Government Food Strategy shows it's 'in pocket of food industry'

Professor Graham MacGregor, professor of cardiovascular medicine at Queen Mary University of London and chairman of Action on Sugar and Action on Salt said: “The National Food Strategy proposed bold, evidence-based recommendations that would have had an enormous impact on improving our food system, making healthier food more available and accessible to all."​

Proposals included the idea of taxing products high in salt and sugar​​, MacGregor said. "However, today's announcement makes it abundantly clear that our Government is in the pocket of the food industry and has no desire to bite the hand that feeds it. This shambolic decision will no doubt massively impact the NHS and the nation’s health, which will suffer the consequences and escalating cost of treating obesity, Type 2 Diabetes and tooth decay all linked to our very high and unnecessary sugar, salt and saturated fat intakes that the food industry is entirely responsible for."​

The Food Foundation - a key adviser on Dimbleby's National Food Strategy - called the Government response 'disappointing', reflecting 'echoes of many of Henry Dimbleby’s good ideas'. Crucially, it said it neglected to mention a Food Bill, which could lead to the ideas that have been picked up being enshrined in law.

Anna Taylor, executive director of The Food Foundation said: ​“Today’s White Paper shows no one in leadership in Government appears to have really grasped the scale and urgency of the challenges posed to our health and our planet by the food system. What’s more, these challenges are growing exponentially with the cost of living crisis.​

"Despite its name, the whole document is lacking a strategy to transition the food system towards delivering good food which is accessible to everyone. And without a commitment to a new Food Bill, many of the commendable commitments made are in reality toothless."​

'Watered down'​

Similarly, Sue Davies, head of consumer rights and food policy at consumer rights organisation Which? said: "It's right that the strategy stresses the importance of driving more sustainable UK food production, but many of the recommendations made by the Government's independent adviser on how the food system can be healthier for people and the planet, have been watered down, ignored or put off for further consultation.​

"This includes vital safety nets which are needed now, such as extending eligibility for free school meals and the healthy start scheme – as well as important measures to ensure that all consumers are protected by baseline core food standards for imported food."​

Asked whether the white paper had much substance, Dimbleby told Food Manufacture: "It isn't a strategy so much as a list of policies."​

He admitted many of his recommendations on healthy eating were not referenced, but added: "They have kicked stuff down the road to the Health Disparities white paper." ​This is believed to be being published before parliament's summer recess.

Trade and food standards​

He argued the requirement for UK food standards to be protected in any free trade deal should be included in legislation - something the Government has not called for. "It's not on a statutory footing, which it needs to be."​

He also cautioned that there were signs that the Government intended to turn its Future Farming Programme into another version of the Common Agricultural Policy focused on quotas and financial returns. That 'would be a disaster', he said. "You wouldn't get any of the environmental benefits."​

He said he was not surprised there were no overt references to encouraging consumers to cut meat consumption and eat more plant-based alternatives. "There's a significant majority of people who believe very strongly the Government should not be telling them or incentivising them to eat less meat, even though it needs to happen."​​ That said, the Government had proposed adopting a policy to reduce methane emissions from ruminant livestock and had advocated £120m-worth of investment into exploring alternative proteins.

Junk Food Cycle​

However, he highlighted that the Government had acknowledged 'the Junk Food Cycle' he had flagged. "It's the first time a Government document, as far as I'm aware, has acknowledged there's a problem with the commercial incentives of companies and the interaction between that and our evolved appetites."​

He praised the Government's adoption of the pursuit of a rural land-use framework for food production, which was 'fundamental to the environmental side'. The policy incorporates his suggested 'three-compartment' model of intensification, land sharing and land sparing. He supported the fact that the Government had cited his idea of mandatory reporting of clear and transparent data on health, environmental sustainability, and animal welfare impacts of food.

And he was encouraged the Government had mentioned a regular report to monitor: domestic food supply; the improvement of pay, employment, productivity and training; progress on the impact of unhealthy eating; environmental impact; export progress and maintainance of food standards. This report will draw on independent analysis from the Climate Change Committee, Food Standards Agency and the Office for Environment Protection.

In all, Dimbleby estimated half of what he had recommended had been supported by Government, either in its Food Strategy white paper or earlier papers.