That this House takes note of the Report from the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee Recipe for health: a plan to fix our broken food system (HL Paper 19).
My Lords, I thank the members of the committee for their hard work and dedication, and our wonderful staff team: Stuart Stoner, Lucy Valsamidis, Abdullah Ahmad, Lara Orija and Kate Willett. The advice of our specialist adviser, Professor Martin White, was absolutely crucial.
Albert Einstein is said once to have said:
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.
Unfortunately, the Government’s response to the committee’s recommendations smacks of insanity. Why? Because we have an obesity crisis and a consequent health crisis, which the NHS is meant to clear up. Page 3 of their response accepts that this is real, urgent and caused by bad food—yet there is no commitment to do things differently.
There was outrage from food and health campaigners at the Government’s response. But the following sentence appeared in an article in The Grocer periodical:
“However, food industry bosses welcomed Streeting’s response to the inquiry”.
Well, yes, that says it all—of course they did. They are laughing all the way to the bank with their profits on making our children sick, because the Government have accepted hardly any of the recommendations in the committee’s report. All they have committed to is implementing the policies of the previous Government: reviewing the soft drinks industry levy; implementing the advertising ban on less-healthy food; and banning energy drink sales to children. However welcome these are, they are not enough. Ambition needs action, not just words. We have a new Government with a new mandate and a duty to enhance people’s lives, but all we got was obfuscation and delay.
The Food, Diet and Obesity Committee’s remit was to consider the role of foods such as ultra-processed foods and foods high in sugar, salt and saturated fat in a healthy diet and tackling obesity. We interpreted that as asking us to recommend how the Government can ensure that all our citizens get access to healthy food, real food, affordable food. The committee looked at how we got here. We heard that our food system has changed over the past 30 years: less cooking from scratch, more fast-food outlets and more ultra-processed foods. These are usually high in calories, highly palatable and high in harmful nutrients such as salt, sugar and saturated fat; they are low in fibre and vitamins, and loaded with additives. There has been a vast increase in the advertising and promotion of less-healthy foods. Only 2% of advertising spend is on fresh fruit and vegetables, while 36% is on confectionery, snacks, desserts and soft drinks.
We heard that food is an equalities issue. The poorest 20% of people would spend 45% of their family income to comply with the national dietary guidelines, rising to 70% if they have children. Therefore, they suffer the consequences in lower life expectancy and more years in poor health. On average, today’s British children consume less than half of the recommended amount of fruit and veg, but twice the amount of sugar.
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness for her introduction. She has been a wonderful chair; she had to handle some difficulties—some internal tensions—but she managed to bring the committee through, and we produced a wonderful report. It is a bit like the one that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, previously produced, which again offered a whole range of recommendations, but not many of them were implemented at the time. I came to the committee with some reluctance—as the clerk, Stuart, knows—because I felt that I had spent many years, 20 years ago, doing so much work on Select Committees and yet so little was implemented. I came back reluctantly, but I have a very strong interest, as most of the House knows, in sugar addiction and how we should address that and try to change it.
A week ago, I told the Minister that she would have a rough morning today. I start by expressing my gratitude to her, as well as to our Financial Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore. In the October Budget the Government made a Statement to extend the range of the levy over a wider front than we had done previously. Not a great deal of publicity was given to it, but it was a move in the right direction. So our principal recommendation has been partially addressed already—but only partially. I suspect that it will not be addressed a great deal further on a wider basis, so we have to deal with the reality and the changing circumstances in which we find ourselves.
The soft drink levy should be extended, but I know that the Government will run into great difficulties with that. If we get into a war with the Americans on trade, we will have to retaliate. I suggest to the Government that we should have tariffs of 25% on a few of the American products that are causing us difficulties—Coca-Cola, Pepsi, KFC and McDonald’s; you name them—they are responsible for the excess calories that we consume. That will probably not happen, but I hope that it will be borne in mind.
That 12-step programme has helped me address the problems I had with my weight. I was overweight in my 60s, and when I got to the end of my 70s I was on the cusp of type 2 diabetes. I did a 12-step programme, entirely free of charge, and I got my weight back down and avoided having to take tablets and injections. I hope that we will look at the 12-step programmes and the available alternative programmes; they should be put through social prescribing, which we are failing to use to its full advantage.
On the new food strategy, I share the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on happiness. We should involve the food and manufacturing industry, because, at the end of the day, it will still be there and we have to find ways to do business with it. My complaint is that we do not have one of the 10 big worldwide manufacturers on the committee. Why do we not have the people with whom we need to engage? For example, why have we not involved Nestlé, which spends so much time with children’s food and baby food? I ask the Minister to bring in even bigger players than those we have so far.
The solution that the Government will eventually light on will be the anti-obesity drugs. It is the way that government invariably goes—I regret that, but I suspect that it will be the case.
I am running out of time. Finally, we did not look at alcohol in our review. Alcohol is a major contributor to obesity, but we did not have the time to do that. I hope that, when we come back, we will spend some time looking at the anti-obesity drugs, which will cost a fortune and be in widespread use.
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe. Like him, I pay tribute to our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley; she has been such an excellent chair of a committee that was both very interesting and very worrying to serve on.
Our committee covers food, diet and obesity, but today I will mainly focus on food, and food insecurity in particular. We know that food insecurity is really about the affordability and accessibility of food; if that is not present, it is the driver of unhealthy diets. I want to talk about our relationship as human beings with food. I am not talking about packets, tins, what comes out the freezer and cooking it; it is about eating and handling food, and it is sometimes about growing and shopping for food. It is part of the human condition—and I am talking here about real food.
Chapter 7 of our report says:
“Food insecurity is an urgent problem”.
Of course, the poorer people are, the more that adds to this urgency. In the Government’s response to our report, particularly to chapter 7, they talk about the strategy that has already been mentioned today. Page 5 states:
“In alignment with the health mission, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs … is developing an ambitious food strategy that will set the food system up for long-term success and will provide wide ranging improvements. The food strategy will help to improve our food system so it … provides healthier, more easily accessible food to tackle obesity and give children the best start in life, and help adults live longer healthier lives, building on the government’s existing work to tackle obesity and improve health”.
Today, I would like to hear more about this strategy from the Minister. We have heard that the advisory board is in place. I would like to know a lot more about what its terms of reference are and how the Government will make sure that what they have asked the board to do is what comes out at the other end. It must be cross-departmental—because this whole subject involves more than just one department—but led by Defra.
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for being an excellent chair of this Select Committee inquiry and for her outstanding introduction to this debate. I also express thanks to our specialist adviser, Professor Martin White from Cambridge University, who kept us on the straight and narrow, as well as our clerk and policy analyst.
I declare two interests. First, I am the chair of the World Cancer Research Fund’s global expert panel, which reviews the scientific evidence for links between diet, obesity and cancer risk. Secondly, I am a scientific adviser to Marks & Spencer.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I am puzzled. The Government agree with our diagnosis of the problem. They say in their response to our report that people are eating too much calorie-dense, highly palatable food, commonly known as HFSS—high in fat, salt and sugar, or junk food for short—and, as a result, obesity rates have rocketed in recent decades. They go on to say that this rise in obesity has adverse effects on health, well-being and the economy. They also say there is a need to reshape the food environment, which has been an important causal factor for the rise in obesity.
Having read these introductory paragraphs of the Government’s response, I was ready to enjoy learning that, having agreed with our diagnosis, they also agree with our proposed solutions. These solutions were based on many months of hard graft and more than 1,000 pages of written evidence from experts. Instead, the Government, as we have already heard, rejected nearly all our recommendations, as indeed they rejected the recommendations of the inquiry I chaired a few years ago on food poverty, health and the environment. There were—as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned—some honourable exceptions. These included the policies inherited from the previous Government on restrictions on the promotion and advertising of junk food, as well as the welcome uprating of the soft drinks industry levy announced in the Autumn Budget. Apart from those two, we got some rather vague hand-waving about the health mission of prevention instead of treatment and the new Defra-led food strategy.
My Lords it was a privilege to serve on the committee. I thank our chairman, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, Professor Martin White, our clerk Stuart Stoner and the whole team. Of the many committee reports in which I have been involved, this one is unique. None has been so welcome and reported on outside this House yet received such a negative response from the Government.
We made several important recommendations for a comprehensive policy, but I want to focus most of my remarks on ultra-processed foods. Our report draws attention to the difficulties encountered by the concept and classification of UPFs, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, just said. We noted that some processed foods, particularly the ultra-processed ones, are more harmful than others, but it is hard to know which.
Buying food that is good for you is often difficult and requires time, especially for those on low incomes. Added to this, there is a huge amount of confusion and misinformation promulgated by the food manufacturers. Generally, the more healthy and good the packet tells you the food is, the more cautious you need to be.
Most food is processed to some degree; it is the amount of processing that is relevant to how much of a health risk it can be. What we as consumers need to know is the damage that that process can do to food. It can be used to include additives that are non-culinary ingredients, such as emulsifiers. One should try to avoid food with those in them, so reading the label is a necessity even if one does not understand what all those unintelligible values mean.
Processing can alter the palatability of foods. Many foods are processed to make them hyperpalatable, which encourages us to buy and eat more of them, but they are bad for us. Processing the food can also alter the energy intake of the food in question.
My Lords, I too am grateful to the Food, Diet and Obesity Committee, which wrote this report. It is excellent, but it paints a picture that this country has a real problem with food. As has already been stated today, the prevalence of cheap, unhealthy foods filled with sugar, salt and fat has fuelled an obesity epidemic and causes real damage to individuals’ health and to the NHS. According to a Frontier Economics report, obesity-related illness costs £6.5 billion a year, so it also damages the UK economy.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, there have been over 700 proposed policies to tackle this issue over the years since 1992, but none have worked. Healthy food has become a luxury for many in this country, something that some people simply cannot afford. There is a very real and increasing health gap between the richest and the poorest. We have relied on the good faith of the food industry for far too long—that it will voluntarily reformulate its products—and we have told people they must eat healthier. But this report lays bare our failings and demands a radical shift in our policy. We simply must change the food landscape, encourage companies to produce healthier food, focus on children, and ensure that all are able to access a healthy diet.
The levy on sugary drinks caused sizeable reductions in sugar levels and had a greater effect on the health of the nation than a voluntary measure could possibly have achieved, so I add my voice to the mandatory regulations lobby. Mandatory reformulations will create a level playing field, encourage all companies to commit to producing healthier food and can only be good for all of us, including the industry. But for many people in this country, eating healthily is simply not an option. I fear it would really be very problematic to reform the food industry, potentially increasing the price of unhealthy food, without making healthier alternatives available to all. I hope that the Government’s future food strategy will go some way to telling us how they intend to deal with that.
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the chair and all the committee members on their excellent report. But while the report is strong, the Government’s response is weak. Despite years of proposals, successive Governments have failed to tackle obesity. In fact, the problem has got worse and it is our most vulnerable, poorer families and children who are paying the price, as many noble Lords have said before me. Childhood obesity is not just a phase. Children who are obese have an 80% chance of remaining overweight or obese as adults. That is a lifetime of preventable illnesses. We owe our children a healthier and better start in life.
Today, over one in five children in England are overweight or obese when they start primary school. By the time they leave, that is one in three. These are not just numbers; they are our children’s lives. In the UK, we have among the highest obesity rates in the developed world: only the USA and Brazil outstrip us.
In France, the difference is stark. There, food is something to be cherished. Schools offer children a proper meal—a three-course meal with fruits and vegetables. Families still cook from scratch, shop for fresh ingredients and eat together at set times. Meals are moments of connection and enjoyment, not something consumed on the go in front of a screen. When I first arrived in the UK, I was shocked to see people eating chocolate bars at their desk in the morning, sipping sugary drinks on public transport and snacking constantly without sitting down to enjoy a meal.
People often ask me: “How do you manage to keep your weight down?” The truth is simple. I was raised to eat well. My parents taught me to rely on fruits and vegetables, not tinned and ultra-processed foods. My parents were vegetarians, and we sat at meals around a table. I was taught to chew before I swallowed.
The root cause of obesity is clear. It is not just the quantity—it is also what we eat and how we eat it. This is not about blaming individuals, but about acknowledging that our food system is broken. As the report highlights, obesity is not just a health issue. It is driving chronic illness, disability and economic hardship. It costs the NHS over £19 billion a year, and the wider economy even more, yet the Government’s response lacks ambition and urgency. It leans heavily on voluntary measures, with no serious regulatory levers, but we need a national food strategy that puts health first.
10:56 am
20 of 46 shown
The committee looked at government action over the past 30 years while overweight and obesity have rocketed. There have been 14 obesity strategies, including about 700 policies. We asked researchers which ones had worked and which ones had not—and, if not, why not? The answer was that they failed because they were piecemeal, had voluntary rather than mandatory targets and relied on personal choice in a world where many people, because of the food environment and poverty, were not free to choose healthy food. The exception was the soft drinks industry levy, which was mandatory and led to a reduction in the amount of sugar in soft drinks, as manufacturers reformulated to avoid paying the tax. That was the point of it, of course.
The committee therefore determined not to fall into the same traps, and that led to our main recommendation that the Government should develop a comprehensive and long-term strategic approach to the oversight and regulation of the food system, backed up by legislation. Despite Wes Streeting saying he would steamroller over the food industry if it did not improve, the Government are falling into the piecemeal and voluntary action trap again.
Because of the public health obesity crisis, we recommended a shift to mandatory rather than voluntary policies, such as healthier food targets, reformulation taxes on sugar and salt and a laser focus on improving the diets of babies and children—but we are not seeing any of that in this response. We regulate the oil industry, the tobacco industry, alcohol, drugs and gambling, so why not food? It is not just about the safety of food but its quality and healthiness.
I find it sad that this is despite the Government being elected on some very worthwhile promises—first, to have the healthiest generation of children ever. However, there is no commitment to reviewing the school food standards and the eligibility for and value of free school meals. There is no commitment to increase healthy start payments or to address the deluge of advertising of junk food to teenagers or the poor regulation of foods advertised for infants and toddlers. Will the Government start by implementing all the recommendations of the CMA report on formula milk, and then tackle the shocking and harmful content and misleading advertising and labelling of food for young children?
Secondly, there is the Government’s health mission, to move from treatment to prevention. What has happened? The only tangible initiative on obesity has been treatment through expensive anti-obesity jabs—which would cripple the NHS budget according to NESTA—rather than primary prevention by ensuring everyone can get a healthy diet. I do not deny jabs can be appropriate and successful, but prevention is cheaper.
Thirdly, the Government promised to save the NHS, where the cost of treating obesity-related illness is £18 billion per year. However, the Government seem content for the taxpayer to pay for the NHS to foot the bill for obesity, rather than the food industry that caused it.
Fourthly, the new national food strategy shows no sign of getting to grips with the food industry, the sector that has caused the obesity crisis in the first place. Last week, the membership of the advisory board for this strategy was announced. Although there are several very good people on the board, the majority are from the food industry, and so is the secretariat—talk about the fox in the hen coop. It includes a major supermarket which refused to give the committee evidence in public, but instead offered us a private meeting with researchers that it funds—we rightly refused on transparency grounds. I wish the advisory board and the food strategy well, but I fear it is already in danger of going in the wrong direction.
Finally, there is the Government’s growth objective. We have almost 3 million people of working age out of the workplace because of preventable illnesses caused by obesity. Sick people cannot work. They do not pay taxes, but they qualify for benefits, adding £4 billion per year to the Government’s existential economic problems, according to Frontier Economics. But it is not the patient’s fault; it is the fault of our broken food system, and the Government could fix it if they wanted to.
Wes Streeting said recently,
“Our sick society is holding back our economy, and that is why we should act”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/11/24; col. 685.]
The committee heartily agreed, because the annual economic cost of overweight and obesity is £98 billion. Professor Susan Jebb, chair of the FSA, has pointed out:
“At a time when government is looking closely at public expenditure, it’s important to remember that costs of inaction far outweigh the investment needed to deliver a safe, healthier, and more sustainable supply of food for all”.
The OBR has warned that many older workers are leaving the workforce because of obesity-related health issues. On the plus side, investors told us that there are billions of pounds waiting to be invested in companies that produce healthy food, but they wanted to see a clear direction of travel from government and a level playing field on regulation.
The case for bold action is made, and it is in line with the Government’s own objectives and the public’s wishes. Some 68% of those polled support the committee’s recommendation for a sugar and salt reformulation tax. Indeed, our recommendations could have been written precisely to enable the Government to achieve their objectives—but that means that they must get a grip on the food industry, with measures well beyond the last Government’s proposed restrictions.
And then there is lobbying. The committee recommended that the Government should establish their food policies independently of companies that rely mainly on sales of less healthy foods but should engage on implementation. After all, the Government’s objective should be public health, while the industry’s legitimate objective is making profit. In many cases, these two objectives are incompatible, but the Government have given a majority on the food strategy advisory board to the food industry. I ask the Minister: are the Government deliberately misrepresenting our recommendation, or are they responding to the vigorous lobbying of the industry?
Those few food industry witnesses who were prepared to give evidence in public wanted one thing. Like the investors, they want a level playing field: regulation that applies to all industry players, so that the good guys doing the right thing are not undercut by the bad guys who do not care who pays for the health consequences, as long as it is not them. The Government say they will continue
“to review the balance between mandatory and voluntary measures”,
but the voluntary target of reducing sugar by 20% resulted in a measly 3.5% reduction. Are the Government serious about saving the NHS, improving children’s health and growing the economy?
I am afraid I paint a very disappointing picture, and yet there is much to celebrate. So, here’s to those who produce and sell good healthy food, the food banks and redistributors, and the chefs and restaurants who serve good, healthy local food. Here’s to the food campaigners who never give up—and I hope they never will—and the parents and carers who try their best to feed their families healthy meals. Here’s to the health professionals who treat the consequences of bad diets, and here’s to the many witnesses who shared their experience and expertise with the committee. I thank all of them.
As I come to the end of this rather depressing analysis, I would like to quote from page 17 of the Government’s response. They said that they
“will consider whether further action is needed”.
You bet it is, my Lords. I beg to move.
There are issues on which the Government have given indications that they are trying to do something. They talked about weighing and measuring. We have had a scheme for weighing and measuring children since 2008. Notwithstanding that, we now find that our children are heavier. The Government have hinted recently that they intend to extend this to all adults, and that GPs will be required to weigh and measure people. I have no objection to that. We will have a great deal of data again, but I suspect that we will end up with an indication that people are still getting heavier—unless we take action.
The action I suggest is that we look at what has been happening—or not happening—with children and at where there has been no follow-through with children identified as overweight. Here I thank the people in Blackpool who gave us a great two days; we got down to the nitty-gritty on some of these issues. We heard from the public health officials about the great difficulties they had when they identified children who were overweight; they had problems with parents who would not help. It is about how we find a way through to take action for children.
We should spend some time looking at AI. Children use technology in a way that we do not, so that may be an opener for us. For example, noble Lords who look at ChatGPT or its alternatives will know what facilities and availabilities are coming online—what comes with AI is not all negative—and that could be used to find a way forward. We should try to bring people together in groups, in a way that we currently do not; we do it only with children, but maybe we should do it with adults.
I come from the background of a 12-step programme. I was in real trouble with my health. At 40, I was told that, if I did not stop drinking, I would die. I joined a 12-step programme—it cost nothing—and I have been in it for 43 years. I am still here, at age 82.
Now that the board is in place, the Government should know by now whether the strategy’s work will encourage more food to be grown and produced in the UK. Will it look at that? Is that one of the objectives of the strategy? I say that not out of some quirky, old-fashioned nationalism, but as a former Agriculture Minister, and somebody who represented a truly agricultural seat for 18 years, and as a former home economist who has taught many people, including adults, to cook. Will we have the availability of the ingredients and products from which we would all benefit if they were grown closer to home rather than on the other side of the world?
Will this strategy encourage both children and adult communities to grow the food they eat? Will allotments, for example, be protected from land to build on? If this is cross-departmental, are we actually going to start engaging the public with the very food they need throughout the course of their lives? We know that many schools, for example, support gardening and growing things, which help to introduce children in a most positive way to food that will be part of their lives. Will this strategy improve the population’s understanding of basic nutrients in food so that people know what to look for when they are shopping? Will they understand the labelling? All these things are small in their way, but they contribute to the way in which people address and see the food that appears in their kitchens.
I am sure the Minister will not be surprised to hear me ask this: is the teaching of cookery going to be improved in schools? In a former existence—as the president of the Institute of Home Economics—I campaigned very hard for many years with Governments of all persuasions to encourage this basic science in schools. It is a science and it is so essential. Will the strategy mean that from childhood to adulthood the population’s relationship with food improves to the extent that it once again becomes an essential life skill that is enjoyable, healthy and accessible? If the Minister cannot say exactly what she thinks will come out at the end of this strategy, can she at least share the timescale with us? The word “soon” was used in the Government’s January response to our report. How soon is “soon”? How will the strategy be monitored? Who will do this? Will any legislation needed at the outturn be given priority for parliamentary time? There are recommendations for legislation in our report, but if a recommendation for legislation comes from the strategy, will that be given priority?
I wish the Minister well with this, and I know she will be listening to what we have to say today.
For nearly all our recommendations, we got answers such as, “It’s all terribly complicated. We will review, consider and consult. We have to carefully consider the balance between voluntary and mandatory measures”. This is, to say the least, disappointing. There has been plenty of review, including in our inquiry, and there is no need for further paralysis by analysis. There is no need to further consider the balance of voluntary and mandatory measures. Simply read paragraph 62 of our report, where we refer to research from Cambridge University showing that about 700 policies to tackle obesity have failed because they were based on individual responsibility and voluntary measures. Does the Minister disagree with the conclusions of this Cambridge University research? If so, why?
Perhaps the Government might look at the lessons learned from smoking. In the middle of the last century, over 80% of adult males and over 40% of adult females smoked. Today, under 12% of adults smoke. This dramatic shift has not been driven by voluntary measures and individual responsibility; it has come about through a combination of legislation, taxation and education. The Tobacco and Vapes Bill, announced this week, will further tighten the regulatory screw. I know there are important differences between smoking and overeating, but both have major impacts on public health, so why not apply a similar logic to both problems? Given that they have not accepted our recipe for change, what is the Government’s plan? I could go on at great length, but a simple, straightforward answer to this question would be most welcome.
However, before I finish, I want to say a few words about ultra-processed food. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, mentioned, there were some disagreements in our committee, and our chair handled those disagreements very skilfully. One of them was about whether UPF—ultra-processed food—is dangerous, or whether it is largely a red herring. The committee was divided on this, and I was on the red herring end of the spectrum. Why? There are three reasons. First, as Chris van Tulleken and others told us, UPF is not suitable as a policy tool, not least because experts often disagree when they try to apply it to individual foods. In one study we were referred to, a panel of experts agreed on only four out of 231 foods they were asked to classify as UPF or not. Secondly, there is no convincing scientific evidence to show that processing, as opposed to the content of food, is harmful to human health—of course, that evidence base may change. Thirdly, most UPF is also HFSS. The foods that are deemed to be UPF but not HFSS, according to some experts, include things such as oat milk, vegan sausages, wholemeal bread from the supermarket and pre-packed cooked vegetables. Do we really want to suggest to the public that these foods are dangerous to eat? No, let us concentrate on HFSS, where the evidence for harm is robust and the definition is already used in regulation.
Understanding the combination of the effect of the additives, the palatability and the energy intake is critical to assessing the health risk. The ZOE science team, led by Professor Tim Spector, together with Dr Federica Amati, ZOE’s head nutritionist and nutrition topic lead at Imperial College London Faculty of Medicine, found that 38% of the foods they analysed were both energy-dense and hyperpalatable. This reinforces our call for clearer, more accessible information about making healthier choices when buying processed food.
So, my noble friend Lady Browning will welcome the news announced this morning of the development of ZOE’s processed food risk scale, which is currently being tested and validated. It is very good news for us consumers. It will help us navigate the often confusing landscape of processed and ultra-processed foods to better understand the health risks associated with their consumption. The plan for the future of this new tool is that by photographing the packet of food using an app, within seconds one will know whether there is no health risk or whether there is a low, medium or high risk. That will start to enable us consumers to choose a better diet.
Thank goodness for those in the private sector who are doing something to help, because the Government are doing very little. Nor are the food manufacturers. They did not want to be asked difficult questions by the committee, so they refused to attend. Ms Betts, chief executive of the Food and Drink Federation, responded to our reports by saying that if UPF or processing raised concerns,
“industry would of course act quickly”.
My response to her is, “Pull the other one: it’s got bells on”. Evidence there is aplenty, and there has been even more since the publication of our report. Most of the industry has done the bare minimum. Let there be no misunderstanding: the food manufacturers are in it for profit, and ultra-processed food is the source of the biggest profits. Like the tobacco industry, they will fight all the way to delay change, regardless of whatever damage is done to our health in the process.
The Minister tells us that a smoke-free UK is a pillar of the Government’s health mission to help people stay healthier for longer and forms part of their plan for change, focusing on the crucial role prevention can play in cutting waiting lists and making the NHS fit for the future. Our report records that:
“Obesity has been predicted to overtake smoking as the main preventable cause of cancer in women by 2043”.
The total annual economic cost to the UK of overweight and obesity is £98 billion. That is nearly 4% of GDP and about 350% more than tobacco costs us. If stopping smoking is a key pillar of the Government’s health mission, how much more important is a good, affordable diet and reducing obesity? That should be a tower of strength to the Government. The Secretary of State has abdicated the driver’s seat on the steamroller, which, when in opposition, he said he would drive over the food industry, which was blocking reforms. He is now the man busily waving the green flag at it. The Government are neglecting us all, but in particular pregnant women, infants and children.
But let me talk about children in the time I have left. I welcome the Government’s commitment to maternal and infant health, as well as the detailed nutritional guidance recently published by NICE; it will undoubtedly help families provide their children with a balanced and healthy diet. But advice only goes so far. As this report highlights, there is incontrovertible evidence that children starting reception in more deprived areas are twice as likely to be obese as children from the least deprived areas. Families in poverty face real difficulties accessing enough healthy food for their children to meet the advised nutritional guidance on fruit and veg. It is expensive.
Many schoolchildren face food insecurity. I have many tales from my time as an MP illustrating just how desperate it can be, with children taking it in turns to eat on school nights. Families who live in temporary accommodation—some in hotels—have simply no access to cookers, sinks and fridges; while others who have access to fridges and cookers may not have cooking equipment because they had to relinquish it in their many moves through temporary accommodation, and simply had no space to store it.
Holidays can also be a food and financial nightmare, so I was absolutely delighted to see the Government commit to extending the holiday activities and food programme for another year; it is an absolute lifeline for so many families. I hope that the spending review will provide multi-year guaranteed funding for the programme.
Wealth inequalities in this country have grown over the last decade. Some 24% of schoolchildren are now eligible for free school meals, and while the numbers eligible increased, government spending lagged behind inflation. Since 2014, there has been a 17% real-terms cut in funding for free school meals. The report states that current funding results in many schools being unable to meet the Government’s food standards or provide a healthy meal to children. It details cases of recipients of free school meals being able to afford only a fried or battered chicken in a flimsy wrap or a white bun—no sauce, no salad, no fruit. Without proper enforcement, the school food standards are not worth the paper they are written on.
Sharon Hodgson MP, a good friend of mine, has been an unremitting campaigner for universal free school meals. She believes that free school meals would be a significant answer to some of the issues in this report, and she is absolutely right. They can be a game changer, but only when done right. There is no incentive for caterers to serve healthy, nutritious and tasty food at lunchtime, especially when cost pressures mean that the quality and portions of the food are being compromised. There is so much more to be said, and I have run out of time, but I absolutely know that this Government have the will, the talent and the drive to meet the health challenges of inequalities, to try and reform our food environment and tackle the root causes of obesity and poverty. I look forward to the committee’s further reports in the future.
We also need to change our food culture and support local markets. In France, local markets offer fresh products from the region. In every city and village, you have markets. Even in Paris, you have 80 street markets, and they are operating three days a week. An apple is not more expensive than a bar of chocolate, but it is far more nutritious, with fewer calories, so why not support our farmers to bring their products directly to shops, as they do in France?
Prevention alone is no longer enough. We must also invest in weight services and therapies such as GLP—but, as noble Lords have mentioned before, although that may be helpful in extreme cases, we do not know the long-term effects and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed out, it is still a very expensive way to treat people. Is it not better to concentrate on food and what we eat, and to educate? Fast food makes you hungry; it does not quench your hunger. It is time to tackle junk food. Will the Minister tell this House what steps her Government will take to support our farmers and work with them to improve our children’s well-being? Instead of imposing inheritance tax, would it not be better to work with farmers to tackle this issue?