What interests me is not just about food, but about three things: the role of economics and business, the role of culture (ethical-pistic functioning) and the styles of argumentation that go on.
[1:50:30]
NR: "Less nanny, more nudge" - that is how the Health Secretary described his plan to work with supermarkets to encourage healthier eating [Note: Nanny and Nudge]. Rather than the alternative policy or strategy, regulating the sale of food to increase its price or to limit marketing deals for example.
Bogof deals (Buy One Get One Free) were banned some time ago but that ban has still not come into place.
That approach of Less nanny, more nudge, is doomed to fail according to Professor Chris van Tulleken, Professor of Global Health at University College London, who is the guest editor of the special edition of a magazine called the Future Healthcare Journal. Which argues, under his editorship, that the food industry now behaves like the tobacco industry, to undermine attempts to improve public health.
Professor van Tulleken joins us. As does Ian Wright, who for a long time was the voice, the spokesperson for the food industry. Publicly, he was chief executive of the Food and Drinks Federation and a former co-chair of the Food and Drink Exports Council, as well as being a columnist for The Grocer magazine.
Good morning to you both. "Good morning", Nick.
Professor van Talleken, set out your argument, then. Did you groan when you heard "Less Nanny, More Nudge"? Or did you shout at your TV or Radio?
CvT: No. Look, I have said I don't think it is doomed to fail. (I've got to be very careful; I am also a BBC broadcaster.) Em. I am cheering for the Health Secretary, I hope this works.
In this edition of Future Healthcare Journal, which is the journal one of the Royal College of Physicians, we have twelve peer-reviewed academic articles [Note: 12 Articles], mostly by world-class academics, laying out the evidence that, when policy makers partner with the industries that they seek to regulate, over a long time, it has got a lot of evidence: this usually doesn't work very well. In fact, it almost always fails.
I can't think of a single example in the history of public health, where these partnerships have really proved effective.
[1:52:25]
Um, but I am cheering for the Health Secretary, I know some of the people who wrote this policy, I respect them enormously, I hope it works. But we lay out some evidence that I think may give us some reason for skepticism. But policies need to be reviewed regularly.
NR: Ian Wright, what's your answer to the professor's skepticism?
IW: Well, I too am cheering for the Health Secretary, because the industry, the food and drink industry, has an absolute interest in healthy people. Because otherwise we haven't got any shoppers or consumers [Note re argument].
And so I really do hope that all the changes we are going to see to the NHS and the partnership between the NHS and the Health Department and supermarkts and food manufacturers [Note: Farmers?] work.
And I'm sorry that the professor's er colleagues have found a little evidence that those partnerships work - I don't know where they've looked for their evidence - but I'm happy to ??review it?? / [NR spoke over him so I did not get the final couple of words]
NR: Can you provide evidence of ==== where it has worked?
IW: Well, I think quite a lot of the partnerships about responsible drinking have worked. If you look at alcohol consumption, it's fallen considerably; there are now very different patterns in the way people drink. (There are still too many people, too many people drinking a lot, but it is a very small proportion of the numbers who drink.) [He spoke a few words but NR spoke over him so I could not hear.]
[1:53:35]
NR: I'll put that to Chris and then come back to you. Yeah. There's an example, he says.
CvT: It's not er just these twelve article written by a number of world-class academics. We have an entire department at the World Health Organisation dedicated to commercial determinants of health. The British Medical Journal, the Lancet, have just done series on this.
Four industries - tobacco, unhealthy food, fossil fuel and alcohol - are responsible now for at least a third of global deaths every year. We see food and tobacco the leading causes of early death in the UK.
It's not true to say that the interests of the food industry and public health or public interest are aligned. We have seen rates of diagnosis ==== /
NR: Sorry to interrupt, Professor van Talleken, but you have said that there was no example, and he came up with an example. What's your answer to it?
CvT: Well, we read the alcohol data extremely differently. Overall, we see rates of alcohol consumption have been consistently increasing. Certainly not going down. And problem drinking remains absolutely sky high in this country.
And what we see in this country is the alcohol industry running education in schools and very much policing themselves.
And there is an article by Professor Mark Pettigrew and others in this issue of the Journal about the alcohol industry. The alcohol industry contributes less revenue to the Exchequer than it costs overall. So it is an industry that, by some estimates is maybe cost-neutral, but probably an overall cost to the economy.
NR: Let me put that to Ian Wright. So, Ian Wright, the argument made in this magazine is even tougher than I think Professor van Talleken is spelling out here. He talks of corrupting science, buying policy-makers, denying harms, delaying regulation. All of these, he claims, the food and drink industry has done just as the tobacco industry has done in the past.
[1.55.10]
IW: Well, I reject the comparison with tobacco. You will not be surprised by that.
Erm, I also would say that this characterization of the industry as a Bond villian - it is actually insulting to the six million peple, one fifth of the working population, who work in it [Note: Insult]. It implies they are either complicit in what the professor describes or they are idiots because they don't understand it [Note: Complicity]. And I think most people who work in the industry would be very very upset by that suggestion.
As I say, we have an absolute interest in a healthy population, because otherwise there won't be any shoppers [Note re argument].
[1:55:55]
NR: Professor van Talleken?
CvT: If the food industry had an interest in a healthy population, we wouldn't have seen rates of diet-related disease in this country ah go up enormously over the last three decades [during which] the policy-makers partnered with industries [Note: Argument 2===].
So, and I have many dear friends in the food industry. Behind closed doors, many people in the food industry would love some level-playing-field regulation.
Because at the moment it's a race for the bottom. The food industry has to engineer products that drive excessive consumption; that's the business model [Note: Business model]. Alcohol and food: these industries are really predicated on creating harm.
And it needn't be that way. And many people in these industries would love things to be different. And it's very possible to regulate an industry very stringently [Note: Nanny and Nudge], reduce the health harms and see enormous profits. We have seen it in pharma, aviation, /
[1:56:50]
NR: Last word to Ian Wright, because I began with you Professor van Talleken. Um, it's clear, isn't it? You shook your head. In fact, you said you disagreed with the suggestion that it was profits first. But in the end, companies are companies; that's what they are paid to do; that's what their duty is to their shareholders, is to make a profit. And quite often, it looks in the food industry as if it's perfectly possible to make a large profit by selling rubbish to people in huge quantities. [Note: The Mandate of Compnies]
IW: Well, they have a duty to make profit responsibly. We all have a duty to do so [Note: Responsible Profits]. And I think here, as I sait, it is a characterization that I don't recognise.
And I'm perfectly happy to continue to debate this with Professor van Talleken, wherever he wants, because I think we could do with a really serious debate on these issues, which might flush out some light rather than the heat that we just heard. [Note on How Debate Should Proceed]
NR: Well. I am glad we have begun it in some form, that debate at least. Ian Wright, former chief executive of the Food and Drink Federation, Professor Chris van Talleken, thank you for joining us.
[1:57:41]
Note: 12 Articles. In the June 2025 (12,2) issue of the Future Healthcare Journal.
Note on IW's Argument, 1. This is an argument from the extreme, the extreme that poor health kills everyone off, so they cannot buy the food industry's products. Otherwise, poor health might in fact increase sales of junk comfort food to those who feel down.
Note on Farmers. Did he deliberately leave out farmers? Why or why not? Might this be yet another case of farmers being overlooked - a cultural problem among industry and politicians?
Note on Insult. To claim that what is said is an insult to many people is a common argumentation tactic. It is especially used for its connotational value, in defence and attack. As such, it does not really further arguments at all. What insults people depends on their culture, on what they deem insulting, and could be actually a warning or in some circumstances a compliment.
Note on Complicity. It seems that IW intended this word to bring forth a reaction "Oh no I did not mean that!" But that is only when we see complicity as both intentional and individual. Complicity in reality is often unintentional and cultural, in the attitude and mindset of people. When people shrug off a statement about the harm done, using whatever reasoning they find to hand, their mindset is at best "This problem is unimportant" and at worst "I don't care what damage I do to others!" Again, we have a cultural problem that needs to be addressed, this time among the ordinary people, but the conversation hardly touched on that. That we are all in some way complicit does not condemn us as totally-evil but it does reinforce the idea that we are all sinners, to use Biblical language. So, in discussing this, we need to understand the nature of complicity without trying to fix blame in any aggressive way.
Note on Arguing from Evidence. Hee CvT is citing statistical evidence. A bit stronger.
Note on Business Model. As we argue elsewhere, the business model of many 'rational' businesses is self-interested and self-protective, both dysfunctions in the ethical aspect that causes immense Harm down the line.
Note on the Mandate of Companies. NR is referring to the usual slogan that the function of business is to increase owner (shareholder) value. We argue against this in Chapter 4, tying the mandate of companies and businesses to contrrbuting to Multi-aspectual Overall Good.
Note on Responsible Profits. It is good that IW recognises this; in this, he is bringing in the juridical aspect alongside the economic-quantitative aspects. However, when we find two aspects important, one is usually treated as more important than the other, to the extend that when the chips are down the other aspect becomes completely ignored and sacrificed to the demands on the favoured aspect. This is idolatry, dysfunctioning pistic functioning, is a dysfunctional aspect of culture in today's affluent world: the quantitative economic aspect is idolised. Even when not totally ignored, responsibility in profit-making becomes redefined by this mindset, with excuses made or loopholes found. So, in this case, it depends on what IW's mindset and fundamental beliefs actually are, and those of his colleagues. As the Bible says, "you shall know them by their fruits" - what Good or Harm emerges from the decisions they make and the actions they take driven by their mindset.
Note on "Less Nanny More Nudge". (This, by the way, might be the main message I wish to give.) By "nanny" in this context is usually meant government regulation or telling us what to do. "Nudge" is about gently changing the behaviour of people or corporations - or any entity. Nannying regulation or telling-what-to-do tends to function most according the laws of the juridical aspect, and has the inherent problem of backlash and stirring up resistance. Nudging tries to function in the lingual, social and aesthetic aspects (messaging, relating, gentleness and nuance). I favour the idea of nudge - if it actually works like that. However, it usually does not, on its own, in that if we do not change the ethical and pistic functioning (heart of individuals and culture of the society) it will be short-lived at best. Functioning in the pre-ethical aspects of lingual, social and aesthetic is too weak to change functioning in the ethical and pistic aspects (see Chapter 6, Changing Culture). The only way nudge works is if the mindset of the people (or, in this case, the industry) is open to other ways of thinking or other worldviews, and their attitude is not sefish, self-protective, but self-giving. This, I submit, is why nudge worked during the Covid-19 Pandemic. But, that IW later "rejects" CvT's characterize of the situation is evidence that he and his colleagues in the industry are not of this mindset and attitude, but merely want to preserve the position of the industry despite the Harm it does.
Note on How the Debate Should Proceed. IW calls for serious discussion. By all means, but let it be one in which repentance is encouraged rather than self-protection because, as we argue, it is the only thing that goes deep enough. To be honest, I find the arguments by IW weak and without substance, focusing more on connotations and reactions to insults. Might a useful debate be fostered by taking all these notes into account? See the section above On Argumentation.
This page, "http://christianthinking.space/economics/materials/food.industry.harm.html", is part of the Christian Thinking in Economics project, which itself is within Christian Thinking Space.
Created: 1 July 2025. Last updated: