We all have a personal connection with food. Every citizen, rich or poor, needs to eat on a daily basis; that’s what Anna Taylor loves about her job. Everyone can relate to what’s on their plate. This is also a major issue, whether you are a wealthy person in power or living in a deprived food desert struggling to make ends meet, what’s served up on the table, or in our mind, can be worlds apart.
“It’s challenging when talking to politicians. When you want them to focus on the food system, its public health and environmental impacts, it is very difficult for them to see the issues that some parts of our population face through their own personal experiences, particularly if they’re speaking from a position of privilege – in fact it can be jaw dropping,” explains Anna Taylor, executive director of the Food Foundation.
She adds: “With this in mind, how do we also make food system change a top political priority especially with so many competing concerns for those in Westminster? It is a real issue. Food is also complex and interconnected with many other issues from health to the environment. This makes it both easier and more difficult to tackle. It’s certainly not clear cut politically, that’s the frustration.”
Something needs to be done
The numbers are stark. The most deprived fifth of the population must now spend 45% of their disposable income on food to afford a healthy diet; this rises to 70% for households with children. Healthier foods, including fruit and veg, is more than twice as expensive per calorie than less healthy foods and less available, according to the Food Foundation’s Broken Plate report, so action is needed.
“We’re now trying to create the conditions for change, which takes time. But when that opportunity comes there can be fertile ground and things can unlock,” explains Anna, who has received an OBE for her work addressing the global burden of undernutrition.
“A good example is the free school meals win that we recently had. This involved seven years of campaigning. As a small charity with limited resources we did question whether we should keep going on this issue. But when No. 10 gave us a call it was a fantastic win and a wonderful surprise,” explains Anna, who is also an international expert in nutrition.
She is referring to the government’s decision to extend free school meals to all young people on universal credit. This will allow hundreds of thousands of children living in poverty who were missing out, to now get lunch at no cost to their family. In the UK nearly one in five households with children face food insecurity, so it was a welcome move by Labour.
Eyes on the food strategy prize
‘Conditions for change’ is something that Anna Taylor is acutely aware of. Earlier this year she joined the board advising the government on its new food strategy. Spearheaded by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra), it’s guidance is eagerly awaited. Anna was also part of Henry Dimbleby’s team that drafted the last national strategy, which was then abandoned by the previous Conservative government.
“The big question now is how do you create economic space for what I call the emergent food system – those businesses who are more purpose-driven, financially viable and who are trying to deliver multiple benefits, including those focused on the environment and health. Right now there are many factors stopping these businesses from meeting their full potential. It could be planning issues, routes to market or other concerns,” states Anna.
She adds: “Today the playing field works for corporations who are already massive, as well as powerful, and have huge economies of scale. The market doesn’t work for upcoming businesses. We’ve got to try harder. We know that those in the emergent food system also have economic multiplier effects, which could transform our culture of food and farming. They bring a whole load of other things to communities that the dominant system often neglects.”
Anna has already been vocal about the dominance of industry on the government’s new food strategy board. More than half of its members have vested interests in the very businesses who need to radically change their practices so that we can deliver a more sustainable and healthier food system. Despite this, she is still optimistic that the new strategy can bring about change.
“What’s very interesting and exciting is that the overall narrative from Defra is dramatically different right now. What they are saying is that this food strategy should be about health at its heart. They are talking much more about food inequality than they ever have before. This is a dramatic change. So I’m feeling very encouraged by that,” she states.
Defra has also asked the Food Foundation to gather the views of a diverse and representative group of citizens across the country in order to help shape the direction of the national strategy. This will build on the Food Conversations project, which shows that the public wants a food system that works for everyone – families, farmers, communities and the planet.
Momentum on transparency
The head of the Food Foundation thinks there are also other ways that we can move the dial on what we eat. Public procurement has significant potential and it was in Labour’s manifesto. It stated that half of the food bought across the public sector, including meals for hospitals, schools and prisons, should be locally produced or certified to higher environmental standards.
“Another area that’s gaining considerable momentum is the requirement for businesses we buy food from to report on a set of metrics in relation to their sales. For instance, what proportion of their sales are unhealthy or healthy food? What proportion are fruit and veg versus everything else? What proportion is meat versus plant protein?” details Anna.
She continues: “These measures would allow us to benchmark different parts of the food industry and how everybody stacks up, and whether they’re moving in the right direction each year. This simple act of transparency would stimulate boardroom conversations. It would also allow policymakers, business people, and lobbyists to focus their energy on where change is needed. We’re seeing a few companies already do this, so it is getting traction.”
The government has just recently announced that all large food companies will now be required to report on the healthiness of their food sales. This policy could be a gamechanger and will kick in by the end of this parliamentary term. This includes those active in retail and manufacture. For most companies, just 7% of their sales by volume are vegetables – the Eatwell Guide recommends 20%.
What’s interesting speaking to Anna Taylor is that she’s not only hopeful about how we can bring about a healthier food environment, but she genuinely believes real change is now within our grasp.
“The nanny state arguments have now got much less potency than they did in the past. We’ve been working hard to reveal the extent to which the environments where people make decisions about eating, shape what we eat. This is not about individuals who choose to buy loads of takeaways versus healthy fruit and veg,” states Anna.
She concludes: “There’s a whole set of conditions which get in the way of us actually playing out our values and aspirations around food. The environment can inhibit us and disempower us in so many different ways. Putting this argument forward to politicians feels much easier than it did three or four years ago. I’m optimistic.”
You can read The Food Foundation’s Broken Plate Report, here.
How, in one of the 10 richest countries in the world, did we ever get to a place where almost 1 in 5 families with children face food insecurity? Why are Food Banks still essential for so many?
We aren’t in the top 10 richest by per capita or on purchasing power.
But:
Because we are a very unequal society?
Because housing costs are so high?
Because we don’t educate children (or adults) about food?
Because the volume press isn’t interested?
Because rents are too high for proper food shops to remain open?
Because we are insufficiently resistant to advertising?
The roots of family food breakdown(s) are many and complex. Food parcels are not expected to be “essential” even by the providers. For too many families or households the fact is they live in a constantly challenged situation. In a system where everything is measured by money or funding and not outcomes no effective systemic corrective measures arise. Each improvement is less effective than the last doomed attempt. Thereafter only more money is thought to improve the breakdown or adversity. Sadly this is political “washing” of the worst kind. We need an honest reality based plan to address societal deep rooted problems. Not promising even more unaffordable money. Care compassion and credible alternatives are desperately needed. Now?