The announcement of a new national survey looking at public attitudes to ultra-processed foods – a ‘government-funded project’, no less – should have the food industry hiding behind the sofa, nervously eating their fruit-filled yoghurt, shop-bought cheese and sourdough bread.
It is being spearheaded by UK Research and Innovation, a £10bn-a-year government-funded behemoth overseen by a consortium that includes the UK government, Defra, the Department of Health, various campaign groups, and “representatives from the food industry”. Looking at the list, that amounts to the Food & Drink Federation, the Food Standards Agency, the Food Ethics Council and Bite Back, a youth activist food movement.
This survey is being touted as an essential tool for gauging public sentiment on a critical issue, but not one actual food producer or manufacturer has been invited to contribute to the debate. That’s par for the course – food manufacturers never get invited to the party.
Reactionary legislation
Relying on this survey, and the contributions from activist organisations, to shape public policy is not only problematic. It could lead to drastic, misguided and reactionary legislation that undermines consumer choice and unfairly targets the food industry.
At first glance, the survey appears to be a benign, comprehensive attempt to understand the evolving public health concerns related to ultra-processed foods. Its stated goal is to collect data that will inform future policies aimed at reducing health risks associated with dietary patterns. Yet the involvement of such a diverse group of stakeholders raises immediate red flags.
When government bodies and campaign groups with well-documented agendas work alongside industry representatives, the potential for bias is significant. The survey’s oversight committee, though diverse on paper, represents interests that are not necessarily aligned with the pursuit of an unbiased understanding of public opinion.
The involvement of entities like Defra and the Department of Health signals an intent to address environmental and health concerns related to food production and consumption. While these are legitimate issues, they are often accompanied by a desire to implement sweeping regulatory reforms. When combined with the influence of activist ‘campaign groups’ known for their aggressive anti-industry rhetoric, there is a strong likelihood that the survey questions and methodology could be subtly, or not so subtly, framed to produce results that justify further legislative intervention.
In effect, the survey might become less a tool for understanding public attitudes and more a means to an end: creating a pretext for imposing stricter regulations on the food industry.
Far-reaching repercussions
The repercussions of such a survey could be far-reaching. For the food industry, the implications are immediate and severe.
If policy-makers use potentially biased data to argue for restrictions on the production and marketing of ultra processed foods, the result could be a series of regulatory measures that not only stifle innovation, but also limit consumer choice.
Consumers may soon find themselves with fewer options at the supermarket, as companies pull products that are deemed “unsafe” or “unhealthy” in the face of heightened regulatory scrutiny and public pressure – even if such claims are not supported by rigorous, independent research.
Moreover, the move toward stricter regulation based on skewed survey results could further polarise public opinion. A narrative that positions the food industry as a primary culprit behind public health issues risks igniting an anti-industry sentiment that overshadows the complex realities of modern food production and consumption. This binary framing, where the food industry is painted as the enemy and regulatory bodies as the saviours, can hinder constructive dialogue and lead to policy decisions that are reactionary rather than evidence-based.
As we pointed out last year, 56% of parliamentary mentions of UPF are negative in sentiment. In the House of Commons specifically, it’s 81%. Our data showed that from the beginning, this debate has been lopsided. There are virtually no references to the benefits of processing – safe, convenient, affordable food – and the problem is getting worse, quickly. Between 2022 and 2023, negative mentions in parliament increased threefold.
The potential for this survey to become a tool for pushing extreme legislative measures is a cautionary tale for both the food industry and consumers alike. It highlights the dangers of allowing data collection efforts to be co-opted by groups with strong, predetermined agendas. Instead of serving as a neutral basis for informed decision-making, the survey risks becoming a battleground for ideological conflicts, where the ultimate winners are those advocating for increased government intervention and decreased industry autonomy.
Buried in red tape
The hard truth is, the threat of more regulation risks burying businesses in red tape and hurting their ability to operate successfully, which impacts all stakeholders, irrespective of whether companies have sought to innovate their way out of their challenges.
Ironically, UK Research and Innovation risks stymieing innovation, hurting growth, destroying job creation and future investment. While addressing the public health challenges associated with ultra-processed foods is a worthy goal, it must not come at the expense of fair and balanced research.
This much-vaunted national survey, with its mixed oversight and huge potential for bias, is a step in the wrong direction. It is imperative that we advocate for independent research methodologies that prioritise objectivity over political expediency.
Only then can we ensure policy decisions are made on the basis of comprehensive, unbiased data – data that truly reflects the will of the public without being distorted by the agendas of powerful stakeholders with undue influence on government policy. The future of public health, and consumer choice and freedom, depends on it.
Mike Coppen-Gardner is the MD of SPQR
No comments yet