Letting the food industry regulate itself was a mistake

By taking away responsibility over salt content in food from the FSA, the Government effectively asked food companies to police themselves

It must have been music to the ears of executives of the major food companies when, in 2011, the then Health Secretary Andrew Lansley promised to end “costly regulation” as he introduced his new idea of “responsibility deals” between government and manufacturers.

The independent Food Standards Agency (FSA) lost the responsibility it had exercised for a decade over salt content in food. Nominally, that responsibility was taken over by the Department of Health. The reality was that the Government was asking the food companies to police themselves.

Poor diet is the UK’s biggest cause of death and ill health. Too much salt raises blood pressure, which can cause early death. Since it was set up in 2000, the FSA had become a world leader in reducing salt consumption. Bread, the main contributor, contained 20 per cent less salt in 2011 than in 2001. This saved lives and reduced the burden on the NHS, but to a free market ideologue such as Mr Lansley, the FSA’s involvement was unnecessary bureaucratic oversight of an important industry.

The voluntary approach he pioneered simply has not worked. Reducing salt content has implications for taste, texture and shelf life. One food company could not be expected to push ahead unless all its competitors moved at the same pace. With no regulatory body to enforce the “responsibility deal”, four years of the salt reduction programme were lost, according to the authoritative study by the British Medical Journal. The grim result, by one estimate, was 4,000 premature deaths.

The answer is obvious: give the FSA the authority it had before Mr Lansley took it away, then every food company can take part in the salt reduction programme without fear of losing its competitiveness.