Thin on detail, can Defra’s food plan achieve anything?

In November, environment secretary Steve Reed called for a coalition of industry, government and NGOs to overhaul the food system and tackle its biggest health and environmental challenges.

This week, we found out what that will entail. Defra released the objectives of its new food strategy amid great enthusiasm and positivity all round – at least, on the surface.

To counter what Henry Dimbleby termed a ‘junk food cycle’, the government set out a Good Food Cycle. It spans 10 objectives that aim to make Brits’ diets healthier, greener and more affordable, while tackling supply chain inequity and bolstering food resilience.

Minister for food security and rural affairs Daniel Zeichner has hailed the plan as a “first step to driving generational change”.

But, as revealed by The Grocer this week, there will be no white paper  in 2026 to back up the strategy due to intervention from the PM. So does Defra’s plan have enough substance, and does it lack the crucial backing of No 10?

The 10 ‘priority outcomes’ have been identified in conjunction with the Food Strategy Advisory Board – a 13-strong panel of industry bosses and NGOs – over the past three months. But anyone hoping for concrete proposals and metrics would be disappointed. The objectives of the “landmark” document are noticeably unmeasurable and lacking in detail.

They are also a far cry from  Dimbleby’s 2021 recommendations. Whereas Dimbleby’s National Food Strategy called for a draconian raft of new taxes to confront the obesity crisis, Labour’s plan takes a collaborative approach with industry. That’s part of its aim to “put more money back in people’s pockets” amid the cost of living crisis.

However, when it comes to specifics, there is little to go on – even compared with the NHS 10-year plan  announced by Wes Streeting earlier this month. That included proposals for mandatory reporting of sales of healthier food, as well as targets for large companies to improve.

“While the 10 outcome statements are all positive and welcome, they’re very top line and lacking substance,” says a leading supplier source. “There’s no policy in there, other than health reporting, which was already announced by DHSC.”

Another source quips: “I would say that the biggest thing missing from the food strategy is the food strategy.” 

Food resilience action

Yet others insist the lack of detail does not denote a lack of ambition.

As well as tackling the junk food cycle, Labour’s document also promises to act on the emerging risks to food resilience – ones that were starkly highlighted by Professor Tim Lang’s 2025 report on the subject for the National Preparedness Commission.

The plan also pledges to learn lessons from UK food supply chain shocks caused by events such as the pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

“This is the first time any government has clearly articulated a cross-departmental vision for a thriving food system that is healthier, more sustainable, and economically resilient,” says Sarah Bradbury, CEO of IGD, which has acted as secretariat for the FSAB.

Our supplier source acknowledges: “We do feel like government has listened to some of the concerns of industry in the outcomes themselves.

“They’re more pragmatic to the reality of running a business than we might have expected. As an example, there is a reference, albeit buried in an annex to the report, to the fact that additional policies and regulations could result in food prices increasing.

“But what matters is what happens next, and any policy interventions need to be implemented in a sensible and proportionate way, taking into consideration all of the other pressures we’re facing.”

For others, it is the lack of interventionist intent that stands out.

While Sainsbury’s CEO and FSAB member Simon Roberts has hailed the strategy as a chance for bold action to make the food industry a “powerhouse for economic growth”, none of the detailed interventions so far discussed by the FSAB have made the cut.

The FSAB has, The Grocer understands, discussed a raft of policies. Those not only included mandatory health reporting – as featured in the 10-year plan – but also steps to improve the healthiness of food procured by government and local authorities. Interventions to tackle the growing amount of calories consumed in the out-of-home sector were also reported to be a focus of discussion.

But it is understood it will be at least spring next year before any more detail emerges on clear metrics and frameworks.

Any sign of radical plans for changes in land use and diet, such as a reduction in meat consumption, are as yet absent.

“The ambition is clear, but the routes to achieving them will require sustained co-ordination, investment, and accountability, developing consistent metrics, long-term policy stability, and better integration across government,” says Bradbury.

That note of caution is echoed by the supplier source. “Industry wants to work with government to help achieve these outcomes but, until we see more substance, we’re reserving some judgement.”

It appears Defra had wanted to take much more concrete action. The decision to ditch the 2026 food white paper has sounded alarm bells for those fearing a depressing repeat of the Tories’ inaction.

Read more:

• Defra sets out 10-point Food Strategy plan for healthier food and greener supply chain

• The Food Strategy is ambitious… but we still need profits

• Junk food advertising ban: government consultation launched

• Does the new Food Strategy lack real Treasury commitment?

As also revealed by The Grocer this week, sources suggest mention of the white paper disappeared at the 11th hour. That was due to reported reluctance from Keir Starmer and Chancellor Rachel Reeves to back the necessary regulation, which risked further food price inflation and demanded further government spending on the food sector.

It has raised questions over whether Defra and the food industry can rely on Treasury backing for an overhaul of the system. Those questions are particularly pertinent given the government has already backtracked on a series of environmental and economic plans.

Yet government sources insist future policies, including a possible white paper, have not been ruled out, and claim this week represents a “key milestone”.

“After the inaction of the previous government, we should look at what this government has done as a sign of positive intent, albeit that the policies and metrics are still to come,” says one source.

And while the document lacks any of the bold measures prescribed in Dimbleby’s Food Strategy report for the previous government, the spirit of co-operation and pragmatism may just mean that some of these proposals one day come to fruition – at least, if the harmony can be maintained.