Healthier Food Mark Event 30th April 2009

Final report

June 2009

Table of Contents

1. Management Summary

2. Background & Objectives

3. Methodology

4. Discussion Topics

4.1 Criteria Burning Issues – Sustainability and Nutrition

4.2 Accreditation

4.3 Alignment

4.4 Pilots and Evaluation

4.5 Cost Savings

5.Final session – questions to the HFM team Panel

6.Event evaluation

6.1 Overview

6.2 Organisation of the event

6.3 Content

6.4 Value

6.5 Venue and facilities

6.6 Additional feedback

7. Appendix

1. Management Summary

Overview

This report is based on a stakeholder consultation event held in on 30 April 2009 with all those with an interest and/or connected with public sector food provision.

The purpose of the event was to introduce participants to the aims of the Healthier Food Mark (HFM) scheme and allow them to discuss issues related to the draft criteria. This information will be fed into the development of a pilot stage with selected organisations.

The report covers the key themes and issues that were raised by participants within 5 set discussion areas around the Healthier Food Mark:

  1. Criteria: nutrition and sustainability
  2. Accreditation
  3. Alignment with other relevant initiatives (e.g. Healthy Living Award in Scotland)
  4. Pilots and evaluation
  5. Scope for Cost savings

The event generated extensive discussion amongst participants about the relative pros and cons of the Healthier Food Mark scheme. Most did in principle support the scheme and what it represents, however they also agreed on the need for further consultation on the specifics of the draft criteria before the criteria are finalised and welcomed the opportunity provided by DH for them to comment further on the criteria in the two months following the event.

Headlines

Participants believe the HFM scheme could offer many long term benefits, in particular:

  • Potential cost savings through improvements to processes and infrastructure
  • Wider societal benefits around improving health and the environment
  • Harmonising effect of a centralised, standardised scheme when compared with the confusing array of accreditation schemes currently on offer

Participants feel a number of issues must be addressed to support implementation of the HFS scheme. These can be grouped under two main themes:

  1. Issues and challenges around the infrastructure and mechanics of the scheme
  2. Applying generic criteria across the many different areas and types of organisations that are covered by the public sector is seen as a complex task.
  • The degree of flexibility the proposed HFM scheme will offer is a key query for many participants. How will accreditation be gained across different sites within a single organisation, for example?
  • Participants call for clarity on the feasibility and mechanics of applying both nutritional and sustainability criteria in the same scheme, particularly given perceived problems with embedding sustainability into existing market mechanisms.
  • Fears that organisations without the necessary infrastructure to attain even the minimum standards would end up being penalised unfairly. The attainment of sustainability standards seen as likely to be a particular challenge.
  • Significant questions exist around the cost neutrality of the scheme and whether this could realistically be achieved. Participants suggest broadening the definition of ‘cost neutrality’ to encompass the wider health, environmental and societal benefits.
  • Numerous participants expressinterest in taking part in the HFM pilot scheme. The output from pilots is seen to be crucial – if they properly evidence the scheme’s benefits they will support successful applications for accreditation. With that in mind, many participants urge the proposed pilot scope and timeline be extended.
  1. Issues and challenges around communications for the HFM scheme
  2. The success of the scheme is widely seen to be reliant on an effective communicationsstrategy, clearly articulating the purpose and benefits of the scheme and involving/engaging the whole supply chain, from supplier through to end consumer.Relying on point-of-sale providers to communicate the benefits isnot seen as likely to achieve wider buy-in.
  • Given the ambitious breadth of the scheme, participants call for marketing and communications support from Governmentto help suppliers and other interested parties promote the purpose and benefits of the HFM across the supply chain (both in terms of an overarching national campaign, and specific guidance for partner organisations). Assistance in stimulating demand amongst consumers is seen as particularly crucial.
  • A recurring topic is the need to provide robust supporting evidence for the HFM in order to stimulate buy-in, particularly if the scheme is to remain voluntary. Many participants request that Government makes its existing evidence base for the scheme available to delivery partners, and adds to it following the pilot phase. This evidence is seen as vital to help organisations understand and communicate the benefits of the scheme, both internally and to customers.
  • Participants also highlight the need to demonstrate cost effectiveness, both to organisations applying for the HFM and to their suppliers. In particular, they urge Government to consider how to effectively promote the longer term cost benefits, for example, in terms of a healthier workforce.

2. Background & Objectives

On 30th April 2009, 99 stakeholders and interested parties came together at Aston Villa Football Club in Birmingham to discuss the Healthier Food Mark (HFM).

The HFM is the proposed accreditation scheme which will cover public sector food provision across range of settings, from prisons through to cafes in Government departments. It has been developed as a result of objectives outlined in the 2007 report produced by the Cabinet Office Strategy Unit: ‘Food Matters: Towards a Food Strategy for the 21st Century’.

The key aims of the HFM are:

  • To help engage people with these two issues
  • To create a market for healthier, more sustainable food
  • To provide a better food offer in public sector settings.

As currently proposed, the HFM is a voluntary scheme,which lays down a set of criteria developed across nutrition and sustainability for public sector food provision. Organisations must meet these criteria in order to achieve Healthier Food Mark accreditation.

Based on a scoping exercise carried out bythe FSA and DEFRA, the draft framework for the HFM is a three tier structure with bronze, silver and gold levels to be used in public sector catering provision. The bronze level minimum standards have been designed to be achievable in the short term by the majority of public sector organisations. The silver level is for progressive organisations who may already have achieved the bronze level. Finally, the gold level has been set at a sufficiently high level for those organisations who may want to aspire to much higher levels of nutritional provision.

The HFM event was designed as a further level of engagement with a number of representatives from the private and public sector to generate discussion on areas that cover key aspects of the scheme before it moves into the pilot stage with a selected number of organisations.

The objectives of the event were to:

  • Introduce key stakeholders and interested parties to the aims of the HFM
  • Allow a broad range of stakeholders and interested parties to see the draft criteria for the Mark, and give them an opportunity to flag any perceived barriers and issues, thereby ensuringmaximum robustness of the criteria prior to the pilot stage and to allow the most effective feed in possible during the ensuing two months during which further comments are welcomed
  • Share the proposed methodology for the pilot testing phase planned for the HFM
  • Listen to the views of participants on four key areas relating to the Mark, namely accreditation, alignment, pilots and evaluation and cost savings
  • Facilitate discussion and debate between participants from different backgrounds and perspectives

This report is based on the key themes that arose during the discussion.

3. Methodology

Approach

The HFM event adopted a largely deliberative approach. Although still-evolving, the deliberative debate approach/technique has been shown to be an extremely effective means of engaging diverse audiences, especially where there is a need for participants to consider issues in depth and deliberate together on specific questions.As well as offering a useful way to gain deeper insight, deliberative methods also encourage involvement and shared responsibility in the policy development.

Participants

Participants were recruited through lists provided by DH and represented six broad areas ofpublic and private sector bodies with an interest in public sector food provision:

1

COI Strategic Consultancy
Healthier Food Mark Engagement Event 30th April 2009 Final Report

  • Government Departments /Agencies
  • Local Authority/Council
  • NHS/PCTs
  • Food Industry
  • Third Sector/NGO
  • Other

1

COI Strategic Consultancy
Healthier Food Mark Engagement Event 30th April 2009 Final Report

See Appendix for a full list of participants and a summary of organisations by category.

Structure

The event comprised background presentations on the Healthier Food Mark followed by stakeholder discussions, with participants grouped into tables of 6-8 peopleand a facilitator capturing discussions on a laptop. The event was co-ordinated from the front by a lead facilitator. HFM steering group representatives observed discussions at tables and at the close of the events responded to questions summarised from the preceding table discussions.Discussion at the eventwas grouped in five key areas:

1

COI Strategic Consultancy
Healthier Food Mark Engagement Event 30th April 2009 Final Report

  • Criteria: nutrition and sustainability
  • Accreditation
  • Alignment
  • Pilots and evaluation
  • Cost savings

1

COI Strategic Consultancy
Healthier Food Mark Engagement Event 30th April 2009 Final Report

This report

This summary report is arranged by discussion topic and draws on the following sources:

  • Notes taken by table facilitators during discussions
  • Key points and questions sheets completed by tables at the end of discussion topics
  • Audio transcripts from the Q&A session
  • Observations of the lead facilitator, table facilitators and the COI/DH team
  • ‘Burning issues’ written on post-it notes by participants

Verbatim notes recorded byfacilitators (indicated by italic text), along with the area represented by the relevant participant, are provided throughout this report in order to add colour to the report. No comments made on the day are attributed to individuals or organisations.

Conclusions made by this report are based on the views of the participants who attended this event. They are for indicative purposes only should not be extrapolated as representative of the views of all stakeholders across the wider range of organisations that will be affected by the proposed scheme. It should also be stressed that the criteria presented to participants at the event were draft and do not represent the precise way in which the Healthier Food Mark initiative will be taken forward.

4. Discussion Topics

4.1 Criteria Burning Issues – Sustainability and Nutrition

Participants welcome the HFM and agree it offers potential benefits both to their own work and to wider society. However, some participants feel that further discussion is required and welcome the two months they have following the event to feed in further to the draft criteria. They also would like to understand more about the rationale for both nutrition and sustainability beingincluded and how these concepts work together.

4.1.1 Nutrition

Participants view nutrition as the more established topic, with some suggesting it should be given more weight than sustainability. Thename ‘Healthier Food Mark’ is also seen to link more obviously to health and nutrition than to sustainability.

“Need to be very clear about what the Mark will signify – is it about nutrition excellence, sustainably sourced produce, excellence, kitchens really clean? The name is more emphasising healthier eating rather than sustainability and environmental issues.” –Government Departments/Agencies

Nevertheless, participants stressthat nutrition criteria can still be complex for customers and catering suppliers who may struggle to engage with a nutrient-based approach. Some suggest a‘food-based’ approach may be more effective (specifying, for example, that dishes must include a specific number of pieces of fruit or a certain portion of vegetables).

“Food based standards are far easier than the nutrient based analysis. It needs to be practical, visual, simple to implement.” – NHS/PCTs

4.1.2 Sustainability

In comparison, sustainability is seen as an areawhere best practice is less clearly defined.

Some participants believe the draft criteriaon sustainability would prove difficult for many organisations to achievedue to the potential costsof replacing systems (e.g. recyclable packaging) and of purchasing sustainable food options (e.g. LEAF Marque produce).Costsare seen as a particular barrier forSMEs.

“Concern that scheme will disenfranchise SMEs who will have difficulty in entering a market where there are high on costs for tendering processes.”– Government Departments/Agencies

Specific issues raised around the sustainability criteria included:

  • Restrictions under European procurement law(i.e. tenders for contracts over £90k)
  • Existing procurement contracts that cannot be broken in the short term
  • Insufficient supply of local produce to satisfy volumes required bylarge contracts
  • Perception that local food is not always the most carbon neutral offering
  • Difficulties in persuading procurement to accept criteria other than cost

4.1.3 “Burning Issues”

In discussing the draft criteria participants also highlight several key issues which they perceive to be crucial to the success of the Mark.

  1. Difficulty of creating a scheme based on two potentially unaligned concepts

While some participants feel it is essential to encompass both nutrition and sustainability, they question the case for linking them together and call for greater clarity on this point.

“It’s really hard to make nutrition and sustainability to work together – they are separated in Scotland which enables flexibility.” – Government Departments/Agencies

  1. Choice/flexibility within the scheme

Participants believe that the scheme must offer sufficient flexibility to allow for the large number of sectors and needs that it will cover. Some of the specific issues raised were:

  • Voluntary vs. compulsory –there is debate over whether a mandatory system would be more appropriate than a voluntary scheme, and which would gain greater buy-in.Compulsory schemesare seen by some participants as having more credibility.

“Is a simple mandatory scheme a better option? There is a credibility issue.” – Food Industry (Foodservice)

“Private organisations responded well to the schools initiative because it was here to stay. There could be less commitment on the food front because it is voluntary.” – Government Departments/Agencies

  • Customer choice – some participants, particularly those in commercial roles, warn that restricting the options available to customers may lead to a drop in demand. Some cited the fall in sales experienced when school meals were changed, when customers simply went elsewhere.
  • Needs and behaviours of specific groups – the different needs of specific groups may make it difficult for some organisations to meet criteria.Participants noted examples such as the elderly and young needing higher calorie options, or the need to make appropriate options available to those with mental health issues and nutritional needs in hospitals.

“With older people’s care they’ll say; I’ve eaten chips all my life and I’m 95. We still have salt on the table so if they want it it’s there.” – LA/Council

  1. Time needed to make changes

Participants believe that for the HFM to make a real difference organisations must significantly alter their approach to food, and warn that thiswill take time to achieve.

“You need to work towards these things, change the culture in the organisation; we have the same thing over choice in Care too.” – LA/Council

Many express a desire to use the HFM as a selling point, but are fearful of the impact that restricting or altering choices might have if changes were driven through too quickly.

  1. The role of broader food issues within the HFM

There was extensive discussion around some of the broader food issues covered within the criteria for the HFM. They included:

  • Organics – concerns over cost (especially from Local Authorities), availability (particularly for meat) and the evidence base for the benefits of using organic. Would messaging encompassing health or local foods be more appropriate?

“Organic produce – is the science there to support? Also is the market ready to support it when budgets are tight?” – NHS/PCTs

  • Fairtrade–complex variety of current schemes for fairtrade products, not all of which are sufficiently evidence-based although one participant believes fair-trade is more widely accepted by customers than organic. High costs and supply difficulties also cited.

“We struggle to get fairtrade products through procurement.” – NHS/PCTs

  • Local produce –much debate amongst participants on the sustainability benefits of local produce. Generally seen as offering a price advantage in season, but EU procurement rules restrictsopportunities to place larger contracts with local suppliers. Some participants believe supply of local produce cannot always cover the needs of larger organisations, others feel that local is not always the most sustainable option.

“I work with a company based in Holland – local UK tomatoes may have a bigger carbon foot print (cost of fuel to heat and transport)” – Other

  1. Communications and guidance on the scheme

Effective communications are seen by participants as crucial if the HFM is to achieve buy-in from suppliers and customers, and there is a call for more information to facilitate this.

  • Clarity on benefits of having the HFM –guidance on the benefits of the HFM and how this can be used in communicationswith demand- and supply-side stakeholders.

“Needs to have a ‘what’s in it for me factor’ among participants.” – Food Industry (Manufacturers)