Britain’s political parties have been urged to show courage by forcing food producers to make their products healthier, as new polling shows two-thirds of voters back the move.
Compelling food manufacturers to strip out large amounts of fat, salt and sugar would help “denormalise” the routine consumption of unhealthy food, Sarah Woolnough, the chief executive of the King’s Fund, told the Guardian.
She challenged the Conservatives and Labour to face down the “commercial self-interest” of the food and advertising industries, which are likely to oppose mandatory reformulation, in order to tackle the rising tide of diet-related illnesses such as cancer, heart disease and dementia.
Being overweight or obese poses such a huge threat to people’s health and economic prosperity that the UK needs to “be on a war footing” and take radical action, inspired by the bold measures that led to the number of people who smoke plummeting, she added.
Overall, 67.3% of Britons agree that the government should require companies to reduce the amount of fat, salt and sugar they put in their products, a survey for the influential health thinktank undertaken by Ipsos Mori found. Only 5% disagreed.
Almost as many – 64.6% – want to see tough new restrictions imposed on the advertising of unhealthy food and drink, a move that Rishi Sunak has resisted. Only 5.2% were opposed.
Woolnough said: “These findings tell us that we need from our politicians, from our leaders, a bit more courage to take this stuff seriously. Two-thirds of adults are overweight. The trajectory around overweight and obesity is frightening and we need to get ahead of it. This is a massive societal issue.
“I worry that politicians on all sides aren’t seeking the huge societal challenge we face with ill-health in the population and that we need to be on a war footing. The next government needs to have this as an enduring priority. This is a massive societal issue. We need action.
“I would like to see a government that is willing to be bolder, braver and follow public opinion, which is supportive [of tough action on bad diet]. The public get it. Political courage and bravery come in when you’ve got evidence and signs of support and can be a bit bolder than people were in the past.”
She said ministers should ignore the “nanny state” arguments advanced by libertarian-minded MPs and thinktanks against government intervention on bad diet. The Institute for Government last year identified that as a key reason why successive administrations had done too little on obesity over recent decades as Britain had become one of the fattest nations in Europe.
Some politicians had derided government efforts to tackle bad diet as nanny statism for “reasons of ideology” and some sections of the media because of “commercial self-interest”, Woolnough said – a reference to junk food advertising as a key source of revenue for print and broadcast outlets.
Last month Wes Streeting, the shadow health secretary, warned food manufacturers that a Labour government would compel firms reluctant to reformulate their products to do so.
“My approach will be and is currently to build that coalition of the willing within the [food and drink] industry and to make it clear to the rest, it’s not a question of leaders versus laggards any more. You either get on board the steamroller or you’re going under it,” he said.
He also hit out at how the pervasiveness of junk food promotion and tactics used meant that “as citizens we are highly manipulated by the marketing that’s thrown at us”.
Woolnough, who while working for Cancer Research UK helped to persuade the last Labour administration to introduce the ban on cigarette advertising and on smoking indoors, took over as the boss of the King’s Fund in January after performing senior roles at several health charities.
She pointed to that government’s success in getting food companies to cut the amount of salt in their products, and also the fact that the sugar tax that began in 2018 had made many fizzy drinks healthier, as route maps for how ministers could ensure food becomes healthier.
But in order for reformulation to succeed it would have to be mandatory, and include “milestones” – dates by which certain reductions in fat, salt and sugar have to be achieved – and also the threat of financial penalties for those who do not comply, she said. Ministers requiring all producers to do it would mean that no company could gain an advantage over its competitors by continuing to use unhealthily large amounts of those ingredients.
Changes to the nutritional content of foodstuffs could be phased in gradually so that consumers did not notice a change in taste from reformulation, Woolnough said.
Fewer than half of the 1,115 respondents in the King’s Fund’s survey agreed that the government was doing enough to improve health.
Bite Back, the campaigning arm of chef Jamie Oliver’s organisation, welcomed Woolnough’s remarks. James Toop, its chief executive, said: “It should be easy to be healthy but it isn’t. Right now some of the biggest food companies are raking in billions from selling unhealthy food, while the health of nearly a third of UK children is at risk.
“We know from our latest research that seven out of 10 of the biggest food companies make most of their money from sales of unhealthy food and drink. This King’s Fund polling reflects what we hear from our young people every day, they are sick of being targeted by junk food giants and want government action. The time for voluntary action has long passed – any government that cares about the health of the next generation needs to step up and bring in further regulation.”
The government said it was already taking “firm action” on poor diet. A government spokesperson said: “Obesity costs the NHS around £6.5bn a year, and we have taken firm action on junk food and alcohol.
“Our soft drinks levy and salt and sugar reduction programmes have already delivered significant results, alongside the introduction of mandatory calorie labelling on menus and removing less healthy food from key selling locations in supermarkets. In addition, we have undertaken the biggest reform of alcohol duties for over 140 years.
“We will also implement restrictions on offers like ‘buy one, get one free’ and the advertising of less healthy products on TV and online.”
The food industry said many firms were already voluntarily reformulating their products so they contain less sugar or salt and fewer calories.
A Food and Drink Federation spokesperson said: “Food and drink manufacturers over many years have adapted recipes to make them healthier and to reduce portion sizes, working hard to achieve government voluntary reformulation targets.
“We are continuing to invest a great deal in the science and innovation required to remove calories, salt, sugar and fat and to add fibre, fruit and vegetables to popular, everyday products. As a result, our members’ products now contribute 13% fewer calories, 15% fewer sugars and 24% less salt to the average shopping basket than they did eight years ago.”
