Reducing health harms of foods high in fat, sugar, or salt: consultation analysis
Independent analysis of the responses to the consultation on proposals to restrict the promotion and marketing of foods high in fat, sugar, or salt, and have little to no nutritional benefit.
Annex 6: Relationship between responses
This section provides a summary of how those that agreed and disagreed with mandatory restrictions then responded to other quantitative questions.
Overall those agreeing with mandatory restrictions tended to agree with the specific approaches proposed if it was one that proposed a restriction. Responses were much more split, with the overall level of agreement much lower, in regard to the types of promotion not to be included (i.e. temporary price reductions and multi-packs), and in relation to the ‘no reasonable alternative’ and ‘close to expiry’ exemptions.
Overall those disagreeing with mandatory restrictions tended to disagree with the specific approaches proposed if it was one that proposed a restriction. Agreement with the ‘no reasonable alternative’ exemption was relatively low – attributable in part to respondents believing organisations should be treated the same and in part due to conflicting answers. More generally anti-restriction respondents tended to agree with exemptions.
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback