A growing number of Britons are in favour of implementing a tax on companies that produce ultra-processed foods (UPFs), according to a recent Ipsos survey.
The poll, commissioned by the charity Impact on Urban Health, found that 60% of the population would support such a tax if the proceeds were used to make fresh fruits and vegetables more accessible to low-income families.
This strong public backing comes amidst increasing awareness of the health risks associated with UPFs, which now constitute 57% of the average UK diet.
UPFs, often characterised by high levels of sugar, salt, and unhealthy fats, are increasingly linked to obesity and other health problems.
With the obesity epidemic showing no signs of abating, the debate over how best to tackle the issue is intensifying. Proponents of the tax argue that it could discourage the production and consumption of unhealthy foods, while simultaneously encouraging healthier eating habits through subsidised access to fresh produce.
Dr Chris van Tulleken, a prominent public health expert and author, has voiced concerns over the blanket taxation approach. He suggests that while the intention is commendable, the execution needs to be carefully considered.
“A broad tax could inadvertently raise prices for consumers, potentially exacerbating the very inequalities it aims to address,” he cautioned. Instead, Dr van Tulleken advocates for more targeted regulation, focusing on specific harmful ingredients and products rather than an all-encompassing tax on UPFs.
Despite these concerns, the public’s appetite for action appears robust. The survey results indicate a significant shift in public opinion, reflecting growing frustration with the health implications of the modern food environment.
As the government faces increasing pressure to address the obesity crisis, the idea of taxing UPFs is likely to remain a contentious issue in the coming months.
Support for Fresh Produce Accessibility
The proposal to use tax revenues to subsidise fresh fruits and vegetables has garnered particular support, with many seeing it as a pragmatic solution to the affordability barriers that prevent low-income families from accessing healthier food options. This aspect of the proposal may be key to its public appeal, aligning with broader calls for systemic changes to improve public health outcomes.
As policymakers consider the next steps, the debate over taxing UPFs is expected to continue, balancing the need for public health interventions with concerns over economic impact and fairness.
Whether or not the tax becomes a reality, the survey highlights a clear public desire for more robust measures to promote healthier eating across the UK.
Comments