also look at targets for Out of Home because these are the businesses [directly] selling to consumers and communities, rather than manufacturers,” a source, who wished to remain anonymous, told Food Manufacture.
Of course, if those targets are imposed on that end of the supply chain, it’s still going to have a huge impact upstream on producers.
The most interesting part of this shift in direction is the freedom this will give the food sector, which will be able to choose the direction it takes to achieve the (yet to be determined) targets; for example, by store placement, reformulation, or something else.
“They’re kind of acknowledging that businesses have a lot of intelligence and a lot of knowledge about what can shift consumers to healthier options in the retail environment. And, actually, that might be more powerful than the Government dictating a buy one get one free restriction, for example.”
For those wondering whether the BOGOF rules will still come into force in October. The short answer is yes.
Food Manufacture’s source said the repeal is unlikely to be anytime soon due to the limited time the Government has to get its promised mandatory reporting rules in place – which it has committed to implement before the end of this Parliament.
So a repeal on other legislation is likely to come after that – and depending on how quickly government gets its act together, that may not be within the Parliamentary year. And who knows if Labour will be in power at that point.
Changes to the Nutrient Profiling Model?
With the industry investing £180 million into healthy product innovation in just one year (FDF 2024 member figures), the biggest concern for food manufacturers right now is a moving goalpost.
As the name suggests, the 2004 NPM was developed some time ago; however, the reality is food manufacturers haven’t had much time to work with them, as they’ve only recently been weaved into regulation.
“Whilst it might seem like an old model, it’s only just become a target for industry to work towards,” Food Manufacture’s source pointed out.
The NPM was consulted on in 2018 under the previous Conservative government, with a view to develop and test options for a new model that reflects current UK dietary recommendations. However, the outcome of the consultation is yet to emerge.
Our source speculated as to why the results haven’t been published: “My guess would be that the obesity plans were progressing and they were bringing forward all of these regulations on HFSS and, to be honest, it would have been hugely confusing to everyone.”
For any new regulations, the industry will need time to adjust – especially if said rules change the measurements. Imagine investing all that money into reformulating, only for your non-HFSS product to be outdated.
“It’s a huge amount of money and technical activities that goes into bringing these products to the market. So we really need regulations to be over a long trajectory and to have the targets in place for a realistic period,” the source agreed.
Industry reaction
Cautious optimism from FDF
Amy Glass, FDF’s head of UK diet and health policy, said the industry’s general feelings are mixed.
“Overall, we’re really positive about the 10-year plan and the food strategy that’s coming up,” she noted.
“We’re really pleased to see the mandatory reporting piece. We think that’s a really good opportunity: to have consistent, transparent data reporting for all large companies across the food sector. I think there was really good engagement with businesses when government were first developing the proposal.
“The 10-year plan is quite top level. There’s not a huge amount of detail, so we’ll definitely be looking to engage with government over the next few months as they start to consult on some of the things they’ve suggested, just to make sure that they’re practical for industry.”
Fears over missed opportunities
Charlie Fermor, co-founder of children’s snack brand Freddie’s Farm, who has previously aired his displeasure with “woefully lacking” plans to tackle childhood obesity, said that whilst he welcomes the Government’s focus on healthier choices, he fears that new food standards will drive reformulation for the label, not for children’s health.
“Taking out sugar only to add fillers or bulking agents to reduce on paper the percentage sugar content. It doesn’t give kids better nutrition – it just makes food more processed. What children need is simple, whole ingredients that support their gut health, not another round of over-engineered products,” he contended.
Unintended consequences
Meanwhile, freelance dietitian, Carrie Ruxton, told Food Manufacture that Labour’s U-turn on the aforementioned policies is a “real pity”.
“It will kick into the long grass the issue of how less healthy foods are promoted to consumers in the retail environment,” she said.
“It took years to get to this point and, I suspect, we won’t see activity on the ground during this parliament. Consumers are faced with aisles full of crisps, confectionery, cakes, soft drinks when they go shopping and this, plus the promotions in store and via media, drives excess consumption.
“I am also nervous about the Government’s plans to change the Nutrient Profiling algorithm as this could result in many nutritious foods being dragged into the HFSS category.
“I understand that one change being considered is to lower the sugar cap in line with the whole diet recommendation to eat less than 5% of total calories from free sugars. By applying this to individual foods – something that was not intended when the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition [SACN] set the limit – we will end up with many more high fibre breakfast cereals, fortified fruit yoghurts, smoothies and fruit juices badged as HFSS.
“This is unhelpful for consumers since fibre and fruit intakes in most European countries are well below recommended levels, while a lack of vitamin D and calcium is contributing to poor bone health later in life.
“I would like to see more emphasis on fibre and micronutrient density in future policies, with real life changes to how products are marketed in the wider food environment, including smaller convenience stores. This will have more impact on consumer health than reports categorising companies’ product portfolios.”
A double-edged sword
For Sephora Baugreet, product nutritionist at the Prof Consulting Group, Labour’s decision to scrap the HFSS multibuy and aisle placement bans in favour of outcome-based reporting could empower both consumers and industry.
“For shoppers, it avoids the sense of being ‘nannied’ while still increasing visibility of healthier choices through reformulation, clearer labelling and transparent sales data. For retailers and manufacturers, it provides flexibility to innovate whether through healthier product launches, loyalty schemes or creative merchandising without blunt restrictions on promotions,” she added.
“The impact, however, is double-edged. Consumers may question shifting rules, creating a risk of mixed signals about what is genuinely ‘healthy’. Industry faces higher compliance demands with mandatory reporting, especially smaller players. Yet if the strategy delivers measurable progress on diet and transparency, the UK could set a precedent that blends accountability with commercial freedom, one that other markets may watch closely.”