Opinion: We need a UPF tax

It’s widely known that Britain is in the grip of an obesity crisis. Estimates in 2022 to 2023 found that in England, as many as 22% of children aged 4-5 years old were overweight or obese. For adults, that number increased to 64%, with those aged 55-64 more likely to be (72.8%) classed as overweight or obese. 

And this trend is continuing.

Currently, investigations are underway to determine whether the level of processing has a negative impact on food and, subsequently, our health.

While people’s definitions of ultra processed foods will differ, it’s generally considered to be a UPF if it includes ingredients you wouldn’t ordinarily find in your kitchen at home and contains multiple additives, such as preservatives, emulsifiers, sweeteners and/or artificial colours and flavours.

In the UK, around two thirds of calories consumed by teenagers and 2–5-year-olds come from UPFs.

Research undertaken by Harvard University over 34 years following 114,000 people, suggested regular consumers of ultra processed meat have a 13% higher chance of premature death. Between 1990 and 2018, cancer rates in UK adults aged 25 to 49 have increased by 22%.

Whilst there is no conclusive evidence to prove UPF causes an increase in cancer, the data does show a correlation between the introduction of UPF and increased cancer rates among younger people.

The problem has a cost

Insights from the think tank Future Health has shown that obesity is forecast to cost the UK 3% of GDP by 2050.

This highlights the wider economic impact of obesity and associated medical conditions. For example, with men who have suffered a stroke, the chance of being employed in the following year reduces by 20%.

This is on top of the direct cost obesity has to the NHS, which the Government estimates is around £6.5bn a year.

The Conservative Governments introduced a number of measures during their tenure to tackle the overconsumption of calories and obesity. These included the Soft Drink Levy in 2018, calorie labelling, and the introduction of regulations restricting the placement, promotion and advertising of foods with high fat salt and sugar (the HFSS Regs).

Is tax the solution?

Following the Government’s moves to tackle overconsumption of calories and concerns over potential effects of UPF diets, pressure is mounting for taxes to be introduced as a way to deter their consumption. According to McKinsey’s research, the issue has more coverage than any other proposed measure.  

Commentators, and probably those who don’t want a UPF tax, suggest that such a tax will have unwanted side effects. They claim there is no clear consensus on what UPF is, food taxes impact low-income families disproportionately and industry would resist.

Much like the push back on the HFSS regs, this seems like nonsense to me. For starters, there are already recognised categorisation systems for food to determine if the food is UPF. Whilst such systems may not be perfect, they provide a readily available way for any legislation to classify food. So, you either list the foods caught by the tax, or a system for determining if a food is UPF.

As for food taxes disproportionately impacting low-income households, I see the argument but again I do not share the view. Much like the Soft Drink Levy, new taxes encourage food producers to reformulate their products to avoid or reduce tax burdens.

As much as 45,000 tonnes of sugar has been removed from soft drinks since the levy was introduced, despite sale volumes of such drinks rising. The HFSS regs has encouraged the reformulation of biscuits, cereals, cakes, puddings, yogurts, ice cream and other products caught by the regulations. That is likely to happen if a UPF tax was introduced.

Moreover, there is a clear link between low-income households and obesity. You are, therefore, picking your poison if you don’t believe the food sector will adjust as it has with salt reduction and sugar taxes.

Either low-income families will suffer as a consequence of increased food costs, or generations could suffer as a consequence of inaction on UPF.

You must also remember when thinking about financial considerations that money generated from a tax could be used to aid lower income households and if the tax works, that £27bn cost we’re currently paying to obesity related disease should reduce, again freeing up more cash to support lower income households.  

That brings me to industry resisting. Newsflash on this, industry always resists new regulations which could affect the bottom line. It isn’t a reason not to do it.

The first tax on UPFs has already been introduced in Colombia, concerns over UPF, childhood obesity and the costs burden on the NHS probably means the UK will see some form of UPF regulation. The most likely being a tax. It worked for soft drinks and the HFSS regs sparked a wave of reformulation. A UPF tax could do the same.   

If you enjoyed this, why not read our exclusive interview with the FDF's Karen Betts and Kate Halliwell on their thoughts on ultra processed foods and the UK obesity crisis.​​ Keep an eye out for our editorial webinar in November where we'll be exploring some of the issues mentioned.