Chamber and committees

::Mr MacGregor sends his apologies—he has inadvertently been delayed. He intended to be here to speak to his amendment. I have his speaking notes; I will be concise.

Amendment 75 would place a duty on Healthcare Improvement Scotland to set standards for premises where non-surgical procedures are provided. The amendment would require those standards to be proportionate to the level of risk that is associated with the procedures that are being carried out. Further, it would clarify that premises that offer only non-surgical procedures should be required to meet those proportionate standards, rather than be subject to hospital-grade or overly burdensome requirements.

The amendment seeks to maintain strong patient safety protections while avoiding unnecessary regulatory barriers that could exclude safe and responsible providers, limit access to services or increase costs without delivering additional public benefit.

I move amendment 75.

::I do not have anything to add. I seek to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 75, by agreement, withdrawn.

Amendment 44 moved—[Maurice Golden].

::Botulinum toxin comes in a multidose vial, so one vial would be used for more than one person. That raises issues of the traceability of that vial, its expiry date and the dosing, which might be different for each recipient.

Good morning to youse all. I want to pick up on the issues around regulations and business with regard to the good food nation plan. It is the first such plan. When the Minister for Public Health and Women’s Health was before the committee previously, she said that it will change and evolve as science and nutritional advice, and evidence and research, allow us to make and recommend changes.

Public health is a huge concern for me, given the levels of obesity, and childhood obesity, in Scotland. We heard from Dave Thomson of the Food and Drink Federation about where calories have been removed from products. Members all know of my interest in ultra-processed food and ultra-high-processed food—calorie-dense food that is manufactured to be hyperpalatable so that people will consume 1,000 calories before they even think about being satiated.

I would like to hear comments from you about the good food nation plan and how it helps us to focus on the complexity of the food system in order to support the public health approach, with a balance that supports business as well.

What do you envision Food Standards Scotland’s role to be in helping to support the implementation of the good food nation legislation?

Good morning. We have reviewed information on the suspension of visiting, which was raised in various written submissions. The submission from Dumfries and Galloway health and social care partnership questioned who actually makes the decision to suspend visits and how that aligns with health protection and social work responsibilities. Can you elaborate on how you will ensure consistency in decisions to suspend visiting?

The suspension of visits arose because of the Covid pandemic. That was an international health crisis, as opposed to a local issue, such as a norovirus outbreak, for which different measures would be put in place for visiting, including a requirement for personal protective equipment to be used. I suppose that it is not an isolated decision; it must be made collaboratively, in recognition of what is going on across the country.

As part of all of that, we need to make sure that people are not living in food deserts where they do not have access to food that they can cook quickly and easily. It all intermingles with the cost of living crisis, when it also costs money to turn on the gas burner and cook a meal and all of that. For me, part of the good food nation plan—this is the first plan—is about starting to raise awareness and work together to look at what we can do to shift and address issues such as childhood obesity.

Aye, sure, if we are already there. I am glad that these witnesses are here today, because I have a great interest in this subject. I have previously raised issues about the Nova classification and Carlos Monteiro’s work in São Paulo in Brazil in relation to how we define ultra-high-processed food, or ultra-processed food, as it is more commonly known. When that work was done—in, I think, 2019—the evidence included that reducing salt, fat and sugar was the way to go, because ultra-high-processed food contains high fat, sugar and salt.

I would be interested in hearing about any recent evidence that supports or refutes the findings of the Nova classification and about what more can be done. I know that there is on-going research, because Nova has been criticised.

Geoff Ogle, on the issue of high fat, sugar and salt, are you aware of current research to look at the chemicals that are added—for example, stabilisers, emulsifiers, flavourings and colourings—and how those affect people physically and mentally?

I talk about being satiated or not. Some food additives switch off the brain’s ability to say, “I’m full—I’m done.” People have proposed that some of the chemicals that are added affect our ability to feel satiated.