Restricting promotions of food and drink high in fat, sugar, or salt: consultation analysis

10. Impact Assessments (Qs 27-30)

10.1. To inform equality and Fairer Scotland impact assessments and give due consideration to potential unintended consequences of the restrictions, the consultation paper sought views on (i) the impacts on different groups of people in respect of protected characteristics, (ii) the impacts on people living with socio-economic disadvantage, (iii) the impacts on other communities or groups and (iv) the impacts on businesses, consumers and others.

Impacts on different groups

Question 27: What impacts, if any, do you think the proposed policy would have on people on the basis of their: age, sex, race, religion, sexual orientation, pregnancy and maternity, disability, gender reassignment and marriage/civil partnership?

10.2. In total 52 respondents gave a specific response to the question.

No impact view

10.3. 40% of those that provided a response indicated that they did not think there would be any impacts on the basis of the characteristics listed within the question.

Potential positive impacts

10.4. 34% of respondents that provided a response flagged one or more groups that they felt would be positively impacted. A number of individual and non-industry respondents suggested the approach would be beneficial to the groups listed in the consultation question or all groups on the basis of improved health. A number of non-industry respondents suggested there would be a positive impact on the younger generation of improved future health, and that low income populations that disproportionately suffer from diseases related to poor diet would also benefit from improved health.

10.5. Other specific groups that were noted by individual respondents as benefiting included:

• Ethnic minority groups who are at higher risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease;
• People with mental disabilities or illnesses who for various reasons may be more vulnerable to marketing messages;
• Single people and small family units (including the elderly), people on low incomes and people that do not own a car – in the respect that it would be easier for them to make healthier food choices and budget effectively.

Potential negative impacts

10.6. 38% of respondents that provided a response flagged one or more groups that they felt would be negatively impacted. While respondents explained their rationale for the group(s) noted they did not always clarify what type of negative impact they felt would result (e.g. whether it would be financial, adverse for health etc).

10.7. The groups most commonly observed to be negatively impacted (across all three respondent types) were those on a low income.

10.8. Other specific groups that were noted to be negatively impacted (each by one or two respondents) included:

• Groups that are more likely to be low-income such as women and older people (individual) or people with disabilities and from LGBTQ+; (individual)

• Ethnic minorities – as many shopkeepers were perceived to be from ethnic minority backgrounds; (individual and public sector)
• Certain religions that may not eat certain foods (public sector) or there may be culturally or religiously significant products that could be impacted by the policy; (public sector and individual)
• In pregnancy – there may be a need to have access to high sugar foods (individual); and that in pregnancy and childhood there would be an adverse impact in terms of health if nutrient rich dairy products were included in restrictions; (industry representative body)
• By age and disability – if people are less able to cook from scratch the processed foods they rely on may become more expensive; (third sector and two public sector)
• Those with compromised nutrition status (such as the elderly and cancer patients) that require HFSS products to reduce the risk of malnutrition (two public sector); and type 1 diabetics who use sugary products as an immediate response to manage hypoglycaemic episodes; (individual)
• That if cereal is included in restrictions, there would be an adverse impact for health during pregnancy (where folic acid is needed) and for groups known to be at risk of low level of Vitamin D (e.g. the elderly, those with darker skin types, and some religions that cover skin, and disabled groups that are confined indoors). (manufacturer)

Impacts on socio-economic disadvantage

Question 28: What impacts, if any, do you think the proposed policy would have on people living with socio-economic disadvantage?

10.9. In total, 65 respondents gave a specific response.

Potential positive impacts

10.10. A number of non-industry and individual respondents suggested that as people living with socio-economic disadvantage are most likely to suffer health inequalities, they are most likely to benefit from the improved health that will result from restricting promotions of the HFSS products. A number also suggested this group would benefit most from the possibility of saving money when consumers are no longer tempted to purchase more than they intended/needed. Some non-industry respondents also suggested the restrictions may encourage purchases of healthier foods.

Potential negative impacts

10.11. Respondents that suggested a negative impact on people living with socio-economic disadvantage most commonly felt that the restrictions would result in reduced affordability of shopping (expressed by individuals and both industry and non-industry respondents) which may worsen their overall level of socio-economic disadvantage.

10.12. Industry respondents in particular referenced that low-income households were already hard hit by the current cost of living crisis and that the restrictions were likely to exacerbate this issue. One manufacturer noted the timing of implementation of restrictions should be carefully considered as those living in the most deprived areas spend a greater proportion of their income on food.

10.13. Some non-industry and individual respondents suggested that healthier affordable choices would be needed to mitigate the potential impacts to those on a low income. A small number of individuals indicated there could be emotional impacts, such as feelings of deprivation and guilt which could create or trigger people's issues around eating.

10.14. Other specific impacts suggested included:

• The purchase of HFSS would reduce minimally, but prices would increase significantly; (industry representative body)
• Low-income groups may cut back on other (non-food) items such as rent and heating to still afford their shopping; (public sector)
• The restrictions would reduce food choice; (individual and public sector)
• Meal deals may be discontinued because it is not possible to reformulate all products that make up e.g. an 'evening' meal, and therefore cheaper meal options would be removed. (retailer)

Impacts on other communities or groups

Question 29: Please use this space to identify other communities or population groups who you consider may be differentially impacted by this policy proposal. Please consider both potentially positive and negative impacts and provide evidence where available.

10.15. In total, 37 respondents gave a specific response to the question. Some respondents re-iterated points already made above such as the potential negative impact on low-income households or the positive health benefits that may result. Other specific groups that may be differentially impacted included:

• Individuals with eating disorders or learning/sensory difficulties or neuro divergence; (four individuals)
• Those with health issues that require an HFSS diet (two individuals and one 'other' organisation) – specific examples provided included people with diabetes, cancer and other wasting-disease sufferers;
• Rural communities in Scotland due to the lack of choice in local businesses; (individual)
• People with food allergies/intolerances; (individual)
• Small business owners; (individual)
• People at risk of malnutrition; (public sector)
• Single parent households that may find it challenging to cook without HFSS foods (such as pre-made pasta sauce). (public sector)

10.16. One public sector respondent also flagged that rural/remote communities may be impacted with their remote location making enforcement of the restrictions possibly harder to achieve.

10.17. One manufacturer suggested there would be merit in carrying out a post-implementation review to establish any impacts or disparities.

Impacts on businesses, consumers and others

Question 30: Please tell us about any other potential unintended consequences (positive or negative) to businesses, consumers or others you consider may arise from the proposals set out in this consultation.

10.18. In total, 43 respondents gave a specific response to the question.

Potential positive consequences

10.19. A small number of potential positive consequences were put forward:

• The restrictions may aid smaller shops that cannot provide the offers that supermarkets do, levelling the playing field, and encouraging people to use their local shops; (individual)
• There would be less litter as this is often associated with HFSS products; (two individuals)
• Manufacturers and retailers may make more money as consumers pay higher prices; (individual)
• It may encourage reformulation and healthier business models. (public sector)

Potential negative consequences

10.20. A number of potential negative consequences were raised. These were somewhat varied and in some cases were specific to individual businesses.

10.21. A number of (industry, public sector and individual) respondents thought:

• The restrictions would reduce income and increase costs to businesses; some suggested this may lead to business closures;
• That restrictions may impact most on small and independent businesses which are an important local service.

10.22. A number of industry respondents also reiterated concerns explored throughout the responses to the consultation questions, that diverging with the restrictions introduced in England would create a number of problems for businesses such as: confusion and implementation errors, increased financial burden, and further complexity at a time where a number of challenges are already being faced.

10.23. Other negative consequences suggested by respondents included:

• Proposals could disproportionately impact businesses with unique business models – where there is a large area with non-food items and a small area selling food which could lead to store closures; (retailer)
• Competition distortions and trade disparity may arise in respect of: non-pre-packed versus pre-packed foods; branded manufacturer products versus retailer own brand products; in and out of scope stores; (manufacturer)
• Small Scottish manufacturers may be disadvantaged as they need to use promotions for their products to be able to compete with larger brands; (industry representative body)
• Removing promotions has potential to increase food waste, although it was noted products reaching the end of their shelf life could be passed to food banks which would help low-income households; (public sector)
• The proposals may exacerbate the position of vulnerable high street stores that may be at risk of closure; (retailer)
• That out of home providers may have to reduce the range of options for customers if their ability to display products is restricted which may impact their business. It was suggested that this could also have wider consequences in terms of reducing footfall to high streets and other retail settings given the role the out of home sector plays in attracting footfall to these areas. (out of home provider)

10.24. One retailer made a general request for regulatory burden to be as low as possible given the significant disruptions that the industry has already faced in recent years.