The launch of Labour’s National Food Policy came a few weeks later than planned, thanks to the protests of angry farmers in Westminster, but it could set the agenda for food policy for many years to come.
More importantly, it has the potential to transform the system, benefiting growers, manufacturers, retailers and ultimately consumers. That’s if ministers and the planned “coalition” of business interests from across the sector can manage to work together successfully.
Having kept the industry guessing since it swept to power, Labour has now set out its stall. Environment secretary Steve Reed promised an “ambitious” cross-department policy putting food and food security at its heart.
Yesterday, Reed challenged industry bosses to work together to tackle the obesity crisis by making the nation’s food healthier. He also wants them to tackle unfair supply chains that are driving too many farmers to the edge of bankruptcy and find ways to reduce the sector’s environmental impact so the UK’s net zero ambitions can become more than a pipe dream.
In return, he promised buy-in across Defra, the Department of Health and the Department of Education, vowing to tackle health inequalities while attracting the investment in the industry its leaders have said has been missing for many years.
A common cause
So far, so very good. Yet while Labour is certainly saying all the right things, there can be no underestimating the huge challenges this strategy will come up against. There are already obvious barriers that will have to be faced down in a way that has previously proved beyond ministers and the industry alike.
Reed told a briefing with industry leaders yesterday there would be no more “random interventions” by ministers on matters to tackle issues in areas such as health and the environment.
But the brutal reality is that the new National Food Strategy will launch with landmark policies inherited for the previous government already set in motion and, for the most part, having been played out in chaos.
Extended producer responsibility, the deposit return scheme, delayed and watered-down clampdowns on HFSS foods, mixed messages on a future crackdown on ultra-processed foods, backtracks on plans for labelling and carbon reporting… These are just a few of the ongoing situations into which the new coalition’s “forces” will be deployed – that is, if ministers can persuade such diverse groups as farmers, retailers, food manufacturers and health campaigners to agree to a common cause.
Another absolutely critical question is whether Reed and his ministers from across government can guarantee the long-term buy-in to give this policy the support it needs. Time and again in the past, policies have disappeared at the whim of ministers out to appease backbench uprisings or attacks in the media.
Read more: Labour’s new National Food Strategy delayed amid farmer protests
As a series of ex-ministers and prime ministers admitted in a recent report by former health tsar Henry Dimbleby, the political reality (combined with their lack of backbone) made it impossible to get anything done. With Labour already busy “resetting” its positions on various key issues in recent days, that doesn’t necessarily bode well.
“Too many strategies have started with good intentions to work across the different departments and then we see separate, disjointed plans emerging in things like obesity or trade,” one leading retail source tells The Grocer.
“It needs to have both long-term objectives and short-term ones. 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.
“It has to be credible. It is important that any national strategy recognises environmental and health goals but equally engages industry around costs and growth. Ultimately it also has to recognise the impact on consumers. Too many strategies ignore consumer choice and affordability.”
Making the National Food Strategy work
But it’s not just the government’s track record of working together that will be put to the test. The industry too must ask itself if it is prepared to step up and make the new National Food Strategy work.
“It’s got to have real top-level industry involvement and that means people who actually understand the real problems, not, with the greatest of respect, the corporate affairs people or those hiding behind trade associations,” says one leading industry source.
“The food industry is facing a crisis as big as the Covid pandemic. It’s just not so in our faces. But to tackle the challenges it needs engagement across industry and it also really has to be across government.”
That will be challenging enough when it comes to corralling politicians, but even more so taking into account the turf wars and dark arts of their armies of civil servants.
“I get a sense that while there is strong political support it might not be quite as straightforward with the civil servants when it comes to some of the older-style fiefdoms,” adds the source.
A final obvious question that has not yet been touched on by Reed and co is the timeframe for regulation and reform.
The strategy will need concrete milestones, as well as clear, transparent – and achievable – objectives. And while it is important that it has long-term buy-in, there must also be goals that can be achieved within the term of this parliament. Otherwise that political buy-in will be impossible to achieve.
A ready-made solution
All of this means that the National Food Strategy drawn up by Dimbleby in 2021 may, despite the lack of delivery he so laments, ultimately find itself playing a prominent role in proceedings.
Reed’s first question in the Q&A yesterday was whether Labour would dust off the policy as a ready-made solution. His answer was that he planned to build on it, rather than start a new process from scratch.
“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 the source. “Reed made that very clear in his answer.
“What will need to be done is for that report to be brought up to date and for its measures to be validated.”
Validation will not come easy, when among the recommendations in Dimbleby’s report were a raft of taxes on HFSS foods, drastic changes to the national diet to move away from meat, and huge changes to land use by farmers.
Meanwhile, the man himself has since extended his calls to include a sweeping clampdown on ultra-processed foods, an area where there is nothing like consensus for a clear way forward.
Perhaps most importantly, all of these challenges need to be tackled in a way that really understands customers, which is why the strategy will ultimately succeed or fail, depending on how many of the food industry’s best brains get on board.
Come the new year we will start to find out.
No comments yet