Henry Dimbleby says he wants to break the cycle of processed food he claims has been feeding the obesity epidemic and is in grave danger of crippling the NHS.
But the big question surrounding the Leon founder’s National Food Strategy is whether his bombshell proposals would break the UK food industry in the process if (and it is a supersized if) ministers act on his recommendations.
Even the most vehement of health campaigners would surely not have dreamt ministers, particularly in this supposedly anti-nanny state era of Tory government, would agree to sanction what one source describes as a £3.4bn “tsunami” of taxes in as little as three years’ time.
Having spent the past two years consulting with what he describes as “free thinkers”, campaign groups, celebrity chefs and – until a recent bust-up saw him go to ground – the food industry itself, Dimbleby has come up with 14 recommendations. If enacted, they would change the industry beyond recognition if even a handful were adopted. Sources suggest his original draft contained as many as 80.
Many would agree with some of the powerful arguments Dimbleby makes in his 290-page report. Such as his passionate belief that exercise alone will never cure the obesity crisis, or, whisper it quietly around farmers, that we eat too much meat. But others come across as not so much blue sky thinking, but utterly cloud cuckoo land stuff.
Extending the sugar tax to cover some of the other key products held responsible for the child obesity crisis? Yes, that’s believed to have been on the cards for some time, in line with the recent restrictions on HFSS promotions and advertising. Especially given the dismal failure of PHE’s voluntary reformulation programmes.
But what Dimbleby is proposing is in a whole different biosphere. His own prediction suggests his propsed levies would cost the industry up to £3.4bn a year, three times the HFSS promotions ban that already had the food industry up in arms.
That’s before even talking about how farmers will fare from his plans. A specific tax on meat isn’t in the official recommendations – but some claim this was only a last-minute concession to opposition from Tory MPs worried about riots in the streets similar to those seen in France before the pandemic.
Dimbleby talks nobly of returning our peatlands to life, restoring huge chunks of UK farmland to forest and moving away from the “ultra-processed” meats he claims make up 50% of our production. But his vision of algae alternatives and vegan lasagne substitutes lacks one vital detail – how this shift can be made without the industry taking a huge economic hit in the process.
Yes, he proposes a £1bn investment to “create a better system” but not only is that extremely vague, it’s less than one year’s worth of the new tax.
The food industry backlash to the report is only just beginning. “The whole report smacks of entitlement and privilege,” says one source. “It’s utterly bonkers. Only someone with no grasp of societal reality would come up with such a recommendation.”
Another source describes the report as nothing short of an “existential threat” to the industry.
“He wants to cut meat consumption by 30% in the next 10 years. And it’s just weird. He’s fundamentally trying to undermine the business models of supermarkets and went to them for their support, trying to twist retailers’ arms. Yet he’s basically saying to them ‘would you like to sell a third less?’.”
Indeed, what Dimbleby says supermarket and supplier CEOs have told him privately – that they want more government regulation in the way of taxes – contrasts markedly with what supermarket sources are telling The Grocer privately. Yes, they want a level playing field, but sweeping taxes across the aisles? Not so much.
Yet the significance of today’s tome should not be underestimated. Even if, as many expect, the government shies away from such an assault on the industry in the wake of Brexit and the pandemic, it is likely to have set in motion a process that will at the very least accelerate long-term changes to the sector in both the fight against obesity and the fight to save the planet
It’s not just the long list of campaigners, from Prue Leith to a plethora of professors, who have added their names to the health tsar’s report that matter in this debate. Shareholders, like those who recently forced concessions from the likes of Tesco and Morrisons to be more ambitious and transparent in their obesity strategies, are also making an impact.
The industry will have to move faster on these issues if it is to avoid further regulation, even if Dimbleby’s dreams of the extent of that regulation are over the top.
Arguing to hard-up Brits that his plans will put 9p on a Mars bar won’t wash. The industry needs a powerful case of its own if it is to win the battle of hearts and minds.
No comments yet