The House of Lords report ‘Recipe for health: a plan to fix our broken food system’ published on 24 October 2024, lays out key recommendations for the UK Government to take into consideration moving forwards.
You can read our guide of the key recommendations of the Recipe for Health report here.
After all this time, why will change happen now?
If you’ve read the report and are experiencing déjà vu, you’re not only one. Many of the report’s recommendations echo previous suggestions laid out in the likes of Dimbleby’s food strategy and the Hungry for Change report – the latter of which Baroness Walmsley was also involved in just four years earlier.
The result of these two reports were rather inconsequential however, with just one recommendation from the Hungry for Change report taken up by government.
“That was a real failure of the previous government,” the Baroness told Food Manufacture in a special one-on-one interview.
So, several years on, what makes this time any different? How confident is the Baroness that the committee’s efforts won’t fall on deaf ears again? Well, actually, pretty confident.
“I’m feeling really optimistic,” she said, adding that the public and political mood has changed and the report is in tune with that.
“The fact is the need for action is even more urgent now. It really is a public health emergency.
“The new Government has acknowledged the impact of failures to prevent obesity. In fact, they're [not only] suggesting some ways of getting over that, but they're also talking about prevention.”
She referenced the recent Lord Darzi report on the NHS, which commented on the ‘lack of bold action’ around obesity and regulation of the food industry, as a positive stride.
“We think there is now an appetite for bolder action.”
Interested in learning more about ultra processed foods? Register for our next webinar, 'The unintended consequences of the UPF trend', here.
A salt and sugar tax
One of the recommendations of the Committee’s report is a tax on salt and sugar, which would work in a similar way to the sugar tax on drinks, and apply to both the processed food industry and out of home sector.
Although many feared the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy would cause crippling issues in return for minimal impact, studies show the negative effect was short-term on industry and the result has been a sugar reduction for both children and adults. Approximately, one less teaspoon a day for children and two and a half for adults.
“Modelling suggests that that could bring in about £3bn a year,” she added.
“We’re asking industry not to try and recoup that money by putting up the price of healthy foods,” the Baroness continued.
“Everybody who works in the food industry is also a taxpayer and obesity is costing the taxpayer billions of pounds every year between 1% and 2% of GDP.
But the hope really is that a tax will encourage the industry to do further reformulation work.
Either way, it’s likely to drive up cost, but the Baroness has said the Committee is clear that this should not result in healthy foods with even dearer price tags. The cost of tax or reformulation, she believes, should be on the industry because “they've got the capacity to absorb it because they're very profitable”.
For products that did get taxed, the suggestion is that the money could be put to good use. The Government has a “moral duty” to use it to subside healthier food for people on lower incomes, the Baroness contended.
Ultra processed foods
One of the biggest bug bears for the industry has been a lack of scientific evidence backing up claims made around so-called ultra processed foods (UPFs).
Industry has been waiting with baiting breath on what the report would surmise following its investigation, and while UPFs have been flagged as a worthwhile research endeavour, it has been agreed the evidence is insufficient in its current state to action any regulatory suggestions – for now.
Karen Betts, chief executive of the Food and Drink Federation (FDF), previously spoke to Food Manufacture on the topic of UPFs, voicing her concerns that an overhaul of processing would not answer the UK’s obesity crisis.
Responding to the report’s conclusion, Betts said the Federation is satisfised with its outcome and that if and when new evidence emerges, the industry will respond accordingly.
She welcomed the report’s focus on dietary change, which is gunning for less fat, salt and sugar, and more fruit, vegetables and fibre.
“Manufacturers have already made significant progress to create healthier options for shoppers, based on government guidelines and the High Fat Salt and Sugar regulations. UK shopping baskets now contain far fewer calories, and less salt and sugar than they did in the past. To continue with this, what industry needs is regulatory certainty,” Betts said.
Clearer health labels
One of the areas where certainty could come into play is with labelling – with the options in the UK stretching across an endless corridor of schemes.
In 2007, a review of nutrient profiling models commissioned by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) found there were more than 40 different schemes used in the UK – and that number has only grown.
Not only does this make it confusing but if we are to proceed with any UPF regulation, the general view is that it should be weighted on nutritional value as well as level of processing.
Responding to the report, Stefan Descheemaeker, chief executive officer for Nomad Foods, which was only one of three large food manufacturers to offer oral evidence to the House of Lords enquiry earlier this year, said any tax should be science-based in line with the UK Government’s Nutrient Profiling Model. This determines whether a product is healthy or less healthy based on its overall profile, rather than focusing on specific levels of individual nutrients.
“This model would then help incentivise companies to reformulate to create healthier products,” he said.
Speaking on labels, Baroness Walmsley, added: “One of the problems with the traffic light system is that there are some quite unhealthy ingredients that are getting a green light.
“We're recommending that the Government or a reputable independent carries out some research with customers in real world situations with various kinds of labels, so that we can really find out what sort of labelling helps. But the key thing is it's got to be mandatory, [and] it's got to be on the front of the pack not hidden away on the back.”
Mandatory health reporting
In a similar vein, the report also called for mandatory health reporting, suggesting the FSA should be responsible for overseeing the process. This way, if targets are missed, it can be fed back to Parliament and options around how the sector could be incentivised, explored.
“Really the incentive at the moment is just profit,” the Baroness continued.
The FSA welcomed the suggestion, with its chair, Susan Jebb commenting: “As an independent body, set up to safeguard public health and protect consumers in relation to food, we wholeheartedly share the sentiment of this report on the need to transform our food system to enable people to live longer, healthier lives. This in turn will reduce the pressures on the NHS and boost economic growth.
“The proposals that the FSA should take on additional responsibilities for the oversight and regulation of the food system are for the Government to consider.
“From our experience as a regulator, we agree it is important that any targets or requirements on businesses are accompanied by effective monitoring and enforcement to drive positive changes.”
The public’s role
But apart from regulation potentially forcing industry’s hands, she also told Food Manufacture that she believes the public will begin to demand that these kinds of targets are set. Those who fall short could very well find themselves on the wrong-footed.
“The public has ways of making their displeasure known,” she mused.
Speaking more on the public and their responsibility when it comes to health, she added: “I am not, [and] I never will say that the public are lazy. Most people are really, really busy.
“They [consumers] come home in the evening, they're absolutely exhausted. The kids want their dinner. What are they going to do if they can’t afford the ingredients and the energy to cook from scratch – if they know how to do that?
“So what do they reasonably do: they go to the freezer – if they've got one – and they take out a ready meal and put it in the microwave. Brilliant solution, [but] what that means is that those ready meals have got to be healthier than they are now.”
Personal responsibility was also pinpointed as a driver behind the lack of progress so far, and the Baroness said considerable effort went into examining the scientific analysis behind previous failed attempts (about 700 policies) to drive down obesity in the UK.
She explained that there were two common denominators – one, they relied too heavily on personal responsibility and two, a lot of the regulation had been voluntary.
“Now the problem is, if all the choices of food that you can afford are unhealthy, that's not a real choice at all.
“Parents don't want a nanny [state]. They want a caring parent. And what they're saying is we want action from the Government and the food industry to make the food that our kids eat healthier and to make it easier for us to feed our kids healthily.”
Can industry handle more regulation?
Whilst some in the sector will argue further regulation will be unhelpful, levelling the playing field was a big ask from those in the food sector who did attend the House of Lord sessions.
“You can only get that when the regulation is mandatory because otherwise you know the good guys will be undercut by the guys who are just after profit and are not thinking about their public responsibility,” she highlighted.
When asked whether industry is ready for further regulation, she said: “They're not unused to abiding by regulation and we're not saying all this has to be done tomorrow.
“I'm hoping that the food industry will take this report in the spirit in which it's intended, because, of course, it's fine that they make profit, but they do also serve the public.”
She added that her hope is for the sector to work with the Committee rather than to try and find loopholes, as we have seen in certain retailers with HFSS.
Then, as she suggested they can “shout about it and take credit” for making change happen.
The Government now has two months to respond to the report. In the meantime, the Baroness has said the Committee will be continuing to be push the issue into the spotlight. She is also encouraging the public and other lobbying groups to do the same and “hold the food industry to account”.
She added: “But let's hope the food industry will hold itself to account. That's what I'd love to see.
“The NHS is going to fall over unless we do something about [obesity] prevention.”
If you enjoyed this article, you may wish to register for our upcoming webinar 'The unintended consequences of the UPF trend'.
Image details: © House of Lords / photography by Roger Harris. Image has been resized.
