Responses to the Dimbleby review of the UK food system

• What we eat and drink, and how and where it is made, is part of our nation’s story. It provides employment opportunities, contributes to local economies, shapes the landscapes we all value and engenders local pride and identity, right across the UK.
• The Government will respond in full to the conclusions and recommendations in the Food Strategy. This will be done in the form of a White Paper in the next 6 months, which will respond to the recommendations and will set out Government’s ambition and priorities for transforming the food system.

Luke Pollard MP, Labour’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary, responding to the National Food Strategy Report, said:

“This is a massive wake-up call to fix Britain’s broken food system. But this Government have proved incapable of ending the growing foodbank scandal and the obesity crisis, while their trade deals betray our British farmers.

“The Government should be working to ensure every family can afford for their children to get a healthy hot meal every day. Britain’s high food and farming standards must be protected in law not watered down in trade deals.

“We need a radical obesity strategy, ensuring families are able to access healthy food, supporting local leisure facilities and tackling rising child poverty.”

Salt & sugar taxes could cost shoppers up to £4.8 billion each year, says Taxpayers' Alliance

Henry Dimbleby's National Food Strategy has proposed sugar and salt taxes on everyday staples that may see every household forking out an extra £172 per year to the taxman.

Dimbleby predicts the tax would cost households between £2.9 and £3.4 billion per year, but think tank estimates put this far higher. A comprehensive tax on salt and sugar consumed could mean a £4.8 billion tax bill.

The recommendation of a £3/kg tax on sugar and a £6/kg tax on salt in processed foods is expected to increase prices on everyday essentials. Foods affected by the tax could include store cupboard staples such as jam, ketchup and cereals, which could increase in price by almost a half. The tax could also see the price of chocolate bars increase by almost a quarter, multipacks of sweets by almost a third, and crumpets by almost a quarter.

The tax could be felt in restaurants and takeaways, increasing the cost of a dozen Krispy Kreme doughnuts by around 50p and a Domino’s pizza by more than 30p. This could be particularly difficult to tax in small restaurants, where quantifying the amount of salt and sugar used in every dish is burdensome.

Despite backing away from a potential additional tax on meat, the report demands a reduction in meat consumption, with the salt and sugar tax hitting products like bacon, corned beef and sausage rolls.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance, Adam Smith Institute, and Institute of Economic Affairs argue the proposals would target consumers, food manufacturers and the already struggling hospitality industry. It would be deeply regressive and see food items become either tasteless or reduced in portion sizes.

Examples of food impacted by the tax:

• Breakfast staples like strawberry jam and frosted cornflakes could become around 46 and 33 per cent more expensive respectively.
• Storecupboard sauces like ketchup and soy sauce could become around 23 and 43 per cent more expensive respectively.
• Treats like Skittles and Twix bars could become around 32 and 25 per cent more expensive respectively.
• Snacks like brownies and chocolate digestives could become around 21 and 18 per cent more expensive respectively.
• Lunchtime choices like crumpets and jarred sandwich spread could become around 24 and 14 per cent more expensive respectively.
• Family dinners like pizzas and pasta sauce could become around 15 and 6 per cent more expensive respectively.
• Takeaways like Krispy Kreme doughnuts and Domino’s could become around 3 and 1.5 per cent more expensive respectively.

John O’Connell, Chief Executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said:

"This is yet another case of middle-class meddling that will hit the poorest families hardest, as this madcap scheme will hike up costs of everyday essentials.

“Not only do the high priests of the nanny state think that ordinary folk can't look after themselves, they also can't resist dipping their hands into taxpayers' pockets.

“The government must reject outright any tax hikes and instead trust British families to make their own choices."

Dr Eamonn Butler, Director of the neoliberal think tank the Adam Smith Institute, says:

“We thought the nanny state had died during the pandemic, but the blob marches on thanks to a man whose privilege blinds him to the blight his proposed policies would inflict on a nation that does not want his prescription.

“Boris needs to stand up for the consumer interest and say that there is no benefit for ordinary families from increasing the cost of food while ruining its taste.

“Henry Dimbleby should have looked at how his own firm could bring down the cost of good quality food to the reach of ordinary Britons before he decided to play with everyone else's food.”

Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs said:

“Once again, rich people want to clobber ordinary people with stealth taxes, this time on sugar and salt. By Mr Dimbleby’s own admission, this cash grab will cost consumers £3 billion, but independent analysis suggests it will cost even more.

At a time of rising inflation, after the deepest recession in 300 years, Mr Dimbleby really needs to read the room. He rightly says that a meat tax would be unpopular and regressive. If Boris Johnson is foolish enough to act on these recommendations, he will soon find the same is true of taxing basic nutrients.”

CLA responds to National Food Strategy launch

Responding to the launch of the National Food Strategy, Mark Bridgeman, President of the Country Land and Business Association (CLA), said:

“The National Food Strategy is a welcome addition to the debate about the future of land use and food production in the UK, alongside the critical issue of diets. The focus on nature friendly farming methods, such as regenerative agriculture, and the need to pioneer new techniques to increase crop yields whilst also protecting the environment are very positive recommendations, and will resonate with many in the farming community.

“The strategy highlights the need to properly reward farmers for environmental improvements above and beyond what they already do. Farmers often make very little profit from their efforts, and while so many of them are already undertaking a wide variety of environmental works, it is vital to recognise that any major change in land use proposed as part of Dimbleby’s vision should be driven by the market and positive incentives, rather than through compulsion.

“Government must understand the important role livestock plays in environmental management, and it needs to avoid succumbing to the false narrative set by campaign groups that meat is inherently bad. The report rightly recognises the world class environmental and animal welfare standards of British food. It is precisely because of these standards that government and industry can argue with confidence that consumers should buy British meat – as well as other British food – as part of a healthy and environmentally conscious diet.

“Farmers want to farm, and there is both demand and need for high quality British food both in domestic and overseas markets. Maintaining our high standards must never be up for debate, and we warmly welcome the report’s support for ensuring these standards are maintained and protected in the UK’s international trade strategy.

“It is right to consider alternative ways of farming and different uses for land. Enhanced tree planting and peatland restoration will play an important role in further boosting landowner’s efforts to mitigate climate change and biodiversity decline. But any change in land use, particularly to the extent that the strategy recommends, must be driven by the market and positive incentives rather than compulsion – and not come at the expense of the country’s ability to feed itself. ”

"Clobbering ordinary people": IEA expert responds to Dimbleby report

Commenting on the National Food Strategy report by Henry Dimbleby, which calls for a Sugar and Salt Reformulation Tax, Christopher Snowdon, Head of Lifestyle Economics at free market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, said:

“Once again, rich people want to clobber ordinary people with stealth taxes, this time on sugar and salt. By Mr Dimbleby’s own admission, this cash grab will cost consumers £3 billion, but independent analysis suggests it will cost even more.

"At a time of rising inflation, after the deepest recession in 300 years, Mr Dimbleby really needs to read the room. He admits that a meat tax would be unpopular and regressive.

"If Boris Johnson is foolish enough to act on these recommendations, he will soon find the same is true of taxing basic nutrients.”