What does it tell us when a Labour MP hosts a 60th birthday party for KFC in Parliament and a Conservative MP declares that she had a “cluckin’ good time” there? Cross-party support is almost impossible to achieve these days. So this was a real win for the company who’s been serving up battered chicken to the national palate for more than half a century.

Needless to say, KFC is not the only food company stalking the corridors of Westminster. PepsiCo, McDonalds, Coca Cola and the Food and Drink Federation have all been recent visitors there, staking their claim to the moral and economic high ground. These celebrations all strike a discernibly similar tone: our company brings jobs, investment and growth. We’re a massive boost to the economy and a force for good in the community, so ‘mess with us at your peril’ is the implicit (and sometimes explicit) message.

But is that the whole truth? What’s not being said in those private gatherings? Nobody at that KFC bash was dwelling much on the massive rise in food-related chronic disease that’s happened on the company’s watch. Back in 1965, fewer than half a million adults were obese and childhood obesity was virtually unknown. Today a staggering two thirds of adults are overweight or obese. One in four kids is obese. Twelve million people now suffer from diabetes or prediabetes, and rates of diagnosis have doubled in just 15 years. These conditions are debilitating in their own right. They’re also the precursors to heart disease, strokes and a heightened susceptibility to respiratory disease and cancer.

Turning a blind eye to the expensive downsides of cheap food has developed into something of an art form in recent years. But the social and environmental costs of doing so are rapidly becoming unpayable. My own report for the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission put the cost of food-related chronic disease at £268 billion each year. Lost lives, lost health, lost productivity: these are the legacy of a burgeoning fast-food industry with enough lobbying power to turn the heads of unwary politicians.

My point is this. What looks like a positive contribution to the UK economy – fast food for those who can barely afford to live, and economic growth to the Exchequer – may well turn out, on closer inspection, to be a massive false economy. But how should those who had a “cluckin’ good time” in Westminster be expected to know this when the voices loudest in their ear are those who stand to gain from the imprudence?

How are we (and our politicians) to know whether the industry’s claims to the economic high ground are valid or invalid? Against which criteria should we judge the benefits and the costs of a sector that appears to pay more attention to profit than it does to health? Who stands to benefit from the gains and who stands to suffer from the losses imposed by an industry that has undeniable health and environmental consequences?

These are the questions raised in this vital and timely report out today by Dr Dolly van Tulleken and Hannah Haggie. Inevitably, the answers are not always straightforward. Sector by sector, foodstuff by foodstuff, company by company: the economic, environmental and social performance of food will vary enormously. What we want from our national food system also varies. Humans don’t just feed. Food is not just fodder. A functioning food system is never going to answer to a one-off financial metric.

Costs matter. Of course they do. But so too does health, taste, nutritional value, decent work, the sustainability of the soil and the quality of our lives. Social and community values are as important here as monetary costs. Any exercise to assess the claims of the food industry to be an undeniable force for good must grapple with this complexity. That’s why the prescriptions in this report are so vital for the industry, for the government and for the general public.

Everyone wants to be on the right side of history. That’s no less true of those who serve up the nation’s food than it is of anyone else. But handing democratic accountability and regulatory power to those who stand to benefit financially from the shortsightedness of the market is a recipe for disaster. This report offers a solid foundation for thinking clearly about the question left unanswered by those enthusiastic politicians who attended KFC’s birthday bash. Is fast food really the net gain claimed by the industry or is it a net drain on our health, our productivity, our community and our environment? Being able to answer that question matters.

Professor Tim Jackson, Director of the Centre for the Understanding of Sustainable Prosperity and FFCC Commissioner.

© 2023. Provided by Impact on Urban Health licensed via a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license