Stable public health policy can help keep food bills down
UK households are still feeling the squeeze, and the weekly shop remains one of their biggest pressure points. With economic headwinds set to persist, that strain is unlikely to ease soon.
Rising energy prices, global instability, and the cumulative impact of government policy are all adding to the costs faced by food and drink manufacturers. The Food and Drink Federation now expects food inflation to reach around 10 per cent by the end of 2026.1
Families face a cost-of-living emergency – and the government needs to act now to minimise the impact.
Food and drink manufacturers are already playing their part
At Suntory Beverage & Food GB&I, the makers of Lucozade and Ribena, we are investing in British manufacturing. Our Coleford factory in Gloucestershire has been producing Ribena since 1946. It is a heritage site rooted in the Forest of Dean, but also part of a modern global business combining long-term Japanese investment and expertise with iconic British brands.
We are investing £57m to update our manufacturing capability, including a new high-speed manufacturing line and a more efficient blackcurrant presser.
These investments support regional jobs, modernise production and help us continue making the drinks consumers know and love at an affordable price.
But business investment alone cannot keep a lid on rising costs.
Government has a role to play, too
Food and drink manufacturers have not received the same support as other sectors. We know ministers face difficult choices and public money is limited, but there are ways to help businesses manage costs without increasing taxpayer spending.
The most important is policy stability.
Government must look carefully at the cumulative impact of regulation on food and drink manufacturers, especially when families are facing growing bills. The most immediate lever that can be pulled is to stop the application of the updated 2018 Nutrient Profiling Model (NPM) to existing High in Fat, Salt and Sugar (HFSS) restrictions.
An unnecessary change that hits consumers hardest
The NPM is the system the government uses to determine whether products are classified as “less healthy”, or “HFSS”. Products that are classified as HFSS face restrictions on advertising, placement and price promotions.
We recognise that we have a role to play in tackling obesity, which is why SBF GB&I was an early mover on sugar reduction. We invested heavily to remove more than 50 per cent of the sugar from our drinks – long before the HFSS rules came into effect.
Applying the updated model now creates two obvious problems. First, it moves the goalposts for the very businesses that have already invested, reformulated and adapted to the current rules in good faith. Then, it removes promotional benefits from consumers at the worst possible time.
For soft drinks, the change would be significant. The updated model would mean only drinks with less than 0.9g of sugar per 100ml could be promoted. It would bring a huge number of iconic British brands into scope, including much of our long-reformulated portfolio that is there to help hardworking families through their day.
This is not a small technical adjustment. It would also see shoppers being unable to benefit from deals on their favourite food and drink, while creating further uncertainty for manufacturers at precisely the moment they are being asked to invest, innovate and help shield households from rising costs.
There is also a basic sequencing issue. The most recent changes only happened in January under the existing model. Those rules should be evaluated properly before deciding to go further.
One simple solution
The government should take a moment to reconsider. It must retain the 2004/05 NPM for current HFSS advertising, placement and promotions restrictions.
The existing framework is already encouraging reformulation and should be given time to work. Indeed, the FDF’s latest Shaping a Healthier Future report finds that, in the last five years, the food and drink industry has cut the salt, sugar and calories they contribute to the British grocery market by nearly a fifth.
If ministers do decide to proceed with the updated model, implementation should be delayed. Any change must be backed by a full impact assessment covering business costs, product availability, innovation, investment and consumer prices.
SBF GB&I is investing in the UK and doing what it can to manage rising costs. The best support the government can give now is stability: retain the existing NPM, give current HFSS rules time to work, and avoid adding further uncertainty for manufacturers and families.
References
- https://www.fdf.org.uk/fdf/news-media/press-releases/2026/fdf-revises-food-inflation-forecast-to-at-least-9-by-the-end-of-2026/
