Our views on the Welsh Government’s Proposals to make the food environment healthier

The Bevan Foundation urges the Welsh Government to consider the impact of its proposals for those living in poverty

The Welsh Government have asked people for their views on their proposals to make the food environment healthier. The aim of the proposals are to make the healthy choice the easiest choice for Welsh consumers by restricting multi buy and free refill offers on food high in fat, salt and sugar, and restricting where such products can be placed in store. 

Whilst being supportive of the overall aims of the proposals, the Bevan Foundation has some concerns about their likely impact on low income households, given that staple items such as breakfast cereals and yogurts are currently set to be covered by the proposals. With more than one in ten primary school pupils already regularly attending school hungry, and with Trussell Trust Food Banks distributing more than 187,000 food parcels in Wales in 2023/24, any increase in the price of such staples is sure to have a negative impact on low-income households, at least in the short term. 

As such the Bevan Foundation have called on the Welsh Government to:

• Draw a distinction between staple products high in fat, sugar and salt, like cereal and yogurt, and non-staple products that are high in fat, sugar and salt, like chocolate and cakes. Doing so could allow the Welsh Government to place restrictions on the promotion of non-staple items, whilst it works with retailers and people on low income to explore how they can encourage a move to healthier products without driving up people’s food costs.
• Take action to increase household incomes to enable people to choose healthier products. An example of how the Welsh Government could do this is by raising the eligibility threshold for Free School Meals in secondary schools allowing children to access free, healthy, nutritious school lunches. 
• Revisit its Equality Impact Assessment as it currently does not give sufficient regard to the potential negative consequences of the policy changes proposed for all groups, in particular for “low income households”. 

Download