Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the latest research into the effects of ultra-processed food on
the mental and physical health of children and adults; and
whether they plan to introduce any further restrictions on these
foodstuffs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health
and Social Care () (Con)
The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition did not find
evidence for a causal link between ultra-processed food and
mental and physical health. It is unclear whether ultra-processed
foods are inherently unhealthy, or whether it is more that those
foods are typically high in calories, saturated fat, salt, and
sugar. Therefore, the Government’s priority is continued action
to reduce the consumption of foods high in calories, salt, sugar
and saturated fat.
(CB)
I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but I beg to disagree. The
latest scientific evidence indeed shows that ultra-processed
food, which is, in essence, not really food given that ordinary
foodstuffs have been put through industrial processes that render
them chemically different from what they were when they began,
has had a massive impact on the nation’s health, especially in
the past 30 years. Some 66% of our diet is ultra-processed food,
and 16% of everything we eat every day goes to our brain. It
seems to be no coincidence that instances of heart disease,
cancer, obesity and many other illnesses, as well as mental
illnesses, might have something to do with the food that we are
eating, the fuel that we are putting in our cars. No noble Lord
in this House would put Coca-Cola in his Rolls-Royce and expect
it to do its best. I beg the Government to come back and have
another look. I would be very happy to set up a meeting for the
Minister with the newest experts in neuroscientific research to
see whether we can take this forward.
(Con)
First, I thank the noble Baroness for the work she does and has
done in this space for a number of years. The problem is the
definition of “ultra-processed food”. It includes things such as
wholemeal bread, baked beans and cereal. It is not a helpful
definition. There are certain ultra-processed foods which are
high in fat, salt and sugar. We completely agree that those
things are bad for us and that we should do everything we can to
discourage people from eating them. The label “ultra-processed
food” is not helpful.
(Con)
My noble friend will know that one-third of baby and infant foods
contain ultra-processed food which, in effect, is leading to
obesity, and he will know that obesity can lead to cardiac
problems and hypertension in later life, which costs the NHS
significant sums of money. There is evidence in recent research
that firms’ marketing is providing misleading information. What
are the Government doing to ensure that this aspect, particularly
with baby and infant food, is better regulated?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend. We are focused on the sugar, salt and
saturated fat content. It is not the fact that food is called
ultra-processed, per se. We would not discourage people from
eating whole- meal bread, but wholemeal bread is considered to be
a processed food. The action we are taking is for a reduction in
sugar, salt and saturated fat.
(Lab)
The Minister is focusing on reducing fats, salt and sugar in
meals. When are the Government going to reduce those elements in
school meals for children?
(Con)
Absolutely. That is why we are at the highest level of free
school meals for children ever. More than a third of children are
now receiving free school meals, including all infant
schoolchildren. The noble Lord is correct that a healthy start to
life is vital, and if we can make sure that children are getting
a good, nutritionally balanced school meal, that is a good start
to life.
(LD)
My Lords, as the Online Safety Bill works its way through this
House, we see how interventionist the Government can be in the
interests of public health and well-being when they put their
mind to it. Learning from that effort, does the Minister agree
that the phrase “legal but harmful” is quite an accurate
description of some of the kinds of ultra-processed food that are
sold and marketed in the UK?
(Con)
Absolutely. Some of the foods are not healthy at all, and we
totally want to discourage them. We have taken a lot of steps in
that space. The whole product positioning strategy, whereby you
cannot now put such foods in places where there will be so called
pester-power influences, is beginning to have an effect. We are
already seeing healthier foods outgrowing non-healthy foods from
that. Those sorts of actions were modelled to show that they were
effective for 96% of the things that we are trying to target to
reduce in terms of calories.
(CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register and I
hate to disagree with my noble friend Lady Boycott but, on this
occasion, I do. Does the Minister agree with the conclusions of
the nutritional advisory committee of the five Nordic countries,
published on 20 June 2023? It says:
“The … committee’s view is that the current categorization of
foods as ultra-processed foods does not add to the already
existing food classifications and recommendations”.
Does he also agree with the Brazilian scientists who coined the
notion of ultra-processed food when they say that their
classification is a good way to understand the food system, but
not individual foods?
(Con)
Yes, the noble Lord is absolutely correct and makes the point
that I have been trying to make but far more eloquently; I thank
him. That is precisely the point. Some ultra-processed foods are
very unhealthy and we should be doing everything we can to
discourage them. Others, such as wholemeal bread or baked beans,
are totally fine.
(Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend’s reply to the
noble Lord, . The definition of
ultra-processed foods to which I think noble Lords on all sides
are referring comes from the recent book, Ultra-Processed People.
It is food that is
“wrapped in plastic and has …one ingredient that you wouldn’t
find in your kitchen”.
I suspect that is true of the contents of almost all of our
cupboards, including, as my noble friend the Ministers says,
sliced wholemeal bread. Is it not time that we stood up against
moral panic, focused on the actual empirical data and followed
the science?
(Con)
I thank my noble friend; that was excellently put. Again, it is
the content of the food that matters and not what it is
called.
(Lab)
My Lords, to follow on from the Minister’s comments about the
definition of ultra-processed foods, can he confirm what work is
taking place to nail down a definition and, upon this definition,
will the Government carry out the research that scientists
believe to be necessary?
(Con)
As I have said, the fact that something is processed is not a
helpful definition. I would recommend that we focus all our
activity on the contents of the foods—whether they are high in
saturated fat, sugar or salt—and not on whether they are
processed.
(Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister let us know what
assessment the Government have made of food industry links with
the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition and whether this
might have influenced the evidence and recommendations of the
review?
(Con)
On any advisory body you clearly want to get experts in the
field. Necessarily, they will often be experts from companies as
well. It is vital that they abide by the principles of conduct in
public life and make sure they declare any conflicts. As such, we
are content that we have a proper expert panel.
of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, may I take the Minister back to the question from my
noble friend Lord Brooke, who asked about the content of school
meals? The Minister replied that school meals are a good thing
and more people should have them, with which I do not suppose
anybody would want to disagree. However, I did not hear him say
in what way the Government are ensuring that the content of those
school meals is appropriate and free from salt, sugar and fat in
the way that my noble friend Lord Brooke was asking for.
(Con)
My understanding is that those guidelines are there; it is
absolutely the right question. The Department for Education,
working with the Department of Health, makes sure that a
nutritionally balanced diet is there. There is also a joint
DfE/DHSE programme in respect of nursery milk and fresh fruit and
vegetables for young children, to give them a good start in
life.
(Con)
My Lords, is it not the solution to this problem not to ban
things but to improve education so that people understand what
they are eating and make rational and clear choices? Is it not
the case that many of these processed foods are bought by people
because they are cheaper? If we could encourage people in schools
to learn what used to be called domestic science—cooking skills
and so on—so they can use fresh ingredients, then we would
advance this case far more effectively than by banning
things.
(Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend about education and
teaching people how to cook a decent meal. The other crucial
thing is the industry reformulating foods to take out sugar and
fat content. That is where some of the restrictions are working.
Advertising and product placement really do work, so if you make
it harder, the industry is incentivised to take sugar and fat out
of those meals to make them healthier so that they can still be
marketed.
