The role of the state on individuals’ lives is a debate that is dominating political life in the US and here in the UK at the moment, whether it be health reform or sweeping changes to the welfare system.
In the UK, a left of centre Labour government – often accused of running and expanding a ‘nanny-state’ – has been replaced by a coalition on the centre-right, between the Conservatives and Liberals. The common ground between the two parties, who have long been at odds with one another, is a huge suspicion of ‘Big Government’.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Access deeper industry intelligence
Experience unmatched clarity with a single platform that combines unique data, AI, and human expertise.
The sovereign debt crisis and the prospect of years of austerity within the public finances has only heightened the rhetoric and accelerated the agenda of those working towards shrinking the state.
It is not just the big issues of the health services or welfare benefits; this is a debate of every facet of how the government interacts with the individual. The food industry will not remain unaffected.
In fact, a speech yesterday from the new UK Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, at the British Medical Association conference gave some indication of what the food industry can expect.
Lansley was speaking on the issue of school meals, but what he said has wider implications. In particular he talked about his belief that individuals take responsibility for what they consume and a need to stop lecturing people on their eating choices. The TV chef Jamie Oliver, who has been on a campaign to boost the healthiness of school meals, was singled out as an exponent of an over-bearing approach Lansley was against.
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalData“If we are constantly lecturing people and trying to tell them what to do, we will actually find that we undermine and are counterproductive in the results that we achieve,” Lansley said.
He then said that the TV chef’s approach to school food had not had the desired effect – with the number of children eating school meals falling instead of rising.
There may be an economic slant to this, as the price of better school meals is costly. However, it is also ideologically motivated and points to a government more interested in freedom of choice and less interested in lecturing. What is more important, however, is the assumption we can take that it will also be an administration less interested in using legislating to shape people’s choices.
Over the last 10 years on these pages, and on our sister site just-drinks, I have been a staunch supporter of the belief that our industries have been used as scapegoats for the wider social problems of obesity and alcohol abuse.
I should find Lansley’s words welcome then. And, I do – to a certain extent. But there are caveats.
Firstly, there is a huge difference between lecturing and educating and Lansley’s complaint against Oliver is misplaced. Consumers should be given choice. But it should be a choice borne out of knowledge about what they are eating and the effects on their health of that choice. Successive education systems have failed to play that role and food companies have, until recently (and more of that later) had no desire to. It is disingenuous for a government to kick back at an individual, therefore, trying to do just that.
Secondly, while I firmly believe a greater burden of responsibility should be placed at the door of the individual for obesity, food companies are not blameless.
Food labelling remains mind-bogglingly complicated, with no pan-industry standard on how to illustrate calories, fat, sugar content and the like. The Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) system advocated by large parts of the industry is confusing and flawed. And, it is difficult not to draw the conclusion that the lack of agreement over a more transparent system has a less than altruistic motive.
Finally, let us not forget that the food industry has made big strides in recent years towards reformulating its proposition to meet healthier standards. Salts and saturated fats have been reduced, product mixes have been expanded to include healthy options and marketing messages altered.
However, I don’t think I am being overly-cynical to suggest none of that would have happened without the kind of pressure being exerted by Oliver and his ilk.
Government is not there to limit choice or dictate what people eat. But it is there to provide a safe environment for the individual to make his or her choices – in this case knowing when they make a purchase what exactly it is they are eating.
