Today the House of Commons debated the issue of food poverty. It was reassuring to hear Richard Benyon MP confirm the commitment to introduce a Groceries Code Adjudicator to protect consumers. I hope that the adjudicator will also consider some of the wider issues around food poverty and the way that supermarkets can aggravate the situation particularly in the way that they operate loss leaders.
Data from the Health and Social Care Information Centre shows that almost a third of children are overweight or obese. It also shows the link between food poverty and obesity.
There is a clear link in reception year but this is even starker by year 6 where 23.6% of the poorest but just 12.8% of the richest are obese. Obesity not only affects children's life chances but will be costing us £10bn per year by 2050 because 85% of obese children go on to become obese adults and are far more likely to develop conditions like diabetes or joint problems.
The reality is that if you are on a tight budget price is a huge driver for choice and the supermarkets are driving those choices by discounting the kinds of foods that are harming their own customers. High fat, high salt food processed food is already cheaper than healthy alternatives yet loss leaders are so often based on products like alcohol, carbonated drinks, crisps and chocolates.
The Competition Commission, in their investigation of supermarket below cost selling did find that this practice distorts consumer choice and found many examples of loss making products being cross subsidised by other lines.
They were clear however that countries with outright bans on below cost selling, such as Ireland, Germany, France and Spain don't benefit from lower prices overall, in fact the reverse so I wouldn't want to see a ban...just some common sense.
Why tolerate the myth that all these loss leaders result in savings when they are being cross subsidised with more expensive products in the rest of your shopping basket?
The role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator should include:
Transparency in how these loss leaders are cross subsidised as well as clear price comparisons so that customers can easily identify the cheapest products.
A code of practice which promotes loss leaders only on healthy or unprocessed foods but which isn't subsidised by our farmers or local food distribution webs.
But Government cannot do everything; ultimately families have to take responsibility for their children's diet and exercise. It does not have to be expensive; the CPRE and Transition Town Totnes should be congratulated for their work on local food webs and for showing how local traditional shops and markets reduce food miles and deliver fresher healthier food with less waste. The view that local food is always more expensive should be challenged and boosting local seasonal produce is part of the solution.
Ultimately food prices are volatile and most of the changes are the result of global commodity prices and the influence of factors like fuel prices but that does not mean that Government cannot have a role in trying to make sure that the best choices are also affordable choices.
0 comments
Post a comment
There is a difference between a loving parent smacking their child as a reflex reaction to them darting off, say towards oncoming traffic and the kind of violence that many children suffer as a routine every day. Social workers are frankly too busy with the overload from these cases to interfere with normal families and David Lammy is perpetuating a myth that social services operate like the Stasi, snooping on families, poised to snatch children from happy homes.