UK government drops healthy eating push after lobbying by ultra-processed food firms
Government legal guidance urging retailers in England to offer millions of consumers deals and discounts on minimally processed and nutritious food has been dropped after a lobbying campaign by the world's biggest ultra-processed food firms, the Guardian can reveal.
Ahead of new regulations banning junk food promotions from October, the Department of Health and Social Care issued advice to thousands of shops, supermarkets, online retailers and other businesses to help them comply with the law.
The guidance said: 'The aim of this policy is to shift the balance of promotions towards healthier options – such as minimally processed and nutritious food.' This might include, for example, two-for-one deals, discounts or extra loyalty points on fruit, vegetables, whole grains, fresh meat and fish.
Promotions on minimally processed and nutritious food would be gamechanging, making it more affordable for families and improving the diets of millions.
But the healthy food push was dropped after the Food and Drink Federation, which represents corporations including Nestlé, Mondelēz, Coca-Cola, Mars and Unilever repeatedly demanded the government ditch it.
Now the new regulations coming into force in England still limit the promotion of food and drink that is high in fat, salt or sugar (HFSS), but guidance issued to retailers no longer urges them to switch their deals to minimally processed and nutritious food.
Instead, it simply encourages promotions of 'healthier options'. Experts say this is 'flawed' advice because many ultra-processed foods still meet the definition of 'healthier', including some energy drinks, crisps, snacks, cereal bars, pizzas, burgers and ice-creams.
The U-turn, revealed for the first time, occurred on 1 June 2023 under Rishi Sunak's government, the Guardian found. The change remains in the current government's guidance being issued to retailers ahead of the law change in October.
It came after the FDF waged a campaign to put pressure on the DHSC to rewrite its nutrition policy, lobbying officials to remove the push to minimally processed food in the guidance issued to retailers, according to documents and emails reviewed by the Guardian.
In response to a freedom of information request, the government released a cache of emails between the FDF and the DHSC.
Most of the correspondence was heavily redacted. The government cited section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act, 'which provides for the protection of personal information', and section 35(1)(a), 'which provides protection for the information that relates to the formulation or development of government policy'.
The emails, sent between October 2022 and April 2023, reveal how the FDF, which represents firms with a combined annual turnover of more than £112bn, lobbied the DHSC to drop the guidance pushing retailers to promote minimally processed food.
Email from [redacted], 2 October 2022
'This is a real bone of contention with the companies … Please can you give me a date when this will be deleted from the guidance?'
'I see the promotions guidance was re-issued on Friday to reflect the new implementation date of the volume-based promotions,' an FDF official wrote in an email to a DHSC official on 2 October 2022. 'My understanding was that when the guidance was updated the reference to the aim of the policy being to shift choices to 'minimal [SIC] processed foods' would be removed but it's still there.'
'This is a real bone of contention with the companies,' the FDF official added. 'Please can you give me a date when this will be deleted from the guidance?'
Four days later, on 6 October 2022, the FDF official emailed the DHSC official again. 'It would be great to understand when this change is going to happen. Clearly the policy and guidance is live and as discussed before, we consider this reads that government policy is that processed foods are inherently unhealthy, not something we agree with or believe the scientific evidence supports.'
Email from [redacted], 6 October 2022
'I had thought we had agreement that this change would happen, and whilst I appreciate you don't want to keep re-opening guidance documents, this discussion was several months ago now.'
The FDF official said: 'I had thought we had agreement that this change would happen, and whilst I appreciate you don't want to keep re-opening guidance documents, this discussion was several months ago now.'
In an email to DHSC officials on 23 November 2023, an FDF official wrote: 'Please do also let us know as soon as possible when you have clarified next steps for removing the reference to 'minimally processed' from the promotions guidance – as mentioned on the call, this is a particularly contentious issue for our members.'
Email from [redacted], 23 November 2022
'Please do also let us know as soon as possible when you have clarified next steps for removing the reference to 'minimally processed' from the promotions guidance – as mentioned on the call, this is a particularly contentious issue for our members.'
On 3 January 2023, the FDF was told the advice to promote minimally processed food would be deleted from the guidance issued to retailers, the emails show.
Email from [redacted], 3 January 2023
'I can confirm that as part of these changes, we intend to remove the wording 'such as minimally processed and nutritious food'.'
'We are considering a number of changes to the HFSS promotions implementation guidance as minor points of clarification and will update on these in due course,' an email to an FDF official said. 'I can confirm that as part of these changes, we intend to remove the wording 'such as minimally processed and nutritious food'.'
There is no longer any reference to either term in the current version of the document, which remains live on the government's website.
Cathy Cliff, campaigns coordinator at the Soil Association, provided the emails to the Guardian after obtaining them under freedom of information laws. 'This move to block discounts on healthy foods is clearly one that benefits the profits of UPF manufacturers more than the health of their consumers,' she said.
After the guidance was dropped, the FDF boasted about its lobbying success, hailing the victory in a 'key wins' section of its website, the Guardian found.
'The FDF's engagement with Department of Health and Social Care officials … resulted in the removal of the reference to 'minimally processed' in the HFSS promotions guidance.'
The FDF also said it had successfully lobbied to stop ultra-processed food being mentioned in separate legislation in Scotland. 'FDF Scotland's engagement with the Scottish government ensured the prevention of the term 'ultra-processed food' [UPF] being used in the good food nation bill.'
The page has since been deleted from the FDF website. It now reads 'sorry, page not found'.
Half the average diet of Britons now consists of ultra-processed food (UPF). For some, especially those who are younger, poorer or from disadvantaged areas, a diet comprising as much as 80% UPF is typical.
All food is processed to some degree, and processing can be necessary and beneficial. But UPF is different. It is often high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) but also engineered and marketed in ways that cause excess consumption, fuelling the obesity crisis, which costs the NHS more than £11bn a year.
Last month a study found that consuming large amounts of UPF increases the risk of an early death. It is so damaging to health that it is implicated in as many as one in seven of all premature deaths, including at least 17,000 every year in England.
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: 'This change took place under the previous government. This government is committed to tackling obesity and building a healthier Britain.
'We are taking action to end the targeting of junk food adverts to children across TV and online and we have handed local authorities stronger powers to block applications for takeaways near schools. We are also commissioning research to improve the evidence on the health impacts of UPF.'
A Scottish government spokesperson said: 'The good food nation bill was framework legislation, the term 'ultra processed food' was therefore not omitted, as it was agreed that the bill would not include reference to specific policies.'
An FDF spokesperson said: 'FDF regularly engages with government on behalf of food and drink manufacturers, on regulation that underpins nutrition, food safety and food security; as well as on how we play our part in helping people follow healthier diets.
'In the instance cited, we asked the government to phrase their business guidance on new HFSS regulations in a way that was consistent with that legislation. We were concerned that references to processing in the guidance, which was not covered in the legislation, would cause confusion.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
39 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Doctor guilty of misconduct over girl's death that led to Martha's Rule
A doctor has been found guilty of misconduct for his failings in the treatment of a girl whose death led to Martha's Rule. Prof Richard Thompson failed to escalate the treatment of Martha Mills, 13, before she died from sepsis in 2021, a disciplinary panel found on Monday. The teenager's death prompted the introduction of Martha's Rule, which gives patients and families the right to a second medical opinion if their own or a loved one's condition deteriorates in hospital. Martha died from sepsis after doctors missed its symptoms and did not heed warnings from her parents that her condition was rapidly deteriorating. A medical tribunal in Manchester has now ruled that Thompson committed 'misconduct which impairs his fitness to practise' during her treatment. The Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) panel found that the doctor, who was the on-duty consultant at King's College hospital (KCH) in London, had made 'particularly grave' failings. It ruled that Thompson should have referred Martha to intensive care on Aug 29 2021 and that he had failed to conduct an in-person assessment of her condition. The doctor was on-call at home for part of the day. Robin Ince, the chairman of the panel, said there was 'no sound reason' why Thompson did not assess Martha's condition himself. 'The tribunal was of the view that, as more serious and unexplained factors had come into play, there were clear points (at 17.00 and 20.30) when Prof Thompson should have taken action not only to see Martha himself but also to refer Martha to PICU (paediatric intensive care unit) and these combined failures to do so makes them more serious,' he said. 'The tribunal appreciated that it was assisted by hindsight but concluded that there were sufficient adverse clinical indicators at the time of something unexplained going on such that direct review and escalation to PICU was required.' Martha was only transferred to intensive care on August 30, by which point she had septic shock. She died from sepsis on August 31 at Great Ormond Street hospital (GOSH), where she had been transferred. A coroner ruled in 2022 that she would have likely survived if doctors at KCH had identified the warning signs of the condition and transferred her to intensive care sooner. The trust has since apologised for mistakes in Martha's care. Martha was in hospital with a pancreatic injury after a fall from her bike while on a family holiday in Wales. King's is a specialist national referral centre for children with pancreatic problems. 'Gravity of mistakes' In a statement, Merope Mills and Paul Laity, Martha's parents, welcomed the recognition of the 'gravity of mistakes' made before her death. 'It is important to us that allegations denied have been found proved and the gravity of mistakes that led to our daughter's preventable death has been recognised,' they said. 'We will always have in our minds the failures of culture, training and policy on Rays of Sunshine ward at King's College Hospital, as well as the responsibility of individuals. We'd like to thank all of the thoughtful doctors who have helped us to understand what happened to Martha.' Thompson's sanction will be determined at a separate hearing on Tuesday. Mr Ince said the panel believed he had been 'remediated' and that it was 'highly unlikely that anything like this will ever happen again and there is no current impairment of Prof Thompson's fitness to practise on this basis '. But he added: 'The tribunal concluded that the misconduct was such that a finding of impairment was required to uphold public confidence in the profession as well as uphold proper professional standards, and that it would be undermined if no finding of impairment were found.'
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Senior doctor's failures in teenager's care ‘amounted to gross negligence'
Failures of a senior doctor in his care of a teenager who died days later from sepsis were 'particularly grave' and 'essentially amounted to gross negligence', a medical tribunal has found. Professor Richard Thompson did not refer Martha Mills, 13, to intensive care despite her displaying several high-risk indicators of sepsis and the on-call consultant also chose not to return to London's King's College Hospital to assess her in person. Martha had been an inpatient on the hospital's Rays of Sunshine Ward at King's College Hospital after she suffered a serious injury to her pancreas when she slipped while riding a bike on a family holiday in Wales in July 2021. Weeks later, she experienced a fever, increased heart rate and had a catheter inserted into her vein, which was 'ultimately considered' to be a likely source of the infection that led to her death from sepsis, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS) hearing was told. More spikes in her temperature followed, before the consultant hepatologist saw Martha on his morning ward round on Sunday August 29 at the hospital, one of three locations in the UK which specialise in the treatment of paediatric pancreatic injuries. The on-call consultant left the hospital at 3pm, but was phoned at home two hours later by a trainee doctor, who gave an update on Martha's condition. Medical records showed she had deteriorated over the course of the afternoon, and into the early evening, with a drop in her blood pressure, the appearance of a new rash and increases in heart rate, respiratory rate and body temperature. Tribunal chairman Robin Ince noted that by 5pm there were 'several high-risk indicators' as set out in the Nice guidelines relating to sepsis. The duty registrar called Prof Thompson again at 8.30pm because of ongoing concerns over Martha's fever, but she was kept on the ward despite the continued presence of moderate to high-risk indicators and the absence of meaningful clinical improvement, said the tribunal. On Monday, the tribunal concluded that Prof Thompson's conduct fell so far short of the standards reasonably expected of a doctor so as to amount to misconduct. Mr Ince said: 'The tribunal was of the view that Professor Thompson's omissions were 'particularly grave' and essentially amounted to gross negligence about the serious risk of harm to patients (albeit only on this one occasion) and were sufficiently serious in any event such as to amount to misconduct.' Martha collapsed on August 30 and was moved to intensive care, before she was transferred to London's Great Ormond Street Hospital, where she died in the early hours of August 31. At a 2022 inquest into her death, a coroner ruled that Martha would most likely have survived if doctors had identified the warning signs and transferred her to intensive care earlier. Martha's mother, Merope Mills, an editor at The Guardian, said she and her husband, Paul Laity, raised concerns about Martha's deteriorating health a number of times but these were not acted on. The couple later successfully campaigned for Martha's Rule to give patients, families and carers the chance to easily request a second opinion from a senior doctor in the same hospital in the event of a suspected deterioration or serious concern. The tribunal will now consider what sanction, if any, to impose on Prof Thompson's registration. The MPTS hearing, sitting in Manchester, continues on Tuesday.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
NHS trust and manager failed young woman who killed herself
An NHS trust and manager failed a young woman who took her own life at a mental health unit, a court found. Alice Figueiredo, 22, had made more than 10 attempts at self-harm before she died at Goodmayes Hospital in Redbridge, east London, on July 7 2015. Staff repeatedly failed to remove plastic items she had used to harm herself from the communal lavatories. After a seven month trial at the Old Bailey, the ward manager Benjamin Aninakwa, 53 was found guilty of failing to take reasonable care for the health and safety of patients. Jurors also found North East London NHS Foundation Trust (NELFT) – the trust which runs Goodmayes Hospital – guilty of 'failing to ensure the safety of a non-employee'. NELFT was cleared of corporate manslaughter – in only the second case that an NHS trust had faced the charge – and Aninakwa was found not guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence. 'You are not above the law' Ms Figueiredo's mother, Jane Figueiredo, said after the verdicts that patients would 'continue to come to serious, avoidable harm' if 'radical changes' were not made. She said: 'We truly hope the fact NELFT (North East London NHS Foundation Trust) has been through a trial of over seven months and convicted of a serious health and safety criminal offence at the Old Bailey will send a very strong message to mental health providers and their staff across this country: You are not unassailable. 'You are not above the law. You need to do far, far better to stop failing those people you have a duty of care to. 'If you don't make radical changes in your conduct and attitudes towards the people you have a responsibility to care for and keep safe, then people like Alice will continue to come to serious, avoidable harm, or senselessly lose their lives. 'This is happening with impunity, time and again, behind the locked doors of wards and in the community across the country.' Ms Figueiredo was first admitted to the hospital's Hepworth Ward in May 2012 with a diagnosis including non-specific eating disorder and bipolar affective disorder, jurors heard. During her time on the acute psychiatric ward, the trust failed to remove plastic items from the communal toilets or keep them locked, even though she repeatedly used the items to try to kill herself. She had used plastic from the toilets to self-harm on at least 10 previous occasions, but the court heard of eight more incidents involving similar materials before Ms Figueiredo took her own life. The suicide attempts were recorded in ward notes and other hospital records. Ward manager on improvement plan Jurors heard that Aninakwa, from Grays in Essex, who was subject to a performance improvement plan, had failed to remove plastic that could be used for self-harm and failed to ensure incidents of self-harm were recorded. Aninakwa and the trust had denied wrongdoing but declined to give evidence. As she paid tribute to her daughter after the trial, Jane Figueiredo said,: 'Alice's light and life shone so brightly, and everyone who knew and loved her has lived the last decade devastated by the immeasurable loss of her luminous, kind, thoughtful, generous, warm, humorous and deeply loving presence, always feeling her absence at every occasion and in our everyday lives, nothing, including these verdicts, will ever bring her back to us, and we will never stop thinking of her and missing her.' Detective Inspector Jonathan Potter, who led the investigation into Ms Figueiredo's case, said: 'This was a complex investigation led by the Metropolitan Police Service, into a unique case that has led to the conviction of the Trust and Benjamin Aninakwa for health and safety offences. 'While there are thousands of NHS workers that do a commendable job every day, today's result must also ensure that lessons are learnt to stop the same mistakes happening again.' Priya Singh, a partner at Hodge Jones and Allen advised that Ms Figueiredo's case now be included as a core participant in the Lampard Inquiry – a statutory investigation into deaths of more than 2,000 people at NHS-run inpatient units in Essex between 2000 and 2023. Ms Singh added: 'The outcome of the trial will be of disappointment to many families failed by mental health services and we can only hope that this trial will lead to a great deal of reflection on the part of those involved to ensure that cases like this do not reappear.'
