Since 2021, governments across Europe have been putting HFSS (High Fat, Salt and Sugar) reduction regulations high on the agenda. The reason? To help curb the growing obesity epidemic.
“The number of overweight and obese people has been growing in recent years,” said a spokesperson for Eurostat, a branch of the European Commission. “Many people find it increasingly difficult to maintain a normal weight in today’s largely obesogenic environment.”
And it’s the obesogenic environment, or environment that promotes gaining weight and is not conducive to weight loss, which governments are working to change. But could the extreme focus on HFSS regulations be doing more harm than good?
Are HFSS regulations causing long-term damage to health?
The idea of cutting fat, salt and sugar in foods and beverages to promote weight loss seems faultless. Doesn’t it..?
On the surface the answer is undoubtedly yes. But problems arise when closer scrutiny is paid to both the legislation, and what manufacturers are replacing those elements with.
“HFSS regulation is a blunt policy to mitigate the impact of obesity and co-morbidities on the economy and social healthcare,” Ananda Roy, consumer goods industry advisor at Circana, tells FoodNavigator.
As a result of this blunt policy, food and beverage manufacturers have been forced into making big changes to their products over a short period of time.
And, in the case of sugar reduction, the answer for many manufacturers has been to switch to sweeteners. However, consumers and dietitians remain cautious over the use of sweeteners as a “healthy” alternative to sugar.
“We can’t break down sucralose, and a lot of microorganisms can’t break it down either, because it’s a really tough molecule that doesn’t degrade easily,” says Tracey Schafer, research scientist at the University of Florida, who co-authored a study on the environmental impact of sweeteners.
What’s more, certain sweeteners have been linked to severe health outcomes, including an increased risk of blood clots, leading to thrombosis.
Added to this, there is speculation that some sweeteners could actually increase appetite, encouraging individuals to eat more. Though there has been conflicting research on this argument.
In short, the immediate pivot many food and beverage manufacturers made from sugar to sweeteners, in order to comply with HFSS regulations, could be doing more harm than good, it’s just too early to tell.
However, sweeteners are not the only option for sugar reduction. Some food and beverage manufacturers have opted for a gradual reduction of the amount of sugar used in their products – a process termed health by stealth. This, in health terms, is proving far more successful.
And other manufacturers, such as food and beverage giant, Nestlé, have turned to innovation, in order to cut sugar in its products.
To more efficiently feed consumer demand for reduced sugar products, Nestlé has introduced new cross category sugar reduction technology. Using an enzymatic process, the new technology reduces intrinsic sugar in ingredients like malt, milk, and fruit juices by up to 30%. The sugar-reduced ingredients are then used in recipes for various products.
“Sugar reduction across our portfolio remains a priority,” says Stefan Palzer, chief technology officer for Nestlé. “This new technology is a true breakthrough, as we can reduce sugar without adding sweeteners, while preserving a great taste, all at a minimal cost increase.”
Meanwhile, salt reduction has proven much more successful overall, primarily because rather than trying to replace salt with an alternative product, food and beverage brands have overwhelmingly opted for the health by stealth approach.
“Manufacturers are incrementally decreasing salt content of processed, packaged and prepared foods,” Sonia Pombo, registered nutritionist and campaign lead at Action on Salt, tells FoodNavigator.
However, when manufacturers are switching ingredients, they’re choosing naturally occurring, non-processed alternatives, such as potassium chloride in place of sodium chloride, setting the practice apart from sweeteners in sugar reduction.
Finally, we look at fat reduction. Though, this is a little unusual as it was once popular with manufacturers and consumers but has, more recently, been increasingly rejected as a concept.
“We’ve observed a significant decline in consumer demand for low-fat and 0%-fat yogurts,” Bethan James, brand manager for British dairy brand, Yeo Valley Organic, tells FoodNavigator. “The decline in consumer interest in low-fat and fat-free products is likely due to a growing recognition that minimally processed, full-fat foods align more closely with human nutritional needs.”
Having said that, HFSS regulations on fat reduction are proving less controversial with consumers, as they’re focussing on trans fats, which are found in processed foods and linked to increased levels of non-HDL (bad) cholesterol.
Although this acceptance may change, depending on the type of ‘fat replacers’ used in a particular product. The current options range from gelatin and gums to egg white and milk protein, and consumers will certainly have opinions on which they prefer. Moreover, the long-term health impacts of some of the ‘fat replacers’ are yet to be determined as they’re still so new to the market.
What is the future for HFSS regulations?
Love them or loathe them, HFSS regulations are here to stay.
“HFSS regulations are one of few political choices a government can make, to change dietary and lifestyle choices, which have proven to be exceedingly complex to change through other means,” says Circana’s Roy.
They have also created a framework for food and beverage manufacturers to work around.
“These regulations have given clarity to the F&B and retail industry on the government’s policy, its direction of travel, and what it must do to support the population moving to a healthier lifestyle,” says Roy
And while implementation has been far from perfect, the good news is, regulations are likely to improve as understanding of advantages grow.
“Regulation around HFSS reduction is likely to be expanded once its benefits become clearer empirically in the years to come, such as in new regulation on ultra-processed foods,” adds Roy.
But whether HFSS regulations will be around forever or be replaced by another policy style, to improve health and tackle obesity, remains to be seen.
“Most governments are exploring a range of options to improve the population’s health and nutritional requirements through food policy,” says Roy.
But public health can’t be achieved through policy alone.
“Governments must increase investment in public education, especially in schools, around dietary choices, and work closely with food producers to incentivise healthier food production,” says Roy.
