Eating Our Way to Destruction?

In the UK, poor diet is said to contribute to 64,000 deaths a year. A government-commissioned food strategy report says that a £3bn sugar and salt tax could help improve this situation. Unremarkably, manufacturers of junk food are not keen (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/15/food-strategy-calls-for-3bn-sugar-and-salt-tax-to-improve-uks-diet?). People need to eat less junk food and meat. The report suggests that some of the tax revenues from junk food could be used to supply needy people with fresh fruit and vegetables and/or expand school meal provision. It is also claimed that the tax could incentivise ('nudge') manufacturers of junk food, to reduce salt and sugar levels in their products.The report is less forceful on reducing the consumption of meat. It simply suggests placing meat-free products along with the sausages. The food strategy report does point out that current food production has very high environmental costs. It claims that more land could be set aside for nature or sustainable farming. The report warns, however, that the UK must insist on retaining its high food standards in trade deals with other nations. Otherwise, the country would just be exporting the environmental problems. Predictably, the UK PM's initial response seems negative (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/jul/15/boris-johnson-appears-to-rule-out-sugar-and-salt-tax-to-cut-junk-food-reliance). He claims not to be keen on applying taxes to 'hard working people' (is there any other kind of voter in the politics universe?). The PM appears quite happy to hit those same people with expensive poor health or early death. He takes credit for fewer children (possibly) being exposed to advertising and people being encouraged to take more exercise. The government's tradition of doing next to nothing to counter climate change, is also maintained.