Note of NSSG telephone conference 15 May 2007

Deirdre Hutton – Chair for conference call
Sue Duncan – Project Management Panel (PMP) Chair

Sir Alexander Macara – National Heart Forum
Lord Larry Whitty – National Consumer Council
David Reid – Tesco
Justin King – Sainsbury’s
Gavin Neath – Unilever
Salman Amin – PepsiCo
Caroline Flint – Public Health Minister

Claire Boville and Kate Bilton (Secretariat to PMP) were also in attendance to take a note of the conference call and record actions arising from it.

Steven Esom, Paul Kelly and Peter Vicary-Smith were unable to take part in the conference call.

The Chair invited participants to introduce themselves. She clarified that the research was intended to explore how consumers make food choices that could lead to healthier eating and that many bodies including the World Health Organization (WHO), EU Commission, individual countries and a host of others would all interested in the research results and would wish to reflect on them in developing future policy in this area. She indicated that it would not be for the Agency to dictate what must happen in the light of the research results, but that the FSA would be making recommendations and reviewing next steps on the basis of the research findings.

The Chair reported that written comments on the draft research brief had been received and forwarded to the PMP from Justin King, Gavin Neath, Salman Amin, Which? and Sir Alexander Macara in advance of the conference call. It was noted that the PMP would produce a written response to each of the points submitted in writing and that this would be sent to NSSG members.

Each participant was invited in turn to indicate the nature of any issues they wished to raise with Sue on the draft research brief in the conference call. The main points were as follows:

• Intention of the research – is it a competition to find the best signposting scheme?
• What signposting formats would be tested?
• How will the study assess consumer understanding and knowledge of the various signposting schemes?
• How will the study isolate the effects of advertising and is this necessary?
• Why has loyalty card data not been included?
• What involvement will NSSG have in appraising tenders, selecting preferred bidder and negotiating detail of the research contract?

Several participants suggested that the study should focus on the most widely used schemes in each of the three signposting categories. Sue explained that the study would test the whole range of schemes in use in the marketplace in both parts of the study, in the interests of equity. She indicated that it would be a comparative study, rather than a kite marking activity and that the principal aim of the study would be to find out what worked best for consumers in the real world. She suggested that it could be that more than one element of the schemes compared was judged successful in terms of how it helped consumers to make choices and as such the study would not be setting pass/fail threshold criteria.

Sue advised that rather than set out the measures of comprehension and understanding in the brief, the PMP would be looking for suggestions on these aspects from the tenders and would work up the measures with the successful contractor.

Sue also explained that the study would need to take account of, rather than eliminate, the effect of promotions, advertising and other factors in the context of signposting use, and agreed to make this clearer in the spec.

There was a brief discussion about differences in the way Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA) information could be presented on front of pack labels. It was noted that in most cases GDAs were based on recommended daily amounts for adults, but they could also be based on recommended amounts for children, or for men or women. It was felt important therefore that the study included households with children. Sue noted that the study participants would have main or joint responsibility for the household food shopping and were therefore unlikely to be children themselves. However, data on household type and composition (including whether the household included any children) would be captured, enabling researchers to consider whether the presence of children in the household altered/impacted on label use in any way.

Several participants wanted to know why the PMP had decided not to include loyalty card data. Sue explained that it was important to ensure equity across the schemes and that loyalty card data only applied to some of the retail outlets. It was also pointed out that in some cases the PMP had not been offered access to the raw data, but that it had been offered an analysis of the data carried out by someone else. This raised issues about the independence and usefulness of the information available for use. The PMP also considered that it would not be possible to determine whether food labelling (rather than some other factor) was the cause of any shift in sales demonstrated through loyalty card data. It was agreed, however, that, if fully available, such data could provide a useful component of the study and it was agreed that the PMP should seek tenderers' views on whether this information would be useful, what precisely they would want and find out how they would use it in the context of the study, before making a final decision on the matter. David Reid offered assistance in obtaining raw data from Tesco store cards if this would be helpful.

Finally, there was a discussion on how the PMP would interact with the NSSG on the study in future, and the arrangements for making public key stages in the process. Sue explained that the PMP had discussed this issue at length and was strongly of the view that the project has to be independent and seen to be independent. As such the PMP did not consider it appropriate for the NSSG to have any involvement in appraising the tenders, finalising the research contract or drawing up the research instruments. Instead, she suggested that the PMP would provide the NSSG with regular updates on progress.

She indicated that the tender appraisal process would be carried out by PMP members and would be in accordance with government procurement rules and the Code of conduct for market research. The Chair agreed that the selection of the final contractor must be a decision for the PMP, and reminded members that a market research representative on the PMP had been nominated by industry. However, she saw no difficulty with NSSG members sending in suggestions for questions to be used in the study to the PMP for its consideration, provided it was understood that the final decision on the questions to be included would rest with the PMP.

Sue confirmed that she would be happy to receive potential questions for use in the study, but that it must be for the PMP and contractor to agree the shape and content of the research questionnaire and other research instruments. It was agreed that the PMP would provide NSSG with a more detailed description of the research design for its comment and discussion by telephone conference call before finalising it. She offered to share a copy of the post-tender document and final questionnaire to NSSG members for information, once it had been agreed by the PMP. It was agreed that there would be a further telephone conference call to discuss this document and that this would achieve an acceptable level of NSSG involvement in the process, while enabling the PMP to carry out its function to ensure the independence, robustness and scientific appropriateness of the study.

NSSG members confirmed that they were content for the FSA to take responsibility, in consultation with the PMP, for issuing any press releases to inform the wider community about future developments relating to the study, such as issuing of the tender document, the research programme, agreement of the contractor etc. The FSA undertook to inform the NSSG in advance of issuing any press releases.

1. PMP would produce a written response to each of the points submitted in writing and that this would be sent to NSSG members.
2. NSSG accepted that the PMP is responsible for finalising the research spec.
3. PMP agreed to amend the specification in certain respects to clarify a few points which had been open to misinterpretation (see Annex 1 at the link below).
4. PMP expects to sign off the research specification at its meeting on 11 June.
5. NSSG agreed that PMP will be responsible for appraising all tenders, selecting preferred bidder and negotiating detail of the research contract.
6. PMP agreed to provide NSSG with a more detailed description of the research design for its comment and discussion by telephone conference call before finalising it.
7. Any future press releases relating to the work of the PMP will be agreed with FSA, but shared in advance of publication with NSSG members.

1. Tighten the wording to make it clear that the study is intended to find out what elements of the signposting schemes work best for consumers.
2. Make clear that the study will include consumers with children.
3. Include further detail on the parameters which would be used to assess whether the traffic light signpost is correctly understood by consumers (para 17).
4. Make clear that the signposting visuals included in the spec are illustrative rather than definitive and include additional text to make clear that tenders will be provided with visuals of all the signposting schemes currently in use in the UK marketplace (Annex A to specification).
5. Include additional text to indicate that tenderers would be provided with information about how each of the schemes operates.
6. In respect to assessing the effects of promotions, advertising and other factors, it was agreed that the word 'isolate' would be replaced with 'contextualise' (para 7).
7. Include a new clause to ask tenderers if it would be useful to collect loyalty card data and find out how they would use it in the context of the study before making a final decision on the matter.