Almost two-thirds of adults (64%) and a quarter of children (22%) in England are overweight or obese, data from the Office for Health Improvement & Disparities shows.
When the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee published its October 2024 report calling for a new long-term strategy to fix England’s ‘broken food system’, it was a damning indictment of previous governments attempts to curb obesity.
The House of Lords Committee called recent efforts to tackle this public health emergency ‘an utter failure’. The report highlighted that between 1992 and 2020 there were as many as 700 policy proposals, few of which were actually implemented. Those which were rolled out failed to have any appreciable effect.
In response, the committee set out seven key recommendations underpinned by a new legislative framework.
These include a salt and sugar reformulation tax on food manufacturers and a ban on all advertising of unhealthy food across all media by the end of this Parliament. The recommendations also include new reporting requirements on the healthiness of food sales for some businesses, and giving the Food Standards Agency (FSA) independent oversight of the food system.
Shortly after the upper house announced its proposals, the think tank Nesta published research claiming that it is possible, and affordable, to halve obesity by 2030 through a combination of prevention policies and wider access to weight-loss drugs.
Highlighting the costs and the risks of inaction
The need for change is clear. The Government estimates that obesity costs the NHS around £6.5bn a year. The House of Lords Committee report suggests that the current cost of obesity is at least 1-2% of UK GDP, while think tank Future Health show that obesity is forecast to cost the UK 3% of GDP by 2050.
Without action, the health and economic consequences of poor diets will intensify as levels of obesity continue to grow, particularly in the most deprived communities.
Although the House of Lords report pointed to the poor legacy of proposals to tackle obesity, there is already a foundation for a stronger legislative framework which will nudge the food and drink industry to take more active steps in this space.
Implementing change
Recent Conservative governments introduced a number of initiatives to tackle the overconsumption of calories.
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 (HFSS).
However, these did not go far enough. So, given the scale of the public health emergency, where should our policy priorities sit?
Time to think seriously about a UPF tax?
One of the main topics of debate has been the impact of ultra-processed foods (UPFs), and research is ongoing to determine whether the level of processing has a negative impact on food and, subsequently, our health.
Whilst there is no settled definition of UPFs, a food item is generally considered to be a UPF if it includes ingredients which 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.
It is important to explore policies targeting UPFs now as evidence of their consequences grows, one of which would be a tax on the production and/or sale of UPFs.
Those against a UPF tax argue that it would have unwanted side effects, most notably that food taxes impact low-income families disproportionately, and say the industry would resist (industry always resists new regulations which could affect the bottom line - it isn’t a reason not to do it).
They also claim that there is no clear consensus on what UPF is, which is hindering the transparency and reporting which the House of Lords has called for. However, recognised categorisation systems are already in place to determine if a food is ultra processed, providing a readily available way for any legislation to classify food.
As for food taxes disproportionately impacting low-income households, it is useful to look at the Soft Drink Levy and HFSS regulations, which encouraged food producers to reformulate their products to avoid or reduce tax burdens. The same is likely to happen if a UPF tax is introduced alongside one on sugar and salt, as proposed by the Lords.
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, the cost we are currently paying to tackle obesity-related disease should reduce, again freeing up more cash to support lower-income households.
Further action on advertising bans?
Another policy suggestion is to ban all advertising of unhealthy food across all media by the end of this Parliament. This follows the ban on online adverts for junk food and on TV adverts before 9pm, which will come into force in October 2025.
These changes were a Conservative government policy. Initially scheduled for 2023, along with ‘buy one get one free’ (BOGOF) restrictions, the ban was delayed in light of the cost-of-living crisis.
Labour’s current mantra of ‘prevention is better than a cure’ means the ban was inevitable. The Government’s impact assessment suggested that the ban would reduce children’s calorie consumption, thereby increasing lifespan, reducing obesity-related disease and saving the public purse around £1.2bn. Based on that assessment, it was an easy decision to make.
Research has also shown regulations do work to influence more positive consumer behaviour following legislation tackling junk food promotional activities. In the immediate aftermath of the HFSS in-store product placement regulations, Kantar noticed an £82m drop in sales of HFSS products alongside a £32.4m rise in sales of healthier, non-HFSS alternatives, with consumers embracing more savoury choices.
This is strong evidence that legislative action is having a positive impact, and brands, alongside the wider food, drink and retail sector, will take action on calories if they are forced to do so.
What are the next steps?
It will be interesting to see the Government’s response in the next couple of months, but if Labour wants to lean into more progressive steps and tackle obesity, it needs to go beyond an advertising ban.
The House of Lords Committee has made recommendations which tackle the food itself, the governance of our food industry, accountability, and how food is promoted. This all-encompassing approach is vital if we are to make positive change and address the ticking time bomb of obesity. Labour has a chance in its first year of government to introduce policies which could see obesity rates fall by the end of this parliament.
The Health and Social Care Secretary has already made announcements around the use of weight-loss jabs to help the unemployed get back to work, but alone they are not a silver bullet. The Nesta research highlighted that relying solely on weight-loss jabs would cost £8.5bn a year, demonstrating the need for wider policy making.
A start has already been made and there is evidence it has an impact. We can see from case studies such as the Finnish city of Seinäjoki that rates of obesity can be halved in as little as six years if the right approach is taken.
Early indications do not fill me with confidence that the Government is planning to make the sweeping legislative changes we need given the scale of the crisis, but the House of Lords has ‘thrown down the gauntlet’ with its recent report. If Labour is serious about tackling the big issues which the UK faces, food and obesity should be close to the top of the list, and firm action is needed in the next 12 months.
If you’re interested in learning more about UPFs and how the future of F&B processing may be shaped by this trend, watch our free webinar here.
