To think that as big food industry cause a huge chunk of the NHS bill that they need to be taxed an NHS surcharge? Whats more galling is that many large food companies are US owned and the medication is US supplied.

Who is going to be the judge of what is 'healthy' though?

What metric would be used?

Because some would consider modified 'low fat' versions of foods to be healthy. I don't.

For years we were told that low fat spreads were healthier than butter. They're not.

And that eggs cause high cholesterol. They don't.

And that eating fat makes you fat. When that's far too simplistic.

Firstly, as a family, we don't buy or eat crap.

Secondly, if your suggestion is going to work, schools need to introduce health and nutrition as a serious subject because it needs to go back to basics. If people buy less junk and more real food that will be reflected in stocks, so there is an education piece, but also and this is radical, people need to experience the unmedicated/treated consequences to change habits.

Thirdly, I'd rather the government focus resources on defence at the present time. If Russia (or another nation) blows us up it matters not if we are blown up fat, thin, healthy or unhealthy.

And that's notwithstanding the fact that humans should be able to make their own choices and if that's stopped we start living in a totatitarian state.

What else would you like to control op. It's the thin end of the wedge.

Exactly that. upthraad I read "pizza is not healthy" a massive Dominos pizza dripping in fat and cured meat is not healthy. A traditional Neopolitan sourdough pizza with a few quality ingredients is fine. It's just bread, cheese and tomatoes.

No one is forcing junk food and drinks down anyone’s neck. Self control and willpower are the tools that all humans have.

To an extent, I agree.

If I eat something UPF, I know that is what I am doing. I buy virtually no UPF but, as my partner lived on it before we moved in together, there is some in our cupboards and freezer because he likes it (he's also learning and has dropped a stone without trying just because his meals are no longer UPF and UPF is limited to occasional snacks rather than meals).

But he didn't know it was junk. He really couldn't see the difference between eg a homemade lasagne and a ready meal lasagne. Or a homemade raita and the one in a plastic pot from the takeaway. It was 'all the same'.

If we go out for dinner and he sees 'in a creamy sauce' on a menu, he assumes it will be made from cream or at least a roux. I assume it won't be because, in many high street eateries, in won't. And he's not alone in that.

And many people still consider diet coke (for example) to be healthy because it contains no fat and no sugar.

So a lot of the time, people don't realise they are eating junk.

Then their parents should give them the satsuma, not offer a mars bar alternative!

We have a choice what to eat, and what to feed our families.

I had this idea where you could apply some kind of health score to someone’s shop and then you could get some kind of reward / discount / points for a healthier trolly. I just wondered if carrot approach might work better than more and more tax to government being the solution to everything…

There is a chunk of the population that is very invested in non UPF's. @Noras vote with your feet and join us.

You’d be surprised. I was on a Brownie holiday recently. The person doing the shopping list is very old school and every snack was sweet.

As the person doing the shopping, I rebelled and bought fruit and carrots & cucumber to make into sticks. I have a tonne of chocolate biscuits left.

The problem is that taxing food (or any other essential) is regressive as it costs poorer people a higher % of their income than wealthier people, so while it impacts their behaviour more, it also makes them poorer and pisses them off in the process (the drive towards renewables is a good example of this- incorporating renewables into the grid is a "good thing for society" but while it makes power more expensive for everyone it impacts poorer households more). Go ask someone who earns min wage how much a pint of milk is and they'll tell you. Ask someone who earns 200k a year and they probably wont be able to. They buy milk- they just dont care what it costs because whether its 1 quid or 4 quid doesnt make any odds to them.

There's also the question of legislative consistency which is where the sugar tax got so problematic. There are v few foods that are completely unprocessed and once you get beyond those, creating a framework that consistently taxes things you dont want people to eat based on content is difficult- eg not all high fat foods are "bad", some unprocessed foods are naturally high in fructose. There are some quick wins- could put VAT on cakes for example - but previous efforts have got completely bogged down in consistency and where's there's no consistency there's just going to be legislative challenges left right and centre.

Finally, the fact is that most of the issues with UPF are that they are a contributor to obesity (there's not a huge evidence base that eating (most) UPFs cause huge issues for people who aren't also obese- at least not enough to create an entire legislative framework to address it). Once these fat pills roll off patent obesity will probably get reduced by 50% so the problem could well just solve itself. 10 years seems a long time but it could take the government 5 years to create a consistent legislative framework for food taxation so may be better to just let it play out.

No one should be stopped.

Cigarettes are on sale, alcohol is on sale.

Would you remove all tax from those products and transfer the health costs to the general pot?

Smokers and drinkers both pay targeted taxes.

The use of £5 was a straw man. No one is suggesting a £5 price but you.

You assume my diet is virtuous? Why assume that?

When I smoked, I understood the justification for a tax on cigarettes even though I paid more. I also understood the justification for an indoor smoking ban even though I personally stood in the rain as a result.

These questions are not about me individually, they are about the system, the whole population, the ethics of the food companies.

And if you drink, smoke, have a fall from a horse or a skiing accident?
Not to mention if you have a hereditary disease that can be passed on.

The whole thing is crazy. People need to be able to cook better and stop wasting money on processed junk

As a broad statement I agree with this but, as with many things, its a complex issue.

I see calls for schools to bring back proper cookery lessons. I had proper cookery lessons in the late 80s and early 90s but that's not how I learnt to cook.

My understanding of what is 'healthy' food has improved a lot over the 30+ years of adulthood I've lived so far.

When I was younger, I believed (as many did and still do) that 'calories in and out' was the only thing that mattered. I see this still being touted now all over MN and its simply not true. There is far more to it than that.

Many people don't understand how UPFs affect the body. Eg weight loss jabs work, in part, by mimicking GLP-1, which the body releases after eating to control hunger. UPFs actively disrupt the production of this so that people dont have that feeling of satiety and can/want to eat more.

The traffic light system of food labelling is limited in its usefulness because it doesn't take into account UPF ingredients/additives and looks simply at calorie, fat, salt and sugar (but not overall carb) content.

I saw an app advertised on fb the other day that claimed you could scan the barcode of foods that would give you an analysis of how healthy the food was. There were lots of comments recommending a free alternative app instead. So, just to try it out, I downloaded it and scanned a few items in my kitchen.

It gives each food item a score out of 100 and a rating of bad, poor, good and excellent in terms of whether it's a 'healthy' food or not.

However, it rated Greek yoghurt as good (with a healthy food score of 66%) but oven chips as excellent (with a healthy food score of 90%). Tomato ketchup also got an excellent healthy food rating at 84%, I think it was.

Obviously, it doesn't take into account the quantities at which people will generally eat these products or what would fill an empty stomach best but according to that app, a plate of oven chips with ketchup would be a 'healthier' option than plain Greek yoghurt generally. And, yes, i know they're not like for like food comparisons but my point is that it skews understanding of what is healthy food generally.

So someone could use that app and decide that oven chips and ketchup is a 'healthy' meal because the app states that it is. And it's better for you than Greek yoghurt (which most people would think of as good for you).

For some people. I have never made a Dahl anyone would eat. Luckily my husband does better.

No. It's not a walk in the park for all people to cook with lentils and beans.

No one is forcing junk food and drinks down anyone’s neck. Self control and willpower are the tools that all humans have.

It’s no good trying to blame companies.

and if people just don’t like lentils and Dahl? Suck it up and eat it anyway?

It really aligns with the posters have seen on here who when it comes to politics have the views of “if you don’t vote as I do, you’re too stupid to vote”. In this case, “I don’t approve of your food choices so you should be stopped from making them”.