To call the recommendations of the House of Lords inquiry into obesity draconian is something of an understatement.
Given the page after page of demands on the new government, it’s perhaps surprising it didn’t call for food industry bosses to be hauled before the courts and thrown into jail – that is, of course, if there was any room.
Given that Baroness Joan Walmsley, the chair of the committee, had already accused the industry of “getting away with murder”, we perhaps shouldn’t be too surprised at the severity of the measures proposed. Particularly in the wake of Lord Darzi’s damning report on the state of the NHS, which was driven in no small part by the obesity crisis.
But do the sweeping proposals actually stand much chance of being taken on by a new Labour government? Especially one gearing up for a vital budget next week, which is expected to introduce eye-watering cuts to public spending and services?
Impassioned calls for taxes
The Lords’ inquiry presents an impassioned call for a clampdown on unhealthy food, after years of failure of the voluntary approach. But the proposals come with a big price tag. It calls on Keir Starmer’s government to hit consumers with a swathe of new taxes on products that high in sugar and salt – something health secretary Wes Streeting has already seemingly ruled out.
The resistance to a sweeping new regime of taxes was already recognised by former health tsar Henry Dimbleby when he published his National Food Strategy in 2019.
And that was before we faced the current financial challenges. In such a tough economic climate, it will be difficult to justify another tax – even when taking into account the predicted long-term savings for the NHS, or the old school Labour-leaning idea of using a Robin Hood tax on junk food to finance healthy diets for the poor.
How far can ‘nanny state’ go?
Other measures are so extreme they would surely end up bogged down in court challenges for many years, even if a government was brave enough to take them on. Take the total ban on advertising products that are high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) – not just on TV and online, but anywhere in the land.
The committee doesn’t have to answer to the Treasury. By its very nature, it’s made up of self-selected peers, many of whom have long-standing views on the “evils” of the food industry, such as its chair. That much is evident in the near-180 pages that have been penned since its creation in January.
But the recommendations are an entirely different matter for Streeting, who will be pondering how far a new Labour public health strategy can go down the road of intervention and regulation. And to what extent Labour can really embrace the “nanny state” – especially considering the inevitable backlash from the likes of the Daily Mail.
FSA in an enforcement role
Behind the headlines, there are huge questions on the practicality of the proposals. Not least the recommendation that the Food Standards Agency should take control over a new mandatory set of regulations to police the food industry.
It’s not the first time the suggestion has been made, and the fact the FSA was introduced under New Labour in 2001 may make the Labour government sympathetic to the idea. But as The Grocer has reported, the FSA has already been struggling to police areas such as food hygiene regulations. Is it really in a position to take on the obesity policy, too?
The FSA’s response yesterday was fascinating. Its chair Susan Jebb – quoted almost 40 times in the Lords report, in her role as professor of diet and population health at the University of Oxford – was effusive in her support.
While the suggested role change for the FSA was “for the government to consider”, she added: “From our experience as a regulator, we agree it is important that any targets or requirements on businesses are accompanied by effective monitoring and enforcement to drive positive changes.”
Huge investment required
Jebb’s response conveniently overlooks the huge investment in resources that would be required for the FSA – or any body that is charged with enforcement – to carry out that role.
As one source puts it: “The FSA isn‘t resourced to carry out its current remit, so the idea of adding supervision of the whole food system would be an enormous stretch. Any new requirements should only be introduced if they are enforceable by a suitable resourced regulator.”
It’s hard to find a suitable alternative to the FSA. It’s unlikely to be the Office for Health Improvement & Disparities (OHID), which launched in 2021 as a successor to PHE. Despite launching to much fanfare under Professor Chris Whitty, it has had the guts ripped out of it by government cutbacks and is in no position to launch such an extensive set of measures.
Meanwhile, the voluntary measures overseen by these bodies – such as the sugar reduction programme and the calorie reduction programme – have become a virtual laughing stock. Not only are they years behind schedule, they have made very little difference to public health.
‘Further research needed’ on UPFs
Despite all the detachment from reality, the Lords’ report holds one source of relief: there is no call for action on ultra-processed foods. Figures like Chris van Tulleken and Henry Dimbleby have called for moves such as a total ban on advertising for all UPF products, or even cigarette-style health warning labels. Against that backdrop, some feared the report would call for an immediate crackdown on UPFs, too.
But the committee went no further than calling for more research to firm up the science on UPFs.
The position was welcomed not just by food industry bosses but also scientists, including the universities of Aberdeen and Liverpool, who last week warned that a “premature” clampdown on UPF based on “overwhelmingly circumstantial evidence” could cause a major dietary crisis all of its own.
Health campaign groups and healthier food companies have warmly welcomed the report today. But their hopes of immediate action from government should be tempered with realism.
As always, the most effective measures on public health have to be science-based. And to a certain extent, they also have to be based on the reality of the political and economic situation.
While the previous government deserves criticism for backtracking on health policy, which did neither consumers nor food companies any favours in the long term, it is hard to think the new government will come in all guns blazing with the food industry in its sights. Or at least not yet.
1 Readers' comment