Simon Wright explores the growing reliance on manufactured foods, the socioeconomic and environmental impacts, and the need for political commitment to address these issues and ultimately develop a healthier and sustainable food system
What is an Ultra-Processed Food (UPF)? Few people know, but many consumers say they are now avoiding them. The fevered debate around UPFs illustrates our widespread unhappiness with food and diet. How did we get here?
The rising demand for convenience foods
Post the Second World War, farmers were told, “Grow as much as you can.” Contemporary developments in artificial inputs, such as fertilisers and pesticides, made this possible. It wasn’t until Rachel Carson published Silent Spring in 1962 that the negative impact of intensive agriculture on the environment and health was considered. The organic movement responded by developing an agricultural system that replaced artificial inputs with crop rotation and prioritised soil health. Thirty years ago, social justice entered the equation, with the Fairtrade movement ensuring that farmers in the global South received a decent income.
Both these movements were dwarfed by the move to manufactured foods, which offered consumers increased convenience at highly competitive prices. Such foods relied heavily on food additives and food processing. With increased consumption of ready-to-eat meals, cooking skills declined. The food manufacturing and retailing industry benefited from the added value of selling processed foods compared to selling fresh produce. The result was a preponderance of HFSS (High in Fat, Sugar, and Salt) foods.
Socioeconomic consequences of processed foods
Society is now having to pay for our increasing reliance on HFSS and UPF foods. Our health service is being bankrupted by rising levels of obesity and diabetes. Intensive agriculture has reduced soil fertility: excess chemicals applied to the land have to be removed by water companies at great cost. Climate change is making it increasingly difficult for farmers in both the North and the South to grow their crops as temperatures rise and pests become more prevalent. A reduction in food security has resulted.
The UK Government’s response has been disappointing. Our previous (Conservative) administration commissioned Henry Dimbleby to write a plan as to what needed to be done. His plans were thought too radical, and his report was ignored. The current (Labour) government is showing signs of a greater appetite for change but is proceeding very cautiously, worried about ‘nanny state’ accusations. There is a ten-year health plan that calls for clear reporting on the healthiness of food produced by large food companies, with mandatory targets for improvement. The devil will be in the details, which, thus far, are sadly lacking.
Leading by example
Other countries are doing better. In Denmark, several initiatives have transformed the food supply and made it healthier. A partnership between the government, the food industry, and NGOs has introduced a whole-grain logo, which, when added to food packaging, has significantly increased fibre intake in the Danish diet. Schools in Copenhagen have moved to fully organic lunches at no additional cost to parents. Hospitals have started serving organic food and have been able to prove that it helps patients get better more quickly. With the central government’s backing, the organic sector has thrived. The share of organic food sold in Denmark is now 12%; in the UK, it is 2%. The largest organic food retailer in Denmark is Netto, a discounter.
There is complete international agreement in what constitutes a healthy diet: fruit and vegetables, whole grains, a little dairy, and a little meat and fish. The UK Government has the EatWell plate, which embodies this: other countries have something similar. This type of diet is also good for the planet. In terms of climate transition, the highest impact we can make is moving from a meat-based diet to a plant-rich diet. Next, replace beef, veal, and lamb with pork, poultry, and fish. Third is eliminating food waste.
The need for political commitment
We can no longer claim ignorance. We know what to do. But change cannot be the sole responsibility of citizens. We need governments to take a more interventionist role and work with industry and NGOs to develop a modern food strategy that prioritises nutrition, food security, and sustainability. Nothing less will work.
