Green Tau: issue 120

21st  November 2025

Why poor diets are a systems issue not just a food issue. 

Part 1

Recently The Eat-Lancet Commission updated its Planetary Health Diet. This is a scientifically developed diet that can be followed anywhere in the globe using local, traditional ingredients. As the name ambiguously suggests, it is a diet that both promotes our physical health and planetary health. It is a diet rich in plant based foods with small amounts of fish, meat and dairy items. 

The 2025  overview begins with the arresting sentence: “The food we eat is more than a personal choice.” Can what we choose to eat make that much of a difference to the lives of other people?

The report continues: “It is a public issue with global consequences. What we eat affects agricultural land use, greenhouse gas emissions, water availability and quality, labor systems, and public health. Today’s food systems are, in many ways, failing. Millions face hunger, while others suffer from completely preventable chronic diseases. Food production contributes to environmental degradation and deepens inequality, when it could be the primary source of environmental regeneration, and justice. The EAT-LancetCommission’s approach to food addresses these challenges by linking health, sustainability, and justice. It promotes a shift in both consumption and production patterns, making healthy and sustainable food more accessible and reducing pressure on planetary boundaries. Transforming food will require cooperation across sectors, cultures, and regions. But the science is clear: changing what we eat is essential to building a future in which both people and planet can thrive.” (1)

What we choose to eat can shape how much land has to be used to produce our food and if that is less than at present, then more land can be used to restore biodiversity and the natural resilience of the world’s ecosystems.

What we choose to eat can reduce greenhouse emissions and so contribute to ensure a more amenable (or perhaps just less disastrous) environment for everyone. 

What we choose to eat can reduce the amount of water needed for agriculture and so can make water available for more essential needs such as drinking and sanitation.

What we choose to eat can have an impact on the welfare given to livestock, the welfare given to the soil, the welfare given to agricultural workers and food producers. (For example a cheap cup of coffee may come at the expense of deforestation where the beans are grown, at the expense of an inadequate price paid to the person growing and processing the beans, at the expense of a poorly paid barista, and at the expense of society if the coffee chain doesn’t pay its taxes. (2))

So yes, the EAT-Lancet Commission is clear that diet is not just about the food we eat but also about the systems that being the food from the farm to the plate. And not only that, these systems also impact our health not just through the food produced but through the impact that food production has on our environment – and thus on our health – and that it has an impact on incomes earned by those in the food industry which again (as we will see in more detail below, impacts health. 

Part 2

In many way the Planetary Health Diet as a guide, is not hugely dissimilar from the UK government’s Eat Well diet guide (3) – although the later increases the proportions of plant based foods at the expense  of cereals/ starch and animal based foods. This Eat Well guide dates back to 2016 which itself  is not very dissimilar to the 2014 guide known as the Eat Well Plate.

The UK government produces a regular National Diet and Nutrition Survey. This  is “designed to assess the diet, nutrient intake and nutritional status of the general UK population … is used by UK governments to monitor progress towards achieving diet and nutrition objectives and to develop food and nutrition policies”.  (4) 

Has the Eat Well guide improved healthy eating in the UK? Sadly not. 

According to analysis of the data by Field Doctor, the most recent  survey shows :- 

  • only 17% of adults eat at least five portions of fruit and vegetable a day
  • We eat 100% more  sugar, and 25% more saturated fat than is recommended 
  • 96% of adults eat an insufficient amount of fibre 
  • 18% have sub optimal levels of vitamin D (5)

Whilst the Roadmap for Resilience: A UK Food Plan for 2050 (produced by The Agri-Food for Net Zero Network), notes that under 1% of people in the UK fully meet dietary guidelines  and comments: “Poor diets cost the UK dearly – through pressures on the NHS, lost productivity and poor quality of life. Shifting towards healthy diets is a win-win that cuts emissions, saves public money, and helps improve the quality of life and work for productivity.” (6)

And The Broken Plate Report 2025 (produced by the Food Foundation) highlighted the following findings from its research:-:

  • Over a third of supermarket promotions on food and nonalcoholic drinks are for unhealthy food. 
  • Over a third of food and soft drink advertising spend is on confectionery, snacks, deserts and soft drinks, compared to just 2% on fruit and veg. 
  • Three quarters of the baby and toddler snacks that have front-of-pack promotional claims contain high or medium levels of sugar.

And 

  • On average, healthier foods are more than twice as expensive per calorie as less healthy foods, with healthier food increasing in price at twice the rate in the past two years.
  • To afford the government-recommended diet, the most deprived fifth of the population would need to spend 45% of their disposable income on food, rising to 70% for those households with children. 

And

  • children in the most deprived fifth of the population are nearly twice as likely to be living with obesity as those in the least deprived fifth by their first year of school
  • Ditto twice as likely to have tooth decay in their permanent teeth. (7)

Clearly both poverty and the high cost of healthy foods,  plays a big part in the unhealthy diets of many people in the UK. Other factors are also relevant, some linked to poverty and inequality such as 

  • lack of access to cooking facilities (especially true of people living in hostels, bed and breakfast or other shared accommodation). Research carried out in 2020 revealed that 1.9 million people in the UK didn’t have a cooker and 900,000 didn’t have a fridge. (8) 
  • Lack of access to local shops selling fresh produce – so called food deserts – affecting 1.2 million people. (9) 
  • Lack of time to prepare and cook meals especially for households juggling multiple jobs and/or long hours (apparently this hasn’t been widely researched (10) but in one recent survey of 2000 adults, 21% sited lack of time as a reason for not eating healthily (11)).

And other factors that have an impact across the board

  • Power of advertising in promoting ready meals and ultra processed foods. This report from Obesity Action Scotland is very clear as to the advertising has on diets. (12) 
  • Lack of experience of cooking from scratch  – again this is area which has received little research so the conclusion is conjecture.

What I think these various surveys show is, that whilst lack of financial resources a major factor in poor diets, unjust social systems may be a more embracing reason. It is unjust social systems that means that households do not have adequate cooking facilities, do not have access to fresh food shops, so not receive adequate incomes and especially so for those households with children. At the same time big businesses have a disproportionate amount of power in influencing what is advertised and to whom, and in controlling (or at least influencing) where and how food is sold, and a major role in continuing to underpay their workforce.

Systems change is essential nationally and globally if we are to ensure everyone has a healthy diet (ideally the Planetary Health Diet) and a healthy environment in which to live.

Postscript

The Food Foundation produced a manifesto report to educate new MPs as to what changes were possible to improve healthy diets for all. https://foodfoundation.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-09/Election%2024_Manifesto.pdf

  1. https://eatforum.org/eat-lancet/the-planetary-health-diet/
  2. https://www.ethicalconsumer.org/company-profile/starbucks-corporation

(3) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5bbb790de5274a22415d7fee/Eatwell_guide_colour_edition.pdf

(4) https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-diet-and-nutrition-survey-2019-to-2023/national-diet-and-nutrition-survey-2019-to-2023-report

(5) https://www.fielddoctor.co.uk/health-hub/uk-eating-habits-2025

(6) Page 17 https://www.agrifood4netzero.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/AFN-ROADMAP-SUMMARY.pdf

(7) https://foodfoundation.org.uk/sites/default/files/2025-01/TFF_BP_At a Glance_FINAL.pdf

(8) https://www.turn2us.org.uk/about-us/news-and-media/media-centre/press-releases-and-comments/millions-across-the-uk-are-living-without-household-essentials

(9) https://sheffield.ac.uk/social-sciences/news/12-million-living-uk-food-deserts-studys-shows

(10) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0195666306003813

(11) https://www.psychreg.org/busy-lifestyles-hinder-healthy-eating-many-britons/

(12) https://www.obesityactionscotland.org/media/as3leiwg/food-and-drink-advertising-briefing-2023.pdf

Counting on … 157

3rd October 2025

“Growing wealth inequality in the UK could be a “major driver of societal collapse” within the next decade, according to a new report by the Fairness Foundation and the Policy Institute and Department of War Studies at King’s College London…

“The participants identified a negative feedback loop, whereby the government’s failure to tax wealth effectively means it lacks sufficient revenue to uphold the social contract by which strong public services, an effective social safety net and a healthy economy provide people with decent living standards.

“Trust in politics then declines further, politicians avoid honest discussions of the underlying problems and what to do about them, and the system’s legitimacy is increasingly questioned as the social contract collapses.” (1) 

Looking at public attitudes, the report  that “two-thirds (63%) of Britons now think the very rich have too much influence on politics in the UK – far higher than the share who say the same about businesses (40%), religious organisation (40%) or international organisations like the EU and UN (38%).

Improving incomes levels for the poorest, and taxing the richest clearly has multiple benefits.

  1. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/wealth-inequality-risks-triggering-societal-collapse-within-next-decade-report-finds

Counting on … 153

29th September 2025

Another way – or rather a parallel way – of reducing the inequality between rich and poor (so enabling us to live within the inner and outer limits of the doughnut) is to ensure minimum pay rates that are sufficiently generous to enable a good level of wellbeing. In this regard the ‘real living wage’(1) should be a minimum. The current real living wage is £12.60 per hour (outside London) which for a 35 hour week equates to £22,050 per annum.

But how generous is that – is it just a necessary minimum?

According to the calculations of Raisin (2) a comfortable salary for a single person would be £28,018. But add in a young child, and that income would need to increase to £51,363 – or for a couple and one young child, a joint income of £65,810.

And equally what if you earn the real living wage but are only able to get 20 hours a week?

An alternative would be to pay everyone a basic income, paid for from taxation, to ensure that no one falls through the safety net of not having enough income to sustain a reasonable standard of living. 

  1. https://www.livingwage.org.uk/what-real-living-wage
  2. https://www.raisin.co.uk/budgeting/how-much-money-do-you-need-to-live-comfortably-uk/

Counting on … day 120

30th July 2025

Wealth too plays a part in what is ‘enough’. I’m in my sixties, my husband a decade older. We live comfortably on his pension – but we can do so because we own the house we live in; we have never not had enough and so benefit from good health;  we both get joy from walking, swimming and cycling; we both have had good educations and appreciate the enjoyment of reading and writing; we have over the years accumulated good quality clothes and shoes and so have little  need to spend on what we wear; we have good networks of friends and socialise through activity groups; we have strong family relationships; we are both active church goers. Not all of these are the direct benefits of wealth but wealth has certainly helped shape of lives and health and wellbeing and allows us to do things that bring us joy for free.

Other people of a similar age may not have these benefits nor feel the security net that wealth brings. For them an income that allows for joy in enough would be more than I and my husband need.  

The bar chart below shows how disproportionately wealth is spread and the considerable contribution that stems from having property (and that will increase the closer one lives to London or other property hot spots) and having a private pension. 

Counting on … day 119

29th July 2025

If there is a minimum level of pay for a dignified standard of living, is there a maximum level of pay that   optimises happiness? 

Research from Raisin (a financial organisation that provides a platform for savings and investment products) in its report ‘Does money buy happiness?’ suggests a figure of about  £35,000 pa.(1)

Whilst BBC’s Money Box programme suggests that, whilst a higher income can equal greater happiness, there is a cut off point at £120,000 beyond which the gain seems negligible. (2) 

(1) https://www.raisin.co.uk/newsroom/does-money-buy-happiness/

(2) https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1yxp6zSJHfjQh9TMx0j8LPL/how-much-money-do-you-need-to-be-happy

Counting on …. Day 1.142

7th August  2023

One of the partner organisations of Earth Overshoot Day is the New Economics Foundation. Here in the UK they are pushing three campaigns that would help create a level playing field:-

“The Great Homes Upgrade is a campaign for a large-scale, UK-wide programme of upgrading our leaky, inefficient homes. It would be funded by the UK government, but managed mainly through local authorities and other local organisations. This would make sure that everyone can make sure their home is well-insulated and heated by clean, green energy — regardless of whether we rent a flat or own a castle. We want the government to commit to bring every home in the UK up to a good standard by 2030 — that means upgrading 7m homes by 2025 and 19m by 2030.”

https://neweconomics.org/campaigns/great-homes-upgrade

The Living Income campaign calls for the provision of a universal income with  “an ‘income floor’ that is enough to meet life’s essentials, like the weekly shop or an emergency boiler repair, which no one can fall below whether they are in or out of work. The level is based on the independently-assessed Minimum Income Standard, which is also used to determine the real living wage. By setting an ‘income floor’, which is an amount of money no one can fall below whether they are in or out of work, the Living Income provides everyone with peace of mind.”

“We need a plan that ensures that everyone – no matter who and no matter where they are from – has enough to live on, whether they are in or out of work.”

Homes for Us – “A new generation of social homes will help us live, rest and flourish. We all need somewhere to call home – a place to rest, to share with our loved ones, to make a life or watch your kids grow up. But right now many of us can’t afford a decent home. We call on the government to put our interests before those of corporate landlords and developers, and start building the high-quality, genuinely affordable social homes we need.” https://homesforus.org.uk/