Morrisons & Sainsbury's told to make major change to stores as government warns supermarkets ‘stop promoting' product
The two major chains have been instructed to stop 'promoting' the item as they could be in breach of the law.
2
2
According to the BBC, the two supermarkets received a letter instructing them to remove any adverts which displayed heated tobacco products.
Heated tobacco differs from cigarettes and vapes as it uses an electrical current to directly warm up the tobacco.
This produces a vapour which can be inhaled.
Smoking advertisements were banned in 2002 by the then-Prime Minister Tony Blair.
The ban covered any products which could be "smoked, sniffed, sucked or chewed".
Since the heated tobacco products produce a vapour - not a smoke - advertising laws are much murkier.
Speaking about the letter, a spokesperson for Sainsbury's said: 'We offer a range of age-restricted products under our strict Think25 policy, including this heated tobacco device which is advertised.
'This is an alternative to cigarettes and is fully compliant with current legislation. We recognise the deeply complex and emotive nature of this topic.
'We remain in close contact with the Government and industry partners and are planning our transition to ensure we also comply with planned incoming legislation."
A spokesperson for Morrisons said: "We only received a letter at the end of May.
"We are just in the process of reviewing it and will respond back to the Department for Health and Social Care in due course."
The Department of Social Care have been approached for comment by The Sun.
Starmer CONFIRMS smoking ban plan with cigarettes to be banished from pub gardens
Previously, a Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) spokesperson told the BBC: "In May, we wrote to supermarkets reiterating that the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002… applies to all tobacco products currently on the market, and formally requested they stop advertising and promoting heated tobacco products in stores.
"All tobacco products are harmful to health."
The proposed Tobacco and Vapes Bill will tighten existing advertisement laws and has received the backing of prominent Labour politicians, including Health Secretary Wes Streeting and Baroness Meron.
So far, the bill has passed in the House of Commons and awaits the approval of the House of Lords.
Another key component of the bill is a proposed ban on the sale of tobacco to people born on or after 1 January 2009.
It is hoped that this will create a "smokefree generation', driving down cancer rates and other health problems.
The move was aimed to prevent young people from buying the single-use devices and becoming addicted to tobacco.
Traders who continue selling the product face a £200 fine and repeat offenders face prison time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Couple hit with £100 parking fine at NHS surgery despite spending just five minutes there after being refused emergency treatment
A couple received a £100 parking fine at an NHS urgent care centre - even though they stayed there for just five minutes after being refused treatment. Rebecca Elmes drove her boyfriend Aaron Rayment-Davis to Harold Wood Polyclinic in Romford, east London, after he developed a crippling pain in his left ear. After walking into the reception on the evening of June 16, they were told the clinic was only open for triage and they would need to try the A&E department at a local hospital instead. The pair, both 26, walked back into the car and drove off - only to receive a £100 parking fine in the post a month later. Parkingeye - a private firm that turns over £57million a year - noted that their car had arrived at the car park just after 6.50pm and spent only five minutes there before leaving. Patients are required to enter their number plate details into a machine at reception to get free parking, but the couple insist they never had the chance to do so. 'When we arrived at the clinic, we went to put our number plate into the machine but you can't do that before you've been booked in and seen,' Mr Rayment-Davis, a quantity surveyor, told the Daily Mail. 'We'd only been there for a few minutes so assumed there would be no issue. We wanted to get to the other hospital as quickly as possible because I was in a lot of pain. I also felt completely disoriented and couldn't hear out of my left ear.' The pair, both 26, left the surgery after just five minutes when they were refused treatment - only to receive a £100 parking fine in the post a month later Ms Elmes and Mr Rayment-Davis appealed Parkingeye's £100 fine but the company turned this down on the basis that 'no parking was purchased' - even though the couple insist they had no chance to do so. However, they reluctantly agreed to pay a reduced fee of £60 to avoid being liable for the full £100 amount. Ms Elmes, who works at a groom at local stables, called the decision 'absolutely ridiculous'. 'We were there for five minutes - they literally turned us away and didn't give us a chance to do anything,' she said. 'They are just milking everyone - and in a medical situation where people are seriously injured or ill it's even worse. 'Parkingeye rejected the appeal saying we didn't have a good enough excuse. 'We were worried that if we didn't pay the £60 and continued appealing we'd be out of pocket.' Mr Rayment-Davis was assessed in the A&E at nearby Queens Hospital Hospital but told the wait time would be four hours and it would be better to go to King George's in Ilford instead. When he was eventually seen to, he was told he had an ear infection and a burst ear drum. 'The doctor explained that it was a good thing I was seen, as leaving it longer would have led to more infection and damage,' he said. Parkingeye is one of the biggest private parking companies in Britain and operates more than 3,500 sites nationwide, including hospitals, supermarkets, hotels and service stations. It uses automatic number plate technology to scan registration plates, and then pays the DVLA to assess the owner's address, which is the only way it can properly enforce fines. As with several other private parking firms, it has repeatedly been criticised for its aggressive tactics. The Government is currently carrying out a consultation on proposals to 'raise standards' in the private parking industry following a barrage of customer complaints. Holly Edwards previously received a £100 fine for parking outside the Harold Wood Polyclinic while she was having a scan. The company director was confident about getting it overturned after she sent Parkingeye a GP appointment note showing she was there legitimately. The company rejected her appeal on the basis that she had failed to input her car registration details. But Ms Edwards insisted she did type in her registration details as requested - and said the claim she hadn't 'angered me even more'. Controversially, drivers are often not given a receipt by Parkingeye's registration machines, meaning they often have no evidence if the company accuses them of inputting it incorrectly when they receive a fine. A Parkingeye spokesperson said: 'The car park at Harold Wood Polyclinic features 12 prominent and highly-visible signs throughout providing information on how to use the car park responsibly. 'This includes guidance that parking is for patients and visitors only and that they must register their vehicle at terminals at reception to receive free parking for the duration of their appointment. 'The terminals on the ground and first floors are both available and accessible to visitors before being booked in by reception staff. The motorist correctly received a parking charge on June 16 for parking and not registering their vehicle. 'Parkingeye operates a BPA (British Parking Association) audited appeals process, which motorists can use to appeal their Parking Charge. If anyone has mitigating circumstances we would encourage them to appeal. 'The motorist's appeal was rejected due to not providing any evidence for breaking the rules of the car park, payment of the charge was then made.'
North Wales Chronicle
33 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Supermarket junk food restrictions led to significant cut in purchases
The research, which was carried out in England by the University of Leeds, estimates that two million fewer products high in fat, sugar or salt (HFSS) were sold per day after the new law took effect. The team analysed 11.6 billion items sold in Tesco, Morrisons, Sainsbury's and Asda. Before the legislation was implemented, 20 out of every 100 items sold were HFSS products that fell within the scope of the legislation. This number dropped to 19 after the legislation, which restricts the location of HFSS products within supermarkets in England as part of the UK Government's Childhood Obesity Strategy, was introduced in October 2022, the study found. Nearly 2,000 shoppers were also surveyed to find out how the legislation was perceived and how it affected their shopping behaviour. Although 73% of shoppers did not think it would impact their own shopping behaviour, 71% believed it would have more impact on others who did not plan their shopping. Nearly all shoppers (90%) thought making healthier foods affordable was just as, if not more, important than the legislation against less healthy food. The study noted that the legislation was intended to go unnoticed and this was largely achieved, as 56% of shoppers did not notice any changes in store. Professor Michelle Morris, who led the research team, said: 'Our research shows that the HFSS legislation was a force for good, leading to significant reduction in sales of in-scope HFSS products. 'But more now needs to be done to make healthy and sustainable diets the easy choice for our population, so that we can shift more people's eating habits towards the national recommendations of the Eatwell Guide.' Dr Alison Fildes, of the University of Leeds School of Psychology, said: 'Our findings suggested shoppers were in favour of the HFSS legislation. 'However, they also expressed their support for greater promotion and affordability of healthy foods. 'Tightening the current legislating to ensure HFSS products are replaced in prominent locations with healthier foods, would go further towards helping shoppers make healthier purchases.'
Glasgow Times
33 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Supermarket junk food restrictions led to significant cut in purchases
The research, which was carried out in England by the University of Leeds, estimates that two million fewer products high in fat, sugar or salt (HFSS) were sold per day after the new law took effect. The team analysed 11.6 billion items sold in Tesco, Morrisons, Sainsbury's and Asda. Before the legislation was implemented, 20 out of every 100 items sold were HFSS products that fell within the scope of the legislation. This number dropped to 19 after the legislation, which restricts the location of HFSS products within supermarkets in England as part of the UK Government's Childhood Obesity Strategy, was introduced in October 2022, the study found. The study looked at the purchasing of products high in fat, sugar or salt (Alamy/PA) Nearly 2,000 shoppers were also surveyed to find out how the legislation was perceived and how it affected their shopping behaviour. Although 73% of shoppers did not think it would impact their own shopping behaviour, 71% believed it would have more impact on others who did not plan their shopping. Nearly all shoppers (90%) thought making healthier foods affordable was just as, if not more, important than the legislation against less healthy food. The study noted that the legislation was intended to go unnoticed and this was largely achieved, as 56% of shoppers did not notice any changes in store. Professor Michelle Morris, who led the research team, said: 'Our research shows that the HFSS legislation was a force for good, leading to significant reduction in sales of in-scope HFSS products. 'But more now needs to be done to make healthy and sustainable diets the easy choice for our population, so that we can shift more people's eating habits towards the national recommendations of the Eatwell Guide.' Dr Alison Fildes, of the University of Leeds School of Psychology, said: 'Our findings suggested shoppers were in favour of the HFSS legislation. 'However, they also expressed their support for greater promotion and affordability of healthy foods. 'Tightening the current legislating to ensure HFSS products are replaced in prominent locations with healthier foods, would go further towards helping shoppers make healthier purchases.'
