On Monday 9th November 16:00 The Food Foundation and Public Health England convened a parliamentary sugar roundtable to discuss the evidence behind the new dietary advice on sugar consumption.
This presentation, delivered by Dr Alison Tedstone, Director of Health and Obesity at Public Health England, talks through the SACN report and evidence package following the release of Sugar Reduction: The Evidence for Action (Found below)
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/470179/Sugar_reduction_The_evidence_for_action.pdf
1. Sugar Reduction: The evidence for action
Dr Alison Tedstone, National Lead for Diet & Obesity, PHE
November 2015
2. ScientificAdvisory Committee on Nutrition’s
Carbohydrate and Health report
2
Key findings:
• Sugar consumption increases the risk of consuming too many
calories
• Sugar consumption is associated with increased risk of tooth
decay
• Sugar sweetened beverages associated with increased risk of
type 2 diabetes and linked to higher BMI in children
Recommendations:
• A definition for ‘free sugars’ should be adopted in the UK*
• The Dietary Reference Value for free sugars should not
exceed 5% of total dietary energy for age groups from 2
years upwards
• Consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, by children
and adults, should be minimised
*Sugars added to food and those naturally present in honey, syrups and fruit juice
3. Change4Life key messages:
• Sugary drinks have no place in a child's daily
diet
• Swap to water, lower fat milks, sugar free and no
added sugar drinks instead
• A typical 8 year old shouldn’t have more than 6
sugar cubes a day
3 2.12.14
4. Overall (I-squared = 0.0%, p = 0.638)
Raben et al., 2002
Njike et al., 2011
Poppitt et al., 2002
Saris et al., 2000
Reid et al., 2010
Reid et al., 2007
Byrnes et al., 2003
name
Reid et al.,2014
Trial
Drummond & Kirk, 1998
Drummond et al., 2003
Aeberli et al., 2011
1.01 (0.70, 1.32)
2.06 (0.53, 3.58)
0.89 (-0.13, 1.90)
1.47 (-0.49, 3.43)
1.10 (0.40, 1.80)
0.53 (-0.63, 1.69)
1.32 (0.68, 1.95)
0.88 (-0.32, 2.08)
difference in means (95% CI)
1.10 (0.05, 2.14)
Weighted
0.54 (-0.82, 1.90)
-0.21 (-1.46, 1.04)
1.07 (-0.33, 2.47)
19
18.3
13.6
10.7
9.5
20.1
13.3
intake (% energy)
12.9
change in sugars
2.5
2.9
11
Between treatments
1.01 (0.70, 1.32)
2.06 (0.53, 3.58)
0.89 (-0.13, 1.90)
1.47 (-0.49, 3.43)
1.10 (0.40, 1.80)
0.53 (-0.63, 1.69)
1.32 (0.68, 1.95)
0.88 (-0.32, 2.08)
difference in means (95% CI)
1.10 (0.05, 2.14)
Weighted
0.54 (-0.82, 1.90)
-0.21 (-1.46, 1.04)
1.07 (-0.33, 2.47)
19
18.3
13.6
10.7
9.5
20.1
13.3
intake (% energy)
12.9
change in sugars
2.5
2.9
11
Between treatments
Favours higher sugar diet Favours lower sugar diet
0-2 0 2 4
Difference in energy intake between groups (MJ/day)
Meta-analysis of RCTs looking at higher versus lowersugar
consumption on energy intake
4
6. Cost savings of achieving the
reduction to 5% of energy from sugar
6
Assuming the SACN recommendations to reduce sugar
intakes to 5% of energy intake are achieved within 10
years, the cost saving to the NHS is estimated to be
about £500M per annum by year 10 (due to reductions
in the costs associated with dental caries and
consequences of obesity).
7. • PHE has carried out an extensive
programme of work over the past 12
months in order to provide a package of
evidence to inform the government’s
thinking on sugar in the diet
• Published 22 October 2015
• Considers the need for action – how much
sugar we eat, where it comes from, the
associated health issues and benefits in
reducing intakes.
• Draws conclusions about what drives our
consumption and advises on actions that
could be implemented
7
Sugar Reduction: The evidence for action
8. Sugar reduction: the evidence
8
Influencers:
• Children are exposed to a high volume of marketing and advertising which, in all its forms,
consistently influences food preference, choice and purchasing
• Food retail price promotions are widespread in Britain; account for 40% of all food and drink
expenditure; increase the amount people spend by one-fifth and the amount of sugar
purchased by from higher sugar foods and drinks by 6%.
• Price increase, such as by taxation, can influence purchasing of sugar sweetened drinks and
other high sugar products in the short-term.
Food supply:
• A structured and universal programme of reformulation to reduce levels of sugar in food and
drink would significantly lower sugar intakes, particularly if accompanied by reductions in portion
size
• Better public food procurement at a national and local level would improve diets
Knowledge, training and local action:
• Accredited training in diet and health is not routinely delivered to many who could influence
others food choices but tools like competency frameworks can help change this
• Other consumer tools, such as the Change4Life campaign, can also help inform and educate
• Local action, when delivered well, can contribute to changing knowledge and also influence
food environments and can improve diets
9. Sugar reduction: areas for action
1) Reduce and rebalance the number and type of price promotions in all retail
outlets
2) Significantly reduce opportunities to market and advertise high sugar food and
drink
3) The setting of a clear definition for high sugar foods (to aid with 1 & 2 above)
4) Introduction of a broad, structured and transparently monitored programme of
gradual sugar reduction in everyday food and drink
5) Introduction of a price increase of a minimum of 10-20% on high sugar
products through the use of a tax or levy such as on full sugar soft drinks
6) Adopt, implement and monitor the government buying standards for food and
catering services across the public sector
7) Ensure that accredited training in diet and health is routinely delivered to all of
those who have opportunities to influence food choices
8) Continue to raise awareness of concerns around sugar levels in the diet to the
public as well as health professionals, employers, the food industry etc.
9
10. It is unlikely that a single action alone would
be effective in reducing sugar intakes
• The evidence suggests a broad, structured approach, involving
restrictions on price promotions and marketing, product reformulation,
portion size reduction and price increase on unhealthy products,
implemented in parallel, is likely to have a more universal effect.
• Positive changes to the food environment (e.g. public sector food
procurement, provision and sales of healthier foods) as well as
information and education are also needed to help support people in
making healthier choices.
10