Category Archives: Agriculture

Milking it! Extending the sugar tax for public health and economic gain

This week the government launched a consultation on its plans to tighten the sugar levy. This follows last year’s review of the effectiveness of the SDIL to date. Chancellor Rachel Reeves strongly hinted that the government was considering broadening the scope of the levy at October’s autumn budget and the consultation document does just that.

The government’s proposals include reducing the minimum sugar content level at which the levy applies from 5g to 4g; removing the exemption for milk-based drinks; and removing the exemption for milk substitute drinks. This means milkshakes, pre-made coffees and many of your favourite fizzy drinks will be reformulated or face becoming taxable.

Initial analysis suggests that over 90% of milk-based products will be affected. Initially exempt because milk is a source of calcium for children, the government’s revised position is that any potential health benefits are outweighed by the negative impact of consuming high levels of sugar.

Although the contents of this consultation come as no surprise to those who have been closely following policymaking in this space, it does set the mood music for the upcoming national food strategy and signals a government unafraid to be heavy-handed when it comes to public health. Although the SDIL is widely considered to be a successful and effective policy intervention, the UK’s sugar consumption remains significantly above recommended levels, especially among children. By lowering the sugar thresholds and widening the scope of products, more soft drink producers will be forced to reformulate products or see their production costs increase. However businesses decide to act in response to changing regulations, the government hopes the result is a significant reduction in the nation’s consumption of sugar.

Obesity costs the NHS around £6.5 billion a year. NHS data shows a deeply concerning trend of rising childhood obesity. Almost 10% of children are now living with obesity by the time they start school and 24% of children have tooth decay by aged five thanks to excess sugar consumption. With obesity taking effect earlier in life, the associated costs for the NHS are set to soar to £9.7 billion by 2050. This is especially bad news for a government grappling with a challenging economic environment and acute pressures on public spending. But for Labour, it feels all the more personal because in the most deprived areas the prevalence of obesity can be almost 15% higher than in the least deprived ones – something that the last government’s food strategy picked up on. Tackling health inequality is a huge part of the government’s commitment to ensuring all children and young people have the same opportunities and start in life.

For industry, there is a fine balance to strike. Full resistance to public health reforms designed to improve the health of our children would leave a bad taste in consumers’ mouths. Developing and maintaining an open, constructive dialogue with government, including showcasing innovative reformulations, will be a far more effective approach. Framed in this way, industry will be able to better make the case that a proportionate approach to SDIL and wider public health reforms will deliver positive health and economic change.

Now is the time to engage. Those who can successfully demonstrate alignment with the government’s public health goals will be well-positioned for future discussions about the developing national food strategy, which will set the strategic direction of travel for the rest of this parliament and beyond. One thing is for sure, this is unlikely to be the last government intervention in the name of improving the nation’s health.

The consultation runs until 21 July. If you’d like to discuss contributing to it or the wider HFSS policy environment, please contact Lauren on lauren.atkins@gkstrategy.com.

A fork in the road for food security

GK Senior Adviser James Allan considers the publication of the Food Security Report and why the opportunity is ripe to engage with ministers and officials holding the pen on the food strategy due for publication in 2025.

The government has published its three-yearly Food Security Report and it is hefty. Five themes covering 16 sub themes and 37 indicators ranging from food crime and pathogen surveillance to physical access to food shops and consumption patterns. Ministers had chosen to delay the publication of the report in hope of avoiding the farmers in protest against the £1m cap to Agriculture Property Relief introduced at the autumn budget. But this issue has not abated. Tractors returning to Westminster on the day of publication detracts from the business of government and its work to address food security.

The report’s headline finding is that those disadvantaged across society, including low-income households and people with a disability, are less likely to meet government dietary recommendations, and this trend has increased. All the while, the UK’s self-sufficiency has remained broadly unchanged in the past two decades, but the risks have heightened. The UK continues to source food from domestic production and trade at around a 60:40 ratio. But digging a little deeper, the UK is highly dependent on imports for fruits, vegetables and seafood – all sources of micronutrients essential to balanced and healthy diets in the fight against rising levels of obesity.

The risks to food security and self-sufficiency are numerous: climate change, nature loss, water insecurity, labour shortages and geopolitical events, the list goes on. More than this, these risks are interconnected with both acute and chronic impacts which trigger and compound each other. One can easily imagine a shortage of rice on British supermarket shelves if an extreme weather event, compounded by increased geo-political tensions, threatens the 46% of rice that is imported from India and Pakistan. At home, declining levels of natural capital are somewhat slowing, but boosting domestic production will mean prioritising and funding sustainable farming practices that restore and preserve our ecosystems to fully reverse this trend. Such schemes are not cheap for a government navigating tight public finances, as the second phase of a comprehensive spending review has kicked off with the Chancellor asking government departments to find 5% efficiency savings.

What’s new?

The government is set to adopt a “systems approach” which will focus minds on the outcomes of the whole system from production to consumption. Defra secretary Steve Reed is also promising a new way of engagement with not just sector and industry leaders, but also academics and charities to corral collective ambition, influence and effort. For food producers and retailers, this is a seismic opportunity to leverage your consumer and business story for a political audience that is in listening mode.

Pulling this off will be the test of ministers and officials drafting the government’s new food strategy due for publication in 2025. Why? Because if this Labour government is truly socially minded, addressing food insecurity will be a political priority. Doing so will aid better health and educational outcomes thereby reducing the burden on schools and the NHS, both of which are areas the Labour party self-identifies as being custodians of.

For investors, having a clear understanding government workstreams toward food security will be important. Investment decisions will need to be considered in the context of UK self-reliance in the food and energy sectors, but especially where technological innovation better position investors to capitalise on emerging trends, ensure long-term sustainable returns, and help shape a more secure and resilient national food system.

While spectators might eagerly await the publication of the government’s food strategy next year, the opportunity to engage is now.

The £0.5bn revenue raiser, incurring the wrath of farmers

GK Senior Adviser James Allan visited the farmers protest in Westminster and assesses the likelihood of a government u-turn and its agriculture policy plans.

On 19 November, farmers were out in force and took to the streets of Westminster for a heartfelt protest for a sector that feeds the nation. At the autumn budget, the Chancellor Rachel Reeves introduced a cap of £1m for assets eligible for Agriculture Property Relief and Business Property Relief. Estimated to raise £0.5bn a year by 2029/30 for spending on public services, the measure has been dubbed a ‘family farm tax’ for farmers that “don’t do it for the money because there is none”.

The extent to which the Chancellor’s action equates to a “death knell” for the family run farm is somewhat contested. While the Country Land and Business Association estimates 70,000 farms will be impacted by the change, various policy wonks and tax specialists argue that this does not consider other reliefs and is based on the quantity of farms, rather than ownership structures. Disputed figures aside, it risks fueling a shift public opinion against the government and one of the shortest-lived honeymoon periods for a new Prime Minster. A survey carried out by JL Partners found that 53% of respondents felt the autumn budget was unsuccessful, so the farming community are not alone.

Is this Reeves’ Cornish pasty tax moment?

When then-Conservative Chancellor George Osborne introduced a 20% tax on hot foods to end VAT anomalies in 2012, few anticipated the political drama of “pastygate” which ensued. The Conservative government was criticised for being out of touch, with some commentators even alleging class war. Then Prime Minister David Cameron was caught out for saying he’d eaten a pasty in Leeds Railway Station when the West Cornwall Pasty Company duly noted that the pasty outlet had closed two years previous. The controversy detracted from Osborne’s budget and ultimately led to a government u-turn and a negative with 49% of people describing the government’s handling of pastygate as a “shambles”. In a similar vein, the political fallout from this protest will be difficult for the Labour government to manage. Whatever Reeves’ next move, pastygate demonstrates that u-turns are not unprecedented when public opinion moves against a pinch point policy issue.

Beyond the political drama

Politics aside, the protests cut to the core of several interrelating policy issues, chief among them food security. Should farmers up the stakes and choose to strike, the government has already confirmed contingency plans to mitigate against likely food shortages. Any disruption to already fragile “just in time” food supply chains, which are a hallmark of the British supermarket industry, would have an immediate knock-on effect for the consumer, and in turn, the voter. This year of global elections has demonstrated that voters do not reward incumbents when food prices rise.

Yet given the 60/40 split of domestic and imported food produce respectively, the issue of food security is both desperately domestic and international. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine not only led to record levels of food inflation, hitting low-income households the hardest, but also a decline in business investment in the UK food and drink sector. Then there’s the issue of climate change. While India and Pakistan account for roughly 46% of UK rice imports, the government acknowledges that India is increasingly a climate vulnerable country. In short, a greater dependence on food imports arising from a possible collapse of domestic farming exposes the UK to yet more unpredictable geo-political and climate risks.

The British farming sector does not operate in isolation; it is critical to the UK’s broader rural economy, supporting industries such as agricultural machinery, agri-tech and innovation, and food processing. More than this, farmers are custodians of the UK countryside, contributing to environmental goals of biodiversity, carbon sequestration and sustainable land management and forestry. Though contentious, the Chancellor’s action prompts a broader conversation about agricultural reforms which align with national priorities and ensures the voice of the farming community is heard. The government has yet to set out substantive details but spoke of a new deal for farmers during the election campaign. Now in government, Defra Secretary Steve Reed has signalled a focus on trade deals undercutting low welfare and low standards; maximising public sector purchasing power to back British produce; and a land-use framework to balance nature recovery and long-term food security.

Whether Reeves doubles down or pivots on the Agriculture Property Relief depends on the government’s willingness to expend political capital to defend its decision. Labour’s instinct will be to fight on but the party finds itself on new ground. Its broad but narrow majority is part contingent on non-traditional Labour voters, many of them in rural areas. The MPs in these constituencies will have their eyes on a 2029 general election. Maintaining the rural vote and positioning Labour as the party of both rural and urban communities will be a challenge for the government. How Starmer and Reeves handle the ‘family farm tax’ could well define this iteration of the Labour Party. For investors and businesses alike, keeping abreast of these political battlegrounds, and preparing for the associated commercial risks and opportunities, will be important in making the case to a government that might well bend to a shift in public opinion.