Tory infighting over the junk food ban U-turn isn’t helping anyone

The prime minister is facing a growing backlash within his party over his U-turn on junk food. Plans to restrict junk-food promotions inside supermarkets – such as buy one, get one free deals – and to impose a 9pm watershed for TV ads have been shelved for at least a year.

Former Conservative health ministers have condemned this as “un-Conservative” and “extremely shortsighted”. Steve Brine told The Independent that the decision would cost money and would affect the “health and wellbeing of the poorest in society”.

The delay is ostensibly due to the cost of living crisis, with food prices up, energy costs soaring, and households being forced to make impossible decisions. Parents are going without meals so their children can eat; families are denied hot food because they can’t afford to heat things up; and people are having to choose between staying warm and feeding themselves.

As James Moore writes for Voices: “There really are people on these islands who are now struggling to scrape together enough for themselves and their children to eat, regardless of where they shop for their food. And their numbers are rising.”

The cries of “un-Conservative” regarding the junk food U-turn are interesting in that Conservatism, to many Tories, means resisting “nanny state” moves. Interfering in food advertising, and what supermarkets choose to offer deals on, would surely fall into this category.

Conservatives have long preferred a “small government” approach, a let-them-get-on-with-it-and-if-things-go-wrong-they-can-sort-themselves-out kind of deal. It’s often used to justify harsh cuts to benefits as well as government inaction when vulnerable groups are suffering.

The Tories, furious that Boris Johnson would row back on his plans to tackle obesity, cite concerns about pressure on the NHS and the impact on the health of the poorest. Reducing the affordability of some food – even if it is deemed “junk food” – in the midst of a cost of living crisis does not appear compatible with the aim of improving the wellbeing of those on low incomes, who are struggling to put food, any food, on the table.

It’s also worth noting that Brine, who is the MP for Winchester, voted for a reduction in spending on welfare 50 times in four years, and has consistently voted against raising benefits in line with prices.

To keep up to speed with all the latest opinions and comment, sign up to our free weekly Voices Dispatches newsletter by clicking here

Of course, junk food isn’t fantastically good for our bodies. It is best enjoyed as part of a balanced diet. Personally, I’m not a fan of seeing food in such black and white terms, as good food or bad food – particularly when so many families are just doing their best to feed themselves and their kids in a really tough situation.

To improve the health and wellbeing of struggling families, a more proactive and positive approach would be to ensure that fruit, veg and nutritious basics are more affordable; to restore the £20 uplift that was cut from universal credit; and to tackle the energy crisis and soaring fuel bills with meaningful assistance measures – so that people on low incomes have the best possible chance of weathering this storm.

Yours,

Harriet Williamson

Voices commissioning editor