Discussion

Smoking, alcohol use, poor diet and physical inactivity drive a significant burden of morbidity and mortality in England. This burden falls unequally across the population, perpetuating health inequalities. Government progress in tackling these risk factors has been too slow in recent years, with key national targets for smoking and childhood obesity set to be missed.

An uneven approach

Our review shows that government policies implemented over the past 5 to 10 years have relied heavily on promoting individual behaviour change. Some population-level fiscal and regulatory policy measures have been proposed by government over the past decade, including minimum unit pricing for alcohol, banning sales of energy drinks to children younger than 16, and adopting a ‘polluter pays’ levy for tobacco companies. But many have been abandoned or not moved beyond consultation stage, even where there is strong evidence of their effectiveness. A significant number of implemented policies have instead focused on providing information and rolling out coaching schemes that depend on people investing considerable personal resources. This is despite strong evidence showing such interventions will have less of an impact on health, particularly among people who are more socioeconomically disadvantaged and may be less able to draw on the social, material and time assets required to benefit.

This drift towards policies focused on individual behaviour change may have occurred because they are deemed more politically acceptable and easier to implement than those addressing population-level drivers. It is simpler to provide information and services to individuals than it is to design and deliver policies aimed at altering the environmental conditions and commercial influences shaping people’s behaviour. While there are signs that public opinion has shifted due to the pandemic, political, ideological, commercial and cultural factors have historically acted as barriers to the adoption of population-level policies in England. Public, media and political discourse about health and risk factors for ill health have been dominated by notions of personal responsibility, individual choice and the primacy of free markets, alongside an aversion towards policies deemed to be ‘nannying’.,,

The strength of the government’s approach has also been uneven across risk factors. Action to tackle harmful alcohol use in England has been particularly weak. Government effectively intervened to protect public health by escalating tobacco duty, but has avoided similar action for alcohol, with the alcohol industry lobbying successfully against the introduction of policies to modify prices and marketing.,,, A TV watershed and online ban are set to be introduced by the start of 2023 for some products high in fat, salt or sugar, but alcohol products are not included in these restrictions.

In relation to both alcohol and food policy, governments have tended to avoid more deterrence-based, interventionist approaches. Instead, they have often trusted those responsible for producing harmful products to help improve public health voluntarily – regardless of possible conflicts of interest, such as the food industry’s profits from increased sales of ultra-processed food. The Public Health Responsibility Deal – a public–private partnership launched by the government in 2011 that relied on voluntary action by commercial organisations – is an example of this approach. As with other such agreements based on industry self-regulation, the responsibility deal has proven to be largely ineffective.

The strong influence of corporations over the policymaking process is likely to be a key factor underlying this uneven approach. Unlike for tobacco control, no WHO Framework Convention exists to set limits on the alcohol or food industry’s influence. This is despite manufacturers of harmful food and drink exhibiting similar strategies to the tobacco industry to undermine government action. A number of studies have demonstrated how the alcohol industry employs sophisticated tactics to promote mixed messages and misinformation about alcohol harms that negatively impact consumer understanding., There is also evidence showing parts of the food industry engage in activities to prevent or delay effective policies for dietary change. These practices have presented barriers to the implementation of evidence-based policies, impeding government progress and allowing messages about unhealthy food and drink to be dominated by large corporations. A 2014 investigation into the consultation on minimum unit pricing for alcohol, for example, uncovered records of industry meetings with government officials that led to the policy’s abandonment.

There are some signs that businesses are starting to recognise the need to consider their impacts on health. Investors are increasingly interested in encouraging corporations to support positive health outcomes. One example is the recent health-related shareholder resolution filed at the supermarket Tesco, which agreed to boost sales of healthier food and drinks in response to investor pressure coordinated by ShareAction. There have been subsequent ripple effects across the retail industry, with a further shareholder resolution on health recently filed at Unilever.

Alongside the role of commercial interests, recent analyses have highlighted inadequate political leadership and governance, as well as a perceived lack of public demand for policy action, as further reasons underlying the government’s failure to consistently implement evidence-based policies.,

Disjointed policymaking

Disjointed policymaking is evident across all risk factors. Policy decisions have been taken that undermine many of the government’s own health improvement targets. This includes cutting the public health grant to local authorities by 24% in real terms between 2015/16 and 2021/22. Spending on stop-smoking and tobacco control services fell by a third over this time. During the same period, spending on mass media anti-smoking campaigns in England declined by 90% and the number of adult smokers trying to quit in the previous year fell by a quarter. Local government expenditure on resources that support people to be active – including parks, recreation and leisure centres – has also declined over the past decade.,

This comes against a backdrop of broader cuts to local public services that are key to ensuring people can live healthy lives, including housing and provision of early years services. The 2021 Spending Review settlement increases health spending, but it is weighted towards acute NHS services and does not reverse cuts to the public health grant or do enough to address rising poverty., Although the recently published levelling up white paper reiterates an ambitious commitment to reduce gaps in healthy life expectancy over the next decade, it does not come with sufficient funding to ensure action on the root causes of ill health.

Government has recently introduced policies to restrict promotion of unhealthy food and drink, including a ban on online advertising of some products high in fat, salt or sugar from 2023, yet other political decisions have the potential to undermine these. The post-Brexit trade deal with Australia, for example, failed to protect nutritional quality or prioritise health. With no requirement for health to be considered in trade negotiations, and food companies playing an influential role in World Trade Organization negotiations, there is potential for further obstruction of measures to protect health. Future free trade agreements could be struck that increase imports of unhealthy foods and impact on their pricing, availability and promotion. More generally, food marketing continues to be heavily skewed towards the least healthy options such as processed confectionery and ready meals., Unhealthy food and drink are low cost, and fast-food outlets are disproportionately clustered in low-income towns and areas., Spend on advertising these foods by big food companies is nearly 30 times what government spends on promoting healthy eating. ,,

In relation to physical activity and alcohol, economic policy decisions have often undercut efforts to protect public health. The alcohol duty escalator was abolished in 2013, and the Treasury has repeatedly frozen or cut duty for alcoholic drinks. Modelling suggests that changes in alcohol duty since 2012 have led to increased consumption, greater alcohol-related ill health, premature mortality, higher rates of alcohol-related crime and increased workplace absence than if the alcohol duty escalator had remained in place until 2015 as originally planned. Past announcements made by the Treasury have also contradicted public health messages on cigarettes and alcohol., Similarly, the freeze to fuel duty and exemptions from vehicle excise duty over the past decade have lowered the cost of driving and undermined government aims to increase active travel.

These examples of disjointed policymaking are symptomatic of wider government weaknesses in planning effectively for the long term and aligning policies across departments. Such shortcomings can be especially pronounced when addressing complex policy issues such as obesity that have multiple causes and require coordinated cross-government responses. Successive reviews have identified barriers to joined-up, long-term policymaking in the UK – including the lack of a clear national strategy at the centre of UK government; practical and organisational factors that encourage siloed working in Whitehall; and Treasury objectives and accounting that are narrowly focused and short term.,,,,

Previous Next