If you were a UK Health Secretary faced with soaring rates of obesity, alcohol misuse, and diet-related diseases, what would you do? Were you to take an evidence-based approach, you might consider minimum pricing per unit of alcohol and restrictions on its availability. You might look at toughening the regulation of how the least healthy foods are marketed to children. You could even demand that manufacturers reformulate their least healthy products to meet minimum nutritional standards. Or you could, if your name was Andrew Lansley, dismiss all of the above and instead invite representatives
After the initial surprise, it can still take a while for the bizarre reality to sink in—that the companies who have profited the most from the epidemics of obesity and alcohol misuse should now be responsible for setting the agenda on public health simply beggars belief. Whatever sage wisdom the various captains of the food and drink industry have to impart, it will certainly be in the narrow interests of their shareholders, whose continued wealth is contingent on maintaining precisely the status quo that brought about the current public-health crises. Perhaps their feelings of corporate responsibility will extend to plugging the funding gap left by Education Secretary Michael Gove's decision to remove £162 million of funding to English schools for the sports-for-all programme, which tackled low levels of physical activity in children.