Background Unilever undertook a Foresight initiative in 2000 to decide future direction Three main thrusts were highlighted : enjoyment; vitality and quality/convenience Unilever chose Vitality as consumer showed key interest health. Other thrusts could also be included under Vitality. In 2002 Unilever set up an Obesity task force to make recommendations to the business.

Obesity grabs the headlines

Vitality is about: Making the healthy choice the easy choice Providing solutions for everyday life Education – starting internally Reviewing our own portfolio so that Unilever can be credible in the external debate. Providing clear information about our products

Dilemma No 1 Health variant or product reformulation?

Dilemma No 2 We didn’t know what was in our products!

Nutrition Enhancement Programme There were limited schemes available Scheme needed to be global and scientifically based Found that schemes were not easy to develop and required much testing Had option to develop benchmarks for each category or a generic set with some exceptions.

Dilemma No 3 We had the theory but how do we put this into practice?

Progress on Nutrition Enhancement Programme In 2005 and 2006, we eliminated 30,000 tons of trans-fats, 7,000 tons of saturated fats, 37,000 tons of fat 3,000 tons of sodium and 17,500 tons of sugars from our portfolio

Dilemma No 4 If/how to apply to consumer communication ?

Proliferation of health logos…. Pick the tick Australia/New Zealand Keyhole system Sweden PepsiCo United States of America Albert Heijn The Netherlands Healthier Choice Singapore GDA McDonald’s … is confusing consumers Multiple Traffic Light United Kingdom Sensible Solution Kraft Sainsbury Traffic Light United Kingdom Health Robot South Africa GDA Tesco

Front-of-pack labelling International health and consumer organisations are in favour of clear and simple nutrition information. Quantitative consumer research indicates that: Consumers value nutrition front-of-pack (FOP) labelling information FOP logos affect perception and usage intention positively A single FOP logo could work across countries

The Choices qualifying criteria Original criteria Peer reviewed method [Eur J Clin Nutr 2007; 61:461-71] Based on set of 20 (inter-)national dietary guidelines Scientific Committee The Netherlands (6 members) Thorough review Scientific Committee Belgium (6 members) Choices independent criteria

Choices in action “Ik Kies Bewust” The Netherlands First country with Choices implemented Joint industry initiative Participation by retail, trade and catering Endorsement by government, consumer organisations and key opinion formers Within 1 year: 65 manufacturers, retailers and catering organisations member around 1500 products, from 81 different brands, allowed to carry the stamp

Communication materials

The Choices Programme Simple, Science-based & International Worldwide programme Involving all stakeholders Initiated by food industry Supported by nutritional scientists, governments, NGOs Adopted by retail and food service A single front-of-pack stamp Independent qualifying criteria Stamp supported by harmonised communication Open initiative: multinational & SME

International governance structure International Scientific Committee Choices International Board National Board Choices The Netherlands National Board Choices Belgium National Board Choices Poland* National Board Choices … * Currently being set up

Dynamic criteria Evaluation every 2 years to keep aligned with latest scientific insights Move qualifying criteria even more towards dietary recommendations Monitoring effects on consumer and producer behaviour Transition period for implementation Sharing expertise and experience among partners and with relevant (N)GOs and scientists International Scientific Committee Chairman: Prof. Jaap Seidell 10 Eminent food & nutrition scientists from all regions

Choices drives results June vs Jan. 13% spending increase! % of people buying Choices products Euros spent per buyer

Marketing and Advertising to Children

Marketing Principles Food and beverage advertisements should not encourage or condone excess consumption and portion sizes. In advertisements representing meals, the foods portrayed should be shown in the context of balanced diet. Food and beverage advertisements should not undermine the promotion of healthy, balanced diets and active lifestyle. Food product advertisements should not undermine the role of parents and other appropriate adult role models in providing valuable dietary guidance. These have recently been revised with a commitment not to directly market children under 6. Also committed only market those foods that meet our nutrition enhancement programme between 6 to 12.

Dilemma No 5 Collaboration when FOP labelling policy debate rages on?

Healthy Food Code of Practice Nutrient Profile FoP Nutrition Labelling Nutrition Claims Advertising To Children Reformulation 2 Different FSA Nutrient Profiles -one of which is under review -Limited food categories Not currently covered by Nutrient Profiles, but rules and targets in place Thisresultsin : -Inconsistencyin overall policy approach (looksdis-jointed) -A debate focussed oncontentious issuesand not overall benefits -Low levels in trustand poor levels of consensus -Minimalinput ofindustry expertise -Acomplexrange oftargets/assessmentsfor industry to dealwith Current Situation

Conclusion Food industry like Unilever has a role to play in engaging with society at all levels to improve diet and public health. We can provide clear nutrition information and education about our products. We can improve the nutrition composition for many of our products as well as innovating new products. We can engage people at work. But we need a constructive and co-operative framework in order to find correct solutions. “Health is everyone’s business” Prof. Geoffrey Rose

Thank you