As a Patent Attorney who works in the food space, I was interested to watch the Joe Wicks programme about the launch of his “Killer” Bars. The worthy aim of the programme is to highlight the issue and prevalence of ultra-processed foods (UPF). Modern consumers are increasingly mindful about what they eat and how it has been produced – although this seems an uphill battle against increasingly appealing UPF products.
It was of course interesting to see the ingredients, mostly just one dry white powder after another, but it was hard to take the superficial level of the explanations seriously. Maybe it is the Patent Attorney in me, but it was hard to engage without being given much more information. There were many scenes in which they said things like “yes, I want there to be lots of maltitol in there”; in fact, they kept on talking about having large amounts of lots of different things in their bar. However, the bar seemed to be a normal size and you cannot have more than 100%! Yes, the bar could have had lots of maltitol in it, but only if the other possible “noxious” ingredients were reduced.
It would have been a much more interesting programme, for example, if they had given us a final recipe with amounts for each ingredient. Perhaps with an indicator of levels at which adverse effects may be observed (although there was no referenced literature on these). Even better, they could have provided a comparison with lab analysis of the equivalent amounts in other products (although I imagine that might have been too contentious!). In the end, without this information, it seems the “Killer” protein bar and the alleged controversy was just hype.
As a result, I found the messaging in the programme really confusing. Were they pushing back against UPFs in general? Against protein bars? Against weak regulations on foods? Against the use of specific ingredients? Against a lack of consumer awareness about food? It seems unlikely that the message was to eat a chocolate bar instead, but it was really difficult to see what their proposed solution was supposed to be. I suspect that this mixed messaging was because there was no clear underlying direction – a general dislike of UPF and a frustration at a lack of government intervention that never found its focus.
I think the lasting message for me came from the company statements at the end. In particular, one company made the point that wording like “supports” a healthy diet are allowed by law. For some products “supports” may be in the sense of being in the crowd at a football game, rather than a critical foundation for a building. The point is that there is a risk that food regulations can be treated like a game.
I think there is an instinctive desire to push back against further government red-tape. However, I have seen lots of innovation over the years precisely driven by new laws and regulations. When the UK sugar tax came in, or more recently rules about high fat and high sugar products, there was a surge of new patent applications providing solutions to maintain product quality while staying within the rules. I have written about this before here.
Savvy companies keep a close eye on emerging legislation and use it as a driver for their own product development. By anticipating regulatory changes and investing in research and development, they can create products that not only comply with the new rules but also meet the evolving preferences of consumers. This proactive approach can provide a competitive advantage and help build a reputation for innovation and responsibility.
Of course, the flip-side to more legislation is that the innovations may involve more processing. The solutions required for avoiding certain ingredients or hitting nutritional goals, can then in turn require new additives, new treatments and new products. It is not even just legislation that is moving us in this direction either. Environmental concerns have led to a surge in vegan products – not just for animal welfare reasons, but also avoiding the use of animal products because of the associated higher carbon emissions. Many such vegan products have more ingredients, more exotic ingredients and certainly a whole lot more processing.
I guess the reasons that the message of the show was so muddled, is that even the suggested legislation isn’t clearly the answer to the problems they can see. On the other hand, it is at least a sign of momentum in public interest for healthy eating and there is clearly an opportunity for innovative companies in the food space to make new products which appeal to these consumers.
Explore our food and beverage sector.
