Food Strategy for England – Sounds Like a Plan?
Dr Sean Wheatley, MSc, PhD; Science and Research Lead at X-PERT Health
Sean.Wheatley@xperthealth.org.uk
As mentioned in last month’s blog, a range of health-related plans and policy papers have recently been published in the UK. Although this probably doesn’t set too many pulses racing, it provides some important insights into what the current government is trying to achieve on this front.
Our last blog looked at the 10-year Health Plan for England, concluding that it is a laudable plan, but that it is big on ambition but low on practical details. This month we take a look over the Food Strategy for England, a document that is no less important if the overriding health-related aims of the government are to be met.
Prelude
To reiterate a point that was also made last month, much of what is covered in publications like these is beyond the scope of what we tend to focus on at X-PERT. This includes broader economic and logistical concerns, which are important, but are outside of the bounds of what will be explored here. That’s not because they are unimportant, it’s just that there’s a limit to how much ground we can cover!
The food strategy for England – what’s the plan?
Getting on with this month’s topic then, the Food Strategy for England policy paper promises to create a “good food cycle… that makes good British food more affordable and accessible to everyone in society”. It also sets out to support the adoption of “more affordable, healthier … diets for all”.
The plan aims to achieve these aims through working towards ten “clear goals”, which have been separated into the categories explored below.
Category 1: Healthier and more affordable food
This category includes two specific goals related to making healthier foods more accessible. These set out the desire to create “an improved food environment that support healthier and more environmentally sustainable food sales”, and to support “access for all to safe, affordable, healthy, convenient and appealing food options”.
Superficially this sounds great, but my first question is: what is classed as “healthy/healthier”? Details on this are fairly limited within the plan – “unhealthy” seems to primarily revolve around the demonisation of foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt, whereas examples of “healthy foods” only explicitly covers fruits and vegetables.
We would hope that beyond this there would be some nuance. Many modern classification systems make the same mistakes – they are overly focused on calories and individual nutrients, and do not consider other factors (such as the food’s overall nutritional profile or the degree and nature of processing). This leads to low calorie but low nutrient foods being promoted (e.g., many breads and breakfast cereals), and certain nutrient dense, health-promoting foods being penalised (often because of their fat content, as is the case with things like full-fat dairy products, nuts, and sometimes even olive oil and oily fish). If these issues are repeated as part of this food strategy, then it is unlikely to lead to the meaningful improvements in the quality of people’s diets that we would hope for.
Even if the right types of foods are ultimately targeted through this approach, there are still of course question marks over how these first two goals will actually be achieved. As is often the case though, we will have to wait and see how things develop before judging that!
Category 2: Good growth
This section includes two specific goals related to supporting sustainable growth of the food sector, and the development of a skilled workforce. These are worthwhile aims, but, in line with comments made above, this is as an area that is outside of my/our sphere of focus. This category will not therefore be explored any further in the current blog.
Category 3: Sustainable and resilient supply
The third category covers four goals related to environmental sustainability, animal welfare, and having secure, resilient supply chains. Again, most of this is outside of the scope of this article, so these topics will receive little further attention here.
There are however risks that elements of this will have a knock-on effect on the healthfulness of the foods that are supported and promoted as part of this strategy. For example, if these aims are used to widely demonise the consumption of animal-based products, many of which are an excellent source of nutrition, this could have a negative impact on the quality of many people’s diets.
One of the goals covered within this category also refers to building “resilient domestic production for a secure supply of healthier food”. As alluded to above, how “healthier” is defined will have a large bearing on whether this is ultimately a good thing.
Category 4: Vibrant food cultures
The final section includes two specific goals related to celebrating UK foods and cultures, and to promoting connections between people and their food. This includes the facilitation of community- and school-based efforts to improve food knowledge and skills for families. These are ambitions we can certainly get behind!
There are also some encouraging clues within this section that suggest some of the concerns noted above may be misplaced! One of the goals in this category is to support and promote “celebrated and valued UK, regional and local good cultures”. Welsh Lamb and Cornish Sardines are cited as examples of this, implying that they are considered to be “healthy” foods. This hopefully points to the fact the categorisation of foods as “healthy” or “unhealthy” will not be waylaid by overly focusing on individual nutrients (e.g., total fat content) or subjective ethical positions (e.g., that we should all be eating a plant-based diet).
Any other thoughts?
The success of this plan is largely reliant on effective work and collaboration “across the whole of government” that leverages “the expertise and reach of the wider food system”. This is slated to be achieved through discussions “with citizens, civil society, academics, and food industry representatives”. This is all well and good, as long as the impact of industry is appropriately controlled and limited! It is hard not to be cynical about the prospects of this happening though, with a small number of powerful, influential and well-resources companies having significant vested interests in people continuing to consume large quantities of their ultra-processed products.
Lastly, and as with the 10-year health plan for England, there is ultimately very limited details regarding how the stated aims will be achieved. This is acknowledged within the strategy itself, which includes statements such as “many of the policy areas and strategies that will be essential to delivery of the food strategy outcomes are still under development” and “delivery of the food strategy outcomes will (…) be subject to agreement of metrics and indicators to support each outcome…”. In a nutshell, this seems to mean that there isn’t really a plan yet at all! This is not entirely unreasonable at this stage, but it does mean that it is not possible to form meaningful opinions over whether the ambitious aims are likely to be achieved.
So, what’s the bottom line?
The 2025 Food Strategy for England aims to create a “good food cycle” to replace the current “junk food cycle”, with the overriding goals being to increase the availability and affordability of healthier food, as part of a sustainable and resilient system that celebrates and supports the UK’s food culture.
On the face of it this all sounds great, but there are lingering concerns. These include, but are not limited to, whether the criteria used to select “healthy” foods to promote will prioritise the right things, and whether “big food” can be trusted to engage appropriately with the process. There are also significant questions over if and how these aims can actually be achieved.
For now, I’ll mix my cautious optimism with some healthy scepticism.
