Food For Thought?

After 60 years of decline, the numbers of UK cardiac fatalities have, since 2019, progressively risen. It's generally agreed that these increased deaths are largely a consequence of poor diet. The British Heart Foundation (BHF) consequently advocate mandatory 'hard-hitting, cigarette-style warning labels' for some everyday foods (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/06/warning-labels-food-taxes-rising-deaths-heart-disease-health-campaigners). Even if agreed, it would actually be more difficult to come up with appropriate labelling for foodstuffs, than for tobacco products. Everyone has to eat. For some folk, cost is a bigger issue than healthiness. Cigarette smoking is a 'choice' (albeit one made more likely by highly addictive nicotine). Even if they bother to read them, however, most people find interpreting (even simplified) food labels very difficult. Putting a picture of a 'resulting' medical condition on the packaging, wouldn't be easily agreed. The BHF, supported by other health campaigners, also advocate new taxes for salty products. Excessive salt drives up blood pressure, increasing the risk of a 'heart attack' or a stroke. They also suggest banning producers of 'junk foods' sponsoring sports. Formula One car racing sponsorship by tobacco companies was successfully (and appropriately) banned. Linking sport to junk foods (still the case in Formula One), implies the product is a suitable lifestyle choice. The BHF note that increasing numbers of UK folk, have a cardiac fatality before their 75th birthday. Health campaigners estimate that legislating to bring in these changes on unhealthy foods, could by 2035, save up to 11,000 UK lives (i.e. about 1000 lives per year). Fatalities are not, however, the only costs. Non-fatal cardiac events also place considerable pressures on health services. Clearly, something needs to be done. Experience has taught that we can't rely on food producers to simply 'do the right thing'. The name of their game is 'profits'.