The government's response to the House of Lords Food, Diet and Obesity Committee’s Recipe for Health report has landed. It contains some positive elements, including re-stating the commitment to implementing the HFSS advertising restrictions later this year, but it steers clear of the bold interventions needed. The Lords report exposed uncomfortable truths about our food system - its extractive nature, its concentration of power among a handful of corporate players, and its failure to serve the basic needs of many. These are concerns we heard again and again from the citizens that took part in The Food Conversation, who told us that they want to see much more government intervention to fix the system. Yet the government’s response reveals a worrying reality: a widening gap between what evidence tells us needs to happen and what government is willing to stake its political capital on.

Most striking was the government’s response to the Lords’ unprecedented analysis of the impact of food industry lobbying. An increasing body of research shows that the scale and sophistication of food industry lobbying efforts, their ‘playbook’, is growing. Strategies such as funding selective research to create uncertainty about evidence, manufacturing tropes to frame government intervention as ‘nanny state’ overreach, emphasising economic impacts while downplaying health costs, building strategic relationships with health charities, and using trade associations as front groups to oppose public health measures are frequently and strategically deployed.

Perhaps most concerning is the revolving door between industry and government, particularly as citizens in The Food Conversation told us frequently that they had deep concerns about the power of food corporations and the ability of government to stand up to that power. Freedom of Information requests have shown numerous instances of former industry executives moving into advisory roles on food policy, while ex-government officials take positions with major food companies. The Food Foundation’s State of the Nation’s Food Industry report last year detailed that DEFRA Ministers alone held 1,377 meetings with food industry representatives and their trade associations between 2020 and 2023 – 40 times more meetings than they held with civil society organisations. The resultant echo chamber of industry perspectives becomes normalised in policy discussions.

The government’s response? “We have no plans to exclude food businesses or industry representatives based on the percentage of sales a business derives from less healthy products. Such an approach would prevent effective engagement with many of the companies where change is most needed.”

The current focus on growth might provide context for this. Politicians may be reluctant to implement stringent public health measures if they are perceived to be burdensome to industry and barriers to economic growth, instead favouring voluntary measures – a message that came out loud and clear in their response to the Lords. But as FFCC Commissioner Professor Tim Jackson's False Economy of Big Food report demonstrates, the food system's apparent economic benefits aren’t what they seem. The health-related costs alone are a staggering £268 billion each year. We're mortgaging our future for a present that serves few beyond shareholders.

In this context, Wes Streeting's recent comments about breaking the "culture of charities lobbying government" land particularly poorly. While he has since rolled back those comments, the suggestion that civil society organisations - who represent communities, farmers, health professionals, and environmental groups, to name a few - are somehow the problem rather than part of the solution feels like a narrative that could have been lifted straight from the industry playbook.

Meanwhile, DEFRA's promises of inclusive consultation and listening exercises for their food strategy development, 25-year farming roadmap, and the current land use consultation risk ringing hollow. If powerful corporate voices are allowed to drown out others, ‘inclusion’ is a mere illusion.

We’ve spent two years of deep engagement with communities across the UK as part of The Food Conversation, revealing a consistent message: people want practical, achievable change. They want a food system that makes it easier for everyone to get affordable, nourishing food. They want farmers to get a fair deal. They want environmental stewardship built into the foundation of how farmers produce food. They want effective governance that provides a clear direction and sets fair ground rules.

The upcoming food strategy is a great opportunity for the government to hear more and understand even better how they can implement policy that responds to the public’s concerns. Labour has a choice: carry on with business as usual, allowing powerful interests to dictate policy, or acknowledge that our food system's challenges require creative and courageous action, guided by the evidence and shaped by all voices. With cheap food costing the country £268 billion a year already, it's crucial they act.

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