Wes Streeting cannot just ‘follow the science’ in UPF debate

Wes Streeting has a tough choice to make on ultra-processed foods (UPFs). As he looks to curb the UK’s growing obesity crisis, the health secretary is facing calls from the health lobby, whose cause has been turbocharged by influential figures like Chris van Tulleken and Henry Dimbleby, for a clampdown backed by legislation.

Campaigners have pointed to flaws in the current focus on foods high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS), under which, for example, the newly reformulated Doritos can now be classed as healthy. If the focus was shifted to UPFs, the Doritos would be out, and more nutritious, but potentially HFSS, foods would be in.

That’s the idea, anyway. But nothing is ever that simple. As critics have pointed out, even new products that have been developed to be positively healthier – such as Modern Baker’s Superloaf – would be classed as ultra-processed.

Another common criticism – much of it, admittedly, from the food industry – is the lack of science behind the argument. As FDF CEO Karen Betts pointed out in a column for The Grocer this summer, it shifts the focus away from trusted measures like fat and sugar content, and “turns the UK’s clear, established dietary guidance on its head”.

It’s a tricky debate, with plenty of vested interests.

So critics will no doubt welcome the publication of peer-reviewed scientific research this week that casts further doubt over the UPF classification.

Peer-reviewed UPF research

The evidence against tens of thousands of products in the firing line is “overwhelmingly” circumstantial, found a study by professors Alexandra Johnstone from the Rowett Institute of Nutrition & Health, University of Aberdeen, and Eric Robinson, of the University of Liverpool. The Grocer understands that neither of these scientists has connections to the food industry. 

What’s more – in a particularly pertinent point for this government – a clampdown on UPFs could disadvantage the very people it was designed to help. Issuing formal warnings about UPFs could push some people towards less processed, but less nutritious options in the short term, the professors argue.

They also highlighted the potential “social cost for many people with more limited resources” of removing convenient options and the possible negative mental health impacts on “those who worry about their health or live with eating disorders, particularly if social circumstances make avoiding UPFs difficult”.

Ultimately, the debate around UPFs should not detract from the “immediate and much-needed public health policy to regulate the food industry” to reduce HFSS foods, they warned.

Sign up to The Grocer’s webinar on UPF vs HFSS

It’s a message that will no doubt resonate with the food industry. Even if there remains debate about HFSS regulation, and the measurement system itself, it is at least a well defined term that has formed the basis of reformulation efforts to date. Switching the onus to UPFs would rip up the rulebook – meaning many products reformulated to become non-HFSS would suddenly be deemed unhealthy.

Inflationary impact

The study is also important food for thought for the government, as it prepares to announce what is widely expected to be a tough budget. Even as inflation falls to 2%, the cost of living continues to be a pressing concern for consumers. Crucially, government policy has already contributed to the first increase in food price inflation since March last year, up from 1.3% to 1.8%.

So clamping down on popular convenience foods, at the same time as expected tax rises, would be a bitter pill for the public to swallow.

Already, there is growing criticism of the UPF narrative, as one dreamed up by those in ivory towers who have the time and money to live on whole foods cooked from scratch. It’s hardly a desirable look for Labour.

At the same time, it’s hard to defend many of the foods fingered in Chris van Tulleken’s seminal book on UPFs – which uses a raft of scientific studies to make very well evidenced points. While there are exceptions to the rule, UPFs are generally not the healthiest of products. And a nation that relies on those for the majority of its calories is unlikely to have the best health outcomes.

So for Streeting, there is no easy answer. Falling on either side of the fence risks angering the electorate and public health bodies. But if Labour is serious about tackling obesity, it will have to adopt a stance on UPFs – and put the health of the nation above any fallout or political point-scoring.