Taxes are rarely a popular move. Except when it comes to obesity, it seems. The majority of Brits want the government to tax companies that make either ’junk’ or ultra-processed foods (UPFs), according to an Ipsos survey for The Health Foundation released this week.

An overwhelming 58% would like to see taxes on foods high in salt and sugar, with the proceeds going to tackle obesity. Of the 2,136 UK adults polled, 53% want government to impose taxes on companies producing UPFs.

The findings are unsurprising given rising health concerns – one in four British adults are obese, according to the NHS – and the growing narrative around UPFs.

There is also the success of the soft drinks levy. Since its introduction in 2018, total sugar sales in the category have fallen by 34.3% – a resounding success compared with the 3.5% drop achieved by voluntary sugar reduction targets. Research by Queen Mary University of London has also shown a drop in obesity among teen girls and fewer children admitted to hospital for tooth decay.

But it’s not as simple as cutting and pasting the approach to other categories. In the case of soft drinks, plenty of zero sugar options were already on the market. So it was relatively easy for soft drinks giants to either reformulate or push more consumers towards those existing sugar-free options. It’s far harder to cut out sugar from categories such as cakes and chocolate without damaging taste to such an extent that their appeal is lost.

And in the case of UPFs, the case for a tax gets even more complicated. For one thing, there’s no established definition of what constitutes a UPF. As The Grocer previously highlighted, a common definition is a product with more than five ingredients – which would make the M&S x Zoe Gut Shot, containing nine ingredients and created by vocal UPF critic Tim Spector, technically a UPF.

Attempting to tax a category with such woolly boundaries would prove a legal quagmire, at best. There’s also currently lack of scientific consensus on whether UPF is a useful marker of what’s healthy. As the FSA puts it: “Some (but not all) ultra-processed foods are high in fat, sugar and salt. It’s hard to establish whether this is the sole reason why consuming lots of them can lead to poorer health, or whether there are additional negative health impacts from other factors.”

Wholemeal plant bread, for example, may be made using industrial processes and long chains of chemicals, but it otherwise fits the nutritional bill for a healthy food. Conversely, heavy cream may contain little else but cows milk, but that doesn’t make it healthy. A UPF tax risks tarring all ultra-processed foods – from crisps and high-calorie puddings to breads, fruity yoghurts and meat substitutes – with the same brush.

Then there are the knock-on effects of such a tax. Sure, it might incentivise companies to reformulate some unhealthy foods, but it could also simply make the cheapest foods less affordable. By and large, the shoppers who buy – and rely on – UPFs have lower incomes. Any conversation on UPFs needs to take this into account.

As the infamous statistic goes, the UK has more food banks than McDonald’s. The proliferation of both reflects the deep issues facing Britain’s relationship with food. Any tax on UPFs must ensure it does not send more consumers to the former.

Topics