Low fruit and vegetable consumption is an important issue, with evidence to suggest that it’s associated with an increased risk of a range of chronic diseases. Most people in England are consistently eating less than the daily recommended amount of fruit and veg. There are many environmental, sociodemographic and personal factors that affect fruit and veg consumption, and many of these factors disproportionately affect people living in areas of high deprivation. The National Food Strategy for England provided a series of recommendations for how to increase fruit and veg consumption across the country.
In this post I’ll discuss the National Food Strategy, highlighting a couple of its recommendations, and the potential for Universal Basic Income to further support efforts to increase fruit and veg consumption and improve public health.
What is the National Food Strategy for England?
The National Food Strategy for England (NFS) was published in two parts, with the final report (‘The Plan’) arriving in July 2021. The report provides a detailed analysis of “how the food system really works, the damage it is doing to our bodies and our ecosystem, and the interventions we could make to prevent these harms”. It makes 14 recommendations, which were then condensed to four headline proposals:
Escape the junk food cycle and protect the NHS
Reduce diet-related inequality
Make the best use of our land
Create a long-term shift in our food culture.
Recently, to enable concrete action by the government and other bodies, the 14 recommendations were broken down into 70 discrete actions. If all these actions are followed through, they could help set England on a path to a healthier, less damaging and more sustainable food system.
But there are other ways to achieve a more sustainable and fairer food system. One of them would be the introduction of a Universal Basic Income (UBI).
How could a UBI help to achieve the NFS recommendations for increasing fruit and veg consumption?
UBI is a government program where all citizens receive a set amount of money regularly (typically every month) and unconditionally. An important goal of UBI is to alleviate poverty and replace other means-tested financial programs with a more dignified system. I believe a UBI could help achieve some of the NFS’s recommendations relating to individual dietary consumption and health.
The NFS’s first recommendation is to introduce a Sugar and Salt Reformulation Tax, and to use some of the revenue to help get fresh fruit and vegetables to low-income families. This sounds promising as it could encourage manufacturers to reformulate their products to reduce the amount of salt and sugar. However, if reformulation does happen to the extent that was seen following the implementation of the UK’s Soft Drinks Industry Levy, it would actually reduce the amount of revenue that would be available to subsidise fruit and vegetables for low-income families, limiting the effectiveness of this as a recommendation to improve fruit and veg consumption.
Reformulation is not always the approach taken by manufacturers. Some argue that reformulation is not possible and the tax will instead be passed on to consumers. While a tax may discourage purchases and steer consumers towards diets lower in sugar and salt, it could also lead to more expensive shopping, especially for those on lower incomes.
Certain products costing more may encourage consumers to substitute them for alternative products that are still high in sugar or salt. Both of these outcomes would not lead to higher revenues, and would be unlikely to increase consumption of fruit and veg among lower income groups. If a UBI was in place alongside the tax on manufacturers, not only would manufacturers be encouraged to reformulate but everyone could have additional money available to buy fruit and veg.
The NFS’s sixth recommendation states that the Healthy Start scheme should be expanded, with work done to increase the uptake of the scheme among people who are eligible. At the moment recipients must have a child under four or be at least ten weeks pregnant, and they must prove that they’re in receipt of financial support such as Child Tax Credits or Universal Credit. One of the reasons for low uptake is the stigma associated with receiving the vouchers. By giving everyone a UBI there would be no stigma, and both individuals and families would have more money available to purchase the food they need.
In conclusion, although the NFS is a great first step towards reshaping the food system to promote environmental and public health, it is not without limitations. A UBI could overcome some of these limitations. And while UBI is not a panacea, it is non-stigmatising as it’s universal and unconditional. It could reduce diet-related inequalities by ensuring everyone is able to afford the food they need.
Alongside other policies, a UBI could help reduce food insecurity and improve public health. While it’s possible that the additional money given to families through a UBI may be used to buy unhealthy foods, such as those rich in sugar and salt, we could put in place additional initiatives on healthy eating. For example, we could make it easier and more affordable to purchase fruit and veg, run promotional campaigns, have better cooking programmes and have more shops selling fruit and veg (as recommended in the NFS). Then individuals and families would not only have the agency but also the financial resources to make healthier choices.
Comments