The ultra-processed food industry has blocked government plans to push supermarkets to actively promote deals on healthy foods, the Soil Association claimed this week.  

The charity says that emails it obtained via Freedom of Information requests show that the government retreated from plans to back “minimally processed and nutritious foods” after months of persistent lobbying by the food manufacturing sector.

The Department of Health and Social Care had planned to encourage retailers to shift the balance of price promotions towards minimally processed foods – which include fruit, vegetables, beans, whole grains like rice and pasta, and unprocessed meat.

But emails show that Food and Drink Federation (FDF) demanded this steer was removed from the guidance – despite overwhelming scientific evidence that this category of foods is crucial for a healthy diet.

The FDF – whose members include Coca-Cola, Nestle, Unilever, Mars, Cadbury, Mondelez, Danone, PepsiCo, and Kellogg’s owner Kellanova – said the government’s promotion of minimally processed foods was a “real bone of contention” for the companies it represents. 

These companies are all major manufacturers of ultra-processed foods (UPF), which have been linked to serious health problems like cancer and heart disease. Evidence shows that UPFs commonly displace healthy foods and make up more than half of the British diet.

Profits before health
Soil Association campaigns co-ordinator Cathy Cliff said: “This move to block discounts on healthy foods is clearly one which benefits the profits of UPF manufacturers more than the health of their consumers. The World Health Organization says healthy diets are based around unprocessed and minimally processed foods. We’re concerned the UK Government has been prevented from saying the same and we are worried corporate profits are being put before public health.”  

In response to the investigation, the Soil Association and leading food and health organisations have written an open letter to Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting, demanding urgent action to make healthy, minimally processed foods more accessible and affordable. Signatories include the Obesity Health Alliance, which represents sixty leading health bodies, the British Dietetics Association, and the Association of Directors of Public Health.  

The Soil Association has also today launched a petition based on the same asks for government.

In October this year, government regulations are due to come into effect to restrict retailers from placing ‘volume price promotions’, such as multi-buy offers, on foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt (HFSS).   

In late 2023, guidance was issued to support adoption of the upcoming new rules, and initial drafts of this advice encouraged retailers to shift price promotions, and product positioning within store, towards minimally processed foods.  

This could have set an important precedent, paving the way for government policies aimed at increasing consumption of fresh, healthy, minimally processed foods, such as fruits and vegetables, as a means of reducing the dominance of ultra-processed foods in diets.  

But the guidance was rewritten after months of lobbying by the food industry. Instead, it encouraged promotion of “healthier options”, which the Soil Association claims is “flawed” advice.  

Foods defined as “healthier” in the guidance include many UPFs such as energy drinks, crisps, snacks, cereal bars, fizzy soft drinks, puddings, pizzas, burgers, ice creams, pastries, and chewing gums.

In emails to officials seen by the Soil Association (some of which were published in redacted form by The Guardian), the FDF appear to question whether minimally processed foods are more nutritious than these ultra-processed products, saying “the science does not support” such a conclusion.  

Cliff added: “It is ludicrous to claim that fresh foods are not more nutritious than UPFs and to define highly manufactured items like fizzy drinks and ice cream as healthier options. This flawed advice leaves the door open for business as usual for ultra-processed diets, when it could have been used to steer retailers towards making genuinely healthy foods more affordable.”

Public concern over these issues is growing. New public opinion polling within the Soil Association’s investigation found that the majority of Britons do not want the ultra-processed food industry to be involved in policymaking around healthy food.  

In a recent survey, less than two per cent of people said they “completely trust” food corporations to provide advice around healthy eating, with around half of survey respondents saying they do not trust them at all. Nearly all – 93% – said they would be concerned to hear that the UPF industry had blocked government attempts to ask shops to put discounts on healthy foods.

Most people – 90% – also said they think government officials should be required to transparently declare the details of conversations they have with the ultra-processed food industry.

These findings echo comments made last year by the Lords Committee on Food, Diet and Obesity which warned that the industry commonly “seeks through sophisticated lobbying strategies to influence both government policymaking and academic research for its own ends”.

Now you see it, now you don’t
In this particular case, when the Government agreed to remove the very specific description “minimally processed and nutritious” from its policy, 

the FDF described this as a “key win” for its corporate members – in a statement that has since been removed from its website.

The scale of industry’s involvement in trying to influence policy for its benefit was made clear to the Soil Association, when it was asked to refine its FOI requests. Officials at the Department of Health told the charity: “A search for any emailed or written correspondence between DHSC and the Food and Drink Federation, or third parties acting on behalf of the Food and Drink Federation, between October 2022 and October 2023, pertaining to DHSC’s use of the term ‘minimally processed’ produced over 1,800 emails”. The officials told the charity that this ‘would take too long to process”. 

Katharine Jenner, Director, Obesity Health Alliance, is one of more than 20 signatories on the Soil Association’s open letter. She said: “While public trust in the food industry is incredibly low, for decades governments have placed baseless faith in it—allowing companies that profit from highly processed, high fat, salt, and sugar products to interfere with policies designed to curb their harmful impact. Sadly, these companies are following the ‘tobacco playbook’—a strategy designed to protect profits at the expense of public health. They deny and undermine the evidence, dilute policies with loopholes and exemptions, and delay action for as long as possible.”

Confusing guidance
Responding to the disclosures, the FDF told Natural Newsdesk: “FDF regularly engages with government on behalf of food and drink manufacturers, on regulation that underpins nutrition, food safety and food security; as well as on how we play our part in helping people follow healthier diets.

“In the instance cited, we asked the government to phrase their business guidance on new HFSS regulations in a way that was consistent with that legislation. We were concerned that references to processing in the guidance, which was not covered in the legislation, would cause confusion.”