It is a sign of the times that environment secretary Steve Reed had to wait for a “window” two weeks before Christmas to unveil what could prove to be the biggest strategy to hit the food sector in many years.
With supermarkets, food manufacturers and the rest of the industry on full throttle in the run up to the festive season, it was not the ideal launchpad.
In fairness, the National Food Strategy would have come out a few weeks earlier had it not been delayed as thousands of angry farmers descended on Westminster to protest the budget – a sign that, when it comes to the economic backdrop, Labour’s plans also face the hardest of starts.
But can the new strategy, when structured talks with the industry get underway in earnest next month, achieve the great shift Reed has called for? Or is the process doomed to failure from the start?
In a briefing with more than 750 food bosses and related bodies, Reed last week called on the industry to agree on systematic changes which he said would tackle unhealthy diets, “skyrocketing” obesity levels and unfair supply chains, among other challenges Defra has identified.
It’s hard to know which is higher: the volume of excitement surrounding the strategy, or the level of trepidation about how it could unravel.
The first question faced by Reed in the Q&A that followed was the extent to which the Labour government plans to dust off Henry Dimbleby’s 2021 National Food Strategy report – which was widely ignored by the previous government – and use it as a ready-made blueprint to tackle public health and the environment.
Reed answered that he indeed plans to use Dimbleby’s strategy, along with other existing regulations, as the foundation for the new plans. Defra has subsequently confirmed to The Grocer that Labour aims to build on “analysis and work” that already exists, including the Dimbleby report, although it is at pains to point out it has not held any structured consultations on this point.
Some fear that despite its bombshell recommendations, including a swathe of new taxes, Dimbleby’s report will provide the foundation for much of the subsequent discussions.
“I don’t sense any appetite among ministers or the industry to be starting all over again when Henry Dimbleby’s report has covered many of these areas,” says one source.
“What will need to be done is for that report to be brought up to date and for its measures to be validated.”
Reed says the government wants a new way of working with the sector, backed by a clear vision and framework for change from government. He says it will form a coalition with food sector leaders, academics and charities and key thinkers to “corral our collective ambition, influence and effort”.
A new sector delivery board to ensure a joined-up and systems-wide approach is due to hold its first meeting in January.
“To succeed it’s got to have real, high-level industry involvement and that means the people who understand what the real problems are,” adds the source.
“With the greatest of respect, we have to go beyond the corporate affairs people or those who hide behind trade associations.
“That’s what happened during the Covid pandemic when the industry came together to tackle the crisis. The current crisis is just as big as Covid, it’s just not as in your face.”
Yet Reed’s job of corralling a willing industry coalition is going to be far from easy. Sources say it is vital ministers waste no time in setting the goals, timeframe and measurement they want to underpin the strategy.
“It’s good that the government is going to work with the industry on a strategy that looks at all of the food chain,” says a supplier source.
“We all want a strategy that has overreaching objectives, which is why it was good to hear Reed tell people at the briefing that the government wanted to avoid making ‘random interventions’ like previous governments.
“But what’s less clear is what the government wants to achieve. What exactly does it want to change and what are the health and environmental objectives, and how will they be measured? And what costs are there going to be for industry and ultimately consumers?”
While the source stresses that the government’s engagement with industry has been “very positive and encouraging”, the launch comes with companies already facing huge costs and disruption from environmental and health legislation already set in motion.
This week the FDF warned that policies such as extended producer responsibility, due to come into force next year, were set to cost the industry ”billions”, while a clampdown on TV ads and online marketing for products high in fat, sugar or salt (HFSS) is also due in October.
Yet Dimbleby’s report – along with a more recent one from Lord Darzi and the House of Lords – calls for the government to go much further, including introducing new taxes on HFSS sales beyond sugary soft drinks.
“The new strategy has to be credible and to do that it is important it recognises environmental and health goals, but equally it has to engage industry around costs and growth,” warns a senior retail source.
“Ultimately it also has to recognise the impact on consumers. Too many strategies ignore consumer choice and affordability and are written by individuals and groups with high ambition but low consumer awareness.
“Similarly, targets need to be realistic and deliverable.”
To borrow a phrase from former PM Boris Johnson, Dimbleby’s report is not the only “oven-baked” option ready for the government. There is another policy inherited from the Tories that could provide a key pillar.
Launched in 2023, the Food Data Transparency Partnership (FDTP), a joint government and industry body overseen by Defra, was given a five-year mission to draw up a mandatory system of measuring the industry’s impact across public health, including HFSS and obesity, animal welfare and supply chain emissions.
Despite the mandatory element being ditched by the last government in favour of a voluntary approach, and the animal welfare part being binned, the FDTP is set to continue under Labour. As revealed by The Grocer last month, it is being shaken up to include greater scrutiny from bodies outside the food industry, with ministers fearing it had “lost the voice of consumers”.
With the Food & Drink Sector Council having also been stripped of an advisory role, the FDTP in many ways represents Reed’s vision of food sector leaders, academics and charities.
Moreover, there is widespread speculation the government will look to pass regulation to revert to its original remit of mandatory targets.
So far the plans have seen food companies including Tesco, Sainsbury’s and Morrisons, along with suppliers such as Nestlé, Mars and General Mills, agree to a new system of reporting on the proportion of HFSS sales for all large companies, while rejecting calls for reporting on the percentage of revenue made from HFSS sales.
That may be back on the agenda, given the FDTP’s new remit.
Anna Taylor, executive director of the Food Foundation, says the FDTP will be an “important part” of the systematic change in the food strategy, demand for which she claims has reached “fever pitch”.
“I think the process could see the FDTP potential come to life,” she says. “I think there are a number of companies across retail, manufacturing and indeed out of home who want the government to go further on giving the industry a runway. They want ministers to set out the targets they want to achieve, and they don’t want policies that chop and change every two years.
“The launch of this government’s food strategy, which to be honest has come quicker than I expected, is a moment in time and it’s an opportunity that we’ve got to seize.”
However, it appears inevitable that groups like hers and other more radical campaign bodies will clash with the industry over calls for regulation. The issue is already testing Reed’s claim that the government has a joined-up policy on the food strategy.
Within 48 hours of him promising Labour would work with the industry and Defra, and insisting no decisions had been made on regulation or taxation, the DHSC released an annual report by Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, nailing his colours to the mast in calls for new “fat taxes” across a raft of sectors.
Whitty’s call, which inevitably generated far more headlines than the virtually non-existent coverage in the nationals of Reed’s address, hardly speaks of a government working in sweet harmony.
“I get a sense that while there is strong political support [for the National Food Strategy], it might not be quite as straightforward with the civil servants when it comes to some of the older-style fiefdoms,” adds a senior source. “That is particularly true, I fear, in the Department of Health.
“For the National Food Strategy to work we need buy-in across government for the long term. Too many strategies have started with good intentions to work across the different departments and UK, and then we see separate disjointed strategies emerging in things like obesity strategies or trade strategies.
“It needs to have both long-term objectives and short-term ones. The long term to drive direction but short term to tackle immediate priorities, for example issues like energy, labour and planning policies to secure and boost UK food production.”
The source adds: “It must join up policies. It is a little worrying to hear the Secretary of State talk about this strategy alongside the other strategy for farming. Why not integrate it? And the one for a circular economy?
“Similarly, I have only seen mention of the health, education and business and trade departments. What about the department for net zero, or even the trade policy elements of the department for business and trade? Also, how much buy-in is there from the devolved governments, who have their own agricultural and health strategies?”
Others, however, believe it is “regressive” forces within the industry that pose the greatest risk for Labour’s food strategy.
Leo Campbell, co-founder of Modern Baker, says it is vital that progressive food industry innovators and companies who recognise the need for change come forward to help lead the process.
“Are we going to see the usual regressive arguments against government intervention, or are we going to use this process as a chance to unlock innovation and investment that’s good for the nation’s health as well as UK PLC?” he asks.
“Just as the government needs to shake the tree and bring an end to silos of government working towards their own disparate goals, we need progressive voices in the industry who want to respond to these challenges to step up to the plate.
“Otherwise there is a danger that the food strategy embraces failure before it even starts.”
As one source puts it, much will depend on the calibre of those who gather round the table when the meetings on the strategy begin next month.
“Then we will see how serious the industry is and the chance we have of actually achieving these goals.”
No comments yet