Health: Ultra-processed Food

Question

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address health harms associated with ultra-processed food.

My Lords, a nutritious diet is key to living a healthy life. Currently, there is insufficient evidence on the extent to which the processing of food itself negatively impacts health beyond poor nutritional content. We have commissioned research to further understand the health impacts of ultra-processed foods. We are focused on taking firm action to reduce the intake of foods and drinks that are high in saturated fat, salt or sugar, which also captures the majority of ultra-processed foods.

My Lords, I thank the Minister. Research shows that ultra-processed food causes disease, disability and premature death. It costs the UK economy £268 billion a year, in the form of additional costs for the NHS and social care, welfare payments, productivity loss and lifelong human suffering. Instead of a free ride, manufacturers of ultra-processed food must bear the true cost of their trade. This could be in the form of a 5% levy on their turnover. Does the Minister agree and, if so, when will the Government introduce it?

I am interested to hear my noble friend’s suggestion. This Government do not have that as part of their plan. However, on my noble friend’s point about the need for research, I heard what he said about evidence, but that is not the evidence that I have available. I assure your Lordships’ House that the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition repeatedly reviews evidence and assesses the impact of processed foods on health in position statements, and it has made two recent publications on that. We continue to invest in research on ultra-processed foods.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, we have plenty of time. We will hear from the Cross Benches next.

My Lords, I declare my interests as recorded in the register. Last year, the author of the best-selling book Ultra-Processed People, Dr Chris van Tulleken, gave evidence to the Food, Diet and Obesity Select Committee, of which I had the privilege of being a member. He said that ultra-processed food

“is not a regulatory tool—I do not know anyone credible who is talking about using that definition to slap labels on things … the regulatory tool, in my view, should be fat, salt, sugar and calories”.

Does the Minister agree with Dr van Tulleken?

I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing his expertise and commitment to this area. It is indeed the case that the majority of foods classified or considered as ultra-processed foods also tend to be high in calories, saturated fat, salt and sugar, for which there is more definitive evidence, as the noble Lord has referred to. It is the case that many UPFs are already captured by the Government’s considerable programme of work to improve the food environment.

My Lords, I congratulate the Government in general, and the Minister in particular, on taking such a sensible view about the great red herring that is ultra-processed food. There is no scientific evidence that it specifically causes obesity. Obesity is caused by eating too much of anything, and the answer is to reduce the amount of food that people eat.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his appreciation of the Government’s efforts in this regard. I believe we have to consider the role of ultra-processed foods, but that has to be based on evidence and scientific truth, rather than speculation. That is why the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition has shown concern but cannot prove a direct link. It is not necessarily about the processing, but we know that high fat, salt and sugar is a problem for healthy living, and that is mostly a very good description of UPFs.

My Lords, in February last year, the British Medical Journal reported research involving 10 million people that found evidence highly suggestive of diets rich in ultra-processed foods being linked with the increased risks of premature death, cardiovascular disease, mental health disorders, diabetes, obesity and sleep problems. What is the timescale for the Government’s further research on the dangers of ultra-processed foods? How will reversing aspects of the ban on junk food advertising help?

As the noble Lord will be aware, we are committed to implementing the TV and online advertising restrictions for less healthy foods and drinks. That is one of a number of steps that we are taking to tackle obesity, as per the question from the previous noble Lord. There is a direct link between advertising and intake, particularly with children, so I am glad that we will be introducing regulations to take effect in January—in fact, the industry has agreed to comply in advance of that, which shows a constructive approach. As for further information, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition will consider evidence again in 2026, next year, and make dietary recommendations. The Government continue to invest in research through the NIHR and the UKRI.

Further to the regulations that the Minister mentioned that are coming in January, the Labour manifesto promised to prohibit unhealthy food ads online and before 9 pm, which was to come into effect in October. Can the Minister confirm that the rules that are coming in January are in fact watered down and will not forbid the advertising of brands? Does she think that advertising a brand but not a product—say, McDonalds, Kentucky Fried Chicken or Greggs—will promote the consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables?

First, I do not accept that the advertising restrictions represent any watering down. In May, a Written Ministerial Statement set out, to the noble Baroness’s point, that the Government will provide a brand exemption in legislation. The restrictions will come into force officially on 5 January. I realise that the noble Baroness regards this as not the position that she would choose, but I believe that it will provide certainty for businesses to invest in advertising campaigns with confidence and encourage them to develop more healthy products—that is the situation that we want—as well as protecting UK children from the harms of junk food advertising.

I thank the Minister for the answers that she has given so far on the evidence, because it is really important that any policy in this area is evidence led. When I looked at the British Heart Foundation website, I saw that it said that additives in ultra-processed foods

“could be responsible for negative health effects”

and that the

“actual processing of the food could … make a difference”.

It also says:

“Another … theory is that … ultra-processed foods could … affect our gut health”.

But what it says overall is that there is insufficient evidence here. We really need more research to be done. We are not sure whether it is something in the ultra-processed foods or the processing itself that makes them unhealthy. The Minister has touched on this already. We have talked about the timeframe for research, but when people are looking for a source to consider the dangers, or otherwise, of ultra-processed foods, are there any particular websites or sources that the Government could point people to, so that people are more aware of and more educated on the research on ultra-processed foods?

The important point that the noble Lord raises is that our role is to encourage people to ensure that they are choosing a healthy diet and can achieve a healthy diet. As the noble Lord said, the word “could” is a bit of a problem. That is why we continue to invest in research and, as I say, work closely with the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition.