The House of Lords has issued a report that identifies the reason for the obesity crisis that the UK is facing. As they put it, the UK government has been so frightened of being described as a nanny state that it has failed to protect us from the deliberate harm caused by the profit-maximising ultra-processed food industry that has promoted addiction to sugar.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Who is afraid of the nanny state? It turns out that the UK government is. Who says so? The House of Lords do, in a recent report on the state of medical health in the UK, particularly with regard to obesity and our over-consumption of ultra-processed foods.
What do they mean by the nanny state? They use the term in the way that right-wing thinktanks do. Those right-wing think tanks, the Institute for Economic Affairs, the Centre for Policy Studies, and all those other organisations based in or around Tufton Street, very near the House of Commons, use the term ‘nanny state' to describe a government action that is, in their opinion, overprotective of people and denies them choice.
The House of Lords says that actually the government has been so frightened of this terminology that they've failed to take appropriate action to protect people. In other words, the UK government has been frightened of being accused of running a nanny state that we have what the House of Lords describe as an obese nation.
An obese nation means that we simply have too many people who are overweight in this country. But the consequences of that are dire. We have lots of people with type 2 diabetes, a disease that has escalated in terms of its significance massively over the last 40 years.
We have people who are getting more and more sick with Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia, which are now clearly understood to be the result of consuming too much sugar during a lifetime.
There is also a lot of chronic heart disease, which is, again, related to this overconsumption of sugar, and there's quite a lot of evidence that quite a lot of cancers might also be caused for the same reason.
In other words, ultra-processed food, which includes vast amounts of sugar in proportion to our needs in terms of consumption, is causing us harm. That is not my conclusion on this occasion. That is the conclusion of the House of Lords in the report that I will provide a link to below. Read it; it's damning of the food industry.
But what is damning is that the reason why we've got into this mess is because the UK government has been frightened of being seen of as a nanny state. The whole neoliberal culture, introduced by Margaret Thatcher, that ran right through Tony Blair, and still does run right through Tony Blair by the way, into and beyond the new Labour years through David Cameron and everybody else, has meant that the UK government has been frightened of intervening when it was necessary to ensure that it protected the people of this country from harm.
Now, one of the most basic functions of a state - even right-wingers believe this to be true - is that it should protect people from harm. They do this in terms of the defence of the realm - in other words, that there should be armed forces sitting on our borders to prevent the alien, as they define it, from invading our shores. We know this all too well with regard to the narratives around migration, most of which are false.
But in this particular case, this is about protecting people from the harm caused by an industry that is out of the control in its creation of foodstuffs which are addictive in the sense that once we've finished eating them, we crave more of that same product even though our body doesn't actually require it to meet any known need.
Why did the state back off? Because of the political pressure from right-wing think tanks.
How were those right-wing think tanks funded to create this idea? They were funded by the industries that were, of course, promoting these harmful products.
And we know that there is a very long history of industries creating false narratives to support the use of their products. Nowhere was this more obvious than in the tobacco industry, where it was very clear, in retrospect, that that industry had funded false scientific research to deny that there was a connection between smoking and cancer when there very glaringly obviously was.
There's been another false narrative, which is to promote the idea that sugar was relatively good, and fat was harmful, and that has been deeply destructive as it turns out, because we actually need a reasonable amount of fat in our diet, and we do not need anything like the excess quantities of sugar that have been produced as a consequence of the production of ultra-processed food, and that therefore is another case where this industry has funded not just false research, but the promulgation of that through think tanks and others so that it informs government narratives.
And we're still seeing that with regard to these foodstuffs, which are still being advertised in ways that are deeply harmful.
I, therefore, welcome what the House of Lords had to say on this issue. When they looked at the role of the industry, the supposed food industry - and I say supposed deliberately because some of these things hardly qualify as food but are nonetheless consumed by us as if they were.
When they looked at the role of that industry, they say that those companies who make a large proportion of ultra-processed foods in relation to their total turnover should be barred from any active role in government policymaking.
Their staff should not be seconded onto committees.
They should not be allowed to make representations on products which they know to be harmful.
They're saying that these people should be cut out of the decision-making process because they have actually caused harm.
And I believe they're right.
We don't have to have a nanny state. We have to have a state that prevents harm. And preventing harm is necessary when it is impossible for people to individually collect all the information that they would require to make an informed choice.
It is the belief of these so-called right-wing think tanks that we can all make informed choices all the time and that, in fact, we do so. It is one of the fundamental tenets of their economic belief that we all know everything about everything. They actually believe that is true and that is taught as if it is true to undergraduate economists all over this country and all over the world. And it's obviously wrong. So totally wrong that it actually should be banned from university curricula because quite clearly, any economic belief that is based upon the idea that we all know everything about everything is absurd because we wouldn't then need to learn it because we would know it already. So, it's obviously a falsehood.
In that case, we should instead presume that people don't know and, what is more, that there are so many products on sale in society that it is impossible for us to know everything that we do need to know to protect ourselves from harm, and therefore we will necessarily be dependent upon the state to protect us.
Well, if the state's going to protect us from harm created by business that is deliberately trying to maximise its profit at our expense, it must exclude those businesses that are doing that harm from involvement in the policy process. or the harm will continue.
The House of Lords has, in other words, in their report on obesity, rumbled those who criticise the nanny state by proving that they're not criticising the nanny state as such. What they're doing is promoting the opportunity to cause harm to the welfare of the people of this country.
And yes, they are causing harm. Now there are there are various ways in looking at that, at that harm, but one way of looking at it is, of course, the increase in the number of people with diabetes, which is skyrocketing.
It is the increase in the number of people on things like statins, which is skyrocketing.
It is the increase in the number of people who are suffering and out of work as a consequence of those diseases. And that is increasing, and government ministers say it's a cause of great concern to them.
It is the cost of the NHS of these illnesses, which has been estimated to be one-third of the total cost of NHS expenditure, or nearly £70 billion a year.
It's the cost of extra benefit payments to people who are ill, but it's also the cost of people who cannot work because they literally can't because they've been incapacitated by these illnesses, or they can't work because they're looking after somebody who has been incapacitated in that way.
Whichever way we look at it, these so-called food products are causing us massive harm. And they've done so because the government has been frightened of intervening against an industry that has set out to cause harm by creating what they knew were addictive products, and yet the government did nothing about it.
I do not believe that should have happened. I think the House of Lords is right to call the government out and say, “Stop this fear of the nanny state and intervene. People cannot accumulate sufficient information to protect themselves. It's the government's job to do so.”
We don't need to be frightened of the nanny state. We need to embrace the nanny state. The nanny state is what protects us from harm. And that's what I want government to do. I don't understand why anybody else wouldn't. Unless, of course, they prefer the opportunity to make profit from abuse.
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!
Sorry to wander off thread, but Labour has sent out Harriet Harman rather than a Minister, or even an MP to try to cover Anas Sarwar’s desertion of the Government in Scotland in a crude attempt not to blow his chances in the 2026 Holyrood Election. 35 Scottish Labour MPs, almost all newly elected because Labour were dead in the water – voted to end the WFA. Sarwar’s move is a crude act of political cynicism: Labour? Britain? Nuthin to do with me, guv: I’m Scottish Labour, get me outa here is his message to the Scottish voter. It iscynicism in its purest form; a Unionist self-contradiction. The Union is against you, but for you at the same time ….
Harman, in an entirely specious piece of humbug intervenes from somewhere inside/outsid/nowhere near Labour HQ says this:
“‘This is the reality of devolution. He can say, – I will make choices which I think are better for Scotland – … but he’ll have to then work out if he can take it away from the extremely rich people, or if he’s not going to take it away from extremely rich people, how he justifies that.'” (Sky News).
This is the new Labour mantra. Means test everything. Labour knows over 30% of the people who need WFA do not take it up. They do not trust means testing; indeed many loathe it, and will not depend on it. Universal payments can solve the problem. Labour could use the income tax system to tax back those in receipt of it, above a given age and chosen income level. Means testing is detestable. So is Labour for peddling this specious humbug.
Starmer has been challenged on the WFA decision yet again by journalists today. He insists it “makes sense”, and that Labour has had to make very difficult decisions. The decisions Labour is making are not nearly as difficult as the decisions that will need to be made by pensioners on heating (or some other necessity) this winter, as an additional 100,000 of them face a descent into dealing with poverty.
At the same time British domestic energy prices are being artificially driven up, ever higher; but determined by the most expensive fuel source in use, whatever the actual balance of fuel use by consumers (and the most expensive is also internationally the most unstable fuel source – gas). This is a terrible way to operate the domestic energy system; as are standing charges, and the geographic distribution of network charges. Labour is doing absolutely nothing about these critical issues. Britain’s energy policy is utterly broken; a function of long run failed government, and failed opposition. Labour is not fixing Britain’s problems.
As for Sarwar? He can’t disown Labour and Downing Street; he simply can’t. He stood side-by-side with the 37 Labour MP candidates; and 35 of them voted to abandon the WFA, and millions of pensioners.
Thanks John
Well said Richard.
You would think that it is a self evident truth that if organisations are causing UK citizens harm, water companies, food manufacturers and so on, the UK government would protect its citizens.
Instead it’s the citizens fault and the UK government is too scared of neoliberalism to do anything because it will upset the markets.
Much to agree with.
“we can all make informed choices all the time” this is a modest variation on the neoliberal construct “the rationale economic man”. & of course ignores the reality of advertising – & how people are groomed.
2nd point: Examples exist of what happens when the unfood companies are critcised – e.g. the McLibel case (still the longest trial in UK history I believe).
& who was involved in this? a certain K Starmer Q.C (as was). How times change. Of course one cannot have a narrative that is different from that offered by the unfood companies – thus the libel case.
What was his role? Presumably he acted for them?
Starmer assisted the people McDonalds were attacking.
Thanks
If memory serves correctly, Starmer provided pro-bono legal work for the couple who were suing McDonald’s.
Credit for that then
Kier Starmer represented activists, Helen Steel and David Morris, against McDonald’s.
Well, credit for that then.
Its not just the think tanks – big food, pharma, oil, healthcare buy up political parties and individual politicians
Until this changes nothing will.
If by them you mean McDonalds then no!
Lot of pro bono work for the Greenpeace ‘libellers’.
That was what gave some of us hope…
https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/keir-took-mcdonalds
Thanks
That doyen of Neo-liberalism – Jacob Reece-Mogg has seen fit I believe to employ the same nanny he had for his kids.
In fact a lot of the rich like to employ nannies.
So, a nanny can be a good thing it seems, useful even? Helping young Tories/Neo-libs to brush their teeth, wipe their bottoms properly and watch their diction is appreciated and necessary for future Tories, Neo-libs and Labour party frontbenchers.
But because it is the government who does the ‘nannying’ that seems unacceptable.
It’s the usual double standards as ever created by people who have no concept of anyone’s needs but their own – which is why the Mont Pelerin Society was created, after all.
Mischievous suggestion:
Declare the revant part of Tufton St ?45-55? a freeport, or a “nanny free zone”, (Yes Rees-Mogg, no nannies).
Remove ALL legal protections for buildings, people, trade.
No police, no fire engines, no ambulance, no streetlights, no street repairs, no rubbish collection, no access to public utilities, no land registry, no access to Companies House or any other register. No access to passports either, let them make their own. Call it “Tufton St. Unchained” (or the Liz Truss Free Trade Zone).
If the mob arrive, to take their assets into, ahem, “public ownership”nanny will not help.
Let Tufton St look to the private sector for these things.
We would be able to look up to them as a successful example of a net-zero-nanny-state zone. Or maybe not?
🙂
And unrealistic, but fun
Grafton in New Hampshire USA is an example of the Libertarian utopian project, a group of libertarians took over the town in early 2000s and within 10 years the town had imploded. Almost everything was defunded and nothing worked. The story is compelling in the book ‘A Libertarian Walked into a Bear’ . Well worth a read, really funny at times but at same time troubling especially when we have Trump and other right wing governments preaching from the Libertarian gospel.
Look, too,at Kansas and how that all went horribly wrong.
This is SO important. It’s what needs to be ‘Silly Boy’s’ No.1 priority.
I think this is one situation where a letter/e-mail to your MP could prove to be effective, so writing one is essential.
Also basing an academic discipline on such a bizarre ideological construct as ‘Homo Economicus’ makes as much sense as basing astronomy on ‘flat-earth theory’. How does academia let them get away with it?!
Thanks
This of course is the child of two other crisis’s
We have a crisis in Farming – farmers are not earning enough and concentrating on producing things that are traded internationally – principally grain and chicken.
Doing so is contributing to our water pollution issues.
Then what they produce and get paid peanuts for is taken by the food producers – often employing poorly paid workers on zero hours contracts and converted to Ultra Processed Food which doesnt do the consumers any good.
If we had farmers concentrating on producing what we should be eating – legumes, vegetables and whole grains which were sold by retailers in a minimally processed form so the farmers can get a better share of the retail price and hopefully less pollution caused by animal manure
Oh and some changes may be afoot
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/22/its-like-a-secret-why-do-the-leguminati-want-to-change-the-way-we-eat
Much to agree with
“The House of Lords has issued a report that identifies the reason for the obesity crisis that the UK is facing. As they put it, the UK government has been so frightened of being described as a nanny state that it has failed to protect us from the deliberate harm caused by the profit-maximising ultra-processed food industry that has promoted addiction to sugar.”
The above statement really makes the House of Lords seem very sensible compared to the House of Commons.
Just so. How bad does it need to get? Should vast swathes of the UK population have heart disease and diabetes by retirement.
Just considering diabetes, one complication from overweight. Latest ‘figures’ (ca 2021) from a quick Google search:-
USA 11.6% (39M)
UK 6.6% (4.4M)
France 5.3% (3.5M)
India 9%
Pakistan 17.1% there are genetic influences in this region.
There are estimated to be half a billion people in the world living with diabetes.
I’m trying to follow Michael Mosely’s book ‘Low-carb, Mediterranean style recipes for intermittent fasting and long-term health’ to reduce my carb in-take.
Carbs seem to be a big issue
Fat is not
I am thinking a lot about this
You cannot eat carbs and be sedentary that is for sure.
Carbs and desk work do not mix well either.
“Low Carb Down Under” on Youtube is a great source of information re the low carb diet, and how fat is actually good for you.
Thanks
I totally agree with this argument, but there is one aspect that I would like to mention. When you see someone who is obese, it is tempting to assume it is due to their diet and that they are, as a individual, to blame, and therefore perhaps should be penalised. However, there are medical conditions in which a person will gain weight. Eg conditions needing steroid treatment is a simple example. There can also be genetic reasons.
Please don’t make ill-informed judgements of individuals.
(My weight/BMI is where it should be and i am, if anything am underweight.)
Accepted, and true as I know from family experience.
In 2010, I was prescribed a steroid treatment for a skin condition by a dermatologist. 3 weeks later I collapsed, was admitted to hospital & told that I had diabetes. I lost count of the medics who told me steroids couldn’t trigger diabetes but now it’s an accepted fact.
I agree with all you say about this timely report.
I reminds be of cross bench peer Lord David Anderson’s description of the HoL as “ Indefensible yet indispensable”
Producing sensible evidence lead reports like this is important and life peers contribute much.
Any reform of HoL must avoid loosing the good aspects of present arrangements.
And all that is necessary, apparently, to rebut all you have said is to mutter the words ‘Nanny State’.
It must be money for jam working in Tufton Street.
I can’t, off hand, think of a single two word sound bite in the entire history of mankind that expresses a positive message.
Incidentally I saw a reference to this recently:
“In 1980, Lord Balfour of Inchrye strongly opposed the introduction of seatbelt legislation, saying it was “yet another state narrowing of individual freedom and individual responsibility”. He worried that future intrusions of the “nanny state” would include restrictions on cigarettes, alcohol, and mandatory life jackets.[16]”. (Wikipedia)
The freedom to be shredded through a windscreen in an RTA was clearly an inalienable right in Lord Balfour’s book.
Tufton St and MSM are very good at weaponising some terms (eg Nanny state). Past effective protest has taught us we should “own” these intended taunts, or challenge them….. Would people not prefer a responsible state to a negligent state? Coordinated responses rather than opportunist spiv profiteering?
Of course, the first step is to have a well considered, rational plan that can be shared with people and gain their support (leadership) …. And this mob ain’t doing that ………
You could go further…
People should be freed from mental health producing poisons:
Gambling
Pornography
Glorification of Violence
Advertising of acohol
Extreme individualism
It’s a fine line but libertarianism should come at a cost to its perpetrators not its victims.
That means taxing them.
Much to agree with