FEBRUARY 9, 2025
Labour stands “accused of ‘ducking’ action to tackle obesity” – as Wes Streeting rejects “calls for intervention in a report by the House of Lords”. Frank Hansen reports
You won’t find the headline quoted above in the mainstream or even the left wing press, although it’s an issue affecting millions, particularly the poorest. In fact, it’s from the Grocer magazine – at least the industry likes to keep abreast of political developments that could affect its business and profits!
Many are aware that the majority of people in the UK are now overweight; some 30% are obese. This is driving diet-related diseases such as type 2 diabetes, to epidemic proportions, affecting millions, including children as well as adults. It’s also placing enormous demands on the health system and, if the trend continues, is likely to bankrupt the NHS.
There is widespread acknowledgement from experts, politicians and even the food industry that something needs to be done about this health crisis and the Health Secretary has promised a new strategy. The problem is there seems to be considerable confusion about what is causing this, what constitutes an unhealthy diet, who is responsible and what exactly we can do about it.
There’s a lot of information and dissimulation out there concerning what we should eat to stay healthy. We’re often told that it’s probably our own fault – because many of us eat and drink ‘too much’ and live ‘unhealthy lifestyles’. Yet how can we make the right choices when so many products are promoted as ‘healthy’, ‘low fat’ (that is, full of sugar) or having this or that benefit. The government seems incapable of providing clear guidance, let alone protecting us.
In fact this this is a highly political issue and a global problemthat needs to be addressed. Surely we can rely on our politicians to develop policies to get us out of this mess? The problem is they don’t have a great track record. Control over what food companies produce, the information they provide and how they market their products is pretty limited. You could spend a week shopping and reading all the labels, without being much wiser, because there is no standard system that’s easy to understand. A new strategy sounds good, but, between 1992 and 2020, successive governments, (Labour, Coalition and Tory), actually proposed some 700 wide-ranging policies to tackle obesity in England, yet obesity rates have rocketed.
However a radical strategy, containing bold measures that could really make a difference, has recently emerged, not from the elected government. but surprisingly from the House of Lords. Against a background of abject failure by government , the Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee commissioned a study into this intractable problem, drawing on expert advice, based on the latest nutritional science. Over the last 20 years there has been a significant breakthrough in our understanding of how our bodies inter-react with the food, for example, the significance of the gut microbiome, the important role of hormones and the problems associated with highly industrialised, HFSS (high sugar, fat and salt) products and ultra-processed food (UPF) – such as over-eating, addiction and weight gain.
The Committee’s ground breaking report, Recipe for health: a plan to fix our broken food system, was published at the end of last year. It noted the massive scale of the problem, describing it as a health emergency and called on the government to develop a comprehensive, integrated, long-term strategy, underpinned by a new legislative framework.
It’s most significant finding was “the food industry has strong incentives to produce and sell highly profitable unhealthy products. Voluntary efforts to promote healthier food have failed. Mandatory regulation has to be introduced.”
The report challenged vested interests and identified the food industry as the root cause of the problem, rather than blaming individual consumers for their “unhealthy lifestyle choices”. To make progress, the food environment needs to change and it proposed immediate concrete action to reverse the rise in obesity and ill-health. The key regulatory recommendations are:
- Make large food businesses report on the healthiness of their sales and exclude businesses that derive more than a defined share of sales from less healthy products from any discussions on the formation of policy on food, diet and obesity prevention.
- Give the Food Standards Agency (FSA) independent oversight of the food system. Introduce a salt and sugar reformulation tax on food manufacturers, building on the success of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy. The government should consider how to use the revenue to make healthier food cheaper, particularly for people living with food insecurity.
- Ban the advertising of less healthy food across all media by the end of this Parliament, following the planned 9pm TV watershed and a ban on paid-for online advertising in October 2025. Currently the new law, concerning junk food adverts is limited – only aimed at curbing childhood obesity.
- Commission further research into the links between ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and adverse health outcomes and review dietary guidelines to reflect any new evidence. The rapidly growing body of epidemiological evidence showing correlation between consumption of UPFs and poor health outcomes is alarming. Beyond energy and nutrient content, causal links between other properties of UPFs and poor health outcomes have not at the present time been clearly demonstrated. To understand any links, more research is needed.
So far so good – except the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, has now responded to the report with fine words but no real action, pressing the delete button on its main recommendations on mandatory regulations. A disappointed Chair of the Committee, Baroness Walmsley, noted that some former Prime Ministers and Health Secretaries had taken a different view, expressing regret that they had not done more and advised that it was necessary to be bold and act fast. The Obesity Food Alliance – a coalition of 60 organisations – said Streeting’s response was “unacceptable” and “the government is prioritising the voices of those who profit from unhealthy food over independent experts.”
So ironically, this radical plan developed by the unelected House of Lords and supported by leading experts has been neutered by an elected Labour Health Secretary, supported, no doubt, by the major food companies. It’s not because we can’t afford it – the potential benefits far outweigh the costs – but presumably because it involves mandatory regulation – words apparently removed from the New Labour lexicon – that might upset big food by threatening profits. Instead, Streeting has pledged to “work with the industry to tackle the obesity crisis” as there are “an increasing number of companies that want healthier food and more nutritious diets”.
So it’s back to the future with Wes, down the tired, old track of voluntary self-regulation and appeasement, trodden time and time again since 1992 without real success. Of course you have to “work with the industry”, but sometimes this means being clear about what needs to be done and making sure it happens, rather than platitudes about partnership working. While there are many companies who certainly promote healthier, real food, these do not necessary include those responsible for producing the HFSS and UPF products prevalent in the UK diet. Given that ten major companies, mainly US-based, dominate the world market, it is perhaps unsurprising that obesity is a global problem.
According to leading nutritionist Professor Tim Spector, who submitted evidence to the Committee: “One of the main drivers of this rise in ill health is the increase in consumption of industrial, ultra-processed foods. Over recent decades, food manufacturers have become experts at producing easy-to-eat, delicious food-like substances that lack beneficial nutrients. With no fibre but masses of sugar, saturated fat and additives these products play a pivotal role in the health crisis we are currently navigating. The food industry, which only cares about profits, has free reign to create and market these hyper-palatable products that are making us sick. When it comes to UPFs, the UK has some of the weakest standards in Europe. Currently, 60% of the calories we consume in the UK come from UPFs.”
In other words, the phenomenal rise in health/weight problems globally over recent decades is directly linked to the development of new, highly profitable production and marketing methods by the major food companies. Of course it’s the most deprived sections of the community who are more dependent on these relatively cheap, but profitable, products and therefore more prone to the illnesses associated with them.
The food industry always argues that regulation will increase costs and prices to the detriment of consumers, but the removal of unhealthy products is intrinsically good and does not automatically mean higher prices. There are many low-cost, healthy, real food substitutes to choose from. Advice and support on healthy eating is cost-effective and should be widely available in schools and online.
The industry is highly profitable, competitive and price-sensitive and has the capacity to adapt to these much needed regulations. We need them to produce healthy, real food, but the major companies will only change if Government requires them to do so. As we know from the tobacco industry, government prevarication, timidity and appeasement only postpone the need to act and do more damage to public health in the long term. Some countries, particularly in Latin America, have already brought in these type of regulations for UPF. The UK lags well behind and must act.
The Health Secretary’s job is to protect and promote the health of the nation. The Labour Party should ensure that he does so, having the courage to follow the science and implement the recommendations of this report, in the face of strong opposition from vested interests. After all this is how the NHS was founded in the first place. By all means consult the industry, but the final decision should be based on public health grounds.
The outcome will be major savings for the NHS and a much healthier society with all the economic benefits that delivers. Moreover, If we really want to challenge right wing populism, we should be addressing the concerns of millions of people who are suffering as a result of this health emergency, rather than ignoring them and often even blaming them. We need to mobilise public support to overcome the objections of vested interests.
For accessible information on the developing science of nutrition and the effects of HFSS and UPF products, I would recommend Professor Tim Spector’s book, Food for Life; on BBC I-Player, Irresistible: Why We Can’t Stop Eating, by Dr Chis Van Tulleken; also on I-Player, for kids and adults, the highly entertaining but serious ,The RI Christmas Lecture by Chris Van Tulleken – three episodes on the history of food. The final episode focuses on the world today. One practical demonstration shows how strawberry ice cream is traditionally made from cream, sugar and strawberries, yet the delicious UPF ice cream found in supermarkets doesn’t really contain any of these real-food ingredients, being mainly composed of chemicals, additives and food derivatives. Why? It lasts much longer and generates higher profits.
Frank Hansen is a former Councillor in the London Borough of Brent.
Image: https://timelessmoon.getarchive.net/amp/media/high-fat-foods-nci-visuals-online-a79457
High Fat Foods – NCI Visuals Online – PICRYL – Public Domain Media Search Engine Public Domain Image Public Domain Mark 1.0 Universal PDM 1.0 Deed
Back in Britain, one Red Wall group of MPs formed last year has now been joined by a second group equally concerned about the Reform threat.
