I suspect that there are those who have been wondering why I have made so many comments about the costs of ultra-processed food recently. I have not, after all, become a dietary expert, and I will never pretend to be so, although I am more than capable of reading what those who have such expertise say and of acting on it.
Instead, my concern has been about the economic consequences of these disastrous ulta-processed products that are called food, but very rarely, in my opinion, meet the technical criteria for being so because far from meeting our craving for something to fulfil our need for nutrition, they are designed to perpetuate that craving, inducing addictive behaviour as a consequence.
Now, the Guardian has highlighted a new report from an academic whose work I have long admired, Prof Tim Jackson at the University of Surrey:
The UK's growing addiction to unhealthy food costs £268bn a year, far outstripping the budget for the whole NHS, the first research into the subject has found.
The increased consumption of foods high in fat, salt and sugar or which have been highly processed is having a “devastating” impact on human health and Britain's finances.
“Far from keeping us well, our current food system, with its undue deference to what is known colloquially as ‘big food', is making us sick. The costs of trying to manage that sickness are rapidly becoming unpayable,” the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission (FFCC) report says.
The cost breakdown includes spending by the NHS (£67.5bn), social care services (£14.3bn) and the welfare system (£10.1bn) on tackling the diseases closely linked to diet, such as type 2 diabetes, heart problems and kidney disease. The other £176bn is the indirect cost of lost productivity from people who are too sick to work due to diet-related illness (£116.4bn) and “human costs”, such as pain and early death (£60bn).
There will, of course, be some uncertainties about these numbers. They are estimates and are bound to be figures within ranges, but the scale of this cost is staggering, and these indications are likely to be reliable within the ranges indicated.
What becomes clear as a result is that ultra-processed food is actually imposing costs on the UK economy, amounting to approximately 10% of our supposed national income.
In the NHS, almost exactly a third of the total cost of healthcare in this country is spent dealing with the consequences of the consumption of ultra-processed food.
I would also add that it is entirely appropriate that included in this cost is the misery that these foods create as a consequence of the harm that they cause. Incapacity, limited life opportunities, disease and early death are all massively punitive on those who suffer them. All are avoidable if ultra-processed food production was ended.
I do, of course, recognise that a significant change in government spending patterns is required to make this happen. People will need higher incomes to manage better, or should I say, proper foods. But, the point is very obvious and is that the savings would more than pay for such costs.
So the question is whether Wes Streeting will take any notice, or will he want to continue dispensing almost wholly unnecessary medications to those with obesity and other conditions so that they can continue consuming deeply harmful ultra-processed foods? The choice is his to make, but in terms of the economy and in terms of health only one option makes any sense. I suspect, in that case, that he will opt for the wrong alternative.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I saw that report too. That figure is roughly the total Income tax take for the UK, and way more than NICs and VAT tax take. So imagine Wes sorting out this fake food situation and we end up with no income tax.
Why would we end up with no income tax?
Of all the taxes to eliminate why take out the progressive one?
There are health costs which can’t be measured. Companies have always gone for profit but we seem to live in an era where great efforts are made to maximise profit and that puts lots pf pressure on staff. ( I am a lay about pensioner now of 78 so I am not involved any more) As someone in mental health until five years ago and before then in state education, I saw a lot of ‘unskilful’ management and stress related conditions caused by that.
There was an idea that if employers treat employees well, they will go the extra mile. It does still happen but from what I hear, much less. Probably because of neo-liberalism and financialised capitalism.
Given all the issues around farming I suggest that a change to a healthier diet would have a number of benefits to Agriculture and the environment
This is the area of concern that Robert F. Kennedy Jr (RFK) says that he plans to tackle in the USA.
The BBC is citing RFK as saying: “Kennedy has long blamed the food and drug industries – as well as the regulators who oversee them – for Americans’ poor health. [..] He has called for a ban on food dyes and additives, regularly citing Europe’s regulatory standards. [..] We have 1,000 ingredients in our food that are illegal in Europe”.
Apparently the FDA [US Food and Drug Administration] replied: “An FDA spokesperson told the BBC that it is necessary “to dig deeper and understand the context behind the numbers””.
While that can be the case, I remember the cigarette manufactures telling similar stories about tobacco and its effects.
Looking at US (and UK) dietary health, I know which side I am more likely to believe.
Source: “What RFK Jr could do on US vaccines, fluoride and drugs”, BBC News (15 Nov 2024)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gx3kkz8z3o
It is simple this you know.
Selling anything to make money means it can be taxed and then pay for the stuff the government wants. If the boy Streeting believes that taxable income from sales funds the NHS, he will naturally feel uncomfortable cutting off in income stream even if it is poor food. And making money of course is really important these days – it comes before life itself.
Added to that, he will be happy and feel that he has accomplished something because he will then be able to tax the suppliers of these drugs and of course he’ll keep auntie Rachael happy with the GDP figures. Consume, consume, consume.
It’s all a nice vertical package that Streeting is presiding over – ‘planned illness’ – keeping all the suppliers happy – it’s the rentier ‘induced morbidity’ strategy for society – and its good for business.
This is what you get when you have politicians who ‘accept things as you find them’ – more or less what the current Secretary to the Treasury and ‘working class hero’ Darren Jones said in an interview on Radio 4 last week.
Thanks for nothing I say………………….
You do know that VAT is not charged on the majority of food so this really is an excuse to do nothing.
I also don’t believe that it necessarily means you have to increase your expenditure on your food purchases – but you do need access to fresh vegetables and enough money and a place to be able to cook. And knowledge about how to cook.
Lentils or beans and vegetables are very cheap, slow cooked casseroles with cheap cuts of meat are not expensive- but the oven costs might be.
Slow cookers are cheap to run – one reason why I have always liked them.
While we have a massive problem with UPFs, we also have existing food import issues, existing supermarket dominance on retail, looming problems with crop production, etc plus the possibility that the heat conveyor system in the North Atlantic will collapse (drop of 10C plus, reducing agriculture).
In addition, the nutrition of food has declined up to 80% since 1950. There are several places to find more data on this, such as “Changes in USDA Food Composition Data for 43 Garden Crops, 1950 to 1999,” Journal of the American College of Nutrition, Vol. 23, No. 6, 2004
Changing farming is not only damaging our bodies but also the environment. Farmers, however, are mostly only responding to outside stimuli than leading the changes.
Kellogs Cornflakes. As one dietician noted: the packing contains more nutrition than the contents (he was perhaps exaggerating a mite). Also, they were invented by some mad doctor chap who thought that by eating them it would reduce masturbation. I mention this as one example – there are thousands of others of products that are +/- marketing ploys. Neil Gaiman in Good Omens had a rather nice take on it wrt “Famine” – who invented new lines of food that when eaten would leave you hungry but wanting more.
Sable, much to agree with
this feeds into the issues farmers have with IHT if I was being cynical I would say that forcing farmers to sell land allows it be be bought for uses other than food playing into big companies providing artificial processed food….
Sorry – no one is forcing farmers to sell land
And farmers do not have a eugenic right to land
You do realise farmers produce food ?
You do realise I have lived within a few hundred metrss of farms most of my life? So, what are you trying to say?
What I know is that you do not know about farms. They don’t produce food in the modern economy. They create industrial inputs into the food manufacturing process. Do you understand that?
Thank you for your work in raising this issue, Richard. It is interesting to note that Wes Steeting is promoting diet drugs and partnership with Eli Lilly rather addressing the industrial processing and marketing of Ultra Processed edible substances.
Your readers may find the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee’s (lengthy, 179 pages) new report ‘Recipe for health: a plan to fix our broken food system’ to be of interest
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5901/ldselect/ldmfdo/19/19.pdf
That is well worth reading
I have only read the conclusions, but very good indeed
But it underestimates the cost
So, our own upper house has spent time and money investigating the UK food environment, it’s impact on health, quality of life, national productivity etc, etc, etc. Surely the next step is for the government to respond and announce how much of the plan they will adopt?
None, I suspect
I will be blogging about this
I am pleased that Good Law are investigating Wes Streeting’s taking funding from medical companies. “ MPM Connect and OPD Group Ltd, two companies controlled by the recruitment executive Peter Hearn, … have given the Ilford North MP a total of £144,900.”
https://goodlawproject.org/how-private-health-has-invested-in-wes-streeting/
https://www.thenational.scot/news/24250557.wes-streeting-takes-175k-donors-linked-private-health-firms/
Not that he’s alone – the extent of the issue has been raised by the organization EveryDoctor – https://everydoctor.org.uk/campaigns/privatisation-and-mps-interests/
Tim is, in the view of many people, one of the most perceptive and thorough environmentalists around just at the moment. I haven’t seen the methodology he used for his calculations but would always be inclined, from experience of his past work, to take them as reliable. The problems with fresh food are a) that it isn’t always available b) a lot of people have no idea what to do with it, and much of the Home Economics courses are more concerned with theory and technology than actual cooking – which is less and less seen at home as more and more pre-prepared food is used. It must be said that fresh food cookery is often more expensive than buying a Macdonalds or similar – a fish pie in a cardboard pack out of a freezer compartment, which will just about feed a family, is only a couple of quid.
Cooking can be enormous fun, satisfying, and give a sense of achievement. If taught like this, people would be both healthier and happier. But who knows how many farmers will disappear if they decide they are overtaxed?
Juliet Solomon
Tim is brilliant
I agree about persuading people to cook
Farmers always moan
They are not being unfairly taxed
Yes! Thank you, Richard.
The FFCC Report is massive in scope. and terms of reference (thanks, Richard). It’s gargantuan!
But who and what is The Food, Farming and Countryside Commission? It’s an unknown entity to me. Sure its ‘about us’ information says good stuff and inclines me to want to trust them and the extra-Report stuff they say about themselves suggest they’re good faith players1, but then again so does the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation’s web pages. Are they a credible farmers’ interest group, an ngo with an agenda, a good-faith undertaking -or exactly the opposite? Anyone know? Sorry if I just sound overly-cynical and suspicious, but that’s what the C21 is turning me into…
*1*. They say: ” We aim to help shape a transformation of our food system so that:
Healthy food is everybody’s business, levelling the playing field for a fair food system
Farming is a force for change, with a transition plan for agroecology by 2030, and the resources to back that plan
The countryside works for everyone, with a framework for sustainable land use and nature restoration, with flourishing rural economies and thriving communities where people can afford to live and work.
Money flows to where it is needed to align investment with the priorities for a just transition…”
Sounds good…..
https://youtu.be/5XbHgq4qGoQ
Good questions
I trust Tim Jackson
But I stress, all numbers are in ranges
While I agree there is good reason to minimise UPF consumption as an individual, I am not sure your headline is representative of what is going on (not your fault, the Guardian’s was worse). Reading the report it is based on, what it is estimating is the cost to the economy of chronic disease (long term conditions). That is done in a careful scholarly way – though by adding up different categories I worry there is a risk of double counting – but there is much less care taken about how much of that can genuinely be attributed to diet and in particular the presence of UPFs in modern diets.
For example:
– Although some UPFs have been around for a long time (breakfast cereals, bottled sauces) they didn’t form a major part of anyone’s diet 60 years ago. But there was a lot of chronic disease back then (e.g. arthritic problems, heart problems) which can’t be attributed to modern diet. There was also a proportion of the population that was overweight, and some with type 2 diabetes, albeit much less than now.
– There have been a lot of changes apart from diet which are likely to have contributed to the fraction of chronic disease that has a metabolic basis. In particular, along with the prevalence of UPF “readymeals” there has been a big move from physical jobs to ones more sedentary, a big move due to TV and then computers towards sedentary leisure, and much greater use of cars for journeys that would previously have been done on foot.
– There is a significant proportion of chronic disease which has been delayed and extended by modern medicine. For example, when I was a child there were people disabled after having a heart attack in their 50s and 60s who would die at what would now be thought a young age. Nowadays the majority of those would have had a decade or two benefit from bypass surgery or a stent – but still be counted as having a chronic disease because of ongoing medication, and probably finding themselves again with heart issues in their late 70s or 80s. Similarly with arthrititic conditions then, where those affected will now will most likely have hip or knee replacements but then have long term recurrent problems later on. Also cancer, where initial success can lead to ongoing issues. In many cases those may have genetic or at least non-dietary bases.
Essentially, though I am personally persuaded from other sources that UPFs are not good for health, I am not convinced that this analysis is helpful. I really don’t think that the figure of £268bn can be seriously defended as a cost to the economy solely due to UPFs. (Plus, as always when a report is attributed to a “thinktank” I hadn’t heard of, I worry about whether it is constructed to meet a political agenda though in this case to be fair there don’t seem to be funders with a vested interest).
If you ignore all the evidence of change you come to your conclusions, Jonathan.n
You are making claims that are unjustifiable. For example, stents do not extend life. And type 2 diabetes was very rare 60 years ago, as was obesity. To pretend otherwise is just wrong. Disease has changed, but if our genome has not then an externality caused it. That’s either food, lifestyle (where I agree with you) or prescription drugs – which may well overused. To pretend ultra processed foods have no part in this is what Tufton Street does, but cannot be taken seriously. Sorry, but I really disagree with you.
I wasn’t saying ultra processed foods aren’t a massive problem, only that you can’t contribute all chronic illness to them. There are other factors. Critics of the food industry will be easily ignored if they make claims which are exaggerated, and they need to be listened to.
Inactivity is also a factor
But most is suagr – inclduing a lot of cancers
Jonathan, Pathology and Economics are very different disciplines.
I very much agree with your point though – and would argue that the application of economic principles/equations and calculations to matters of health require a solid basis of experimental pathology, as in the cause and effect of diseases and their treatment by medicines.
The FFCC report does not include any pathology in its fundamentally economic report, which, by me, is a good thing because its analysis will need to admit that clinical and experiential pathology have been “corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation, and commercialisation of academia”.
Yes, I’m a evidence-based-medicine nut and welcome Richard Murphy and FFCC’s economic stethoscope here exactly because it will show how the very same economic players and forces that are giving us UPF are also destroying the promise of Evidence based Medicine.