Download For Information SFDF Submission to Limit on Trans Fats (Scotland

For Information
DOCUMENT NUMBER/S:
SCM-038-09, NUT-110-09
TO:
SFDF Members’ Forum, Nutrition
Committee
FROM:
Greg McCracken
SUBJECT CATEGORIES:
Food Safety & Science; Health & Wellbeing;
Scottish Government
KEY DOCUMENT
Copyright FDF
Private and confidential
To be circulated ONLY
to FDF members and
authorised recipients
05/10/09
SFDF Submission to Limit on Trans Fats (Scotland) Bill
Summary
SFDF have submitted an industry response to Dr Richard Simpson MSP’s consultation on his
proposed Limit on Trans Fat (Scotland) Bill in the Scottish Parliament. A full copy of the
submission is available below.
Greg McCracken
SFDF Policy Executive
Scottish Food and Drink Federation ■ 4a Torphichen Street ■ Edinburgh EH3 8JQ ■ Tel: +44 (0)131 229 9415 ■ Fax: +44 (0)131 229 9407 ■ Web: www.sfdf.org.uk
SFDF is a devolved division of the Food and Drink Federation (FDF), 6 Catherine Street, London WC2B 5JJ. Registered in London with limited liability. Certificate of Incorporation no. 210572. VAT number: 761253541.
FDF seeks to ensure that information and guidance it provides are correct but accepts no liability in respect thereof. Such information and guidance are not substitutes for specific legal or other professional advice.
30 September 2009
Dr Richard Simpson MSP
Room M2.19
The Scottish Parliament
Edinburgh
EH99 1SP
Dear Dr Simpson
SFDF SUBMISSION ON PROPOSAL FOR A LIMIT ON TRANS FATS (SCOTLAND)
BILL
On behalf of the Scottish Food and Drink Federation (SFDF), I would like to thank you for
the opportunity to contribute to this consultation process.
In our view, a successful food and drink manufacturing industry is a vital component of a
healthy Scottish economy, not least because it generates annual sales of £7.57 billion and
exports worth £3.57 billion. It also provides employment for around 50,000 people, that is,
one in five of the total Scottish manufacturing workforce.
Across the UK, the food and drink manufacturing industry generates annual sales of
£70 billion and exports worth £9.23bn. The industry is the largest of the manufacturing
sectors accounting for 15% of manufacturing overall, and employs almost 440,000 people,
roughly 13% of the UK manufacturing workforce.
SFDF is a devolved division of the Food and Drink Federation (FDF).
Enabling Healthier Consumer Choices
SFDF is of the view that the proposed Bill, and the Trans Fatty Acids (TFA) limit it would
establish, is unnecessary given the progress already delivered by industry on a voluntary
basis.
The food and drink manufacturing industry recognises it has a responsibility to play its part in
helping to find solutions to the complex issues at the heart of the diet and health challenge we
are facing. Our long-standing commitments in this area have seen us working constructively
with Government and regulators, including in relation to reducing the level of TFA present in
food products. The industry is committed to reducing TFA levels further where this does not
cause a resultant increase in saturated fat levels.
Scottish Food and Drink Federation (SFDF)
Page 2
Key points to note

The current Government recommended intake level: In 1994, the Committee on
Medical Aspects (COMA) on Food Policy, predecessors to the Scientific Advisory
Committee on Nutrition (SACN), recommended that average intakes of TFA should not
exceed 2% of food energy (E%).1

No Need for Regulation: In 2003, SACN endorsed COMA’s earlier recommendation,
and as recently as July 2009 the FSA Board agreed that a limit on TFA levels was
unnecessary due to voluntary measures taken by the UK food industry.

The UK and Scottish Governments have noted that they accept the FSA’s advice that
legislation is not required in this area2.

Monitoring Intake Levels: FSA subsequently established a programme to monitor TFA
intake levels.

Progress delivered – An Industry Success Story: These voluntary measures have
resulted in UK TFA intakes falling to only 1% of food energy – just half of the
recommended maximum average TFA intake. This represents a real industry success
story. The industry is committed to reducing TFA levels further where this does not cause
a resultant increase in saturated fat levels.

Understanding intake – the balanced picture: SFDF is not aware of any evidence that
intakes of TFA in Scotland are considerably different from the rest of the UK and Europe.
This being so, the FSA and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) positions would
indicate there was no need to legislate and to do so would be a disproportionate response
when compared to any potential health benefit to consumers.

Impact of Proposal – Diminishing Returns and Potential for Unintended
Consequences: Bearing in mind the current levels of TFA intakes, the imposition of a
1% limit at ingredient level would present, at the very least, an insurmountable barrier to
the use of most oils and fats in the food industry. This would be completely
disproportionate given the negligible additional health benefit that might be derived. The
proposed Bill would therefore have the unintended consequence of removing a huge range
of products from shelves.
The UK Manufacturing Industry & TFA – A Real Success Story
Since the COMA report in 1994, industry has taken effective steps to limit levels of TFA in
manufactured foods.
While the proposed Bill recognises the significant work which has already been undertaken
by food manufacturers to reduce TFA on a voluntary basis, we feel that it would not deliver
any additional gains from those already being achieved through industry’s actions in this area.
This is supported by the fact that the FSA has, as a direct consequence of the activities of the
1
2
www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa071207.pdf, P4 – FSA Paper 07/12/07, 13 Dec 07.
www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/ajtransfatlett080110.pdf
Scottish Food and Drink Federation (SFDF)
Page 3
food manufacturing industry, not thought it necessary to go down the regulatory route to
secure reductions in TFA.
Average intake levels below current Government recommended levels
In October 2007, and at the behest of Health Ministers across the UK, the FSA reviewed the
latest evidence in relation to the health impacts and effects of TFA. In drawing conclusions
and making their recommendations, SACN made use of food consumption data from the
FSA’s National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS), Low Income Diet and Nutrition Survey
(LIDNS) and took into account the 2007 re-estimates of TFA intakes across the UK3.
SACN’s conclusions endorsed COMA’s original 1994 recommendation that the average TFA
intake should not exceed 2% of food energy4, and determined that there was currently no firm
scientific basis for its revision.
In its paper to the FSA Board, SACN noted that the actual average intake was more likely to
be closer to 1% rather than the 1.2% as stated in the NDNS survey for the following reason:
“assuming no change in food consumption patterns, product reformulation of the foods
identified… has reduced the contribution of TFA to 1% of average population food energy
intake. This reflects an upper estimate of intake as it does not take into account changes in the
TFAs levels in all food groups, and particularly those making up the ‘other foods’ category,
which contribute around 18 -19% to intakes”.5
As a result of these findings, the FSA Board advised that legislation was not necessary since
the review showed that TFA represented just 1.2% of total energy intake in the UK diet, well
below their maximum recommended average intake of 2% of energy6. The Board praised the
food industry for its efforts in reducing TFA in products. Their subsequent report noted the
findings proved that “In general the methodology tends towards an overestimate of current
trans fat intakes rather than an underestimate”.7 The FSA Board’s advice not to legislate was
formally accepted in full by the UK Health Minister at this time 8, and SFDF understands that
the Scottish Government are also content with the FSA advice.
The FSA Board paper sets out recommendations on TFA as part of the above review. This
paper provides clear indications of the excellent work of our industry in this area, and outlines
the reasons why legislation is not required to limit the use of TFA.9
It is also interesting to note the findings of the 2008 LIDNS. The Scottish Public Health
Observatory has previously commented that the LIDNS, with its sample size for Scotland
which is larger than the NDNS sample, provides a clearer representation of the low income
population in the UK and, as such, is more reliable than the NDNS data for Scotland10. The
survey reveals that, while individuals on a low income tend to have poorer diets, some of the
age groups identified have slightly lower levels of TFA intakes in Scotland than the NDNS
data. This would not support the assertion that the proposed Bill would specifically benefit
3. Re-estimate of trans fat intake in adults using current industry data
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/reestimatetransfats.pdf
4. Committee on Medical Aspects of Food Policy. Report on health and Social Subjects. No. 46: Nutritional Aspects of
Cardiovascular Disease. London: HMSO, 1994.
5
FSA 07/12/07 Agency Trans Fatty Acids paper to FSA Board http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa071207.pdf
6. Minutes of FSA Board meeting, 13 Dec 2007 http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/boardmins13dec07.pdf
7
www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/reestimatetransfats.pdf, P3.
8 Letter from Secretary of State for Health to FSA Chair http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/ajtransfatlett080110.pdf
9
www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa071207.pdf
www.scotpho.org.uk/home/Behaviour/Dietandnutrition/diet_keydatasources.asp
10
Scottish Food and Drink Federation (SFDF)
Page 4
people living in deprived areas in Scotland on the basis of their consuming higher levels of
TFA.11
As recently as July 2009, the FSA have restated their position on the health impacts of current
intakes of TFA in food. This position notes that the FSA Board have concluded they are:
“unanimously agreed that mandatory restrictions [on TFA levels] were unnecessary because
voluntary measures taken by the UK food industry to reduce levels of TFA in foods had been
successful in reducing consumers’ dietary intakes to low levels (half the maximum
recommended average intake).” 12
Furthermore the EFSA Panel has stated very recently (August 2009) that:
“Dietary TFA are provided by several fats and oils that are also important sources of
essential fatty acids and other nutrients. Thus, there is a limit to which the intake of TFA can
be lowered without compromising adequacy of intake of essential nutrients. Therefore, the
Panel recommends that TFA intake should be as low as possible within the context of a
nutritionally adequate diet. The Panel notes that a number of authorities have recommended
to keep the intake of TFA below 1-2 E%. Typically, these recommendations reflect a
judgement of what maximum level of TFA intake is practically achievable within the context
of a nutritionally adequate diet based on known patterns of intake of foods and nutrients in
specific populations. The Panel also notes that the average intake of TFA in adults in the EU
has decreased considerably over recent years”.13
We hope that these facts provide robust evidence to demonstrate that regulation is not
required in this area.
Continuing with the Voluntary Approach and Intake Monitoring
The consultation states that one purpose of the proposed Bill is to “stop manufacturers from
going back to previous methods”. However, in addition to having recognised that the food
manufacturing industry has contributed to TFA levels falling significantly below the level
recommended by SACN, the FSA will continue to monitor TFA intake levels on a yearly
basis. SFDF supports this ongoing monitoring as an alternative to legislation on the basis that
it will serve to ensure that TFA levels are kept to a minimum.
Later this year, the Agency will also publish the first results of its NDNS rolling programme.
Fieldwork around this began in April 2008, and the survey will cover a UK representative
sample of 1000 people per year (adults and children aged 1½ years upwards) with sample
boosts in Scotland and Northern Ireland for the first two years14.
The outcomes of the NDNS rolling programme are the central means by which the FSA will,
as part of the much wider dietary review, be able to both monitor intakes of TFA against their
11
www.sacn.gov.uk/pdfs/SACN0827%20%20%20position%20paper%20on%20LIDNS%20report.pdf, P.26
www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/consultation/consultsatfat.pdf page 7
13
Draft Opinion on Dietary Reference Values for Fat http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale1178620753812_1211902774897.htm, (Section 6.5)
12
14
. National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS) Rolling Programme – progress report 2006
http://www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/pro061201.pdf
Scottish Food and Drink Federation (SFDF)
Page 5
recommendation and provide clear evidence of industry’s contribution to achieving our shared
ambitions in this area.
Food Industry Illustrative Examples
We are grateful to our member companies who have granted permission to relate details of
their production formulation as a means of providing clear examples of how the
implementation of legislation as contained in this proposed Bill would affect them. The
examples below present TFA content at product level, and show how these levels are at
amounts that will enable consumers to meet the FSA’s recommended TFA intake of 2% of
food energy when eaten as part of a sensible, balanced diet. They also make clear the
legislation would impose a barrier to the manufacture and sale in Scotland of a huge range of
food products.
Vegetable oils both as sold and used as an ingredient in a wide range of food items
Vegetable oils play an important role in the diet and are typically high in unsaturated fatty
acids. In addition, vegetable oils are used as an ingredient in a huge range of food items.
The proposed Bill sets a maximum limit on TFA in all ingredients to 1%, however for reasons
outlined below all vegetable oils could not be guaranteed to meet this requirement. The result
would be that this essential ingredient could not be used and would further result in a huge
range of everyday food items sold elsewhere in the UK being banned from sale in Scotland.
Due to advancements in processing methods, TFA levels in vegetable oils as a raw ingredient
have been reduced substantially in the last 10 years, so that the average level of TFA is now
c.1%. This is the lowest level that is technically possible (see below).
The final stage “deodorisation” in the refining process for vegetable oils involves the oils
being heated to a high temperature for a specified period of time to remove odour and taste
compounds and trace components. This process is essential for food safety and compliance
reasons.
An unavoidable consequence of this essential process is the creation of very low levels of
TFA (c. 1%).
Significantly, oils that are highly unsaturated i.e. high in mono and poly-unsaturated fats, have
a greater propensity to produce these low levels of TFA in the final stages of the refining
process. This is due to the higher levels of double-bonds that make these oils “healthy”.
All analytical procedures are subject to uncertainty (error) which means that an additional
safety margin is required to ensure compliance, i.e. the actual target limit would be even
lower than the 1% proposed.
For the reasons above it is clear that liquid vegetable oils produced under conditions of good
manufacturing practice (GMP) cannot consistently meet the stringent limits proposed in the
Bill.
Scottish Food and Drink Federation (SFDF)
Page 6
Therefore the proposed Bill if adopted would threaten the availability of a vast range of foods
that use liquid vegetable oils as ingredients and therefore many food items would be
prevented from being produced and/or sold in Scotland.
Food Casings
One of our members presently uses a hydrogenated vegetable oil as a processing aid in the
manufacture of their food (sausage) casings. This particular oil is used to ensure the shelf life
of their products, which are distributed worldwide, of up to 2 years. Without hydrogenation,
the stability of the oil would be compromised.
The level of TFA in the oil itself is about 25%. The amount of oil used is approximately 4%
by weight of the casings. In turn, the casings themselves are approximately 0.5% by weight
of the sausage. This means for the consumer that the amount of oil by weight of the foodstuff
(sausage) is 0.02%. With the level of TFA in the oil at 25% this means that the TFA content
of any sausage from the vegetable oil is approximately 0.005% by weight.
Despite this extremely low intake, and correspondingly low risk to human health, our member
company would be prevented from using this oil as "the limit is applied at the source, not in
the final products". The consequent impact on this business would be significant, and would
place them at a distinct disadvantage with their competitors. The cost of identifying and
introducing a replacement, assuming this was possible, would be expensive and time
consuming to ensure compatible shelf life, and not deliver a noticeable improvement to
consumers’ health.
Shortbread
Our members have successfully made significant reductions of TFA in general. It is not clear,
however, in the context of this Bill, whether butter would be affected by the legal
requirements. It is vital to note that, with regards to dairy and animal fats, it is not possible to
alter their composition of TFA. Indeed, the levels of TFA in animal and dairy products are
subject to seasonal variation; in the case of butter, this can range between 4% - 8% of content.
This is very relevant when considering products which contain dairy fats (including butter) as
part of their traditional recipe, and when the presence of these ingredients is an indication of
high quality for consumers, for example, shortbread.
With Shortbread, our members are not only governed by consumer demand for high quality
products, but also by legal constraints. The food industry and enforcement interests on
shortbread have a long standing agreement which states that shortbread should contain at least
24% fat, of which at least 70% should be butterfat. Therefore, the minimum level of TFA in
shortbread, coming solely from the legally required butter component, can range from 0.7% to
1.4%. This illustrates that although you start with a level well above 1% in one of the
ingredients, the level in the final product is much lower.
Given that many quality shortbread products would contain higher amounts of butter, and
despite the fact that it is a traditional cupboard ingredient, the use of which is legally required
in this product, the proposed Bill could result in the banning of shortbread from Scotland.
We have other examples from specific food types and sector trade bodies which we would be
happy to share as clear indications as to why the approach presented in the proposed Bill is
Scottish Food and Drink Federation (SFDF)
Page 7
neither logical nor proportionate, would remove from sale in Scotland a wide range of foods
with little contribution to the protection of human health.
The Current Regulatory Framework
As things stand, the food and drink industry continues to face a considerable regulatory
burden, which adds significantly to its cost base and affects its ability to compete
successfully in domestic and international markets. Indeed, regulation remains one of the
biggest perceived threats to the competitiveness of our industry, and represents a significant
barrier to our shared ambition of sustainable economic growth.15
On a technical point surrounding the legal definitions presented in the consultation, the Bill
proposes that companies would be able to market themselves with the claim of being “freefrom” TFA should they comply with the legislation. Given that the proposed Bill would
enable a permissible amount of TFA of 1% to be present in products, it is unclear whether
these companies could legally make the claim “free-from” within the context of current EU
regulation.
FDF are also aware that under existing EU law, nutrition claims which are not contained
within the EU nutrition and health claims regulation annex are not permitted to be used.16
Currently, the terms “Trans Fat Free” or “Free from Trans Fats” are not covered in the annex.
Consequently, it is unlikely that the proposed Bill would in reality lead to companies being
legally entitled to use the terminology “Trans Fat free”, or similar, to indicate reductions or
absence of TFA.
A Targeted Approach to Achieving Reductions in TFA
While the proposal makes reference to the Danish limit on TFA, it is worthwhile noting that
no work has been undertaken to verify if this legislation has delivered the kind of health
improvements sought through the implementation of this Bill. Therefore, without an
evaluation of the impact of the Danish legislation there does not appear to be any evidence
that Scotland would benefit from implementing a limit on TFA.
You may be aware that other EU states have chosen not to adopt legislation aimed at
reducing the intake of TFA. The Dutch and Belgian governments in particular have instead
opted to provide strong support to industry initiatives that promote responsible frying
techniques at catering establishments which include moving from cooking fats to lower TFA
cooking oils. Providing supportive educational guidance to such establishments could
deliver more substantive results and encourage the industry to continue its determined efforts
to lower TFA levels.
SFDF would therefore consider that, a targeted approach, supported by voluntary
commitments, would be more achievable and effective than a broad requirement on all
ingredients through the implementation of legislation as proposed in this Bill. Resolving
many of the health concerns as outlined in the proposed Bill, for example heart disease,
strokes and diabetes, would be far better achieved by acting in this way, alongside investment
in consumer education and encouraging a healthy, balanced diet.
15
16
www.fdf.org.uk/responses/cabinet%20office%20final%20_3_.pdf
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007:012:0003:0018:EN:PDF
Scottish Food and Drink Federation (SFDF)
Page 8
The Financial Cost of Regulation
We feel that the actions of industry to reduce TFA as highlighted above have already virtually
achieved the ambitions of this Bill. However, there would still be significant costs in
implementing the Bill as it stands. It is important when considering regulation, or indeed
going down the voluntary route, to strike the right balance between the perception of
regulation and ensuring that this will not lead to unintentionally undermining the
competitiveness of businesses.
Continuing to adopt a proportionate approach towards achieving reductions in TFA would
reflect the commitment of our industry and recognise that a constructive partnership, between
industry and regulators, is the best means of achieving our shared ambitions of enabling
healthier consumer choices.
We feel that this fact needs to be better understood across Government – in the Scottish, UK
and EU contexts. Increasing the regulatory burden, particularly in an area in which industry
action has already more than satisfied the requirements of the FSA, would be another
unnecessary challenge for many companies during this difficult economic climate and
introduce additional complexity, without proportional gain for consumers.
Conclusions
Rather than introducing a Bill to set a legal limit on the level of TFA at source, we would
continue to urge working with industry to deliver further progress on a voluntary basis, to
ensure we secure greater improvements and progress on the areas in debate without damaging
the underlying competitiveness of industry.
The recommendation of the FSA, endorsed by the UK and Scottish Governments, that TFA
intakes should not exceed the average level of 2% of food energy has been met due to the
voluntary measures of food manufacturers, which have resulted in UK TFA intakes falling to
only 1% of food energy – a real industry success story.
In light of the evidence above, imposing a 1% limit on TFA at ingredient level would remove
a huge range of products from shelves, present a disproportionate challenge to many food
manufacturing companies and deliver negligible additional health benefits.
I trust our comments will be taken into consideration, however, if you require further input
please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely,
Flora A McLean
Director
Scottish Food and Drink Federation (SFDF)
Page 9
The Food and Drink Manufacturing Industry
The Scottish Food and Drink Federation (SFDF) represents the food and drink manufacturing
industry in Scotland. The food and drink manufacturing industry in Scotland has a gross
output of around £7.57 billion and exports worth £3.57 billion.
SFDF is a devolved division of the Food and Drink Federation (FDF), the voice of the UK
food and drink manufacturing industry.
As the largest manufacturing sector in the UK, food and drink manufacturers employs around
440,000 people and have a combined annual turnover of £70bn. UK food and drink exports
in 2005 were almost £10bn.
The following Associations are members of the Food and Drink Federation:
ABIM
ACFM
BCA
BOBMA
BSIA
CIMA
EMMA
FA
FOB
FPA
GPA
MSA
SB
SMA
SNACMA
SPA
SSA
UKAMBY
UKHIA
UKTC
Association of Bakery Ingredient Manufacturers
Association of Cereal Food Manufacturers
British Coffee Association
British Oats and Barley Millers Association
British Starch Industry Association
Cereal Ingredient Manufacturers’ Association
European Malt Product Manufacturers’ Association
Food Association
Federation of Bakers
Food Processors’ Association
General Products Association
Margarine and Spreads Association
Sugar Bureau
Salt Manufacturers’ Association
Snack, Nut and Crisp Manufacturers’ Association
Soya Protein Association
Seasoning and Spice Association
UK Association of Manufacturers of Bakers’ Yeast
UK Herbal Infusions Association
UK Tea Council
Within FDF there are the following sectoral organisations:
BCCC
FF
MG
ORG
SG
VEG
YOG
Biscuit, Cake, Chocolate and Confectionery Group
Frozen Food Group
Meat Group
Organic Food and Drink Manufacturers’ Group
Seafood Group
Vegetarian and Meat Free Industry Group
Yoghurt and Chilled Dessert Group
Scottish Food and Drink Federation (SFDF)
Page 10