by Tanya HAFFNER | Feb 19, 2018 | Thoughts, The Nation’s Health, Surveys and insights
Plant-based diets made the headlines again this week, with coverage of a study suggesting a vegan diet can prevent type 2 diabetes. It was reported by the Daily Mail (‘Going vegan can prevent overweight adults from falling victim to diabetes’) and Medical News Today.
In the study, 75 participants were put into two groups. One group was asked to follow a low-fat, plant-based vegan diet with no calorie restriction. The other was asked to make no dietary changes for a period of 16 weeks. Participants prepared all their own meals and for both groups, alcoholic drinks were restricted to one per day for women and two per day for men.
All the participants had a Body Mass Index (BMI) between 28kg/m2 and 40kg/m2 (putting them into the ‘overweight’ or ‘obese’ categories), with no history of diabetes.
At the end of the study, the plant-based group reported:
- Marked improvements in beta-cell functioning – these are the cells which produce the hormone insulin, which is important for controlling blood sugar levels (a key factor in diabetes where blood sugar levels are elevated or harder to control).
- A significant increase in how well the body responded to insulin – when the body is less sensitive to the hormone insulin, it increases the chances of developing type 2 diabetes.
- A decrease in BMI and body fat levels – this is important because excess body weight is strongly associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes.
It was reported that neither group made any changes to their physical activity regimen, nor did they change the use of their medications.
Read more details of the original study
Behind the headlines: the Nutrilicious dietetic view
Whilst this is yet another study showing positive effects arising from a plant-based diet, we must be aware of its limitations:
- Efforts were made to help ensure adherence to the diet (such as dietitian telephone calls to the participants and food diaries completed at the start and end) but this still relies on the honesty and accuracy of the participant.
- As noted by the researchers, the participants used in the study were ‘generally health-conscious individuals’ who were willing to make significant dietary changes. Thus, we cannot be sure findings would be representative of the general population if they were to eat a vegan diet.
- The study is too short and too small to show conclusively that a vegan diet prevents type 2 diabetes.
- The meals were prepared by the participants and thus any changes or fluctuations were not controlled or recorded.
On the other hand, a strength of the study is that it was a randomised controlled trial, which is the gold standard in research for measuring the effectiveness of an intervention.
The link between plant-based diet and reduced risk of diabetes
The researchers recognised that the major factor accounting for the reduced risk of type 2 diabetes in the plant-based group was the weight lost (including visceral fat lost).
The link between the two is well established. Research shows that for every kilogram of weight loss, there is a 16% reduction in risk or type 2 diabetes.*
The generally higher fibre and lower fat content of plant-based diets (which also includes vegetarian diets) would be expected to be helpful in reducing the energy density, and thus total calorie content of the diet. This could help with reducing obesity.
*Hammam et al (2006) Effect of Weight Loss With Lifestyle Intervention on Risk of Diabetes.
Takeaway points
In the UK, 11.9 million people are at risk of developing type 2 diabetes: prevention is clearly of great importance. The disease can have both short-term and long-term complications.
Further research will be needed to determine whether a vegan diet could prevent type 2 diabetes, and whether the positive improvements noted in this study require a strict vegan diet or whether the positive effects could be achieved with smaller changes.
Evidence shows the best ways to reduce risk of type 2 diabetes include:
- maintaining a healthy weight;
- eating healthily; and
- keeping physically active,
Adopting principles from a plant-based diet can certainly help with the first two points. The range of benefits of adopting a more plant-based diet are discussed further in last week’s blog.
For more information on reducing risk see Diabetes UK alongside their useful information about veganism and diabetes.
by Tanya HAFFNER | Feb 16, 2018 | Hot Topics in nutrition, The Nation’s Health, Surveys and insights
The rise in popularity of vegetarian and vegan diets is in the news, including stories in the Daily Mail INews. This comes following a release by Kantar Worldpanel of supermarket sales figures and analysis of consumer behaviour. It revealed:
- Over January 2018, one in ten shoppers purchased a meat-free ready meal. This has increased by 15% compared with the same time last year.
- During January 2018, 29% of evening meals were now free of meat and fish.
- Britons consumed 3.9 billion meat free evening meals in the 12 months to October 2015. This rose to 4.3 billion in the 12 months to October 2017.
- As a nation, we consumed 87 million more entirely vegan-friendly meals in 2017 than in 2015.
Announcements of product sales and ranges underscore these figures. In just two examples, it was also reported in the news this week that sales of Quorn (a meat substitute product) have increased globally by 16%. Last month also saw Tesco bring out their own vegan range, Wicked Kitchen, highlighting the increasing demand for more plant-based options.
Behind the headlines: the Nutrilicious dietetic view
There are many reasons why we could be seeing an increase in the popularity of meat free meals.
The trend of ‘Veganuary’ (where individuals adopt a vegan diet for the month of January) is likely to have contributed to the findings which related to the month of January 2018.
Richard Allen, a spokesman for Kantar Worldpanel, emphasised increasing access to meat-free foods: “The surge in vegetarian evening meals over the past year is down to the wider availability of products which make eating meat-free more attractive and practical.”
He continued: “Our ideas about what’s healthy are also changing – we’re more focussed on foods that are natural and less processed and eating a varied diet.”
What are the benefits of a plant-based diet?
The evidence for plant-based diets is growing and can offer many benefits. Indeed, the updated ‘Eatwell Guide’ saw that plant sources of protein were listed ahead of animal food sources of protein. The protein group now has the title ‘Beans, pulses, fish, eggs, meat and other proteins’, highlighting the increased role plant-based diets can play.
Benefits of adopting a more plant-based diet include:
Health
- Research has shown that vegetarian and vegan populations tend to have lower blood pressure, cholesterol levels and rates of cardiovascular disease compared to their omnivorous counterparts. This could be due to less saturated fat in the diet and more polyunsaturated fats, in addition to other cardio-protective components in the diet such as soya and nuts.
- Plant-based diets tend to have a more balanced macronutrient profile. For example, the higher fibre content of plant-based diets is often accompanied by lower fat intakes. This can help reduce the energy density of the diet and thus help reduce the total energy (calorie) intake. This could help prevent people being overweight/obese, and therefore any related negative effects and co-morbidities (e.g. type 2 diabetes, increased cancer risk etc).
Environment/sustainability
- Animal foods are resource intensive (energy, land and water) and thus tend to have higher greenhouse gas emissions compared to plant foods per unit weight.
- Modelling work has shown that reducing the amount of animal foods in the diet will make a critical contribution to climate change mitigation.
Economic
- Recent research has suggested that the British government could reduce its healthcare and societal costs by £5.21 billion if just 10 per cent of the UK population emphasised plant-based foods in their diet.
References: Clarkson V, Plant Food Sources of Protein for Optimum Health, Muscle Status and Sustainability – The Evidence and Practice and Schepers J & Annemans L., The potential health and economic impact of plant-based food patterns in Belgium and the United Kingdom. Nutrition 15th December 2017 (in press)
Does this mean meat is off the menu?
Gaining the benefits of a plant-based diet does not have to mean a diet no with meat at all. A ‘flexitarian‘ diet is predominantly plant-based without completely eliminating meat and can be extremely beneficial for health and reducing carbon footprints.
Indeed, meat, poultry and fish are nutritious foods and can provide a range of nutrients beneficial for health. We are advised by the NHS to have two portions of fish per week, one of which is oily. They also advise how meat can fit into the diet.
Takeaway points
We welcome findings that plant-based meals are being explored and becoming more popular. We encourage everyone to enjoy a varied diet featuring a wide variety of plant-based whole foods.
Overall, plant-based eating isn’t new. It’s not radical. And it’s definitely not about cutting things out. A plant-based diet shouldn’t be defined by what it excludes, but by what it includes. The core message is ‘put plants first’. Instead of planning meals around meat, bring veggies, fruits, whole grains, pulses, legumes, nuts and seeds from the side of the plate to front and centre.
It doesn’t have to be wholesale change: many benefits can be achieved by simply reducing intake of meat rather than following a strict vegetarian or vegan diet. We recommend making small steps to include more plant-based foods and meals in your diet, to benefit your health and the planet.
If you do decide to go further, the NHS gives advice on ensuring a vegetarian or vegan diet is balanced. The British Dietetic Association are part of an important alliance with the Vegan Society to share the message that all well-planned vegan diets can support healthy living in people of all ages.
by Tanya HAFFNER | Feb 9, 2018 | Hot Topics in nutrition, Media in context, Surveys and insights
Each week we investigate the nutrition and diet topics making the headlines. This week, the Daily Mail discussed the health profiles of non-dairy milk alternatives.
The article was based on a study in the Journal of Food Science and Technology titled ‘How well do plant-based alternatives fare nutritionally compared to cow’s milk’?
The four most consumed non-dairy milk drinks were studied: almond, soy, rice and coconut milk (all unsweetened varieties). Nutritional values were obtained from the food packaging and the USDA database.
The review discussed the pros and cons of each milks, with the aim to help make consumers be able to make a more informed decision. Their main findings were as follows:
| Coconut milk |
Almond milk |
Rice milk |
Soya milk |
Pros
Low calories
Taste
Cons
No proteins
Rich in saturated fats |
Pros
Balanced diet
Low calories
Taste
Cons
Almond allergy |
Pros
Comparable caloriesCons
Rich in sugar
Unbalanced diet |
Pros
Rich in protein
Balanced dietCons
Taste
Soy allergy |
The headlines point to soya is the best alternative to cow’s milk, with researchers concluding that, ‘among alternative milks only soy milk contains comparable amounts of nutrients’.
More detailed findings and rationale for each of the points above are all discussed in the original study, alongside nutritional values for each of the milks.
Behind the headlines: the Nutrilicious dietetic view
The study is especially relevant because of the increasing popularity of non-dairy alternatives to milk and the increasing recognition of the health benefits of plant-based diets, and plant foods being more environmentally sustainable. Indeed, the latest ‘Eatwell Guide’ from Public Health England updated the name of one of the food groups from ‘Milk and Dairy Foods‘ to ‘Dairy and Alternatives’, highlighting the growing role of such foods in our diets. Plant food sources of protein were listed ahead of animal food sources of protein for the first time: the protein food group is now called ‘beans, pulses, fish, eggs, meat and other proteins’.
See our blog on the new Eatwell Guide
There are many reasons why people are choosing such products, including health, environment, allergies and intolerances, and veganism.
Our assessment of the study
- A good amount of data was analysed. For a non-dairy milk to be included within this study, at least four examples had to be available for each type of milk.
- The study uses American data. We cannot be sure findings will be the same for the UK and Irish products, although they are likely to bear many similarities. Opinions were also gathered regarding taste of the different milks and the UK population may react differently.
- Due to missing data, the research did not cover all the vitamins as intended.
One of the main conclusions from the study was that soya milk contained more protein than other alternatives. We did our own analysis of the four unsweetened* milks, alongside two other unsweetened milks available for reference. Here are our findings:
|
Cow’s milk (Semi skimmed) |
Coconut milk |
Almond milk |
Rice milk |
Soya milk |
Oat Milk |
Cashew milk |
|
Per 100ml (mean values) |
|
|
| Energy, kcal |
47 |
36 |
13 |
47 |
29 |
40 |
26 |
| Fat g |
1.8 |
1.5 |
1.1 |
1.0 |
1.5 |
1.0 |
1.0 |
| Sat fat g |
1.1 |
1.4 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
0.3 |
0.1 |
0.2 |
| Sugars g |
4.8 |
3.3 |
0.1 |
6.2 |
0.5 |
3.7 |
1.7
|
| Protein g |
3.6 |
0.2 |
0.5 |
0.1 |
2.7 |
0.7 |
0.5 |
| Calcium mg |
123 |
120 |
120 |
120 |
120 |
120 |
120 |
| Vitamin D2 ug |
0.00 |
0.75 |
0.89 |
0.89 |
0.75 |
0.75 |
0.75 |
| B12 ug |
0.91 |
0.38 |
0.38 |
0.38 |
0.38 |
0.38 |
0.38 |
Values from Forestfield Dietplan 7, National Dairy Council – the nutritional composition of dairy and plant-based drinks nutritional information: a range of current products on the market. *There are also sweetened versions of these products on the market.
Is soya milk the best non-dairy alternative?
- Protein The most notable similarity between cow’s milk and soya milk compared to the other non-dairy milks is the higher protein levels, as highlighted in the original study. While this has grabbed the headlines as being highly beneficial, for the majority of the UK population protein intakes are in fact in excess of requirements. The UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey shows that only 7–8% of protein for those aged 11–65+ comes from cow’s milk. Calling one milk ‘healthier’ than the other based on this alone is generally not useful or appropriate. Single food measures of protein content or indeed quality do not reflect the scale of impact across the total diet and not enough attention is given to this key consideration.
- Calcium Cow’s milk is known to be a great provider of the UK’s calcium intake, providing from 26% in 4–10 year olds to 18% in 11–18 year olds and in 19% in adults aged 19–64. We can see that all of the non-dairy alternatives to cow’s milk closely match this. They are also fortified with vitamin D, which aids in calcium absorption and is beneficial for bone health. Cow’s milk in the UK does not have vitamin D.
- Saturated fat One benefit of all the non-dairy milks is that they are generally lower in saturated fat than cow’s milk, providing 0.1–0.6%. Coconut milk is the exception, with levels higher at 0.9–1.9%. One 200ml glass of coconut milk provides 2.8g saturated fat on average, whereas the other non-diary milks average at 0.4g saturated fat. The coconut milk ranks ‘medium’ for saturated fat under the drinks traffic light labelling system, the others are ‘low’.
- Cholesterol Looking more specifically into soya and the advantages it can have for health, one point not discussed in this study is that soya can also help reduce cholesterol levels. This forms part of the Ultimate Cholesterol Lowering Plan from HEART UK.
- Iodine This essential trace element is an important component of the thyroid hormones. A recent study from the University of Surrey investigated 14 non-diary milks in the UK and found that iodine levels were only 2% that of in cow’s milk. Women of childbearing age and pregnant women are most at risk of deficiency. Information on alternative sources of iodine are discussed on a British Dietetic Association (BDA) iodine factsheet.
- Is soya ok? Soya products such as soya milk alternatives often hit the news, with suggestions they can be bad for our health. However, many of these claims are untrue, as discussed on the BDA Fact Sheet for Soya. Soya forms part of a healthy balanced diet. The British Heart Foundation also discusses the role of soya milk as a replacement for cow’s milk. A very recent review of plant food sources of protein for optimum health by Dietitian Vanessa Clarkson can be found on this plant protein fact sheet
Conclusions
A healthy alternative for adults
For those looking to replace cow’s milk in the diet with a plant-based milk, fortified soya milk bears the most nutritional similarities to cow’s milk. However, the other plant-based drinks analysed also provide many of the nutrients. Its crucial to consider them in the context of the whole diet and we feel confident that these products can contribute to a healthy balanced more plant-based diet for adults.
Which non-dairy milk is considered the ‘best’ will depend on individual needs, with personal taste playing an important role. Faced with so much choice, here are some points to consider when buying a non-dairy alternative to milk:
- Choose non-dairy milks that have been fortified with calcium and vitamin D for bone health. Organic varieties and homemade milks may not contain high enough levels – read the label.
- For vegans in particular, choose a milk that has been fortified with vitamin B12 – often found to be low in the vegan diet. Other groups at risk of low vitamin B12 including vegetarians, the elderly and individuals with gastrointestinal disorders.
- Choose unsweetened varieties where possible to minimise intake of free sugars.
- Soya milk is higher in protein than other non-dairy alternatives, although lower protein milks should not pose an issue for the general adult population.
- Soya milk can help as part of a cholesterol-lowering diet.
- Coconut milks will be higher in saturated fats, which can raise ‘bad’ LDL cholesterol levels.
- Swapping cow’s milk for non-dairy alternatives could result in a lower iodine intake unless the milk has been fortified with iodine. Some may be fortified – read the label if there is a concern.
- As with any food or drink product, don’t just treat it in isolation: it’s the total dietary intake that’s important. Whether having dairy milk or a substitute, we need to make sure that our overall food intake is healthy and nutritionally balanced.
Non-dairy milks for children
Parents of children wishing or needing to avoid cow’s milk should seek dietetic advice to ensure their diet is balanced at every age. See the British Dietetic Association factsheet for more information
.
by Tanya HAFFNER | Feb 1, 2018 | Hot Topics in nutrition, Thoughts, Media in context
This week we explore the headline ‘Gluten free foods are more expensive and less healthy’. The story was picked up in The Independent and The Sun, amongst others.
It is based on a study published in the Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics, which compared the nutritional information and cost of gluten free foods available in the UK (679 products) and comparable regular foods (1045 products).
Findings from the study include:
- More gluten free foods were classified as containing high and medium fat, saturated fat, sugar and salt (HFSS) compared to the regular foods, using the traffic light labelling system.
- More gluten free bread and flour products contained high fat and sugar.
- Fewer gluten free crackers contained high fat and sugar.
- Gluten free products were more likely to be lower in fibre and protein than regular foods.
- Gluten free foods had higher salt content than regular products.
- Gluten free products were 159% more expensive than the regular ones (working out as £1.14/100g vs £0.44/100g).
Behind the headlines: the Nutrilicious dietetic view
We should note there were some limitations to the study:
- It’s a comparison of products and did not look at actual overall dietary nutrient intake of people who eat gluten free food. So we don’t know the context of these findings: one person may have an overall more healthy diet than someone else.
- Composition of foods is based on food labels and not the chemical analysis (the gold standard method).
Nevertheless, it analysed a significant number of products and is very relevant and important to consider. Although the traffic light labelling system is only one way to look at whether a food is healthy, it is still a useful guide. Gluten free foods were typically higher in HFSS.
Let’s look at just one of the nutritional differences found: fibre. Overall it was found that gluten free foods are often lower in fibre. The latest report from the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) on Carbohydrates and Health recommended that adults aim for 30g fibre per day. The current average falls below this at 18g per day. In the analysis, regular wholegrain pasta averaged at 8.0g fibre per 100g (a large single portion), whereas the gluten free comparison averaged at just 3.2g.
A number of foods included within the study are processed; the gluten free varieties will often have ingredients added to replace the gluten, which can cause problems in terms of nutrition.
Following a gluten free diet
A gluten free diet is necessary for medically diagnosed conditions, for example coeliac disease.
Following a Department of Health consultation, some UK National Health Service Trusts have compromised and/or withdrawn gluten free prescriptions. There is a concern that not all individuals with coeliac disease will be willing to spend the extra money on gluten free foods and suffer health problems as a result. Coeliac UK are currently campaigning to try and protect gluten free prescriptions. See details here
Sarah Sleet from Coeliac UK responded to the study: “It’s really important that the quality of gluten free foods is as good as that available for all consumers. We’re not surprised to see the research shows the high cost of gluten free food, which will make it difficult for patients with coeliac disease, particularly the most vulnerable, to stick to the gluten free diet should the Department of Health remove gluten free food on prescription.”
The trend
In recent years, following a gluten free diet has become a wider trend, with many celebrities following it. This study of a significant number of products highlights that following such a diet without a medical need for it may not have any nutritional advantages over a regular diet. Not to mention it costs a whole lot more.
Takeaway points
- Many whole foods are naturally gluten free e.g. quinoa, brown rice, pulses. Opting for these, rather than the foods trying to mimic/replace gluten, could be of benefit to those following a gluten free diet.
- In reality, many will continue to choose ready-prepared options and rely on such foods such as shop-bought bread. So people who medically require a gluten free diet need access healthier foods at a lower cost, especially in light of prescription cuts.
- If you’re someone who chooses gluten free because you think it’s healthier, check the nutritional values of products carefully.
by Tanya HAFFNER | Jan 24, 2018 | Thoughts, Media in context, The Nation’s Health
Each week we analyse some of the hot headlines in health and nutrition news. This week we look at the health effects of energy drinks; and a new report from Cancer Research UK on unhealthy food advertising for children.
HEADLINE 1: MORE THAN HALF OF YOUNG PEOPLE SUFFER SIDE EFFECTS FROM ENERGY DRINKS
This week the adverse effects of energy drinks have been reported by the Daily Mail, the Independent and The Sun.
The headlines are based on a study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. It carried out an online survey of 2,055 children and young adults aged 12-24, who were asked about their consumption of energy drinks and coffee, and any adverse outcomes they experienced.
55.4% of those who had ever consumed energy drinks (no more than 2 drinks per day) had experienced at least one adverse effect. The most common were fast heartbeat (24.7%), difficulty sleeping (24.1%) and headache (18.3%). Few reported nausea/vomiting/diarrhoea (5.1%), chest pain (3.6%) or seizures (0.2%). 3.1% of the respondents had sought medical advice.
The side effects were consistent with the potential effects of caffeine but were significantly more prevalent than with those who’d reported effects from coffee.
Behind the headlines: the Nutrilicious dietetic view
There are significant limitations to the study, making it impossible to draw any clear conclusions or new insights into the impact of energy drinks on health:
- The quantifies of caffeine consumed were unknown
- Medical history was not recorded.
- The authors admit that there were many other compounding factors to the side effects, such as alcohol and drug consumption.
- They also acknowledge difficulty with under- and over- reporting.
What the study does highlight, however, is the popularity of energy drinks among young people.
So what is considered ‘safe’ when it comes to energy drink consumption?
How energy drinks could affect your health
- The impact of caffeine
Caffeine is phytochemical stimulant of the central nervous system. It is naturally found in coffee, cocoa beans and tea leaves.
The effects of caffeine vary greatly between habitual drinkers and non-caffeine consumers, who may consume a one off-caffeine drink.
Habitual healthy caffeine drinkers consuming moderate amounts would not experience negative side effects from caffeine. Sugar-free variants will count towards hydration, improved sports performance and alertness.
As with all foods and drinks, moderation is key. Safety limits on daily intakes have been set by the UK based on European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) guidelines:
- For healthy adults (aged 16+, excluding pregnant and breastfeeding women): No more than 400mg caffeine per day (3-4 cups of coffee or 2-4 cans of energy drinks, depending on the size of the can). No more than 200mg caffeine (2 cups of coffee or 1-2 energy drinks) as a single dose. Some adults may be sensitive to caffeine. For them, single doses of 100mg may result in difficulty sleeping and reduce sleep duration, particularly when consumed close to bedtime.
- For pregnant and breast-feeding women: No more than 200mg per day (1-2 cups of coffee, 1-2 energy drinks). Doses greater than this have been associated with increased risk of miscarriage and lower birth weights
- For under 16s: Up to 3mg/kg body weight daily intakes of caffeine do not raise safety concerns. For a 14-year-old teenager weighing 51kg, this would equate to around 153mg of caffeine (1-2 cans energy drink).
- Taurine and other energy drinks constituents: EFSA’s 2015 scientific review found no evidence for safety concerns with regard to the interaction between caffeine and other energy drink constituents such as glucuronolactone and taurine.
- Increasing free sugars in the diet – the bigger concern
The more popular energy drinks are loaded with free sugars. Even if drunk in moderation in terms of caffeine content, the free sugars content will impact negatively on health.
A typical 250ml serving provides 27.5g sugars (7 teaspoons). That’s 92% of the recommended daily intake for children aged 11 upwards and exceeds daily recommendations for 7-10 year olds by 3.5g.
These drinks are nutrient poor and energy rich, providing excess energy that our young do not need in our current environment of increasing obesity and micronutrient deficiencies.
Of major concern is the larger 500ml serving size of some energy drinks. These can exceed not only the daily caffeine recommendations for teenagers and young children (160mg per 500ml) but also the free sugars recommendation. One brand provides 80g free sugars per 500ml can. That’s three times the daily recommendation of free sugars for 7-10 year olds and 2.5 times for older children and adults.
Take home message
Sugar-free energy drinks containing caffeine can be drunk in moderation. They contribute to hydration, improve alertness and do not have any negative health implications. Habitual moderate caffeine consumption is perfectly safe. Large sizes loaded with sugar do not play a part in a balanced diet.
For more advice on healthy drink choices, go to the NHS website
HEADLINE 2: CANCER RESEARCH UK ARGUES LINK BETWEEN TV ADS AND CHILDHOOD OBESITY
This week, Cancer Research UK called for a ban on advertisements for high fat, salt or sugar (HFSS) foods during talent shows and live sports. This was picked up by the Daily Mail and the Express, as well as BBC’s Newsnight.
It follows their online survey involving 3,348 young people aged 11–19 years, a representative sample of the UK population. Comparisons were made between high commercial TV viewing (three hours per day or more) versus moderate (0.5-3 hours per day).
12 HFSS foods were investigated (confectionery, desserts, flavoured yogurts, cakes/biscuits, milk drinks, takeaways, sugary drinks, sweetened cereals, energy drinks, fried potato products & crisps).
See full details of the report and the methodology used
Key findings include:
- There was a significant increase in junk food consumption with the higher viewing of advertisements – 520 more junk food items were consumed per year for each child by those in the high vs moderate TV viewing group.
- Those in the high TV viewing group were more likely to have a greater overall HFSS food consumption across 10 out of the 12 HFSS foods investigated.
- Key times of exposure to junk food advertisements were in the evenings and weekends, i.e. not classified as ‘children’s viewing time’.
This is of relevance because currently advertising HFSS foods is banned during programmes aimed at children (introduced in 2008 – a decade old!), but the ban does not apply to later mainstream programmes such as live sport and talent shows. The TV regulator, Ofcom, have previously highlighted that 7-8pm is when children currently watch the most TV.
- Junk foods ads were equally effective on TV and on demand streaming.
As a result, Cancer Research UK is calling for restrictions up until 9pm on TV and tighter controls for online streaming.
Behind the headlines: the Nutrilicious dietetic view
This is a detailed survey from Cancer Research UK, involving a large number of participants and provides evidence (although not causal) that HFSS marketing could be driving unhealthy eating and drinking.
The lead researcher Dr Jyotsna Vohrarom Cancer Research has stated: ‘This is the strongest evidence yet that junk food adverts could increase how much teens choose to eat.’
It has been shown that high consumption of individual foods including takeaways, sugary drinks and confectionary items are linked to increased BMI in children and young adults.
While this report does not directly show that HFSS marketing causes childhood obesity, Cancer Research UK have announced that alongside other reports, they will release a report later this year investigating the link between marketing and weight.
The problem of childhood obesity
Childhood obesity is a huge public health issue in the UK, with nearly a third of children aged 2 to 15 years classed as overweight or obese. An obese child is five times more likely to become an obese adult. In the short term this can cause physiological and psychological harm and long term, negative health effects and the risk of cancer increases. See more details on our blog Behind the Headlines 11th December.
Take home messages
This year, much action is being taken to help combat the obesity crisis, including the sugar tax, calls for sugar reduction in foods, campaigns on children’s snacking and more – as discussed on the Government’s website.
This new report highlights that HFSS marketing poses a risk for consumption of unhealthy foods, which through excess calories could contribute to obesity.
It also shows that HFSS advertisements were viewed during family shows in evenings and weekends, which should be exempt based on the new Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) regulations (see our blog New rules on food advertising to help tackle childhood obesity.
We hope this important report will put pressure on Ofcom and the Government to enforce tighter regulations for HFSS marketing, furthering the fight against childhood obesity.
Policy recommendations as a result of the research are discussed in the full report.
