Boris Johnson’s food emperor continued some of the measures proposed in his policy blueprint, even though Boris Johnson rejected one of the main pillars within hours of publication. He says he believes in doing so.
Henry Dimbleby, co-founder of Leon’s restaurant chain, announced a national food strategy last month, warning people that meat intake should be reduced by up to one-third, and the country’s diet. Demanded salt and sugar taxes to change.
However, it took two years to put it together, and on the day of the release of a report with the opinions of hundreds of experts, the Prime Minister said, “The idea of taxing salt and sugar to tackle junk food and obesity” I wasn’t attracted to it. ” ..
Dimbleby said: The Prime Minister bounced back on something after his speech about leveling up and said, “I would study the report with interest,” but “I wasn’t attracted to the additional tax on hard-working people,” I said. I see. Who can oppose it?
“My guess was that the Prime Minister hadn’t read the nearly 200-page long report when he spoke. In fact, the purpose of the sugar and salt tax was to include sugar and salt in major food companies. It does not necessarily lead to a tax increase because it forces a volume reorganization. ”
Dimbleby said the 2018 sugar tax on soft drinks has reorganized many drinks to reduce sugar levels by almost one-third so that consumer prices do not rise. After a 2015 study revealed the scale of the sugar problem, we found that 22% of adults in the UK consume sweets and chocolate daily and 44% eat them several times a week. ..
He said it is now widely recognized that government action is important to break the cycle of progress and highly damaging junk food. “Food companies are personally telling the government that their intervention is needed because food companies have no way to do it unilaterally because the economy isn’t working,” he said. “Talking to the Treasury people, I’m relieved and the government is aware of this, and the NHS will run wild if they don’t deal with it.”
He added that carbon labeling is another area where it is important for companies to work together to drive government action to make a difference. His view is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the global authority on climate science, is facing this month without urgent new policy measures to move the world economy to a low-carbon base. It comes from creating the “Red” report. Unprecedented and irreversible “changes result in widespread devastation. Carbon footprint labels serve as a quick lead for consumers to assess the climate impact of their products and motivate producers to reduce emissions.
last month Independent Unilever has revealed for the first time that it will begin carbon labeling-marking an important moment in the transition to badge products at cost to Earth-and how their move has divided the industry. Early adopters such as Quorn Foods endorsed their initiative, but the UK Retail Consortium, an industry group representing UK retailers, is unilateral because a single universal approach has not yet been agreed. “It didn’t help,” said Nestlé, which has more than 2,000 brands. “Collaboration is essential,” so “no one should attack in their own way.”
However, Dimbleby supported Unilever’s move. “My view on Unilever’s initiative is that it’s good for companies to move forward on their own and introduce carbon labels,” he said. “They definitely discover problems along the way and discover what works. Before they can move on, they have to wait for everyone else to agree on how to move forward. Telling them is to curb innovation and we don’t want to destroy it, but the government needs to intervene and play a role here to be consistent like nutrition labeling. There is also. “
He added: “I’m convinced that the main force of package sustainability labeling is not to impact consumers, but to revitalize companies and change the behavior of food producers. Companies” red light “on packs. Hate to wear, compete to improve your brand and minimize your footprint.
The carbon footprint, measured as a carbon dioxide equivalent, shows the environmental cost from farm to fork, but it can also be displayed using the green-yellow-red signaling system.
Dimbleby added that he is in favor of companies that have agreed to broader impact control. “Carbon footprint labeling is too narrow a measure of sustainability. A broader composite label that also incorporates product impacts on biodiversity loss, deforestation, water usage, and methane and nitrogen emissions. will become necessary.”
But Dimbleby said the only way to break the deadlock and get businesses working together is with government intervention. “One of the recommendations of our strategy is that, as with nutrition labeling, there is an important role that governments should play in bringing the industry together to ensure sustainability measurements and label consistency. The state needs to move quickly, but I’m reassured that many people in the government consider this important. I’m confident that the ecological footprint will be labeled. I am. “