Asked by
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the
impact on public health of ultra processed food; and what steps
if any they will take to reduce the amount of ultra processed
food consumed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health
and Social Care () (Con)
Observed associations between ultra-processed food and health are
concerning, but it is unclear whether these foods are inherently
unhealthy due to processing or their nutritional content. A diet
high in processed food is often high in calories, salt, saturated
fat and sugar, which are associated with an increased risk of
obesity and chronic diseases. This continues to be the basis of
our dietary guidelines and policies to tackle obesity and poor
diets.
(GP)
I thank the Minister for his Answer, which reflects what he said
yesterday in our debate. The House did not agree on whether
processed food per se is bad for you. Common sense has long
suggested that food that, to quote the Washington Post, is
“refined, pounded, heated, melted, shaped, extruded and packed
with additives”
is bad for you. These dreadful food-like substances do not just
contain a terrible balance of nutrients; there is also a problem
with the process. The science increasingly demonstrates that.
Yesterday I referred to a study based on the French
NutriNet-Santé study by Chantal Julia et al; I supplied the
Minister with the link. Will he commit to asking the department
to look closely at that study, which demonstrates that
nutritional quality and ultra-processing are correlated but
distinct issues in diet? Will the department provide a
substantive response to the study?
(Con)
Obviously, I am always happy to look at all the research because
this is a vital area. This is the fifth time we have discussed it
in the last three and a half months, so I apologise for any
repetition. We are ever vigilant on this area but, as the
contributors to yesterday’s debate showed, the research is mixed.
The key things to get behind are the bad features of
ultra-processed foods that are high in sugar, salt and saturated
fat.
(Con)
My Lords, I will ask a very simple question. Was it not true
that, before we had the link between smoking and lung cancer, we
did have evidence of an epidemiological connection? The problem
here is that we have no direct link, but it does seem that there
is a connection that we do not yet know is causal. Will the
department be very careful not to ignore that evidence simply
because it is very inconvenient for scientists if their whole
history of understanding nutrition is undermined by it?
(Con)
Absolutely—we have to be understanding of the latest research in
cause and effect. The evidence I have been shown so far is that
it is about the features within those ultra-processed foods—are
they high in fat, sugar or salt? Those are the things that are
causing the harm. If we find links to the processing itself, we
will act on that.
(CB)
My Lords, a few years ago the Government introduced very good
obesity policies on stopping the sale of “two for the price of
one” on junk food and limiting junk food advertising during
children’s television. These have been delayed until 2025. What
was the Government’s reasoning? Can the Minister assure the House
that it was not based on any lobbying from the food industry?
(Con)
The rationale was very clear. The measures that we introduced by
the modelling showed that in what we were trying to do we were
attacking the things that cause 95% of the reduction in
calories—namely, the product positioning, which has the support
of 78% of people to reduce the so-called pester power. Early
evidence shows that it is working, because foods that are not
high in the bad stuff have gone up by 16% and those with high
sugar, salt and fat content have gone down by 6%, all through the
product positioning. It is working, but the most important thing
is that we have gone after the big numbers, those that effect 95%
reductions in calorific intake.
(LD)
My Lords, to follow on from the questions asked by the noble
Baroness, Lady Boycott, there is a public expectation that the
delayed junk food advertising regulations will mean that children
will be less likely to see ads for products from companies such
as KFC and McDonald’s. But my understanding from the Minister’s
previous comments is that the Government’s expectation now is
that the advertising will carry on as before and children will
continue to see just as many ads, albeit with the products
reformulated to get around the ad ban. Is that correct?
(Con)
I have said many times that the prize is reformulation. I do not
think that any of us should have a problem per se with the food
if the bad stuff is taken out. Diet Coke is a perfect example. It
is not particularly good for you but not bad for you either, so
why should Coca-Cola not be able to advertise Diet Coke? If you
take out the bad stuff, we should encourage industry because
advertising works. It wants to advertise, so if it is encouraged
to take out the bad stuff, that is a big incentive.
(Lab)
My Lords, as far as I recall, it was said that we should keep it
simple and that the focus should be on sugar. When will the
Government look at children’s school meals, review the
regulations and reduce the sugar in children’s free school meals?
(Con)
The noble Lord makes a very good point. A healthy start to life
is vital, which is why I am very pleased to say that we have the
highest level of free school meals ever, with every infant school
kid and a third of children overall having a free school meal. On
the composition of those foods, I know that this was planned but
was stopped due to Covid. The timing is now being reviewed again,
because things move on in terms of the content and healthy foods.
(Con)
My Lords, most people would be very concerned to know what
ultra-processed food means. People who rely on staples such as
bread, cereals, sausages, gravy, fruit juice, baked beans and
biscuits would be very surprised to hear us talking about those
as ultra-processed food and how bad it is for you. Some people
say that five ingredients or more puts food into this category.
While we should encourage vegetables, fruit and fresh food of
various kinds being eaten, does my noble friend not agree that we
are alarming the public too much if we deny them the staples that
they are used to?
(Con)
That is absolutely correct. My understanding is that
ultra-processed foods make up, on average, 60% of a person’s
diet. If you were to try a blanket ban, it would have a massive
impact. I think we all agree that it is important that we try to
discourage things that are bad in ultra-processed food, not
ultra-processed food per se. As I have said many times, there are
many types of ultra-processed food that we encourage, such as
wholemeal bread and many of the cereals.
(Con)
My Lords, ultra-processed food rests on the weirdly unscientific
definition of containing stuff that we do not normally find in
our kitchens. My noble friend the Minister has rightly said that
the advice is to cut down on salt, sugar and fat. I suggest that
almost all of us have plenty of salt, sugar and fat in our
kitchens, so will my noble friend the Minister join me in urging
people to stick to advice that is based on science and the
empirical and reasoned method, rather than going for a basically
primitive fear of things that we are unfamiliar with?
(Con)
That is absolutely right. We should always base this on the
science. I thank my noble friend for that comment.
(Lab)
My Lords, nearly half of baby snacks and up to three-quarters of
baby biscuits and rusks are categorised as ultra-processed. Many
of them are high in fat, sugar and salt and if overconsumed,
reports suggest, can lead to weight gain, unhealthy eating habits
and a wider negative impact on development. Have the Government
made any consideration of measures to help parents to be more
informed of these risks? What discussions have taken place with
industry to address information and formulation?
(Con)
To take the second question first, the industry has worked with a
lot of comments on reformulation across the board—for younger
children and older ones. Noble Lords will remember me saying that
foods such as Mars, Galaxy, Bounty and Snickers bars have all
been reformulated, as have Mr Kipling’s “exceedingly good” cakes.
Clearly, we need to look across the board at it all. I know that
the industry is working in the area of young people. I am happy
to follow that up in writing with the precise details.
The (Con)
My Lords, in yesterday’s QSD on ultra-processed foods, the
Minister spoke of how he had recently made a sound choice due to
calorie labelling. What will the Government do to help and
encourage SMEs with fewer than 250 employees to show calorie
labelling on food and drinks that are not pre-packed?
(Con)
My noble friend makes a good point. I gave an example of where it
had affected my own behaviour. I am sure we all have examples of
when we have looked at the menu and thought, “Oh, do I really
want that choice? Is it worth the extra calories?”. We want to
get it proportionate, so while we want to encourage as many
companies as possible to take it up, we appreciate that for small
companies it is quite a bit harder. We are working with them to
introduce it voluntarily if they can.
