Last updated: 10/09/2024
Data collection on healthiness of product portfolios
Mandate data collection of sales and nutritional information for large businesses (in a data reporting framework such as the FDTP)
- Very low impact on obesity
A percentage estimate of how much the policy would reduce national obesity rates
- Relative reduction in obesity prevalence: 0%
- Low evidence quality
A rating of the strength of evidence, accounting for both reliability and validity of the evidence
- Reliability and validity rating: 2/5
- Very low cost to governments
Cost to UK and devolved governments over 5 years
- Costs to governments over 5 years: £1m
- Benefit to governments per year: £0
What is the policy?
This policy proposes that medium to large food retailers in the UK must annually disclose the ratio of healthy to unhealthy food products sold. Eligible companies would be obligated to submit these reports each year through a government portal administered by the FDTP. Non-compliance would result in substantial government-imposed commercial and/or financial penalties.
Increased transparency can be a powerful mechanism for changing corporate behaviour. The proposed policy can drive change in two significant ways. Firstly, it serves as a crucial mechanism for supporting the implementation of government-sanctioned health targets within the food industry. Secondly, by fostering transparency and accountability, it could shed light on the biggest contributors to unhealthy diets, putting pressure on them to improve, whilst positively contributing to the reputation of the healthiest players in the industry.
Recent context
Transparency within the UK food industry is limited and there is no impetus for companies to publish data on their contribution to the sales of unhealthy food in the UK. According to The Food Foundation’s 2023 benchmark assessment of 27 major UK retail and out-of-home food companies, only eight companies (Aldi, Asda, Greggs, Lidl, M&S, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Waitrose) have a target and publish data on the percentage of their sales coming from foods high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS), whilst six companies (Compass Group UK & Ireland, Sodexo, Lidl, Sainsbury’s, Tesco and Waitrose) have a target to disclose data on the proportion of income derived from sales of fruit and vegetables.
Case studies
Mandatory environmental reporting requirements
The implementation of mandatory environmental reporting requirements provides a good evidence-based example to show how mandatory reporting and data transparency can positively influence corporate behaviour. Evidence in this sector has indicated that voluntary reporting regimes do not tend to boost environmental performance. For instance, Haque and Ntim (2018) found that companies adhering to voluntary reporting guidelines, although more inclined to engage in carbon reduction initiatives, do not necessarily improve their carbon performance.
Considerations for implementation
Legislative change would be needed to create the legal instrument for making reporting mandatory. This could be achieved for example via secondary legislation using the Food Safety Act 1990. It would also necessitate establishing a body, or co-opting an existing body, to undertake responsibility for monitoring and enforcing compliance with reporting requirements.
Implementation in the devolved nations
To ensure consistent application across the UK, Westminster should work collaboratively with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to establish a unified approach. This could be through replicating the legislation with adaptations or through formal consent for its application. There is already good cooperation between the Scottish and UK Governments on this issue through membership of the FDTP. The government of each devolved nation would need to be asked to replicate the Westminster legislation or consent would need to be provided for any new legislation to be applied to them.
Estimating the population impact
There is currently no evidence on whether increasing the availability of data on health metrics for the sales of food has an impact on the healthiness of food sold, dietary behaviour or obesity-related outcomes.
We therefore assume no impact if this policy was implemented in isolation, without subsequent implementation of mandatory targets to increase the healthiness of product portfolios.
Changes in the prevalence of people living with obesity
There is no evidence that this policy alone would impact on national obesity rates, however implementation of this policy is necessary to facilitate the implementation and monitoring of other policies in this toolkit (for example, implementing maximum calorie guidelines, mandating retailer healthy food portfolio targets).
| Adults (England and Wales) | Children 5-18 (England and Wales) | Adults (Scotland) | Children 5-18 (Scotland) |
| 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
Cost and benefits
Cost over five years
We estimated that this policy would cost the governments approximately £1 million over five years.
Total annual benefit
We estimated that this policy would have an annual benefit of approximately £0
Implemented alone, there is no evidence that this policy would lead to decreasing the prevalence of obesity. Hence, this policy would not lead to monetary benefit for governments.
Impact on disease incidence
Based on our analysis and analysis conducted by HealthLumen, there is no evidence that this policy would impact disease incidence avoided after five years.
Behind the averages: impact on inequalities
On average, individuals with lower incomes and residing in areas with lower Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) scores tend to purchase larger quantities of HFSS products. Consequently, the mandatory reporting of sales data comparing healthy and unhealthy foods might result in long-term increases in the prices of HFSS products, disproportionately affecting lower-income groups.
However, it is equally plausible that enforced transparency could prompt companies to enhance the proportion of their sales attributed to healthier options, such as fresh whole foods, by offering reduced prices and increased promotions. This could potentially enhance the affordability of the healthiest food choices.
Rating the strength of evidence
We asked experts working in the fields of obesity, food, and health research to rate the strength of the evidence base for each policy, taking into account both reliability (size and consistency) and validity (quality and content) of the evidence. Policies were rated on a Likert scale of 1–5 (none, limited, medium, strong, and very strong evidence base). The Blueprint Expert Advisory Group rated this policy as having a Limited evidence base.
Incentivise reformulation of HFSS
Reduce energy density by 10% in HFSS by providing reformulation grants to retail and OOH businesses (repayable if conditions not met)