Steady Ready-Meals?

In some parts of the world (the UK being one of them), 'take-aways' and 'ready-to-eat' meals, form an increasingly large proportion of the diet. They reflect societies, where time is a premium. Such products are generally, however, neither healthy for the eater nor the planet. These foods contain far more salt and meat, than is recommended by nutritionists. It's consequently been suggested that minimal health and sustainabilty requirements should be placed on big companies, that produce most of these products (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/apr/17/healthier-ready-to-eat-meals-would-have-huge-eu-climate-benefits-report). Healthier ready-to-eat meals, should contain 50% fewer refined grains; 67% less meat and significantly more legumes (peas and beans), than current alternatives. It's calculated these reformulations would cut annual European Union emissions by circa 48 million tonnes. They would also annually save customers a total of £2.4 bn. Eating these new healthier products, would also reduce lifestyle-linked diseases, such as atheriosclerosis; coronary heart disease, diabetes; obesity and stroke. This, in turn, would save money for health services. It would also increase economic productivity, as improved diet would result in fewer days off work and increased worker longevity. There might have to be some changes in agriculture but we can always count on the cooperation of farmers! The bottom line is "we can improve health of people and the planet at affordable prices". Seems like a 'no-brainer'? There are, however, some pretty major obstacles to this suggestion. Most fast food companies and producers of ready-to-eat meals, make much of the sumptousness of their products. They ooze cheese and meat in wall-to-wall advertising. They obviously have a vested interest in getting the purchaser to 'come back, for more'. Consumers also appear 'hard-wired' to binge, when the opportunity arises. They might regard themselves as 'short-changed', if they got less meat. We also have the 'individual choice' lobby, maintaining that folk have a god-given 'right' to eat themselves into illness. Action in the direction advocated, seems likely to be, at best, glacially slow. You remember glaciers?