Introduction

Why government needs to act

A healthy population is an asset for any nation, supporting positive social and economic outcomes for individuals and society.,,, Across a number of measures, however, the UK’s health looks increasingly frayed and unequal., In the decade prior to the pandemic, improvements in life expectancy were lower than in most European and other high-income countries. People are living more years in poor health and inequalities in how long those in the most and least deprived parts of the country can expect to remain in good health are widening., Those living in the north of England, Scotland, and the South Wales Valleys have particularly low average healthy life expectancy compared to other parts of the country, with a gap of almost 20 years between women living in the richest and poorest areas.

International data show that relative to comparable European countries, the UK also has a higher prevalence of largely preventable, non-communicable conditions including some types of cancer, diabetes, COPD, asthma and obesity.,, This is costly for individuals and the economy. More than a third of those aged 25–64 in areas of England with the lowest healthy life expectancy are economically inactive due to long-term sickness or disability.

Smoking, poor diet, physical inactivity, and harmful alcohol use are leading risk factors driving this high burden of preventable ill health and premature mortality., All are socioeconomically patterned and have multiple, interrelated causes. People’s ability to adopt healthy behaviours is strongly shaped by the circumstances in which they live. That includes the education and support they receive in their early years, the resources they have to buy healthy food, the shops in their local communities, and whether there are green spaces and safe streets to be physically active in. There are also strong commercial factors at play, including the relative expense and availability of healthy and unhealthy foods, alcohol, and tobacco, and the ways in which they are advertised and promoted. These ‘wider determinants of health’ therefore act in both direct and indirect ways, through complex causal systems, to influence how populations and individuals are exposed to different risk factors.,

COVID-19 has exposed the consequences of government and wider society failing to act ambitiously enough to address the nation’s poor health., Our obesity rates – the highest in Europe – left the UK particularly vulnerable to poor outcomes from the virus and contributed to high death rates. Likewise, people with type 2 diabetes and hypertension (conditions linked to poor diet, obesity, and physical inactivity) are significantly more likely to die from COVID-19. For people younger than 65, the COVID-19 mortality rate was almost four times higher in the most deprived areas of England than in the least deprived during the first two waves of the pandemic, partly due to a higher burden of preventable poor health.

Government interventions to address the leading risk factors

Government has signalled its intention to act to reduce inequalities and improve health. It has promised to ‘level up’ the country and committed to extend healthy life expectancy by 5 years by 2035, while narrowing the gap between the richest and poorest., It has also set ambitious targets for some risk factors, including to go ‘smoke-free’ by 2030 and halve childhood obesity while reducing inequalities., Based on current trajectories, these targets will be missed.,,

With a new Office for Health Promotion and Disparities (OHID) and a ‘health disparities’ white paper expected from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) in 2022, there is an opportunity for more cross-government action on health. This must address the breadth of factors that affect people’s exposure to ill health. There are signs the public would support a shift in approach. Recent Health Foundation/Ipsos MORI polling – conducted between 25 November and 1 December 2021 – found only 1 in 5 (18%) people in England agree that the government has the right policies in place to improve public health, while nearly half (46%) disagree. The polling also suggests strong public support for government action to address health inequalities, with the majority agreeing it is important that the government addresses health differences by income (75%), geographical area (72%), education level (69%) and ethnicity (65%).

A population-level approach

Public health interventions can be viewed along two continuums (Figure 1). Along one, population-level approaches and those targeting individuals lie at the two extremes. The other captures the level of personal resources or ‘agency’ needed for individuals to benefit from interventions. Examples of higher agency, individual-level interventions include educational classes, apps that provide people with rewards and advice to incentivise healthy eating,, and counselling services. Examples of low-agency, population-level interventions include minimum unit pricing for alcohol, regulations to restrict marketing and advertising of unhealthy food, and taxes aimed at encouraging reformulation of unhealthy products.

While important as part of a multi-component approach, interventions that rely on high levels of individual agency will have limited impact in isolation. Unless carefully targeted and tailored to those most in need of support, they can also widen inequalities. This is because more affluent individuals are more likely to have the necessary personal resources – or agency – required to benefit. For example, following referral to an exercise or healthy eating class, a person will have to identify that they have a problem, see a health professional, get a referral, travel to the class, understand and be able to act on the advice provided, and sustain a change in their behaviour over the long term. With potential for attrition at each step, this will be far easier for those who have more time, money and fewer competing stresses in their lives. By contrast, population-level interventions that rely on non-conscious processes and impact everyone – such as fiscal measures, reformulation, and marketing restrictions – are generally more likely to be both effective and equitable.,,,

Diagram adapted from: Adams J, Mytton O, White M, Monsivais P. Why Are Some Population Interventions for Diet and Obesity More Equitable and Effective Than Others? The Role of Individual Agency. PLoS Med 13(4); 2016 (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001990).

It is not, however, a simple case of either/or. To reduce exposure to risk factors driving ill health and tackle inequalities, the government will still need to deploy multiple policy approaches designed to address the complex system of influences that shape behaviours. The focus needs to be on population-level policies including taxation, regulation, and public spending, which should be implemented alongside individual-level interventions to support those most in need. To be effective, policies that directly target a particular risk factor must be underpinned by wider structural interventions designed to improve the circumstances in which people live – reducing factors such as poverty and poor housing, and making it easier for people to adopt healthy behaviours.

This report explores national government policy approaches directly targeting smoking, unhealthy diets, physical inactivity and harmful alcohol use. We begin by providing an overview of recent trends in these risk factors, then summarise recent key targets and policies put forward for each by the UK government in England. We analyse national level policies introduced or proposed by government between 2016 and 2021, including policy aims, approaches, and other factors (see Appendix 1 for more details). Based on this review, we assess the government’s current policy position and point towards priorities for the future.


* In the government’s 2019 prevention green paper, Advancing our health: prevention in the 2020s, an ambition was announced to go ‘smoke-free’ by 2030 (defined as smoking rates of 5% or less).

Previous Next