Latest news with #NationalFoodStrategy
Metro
17-05-2025
- Health
- Metro
Dr Chris van Tulleken says ultra-processed food should be taxed like cigarettes
Imagine it – you've had a long day at work. You come home, open the fridge, sigh at your lack of food. You're exhausted. You're hungry. You've got just a mere few hours before you have to go back to sleep and do it all over again. The idea of spending an hour cooking doesn't appeal – so what do you do? You head to your nearest supermarket – grab a ready meal, some cereal or perhaps some sausages or burgers. Maybe a packet of biscuits. This is fine as a one-off, but if it's a regular habit, you could be exposing yourself to a further risk of increased risk of heart attacks, strokes. high blood pressure and other illnesses. Last month, factory-produced foods were linked to thousands of early deaths in the UK, in a study counting the cost of packaged foods like ready meals and sugary cereals. It led to headlines including a Metro front page, but this study was just the latest linking highly processed foods to poor health. Experts have now told Metro that politicians should stop worrying about the 'nanny state' and focus on taxing the unhealthy and addictive ultra-processed foods instead. Dr Chris van Tulleken, who wrote the book on this with his 2023 bestseller Ultra-Processed People, told Metro: 'We know that ultra-processed food causes – not just is associated with – obesity, chronic kidney disease, inflammatory bowel disease, certain cancers, metabolic disease, cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, and anxiety and depression. 'So it would almost have to cause increased death rates. It would be very odd if it didn't.' In 2018, a 'sugar tax' on pre-packaged drinks was introduced, and the government is now considering widening it to include milk-based drinks, such as milkshakes and pre-packaged lattes. But Dr van Tulleken told Metro: 'We're negotiating around 'can we possibly add a bit of sugar tax to a frappuccino and a milkshake, in addition to a coke?' I mean, this is angels on the head of a pin. 'There is no good reason for not implementing the salt and sugar taxes proposed in the National Food Strategy.' He was referring to a government-commissioned report into the UK's food by Henry Dimbleby. Published in 2021, politicians have so far ignored its key recommendation for a 'Sugar and Salt Reformulation Tax', using additional revenue to get fresh fruit and veg to low-income families. Metro spoke to Dr van Tulleken at the launch of a free online course by the Cookery School at Little Portland Street in London, aimed at fighting 'fake food' by giving people skills to cook from scratch. Panellists told how politicians feared looking elitist by taking action, given how often they try to look relatable by eating chips, pulling a pint, or doing a shift at McDonald's. Sue Pritchard, chief executive of The Food, Farming and Countryside Commission, told the audience that 'Big Food' companies were using the same playbook historically used by tobacco and fossil fuel companies, to 'undermine the evidence and frighten politicians into inaction'. 'UPFs are foods that have undergone significant processing and modification from their original state,' explains Dr Frankie Phillips, a registered dietitian with the British Dietetic Association. 'Some definitions suggest that UPFs usually contain ingredients that aren't found in a typical kitchen e.g. artificial colours, preservatives, artificial flavours, and emulsifiers. Processing isn't all bad It's important not to villainise processed foods completely. As Dr Frankie explains: 'Processing isn't all bad, and sometimes it can even help as some nutrients are more easily available to the body when they are processed to some degree. 'For example, canned tomatoes or tomato puree has more bioavailable antioxidants than a fresh tomato, and life is simply too busy to make everything from scratch all the time.' She said the current food system is 'damaging us', and told how many were hopeful that the Dimbleby report's publication would unlock change. But media responded with 'industry talking points' such as 'nobody wants a nanny state,' 'these are just middle class concerns' and 'people just want cheap food', she said. 'We do lots of work with citizens around the country, and that's not what real people actually say at all. People really care about the quality of food they are feeding to their kids.' The UK eats more ultraprocessed food than any other country in Europe, making up more than half the food consumed by adults, and more than two thirds of the foods eaten by children. Most supermarkets are a temple to mass-produced sauces, biscuits, meat, sweets, crisps, desserts, and microwave meals, and it generally works out cheaper to buy pre-prepared than cook from scratch – meaning the odds are stacked against those trying to eat healthily. 'Traffic light' labelling of sugar, salt and fat is voluntary, but does not indicate the level of processing. Dr van Tulleken, who is also an NHS doctor, said it was 'not our fault' that change has so far been slow. He said the marketing budget of just one major food company could be 'two to three times the entire operating budget of the World Health Organisation', which was over £5 billion this year. There have been some key laws to make it through, despite opposition: 2007: Ban on junk food advertising on children's TV comes into force 2014: Introduction of Universal Infant Free School Meals in England 2018: The Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL), better known as the 'sugar tax' on packaged drinks introdued 2019: Similar advertising ban on junk food across all Transport for London sites October 2025: Junk food adverts on TV will be banned before the 9pm watershed But in his opinion, the biggest reason for lack of effective action is 'conflicts of interest'. In March, the government announced the Food Strategy Advisory Board to look at how to 'restore pride in British food'. As well as the food minister Daniel Zeichner and chief medical officer Chris Whitty, its 14 members include reps from oven chip company McCain, packaged sandwich maker Greencore, Kerry Foods, Sofina Foods, and Sainsbury's. Dr Van Tulleken said: 'As long as the policy makers include the industry that will be regulated, I think nothing will happen. It's important to speak to the food industry, understand the food industry, and have a cordial relationship – but they can't write the policy.' His sister-in-law Dr Dolly Van Tulleken co-authored Nourishing Britain, a political manual on food, along with Henry Dimbleby, and also spoke on the panel last month. More Trending She found there have been almost 700 policies floated since obesity reduction targets were published 30 years ago, yet there has been an 'epic failure' to reduce food-related ill health. Looking at how things could improve, she said George Osborne's sugar tax was developed in secret, 'without industry in the room' until it was already at a late stage. Calling for politicians to 'feel the heat', she said added that 'it's important to make the positive argument that this is about people wanting a delicious, enjoyable food system.' 'Cook for Victory', named to reference a war against 'fake food', is running online for another two weeks every evening live from 6pm. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: Map shows spread of tropical disease Melioidosis that has killed 31 people across Australia MORE: TGI Fridays overhauls menu in comeback attempt after closing dozens of US locations MORE: Urgent recall of soups, rice and porridge mixes over 'life-threatening' risk in US
Telegraph
28-04-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
Scale of Britain's junk food crisis laid bare
Junk food is behind almost 20,000 premature deaths in the UK each year, a study has suggested. Ultra-processed foods – such as ice cream, processed meats such as ham, mass-produced bread, breakfast cereals, ready meals, biscuits, and fizzy drinks – are being increasingly linked to bad health. The concept of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) has been popularised by figures such as Prof Tim Spector, founder of the wellness project Zoe, and Dr Chris van Tulleken, the TV doctor and author. UPFs have previously been linked to increasing rates of obesity, heart disease and cancer, and now experts believe they may be behind thousands of early deaths each year. They often contain high levels of saturated fat, salt and sugar, and typically include additives, preservatives and other ingredients not used in home cooking – such as emulsifiers and artificial colours and flavours – which are added by manufacturers. They have been the result of society's shift toward buying food that can be eaten quickly or on-the-go, like meal deals and ready meals, combined with extending shelf life of products and what experts say are the addictive characteristics of UPFs. But concerns are growing about the impact these types of food are having on our health. Stop signs on food packaging Researchers from Brazil's scientific institution, the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, analysed the impact of UPFs on the rates of premature deaths in eight separate countries. The study, published in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, found UPFs made up 53 per cent of people's food energy consumption in the UK. This was the second highest behind only the US at 55 per cent. Using mathematical modelling, the authors found the proportion of premature deaths attributable to UPFs ranged from 4 per cent in Colombia, where consumption is lower and regulations are stricter, up to 14 per cent of premature deaths in the UK and US. The researchers said that in 2018-19, some 17,781 premature deaths in the UK could have been linked to UPFs, according to their model. Many countries in South America require UPFs to have black octagonal stop signs on their packaging so consumers are aware, with proposals for them to be used in the UK put forward by former government food tsar and National Food Strategy author Henry Dimbleby. Eduardo Nilson, lead investigator of the study from the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, said the impact of UPFs on health went 'beyond the individual impact' of high levels of salt, fat and sugar. He suggested this was 'because of the changes in the foods during industrial processing and the use of artificial ingredients, including colourants, artificial flavours and sweeteners, emulsifiers, and many other additives and processing aids'. 'So assessing deaths from all causes associated with UPF consumption allows an overall estimate of the effect of industrial food processing on health,' he said. Dr Nilson added that the study found 'each 10 per cent increase in the participation of UPFs in the diet increases the risk of death from all causes by 3 per cent.' The research team also looked at data from Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile and Mexico. 'Health harms of UPFs' Scientists are not sure whether the link to poor health and early death is just because of the high content of known risk factors – salt, sugar and fat – or whether there is something additional at play when foods are 'ultra-processed'. Prof Nita Forouhi, professor of population health and nutrition at the University of Cambridge, said the study had limitations but 'nonetheless, evidence on the health harms of UPFs are accumulating and this paper does add to that body of evidence'. She said while this study was observational and could not prove a link between the two, it was 'the best we are going to get realistically', adding that 'we should not ignore such findings, especially as the current research has reported consistently similar associations in several countries which increases the degree of confidence'. Stephen Burgess, statistician at the University of Cambridge, said it was possible the actual cause was a 'related risk factor such as better physical fitness', but the replication of the trend across countries and cultures 'raises suspicion that ultra-processed foods may be more than a bystander'. Nerys Astbury, associate professor from the University of Oxford, disagreed with the study authors' call for UPFs to be added to national dietary guideline recommendations, such as the suggested limits on daily sugar and salt intake. ' Many UPF tend to be high in these nutrients, and studies to date have been unable to determine with certainty whether the effects of UPF are independent of the already established effects of diets high in foods which are energy dense and contain large amounts of fat and sugar,' she said. 'Rushing to add recommendations on UPF to these recommendations is not warranted based on this study in my opinion.'
The Guardian
14-02-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
That new land use policy that the Tories call ‘national suicide'? It's urgent, essential – and their idea
Last week saw the launch of what could be – if done right – the most important political policy in a generation. You may not have heard about the new land use framework, but if you did hear something, chances are it wasn't good. 'National suicide!' declared the shadow farming minister, Robbie Moore, who described the policy for good measure as 'food lunacy'. I should confess that I am the original author of this lunacy. It was one of the key recommendations of the 2021 National Food Strategy – an independent review I was commissioned to write by the then Tory government. The purpose of the land use framework was – is – sane enough. It is intended to inform and streamline planning decisions and steer other government incentives, to ensure that areas of land are used in ways they are naturally well suited to. It will be, in essence, a map: one that contains multiple levels of data about the natural and human geography of England. Anyone – planning official, farmer, developer, householder, renter or merely interested citizen – will be able to use this map. By clicking on a given area, you'll be able to access detailed information on, for example, local soil health, agricultural productivity, the risk of flooding or drought, carbon sequestration potential, biodiversity, land ownership and tenure, planning records and infrastructure suitability, water resources and pollution levels, or economic land use trends. A huge amount of this information already exists, but it is squirrelled away in discrete and inaccessible pockets of local or national government. Bringing it together in one place like this will, for the first time, enable every English citizen to get high-quality data about the land they live on, and its potential uses. It will also be – astonishingly – the first time every government department has had access to the same data. And this brings us to its second purpose. The data will be used to better inform and align government policy, across all departments, at a time when using our land wisely matters more than ever. For most of human history, everything we needed – water, food, trees to burn or build with – was on the surface of the Earth, created by the direct action of sunlight on land and sea. Then we discovered millions of years of stored sunlight buried deep underground, in the form of coal, gas and oil. For the past two centuries, cheap energy, synthetic materials and industrial agriculture have driven an unprecedented expansion of human prosperity, and population. But we can no longer afford this dependence on fossil fuels. The climate crisis, geopolitical instability, and the depletion of easily accessible fuel reserves mean we must once again turn to the land to meet our needs. Not only for food and housing, but also for cheap, secure, sustainable energy. We need to grow trees to soak up some of the carbon we have already released into the atmosphere. And we need to reverse the collapse in biodiversity, before it threatens our own survival. Without pollinators or healthy soil micro-organisms, we won't be able to grow enough food to feed ourselves. All this makes it vital that we use every area of land cleverly, maximising its natural potential. The English landscape is wonderful in its variety: a mosaic of rolling hills, flat fenlands, chalk downs, limestone dales, peat bogs and wetlands, not to mention our huge urban conurbations. Different landscapes are suited to different uses. For example, there is no point building solar farms or housing estates on fertile land that would be ideally suited to farming. Likewise, there are areas of land that are too rugged or infertile to make farming productive. But existing farmers in these areas can't be expected to diversify into, say, restoring biodiversity or eco-tourism if they can't get planning permission to convert barns into leisure facilities. The need for joined-up thinking is both obvious and urgent. The Tories began work on the land use framework before the last election, and Labour has picked up where they left off. Such rare continuity is reminiscent of the 2010 coalition government's embrace of Labour's education reforms: an attempt to set aside ideological flip-flopping and do the right thing for the country. Contrary to Moore's nightmares, this is not some radical leftwing plot to dictate what farmers must do with their land. It is an attempt to bring coherence to land use decisions, which are currently fragmented across multiple government departments, leading to contradictory policies, sclerotic planning processes and widespread inefficiency. At a time when funds are limited, it also makes sense to ensure that agricultural grants and other government incentives are based on the best, most granular information. The problem is that this policy has been launched into the febrile atmosphere caused by the mishandled inheritance tax changes for farmers. This has created huge uncertainty and anger, with many farmers afraid that they won't be able to pass their farms on to the next generation. Given the relatively small amount of money this measure is expected to raise, it is hard to justify the level of anxiety and political backlash it has caused. People are spooked, so they are seeing monsters everywhere. But the land use framework is not a Stalinist five-year plan. It won't force landowners to do anything. It will merely create better information and wiser incentives, enabling farmers to make more profitable and sustainable choices about how to use their land. Done right, it should also improve and speed up planning decisions, making it easier for farmers to build new agricultural buildings, renewable energy projects or tourism and leisure facilities. In short, it creates a smarter, more joined-up approach to land management, rather than imposing top-down diktats. This is a moment for pragmatism, not polarisation. The land use framework could be the most important reimagining of how we use our land since the second world war. Back then, the question was stark: how do we feed ourselves in the face of the U-boat threat? Today, the challenge is just as existential: how do we feed ourselves in the face of climate and biodiversity collapse, while boosting economic growth and using the land we have wisely? Without this framework, we will remain mired in contradictory regulations, tangled bureaucracy and reactive decision-making, all of which fail to address our long-term challenges. Success will depend on collaboration, evidence-based policy and long-term cross-party commitment – not political point-scoring. We have to get this right, to secure a sustainable, prosperous future for generations to come. Henry Dimbleby is managing partner of Bramble Partners, which invests in and advises businesses that are creating a sustainable food system
Yahoo
31-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
English farmland could be cut by 9% to hit green targets
To meet environmental targets 9% of England's farmland will need to be converted into forests and animal habitats, according to new proposals released by the government. The benchmark was set out in a consultation launched on Friday by Environment Secretary Steve Reed on managing England's land to prioritise food production, net zero targets and nature. In total, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) predict nearly a fifth of the UK's farming land will need to cut agricultural use but argue greater efficiencies on the remaining land could maintain UK food production at current levels. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused Labour for "adding even more burdens on farmers". Why more mega solar farms are coming to the countryside Feeders v leaders: Farmers dig deep for 2025 fight Consult us on inheritance tax, farmers urge PM The Land Use Framework was due to be published in 2023 but has faced considerable delays, with the scope and focus of the promised policy changing over time. The framework was first suggested by 2021 Dimbleby Review on a National Food Strategy, to guide farming incentives and regulations. On Friday, the government opened a consultation calling for ideas on how England should manage land use changes to balance food security, nature recovery, infrastructure needs and climate goals. Government analysis shows 1.6 million hectares of farming land to be repurposed for environmental and climate goals by 2050, including: 1% making small changes such as planting herbs or other plants along field margins 4% incorporating more trees alongside food production 5% repurposed mostly for environmental benefits, while still producing food 9% removed from food production to make way for the creation of woodland and other natural habitats Defra say the impact of these land use changes on domestic food production will be offset by productivity improvements. If domestic production does decline, England may need to import more food, increasing the UK's exposure to global food price shocks and supply chain disruptions. "England is now one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world," the report said - with poor farming practices and climate change damaging soil and increasing water pollution. Better planning under the Land Use Framework would prevent "high-quality farmland" being lost to developers pushing for prime land near urban areas, Defra said. Under the plans woodland would cover 16.5% of England's land by 2050, with an extra 500,000 hectares of new or restored "wildlife-rich habitat". Restoration of degraded peatlands would also help cut 8 megatons of CO2 emissions annually, Defra predict. Badenoch told broadcasters on a visit to a farm in Cheshire she was "worried that we are adding even more burdens on farmers". She argued the government were "killing farmers in our country" through the introduction of "the family farm tax, the family business tax, the rise in national insurance,". "To add even more burdens saying that we are going to spend more time on net zero shows they are not serious," Badenoch said. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
BBC News
31-01-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
English farmland could be cut by 9% to hit green targets
To meet environmental targets 9% of England's farmland will need to be converted into forests and animal habitats, according to new proposals released by the government. The benchmark was set out in a consultation launched on Friday by Environment Secretary Steve Reed on managing England's land to prioritise food production, net zero targets and total, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) predict nearly a fifth of the UK's farming land will need to cut agricultural use but argue greater efficiencies on the remaining land could maintain UK food production at current leader Kemi Badenoch accused Labour for "adding even more burdens on farmers". The Land Use Framework was due to be published in 2023 but has faced considerable delays, with the scope and focus of the promised policy changing over framework was first suggested by 2021 Dimbleby Review on a National Food Strategy, to guide farming incentives and regulations. On Friday, the government opened a consultation calling for ideas on how England should manage land use changes to balance food security, nature recovery, infrastructure needs and climate analysis shows 1.6 million hectares of farming land to be repurposed for environmental and climate goals by 2050, including:1% making small changes such as planting herbs or other plants along field margins4% incorporating more trees alongside food production 5% repurposed mostly for environmental benefits, while still producing food9% removed from food production to make way for the creation of woodland and other natural habitatsDefra say the impact of these land use changes on domestic food production will be offset by productivity domestic production does decline, England may need to import more food, increasing the UK's exposure to global food price shocks and supply chain disruptions."England is now one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world," the report said - with poor farming practices and climate change damaging soil and increasing water planning under the Land Use Framework would prevent "high-quality farmland" being lost to developers pushing for prime land near urban areas, Defra the plans woodland would cover 16.5% of England's land by 2050, with an extra 500,000 hectares of new or restored "wildlife-rich habitat".Restoration of degraded peatlands would also help cut 8 megatons of CO2 emissions annually, Defra predict. Badenoch told broadcasters on a visit to a farm in Cheshire she was "worried that we are adding even more burdens on farmers".She argued the government were "killing farmers in our country" through the introduction of "the family farm tax, the family business tax, the rise in national insurance,"."To add even more burdens saying that we are going to spend more time on net zero shows they are not serious," Badenoch said. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to read top political analysis, gain insight from across the UK and stay up to speed with the big moments. It'll be delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
