Contribution
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. I was not attempting to put together the whole puzzle, but additives are an extremely important part of the puzzle. We do ourselves a disservice if we pretend that sugar, salt and fats—eaten in the quantities they are today—and the ready food that can be bought so cheaply are not poisonous, and not huge problems that we need to address.
I am not wild about the term “obese” because of the negative, pejorative connotations that can make people feel awful about themselves, as has been said, but it is the best term we have at the moment. Over a fifth of children in this country—22.1%—are obese. The figure is even higher in my constituency, which contains some of the country’s richest people, as well as many residents living in poverty. In the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea, 23.4% of reception pupils, aged four to five, are obese. In the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, 22.4% of reception pupils are classified as obese. This is a problem everywhere, not just in the poorest parts of the country. It is therefore hugely good news that the Government have identified a shift from ill health to prevention as one of the three major objectives of their health mission.
It is even better news that a cross-Government national food strategy is being developed. What would I like to see in that national food strategy? What should be done? I would like us to start by realising that it is time to stop placing excessive emphasis on individual responsibility. That may be hard to swallow for some people, but the Lords report makes it clear that 30 years of policies that rely solely on personal choice, rather than tackling the underlying drivers of unhealthy diets, have failed to shift the dial. Sadly, under successive Governments, these policies have contributed to widening health inequalities.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi) noted, the Lords report rightly praised the last Government’s sugar tax on soft drinks. Officially called the soft drinks industry levy, it was a significant public health success—people are consuming less sugar. While obesity remains an overall problem, it has fallen to an extent, particularly among girls aged 10 and 11 in the most deprived areas. Fewer children are having to go to hospital to have their decayed teeth pulled out. That brings me to the lack of dentists after 14 years of Conservative Government, but I will not go there now. The sugar tax has saved millions, possibly billions, of pounds in healthcare costs, as well as a lot of misery. It is a pretty good example to follow, so I support the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud for the levy to be extended to more food products and for similar action to be taken on salt and fats.
I am glad that the Government are delivering on their manifesto pledge to give children the best and healthiest start in life by banning the targeting of junk food at children. Just as advertising restrictions contributed to a decline in the number of smokers, I hope that restricting the advertising of unhealthy foods will contribute to a decline in childhood obesity. I also agree that labelling food better, to distinguish between healthy and less healthy products, is essential. It already works, as allergy sufferers are benefiting from Natasha’s law, which requires food businesses to fully label their ingredients.
However, targeting unhealthy food is not enough. Even unhealthy food is better than no food, for those who cannot afford healthy ingredients, for those who cannot find healthy ingredients or for those who do not know how to cook them. I am not arguing that we should make crap food so expensive that people are forced to go elsewhere to buy even more expensive alternatives. As the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon) said, it is of fundamental importance that healthy food should be affordable to everyone and widely available wherever they live. At the moment, it is far from either. It is no good badgering people to eat five pieces of fruit and veg a day if they cannot afford to do so or if it is not available locally—that is just patronising.