A KEY responsibility of Food Standards Scotland is its role in promoting diet and nutrition.
Scotland’s record in these areas - just look at the figures on coronary heart disease and obesity - is abysmal and the creation of FSS was long overdue.
However, it is of equal importance that the body carries the trust of the public and key stakeholders in the sector.
As we previously revealed, FSS board member Dr Carrie Ruxton has paid links to confectionery firm Ferrero and was paid to chair a panel event for the British Soft Drinks Association.
It also emerged that, in the years before joining the FSS, she wrote a paper downplaying a link between sugar and obesity.
Ruxton’s views and industry links have not been hidden - she has declared her outside interests properly - but it is fair comment to question whether she should be on the official public sector nutrition board.
Our revelations today raise further questions about her board membership. According to FSS, in January 2016 the board backed a sugar tax on food and drink in a move designed to improve the diet of Scottish public.
When the issue came back to the board, Ruxton said she had understood the taxation section in the FSS diet proposal had focused on beverages only, rather than food.
She added that her “fear” was that a “wider” sugar levy would drive down the sugar content of foods, but not the calories, and that “manufacturers would be free to switch sugars for other caloric nutrients”.
In response, FSS chair Ross Finnie noted: “The Board agreed to the principle of a broad sugar tax and sought to explore how that might be considered and introduced which does not appear to be your position.”
In short, it appears there was a board split on whether FSS should, and did, back a sugar tax on food, which is not a good look for a nutrition advisory board.
Board members should not be arguing against something as fundamental as a sugar tax on food and Finnie must get a grip of this organisation.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here