A National Food Strategy public dialogue reminder

Proposed anti-obesity strategy review

It has been widely reported in the press (e.g. Financial Times 14 September 2022) that the Prime Minister has launched a review of England’s anti-obesity strategy (published in July 2020). This has led us at HVM to reflect on the findings of the DEFRA and Sciencewise commissioned National Food Strategy public dialogue we designed, delivered and reported on from 2020-2021. As in many HVM dialogues, the issues here are complex and reach to the heart of what matters to our society.

Dialogue participants calling for urgent change

Dialogue participants, drawn from locations across England, call for urgent change. They believe current practices have created an upside-down system where simple, natural foods are more expensive and less accessible, than unhealthy and processed food which is cheap and readily available. Our participants made it clear that they are strongly in favour of government intervention as a means of rectifying this imbalance.

Participants also call for changes to enable our food strategy to become a tool to help us meet our national targets on climate and biodiversity. Many accepted that the current levels of meat and dairy consumed must be reduced, with some having already made steps to cut both in their diets. However, there was a sense that this could be achieved more effectively with some level of government involvement.

A mandate for action doesn’t have to mean a nanny state

Whilst they did not go as far as calling for certain foods to be banned, participants recognise that policies that create a healthier culture (such as a ban on junk food advertising) should be encouraged. Some felt that there is too much blame being laid on the consumer for the obesity crisis and in reality, policy makers should be working with stakeholders across the food system to create the conditions for change. Without such a collaborative effort they believe it will be hard to achieve the benefits to the planet and societal health that they wish to see.

“I wouldn't want the state to force these decisions on people. I'd want the authorities to facilitate, to make the conditions optimal for me to make these consumption choices.”  London & South East participant, round 2.

Henry Dimbleby, Independent Lead for the National Food Strategy highlights in a recent Guardian article that changes in meat and dairy consumption are essential:

“Incredibly inefficient use of land to grow crops, feed them to a ruminant or pig or chicken which then over its lifecycle converts them into a very small amount of protein for us to eat” – Henry Dimbleby, Guardian 16 August 2022.

Many National Food Strategy public dialogue participants agree. They believe change is essential, even if it isn’t popular.

“Well, I just think, for me, summing it up is, change is absolutely necessary. It's made me think about what I do personally and try to think about different ways of eating and contributing to a change in society. But overall, the main message for me is that change is absolutely necessary.” London & South East participant, round 2.

There is a concern voiced by some ministers that society does not want a ‘nanny state’ making food decisions on behalf of the population. The National Food Strategy public dialogue makes it clear there is a balance to be struck. Participants are calling for putting the environment first, prioritising healthy foods and an equalisation of access and opportunity throughout the system. They would like to see central government being given the mandate to achieve this. As such suggesting that there is too much state intervention runs counter to the findings of the dialogue.