In a move which could be interpreted as like a turkey voting for Christmas, last weekend the boss of one of the biggest food corporate giants called on the government to levy higher taxes on unhealthy food.

James Mayer, who is president of Danone UK and Ireland, told a Sunday newspaper that government ministers should ‘consider taxing products high in fat, sugar or salt.’

Mayer said that: "Government intervention is required to ensure consumers are offered healthier products" and that food firms in the UK have "failed to show enough appetite for change".

Such a call from a company which is no stranger to offering British consumers processed foods is at the same time surprising and depressing.

Surprising because many of the products which big companies peddle to us are among the worst offenders when it comes to food with huge amounts of hidden additives – especially that unholy trinity of fat, salt and sugar. 

Many pay lip service to doing things better (Danone’s ‘Nutrition Commitments' document says that "providing health through food is not only a necessity but also our responsibility"); but it is rare to hear a boss of a big corporation call for punitive government action against those who fail to deliver on such well-meaning words.

The statement is depressing because it demonstrates once again that our government is consistently failing to take a lead in these vital matters. 

Far be it for me to suggest that politicians are more interested in the political donations which come from businesses making excess profits on the back of government inaction, but improving the nation’s health does seem to be a long way down the list of priorities.

The results are clear to see.  According to the government’s own figures, 63.8% of adults in England are overweight or living with obesity.  This, along with the widespread inability of many of us to access any kind of healthcare via the NHS, is why we have the worst healthy life expectancy in western Europe, at just 68.9 years.

It is telling that it is not a health minister who is suggesting that there should be statutory intervention to tackle this epidemic, but a business leader in the very sector which could expect to carry the financial burden of doing so.

Now I do not believe that taxation alone can solve this issue, that would be simplistic.  But it’s pretty universally acknowledged that nudging consumers via their wallets is one of the most effective ways of changing behaviour. 

That nudging has to be as much carrot as stick; this should not be about raising more tax revenue. 

Any extra taxation of unhealthy foods should be used to reduce the cost of healthy alternatives, and to reward those food producers who do the right thing and reduce levels of fat, salt and sugar in their products, and the consumers who make healthy choices.

At the moment, rubbish food is often among the cheapest options, particularly for those who have neither the time nor the inclination to go hunting for healthy bargains. 

So we have to make it a simple choice for people: if you want to live an unhealthy lifestyle then that is your decision, but you must recognise that it comes at a cost, not least in terms of extra pressure on our collapsing NHS.

Mayer called for government to ‘set clear parameters for the industry and consumers as to what constitutes a healthy product’.  The industry  - or certainly some of it – clearly wants to play its part, and is looking to government for leadership.  As ever, that government leadership is conspicuous by its absence.

No doubt the anonymous keyboard warriors in the bottom half of the internet will whine about such government intervention as reeking of the ‘nanny state’.  But when they get ill, those same whingers will expect that same state to provide them with accessible, free and effective healthcare via the NHS. 

The fact is that if we don’t tackle our addiction to unhealthy food, the NHS will be even more incapable of providing that care than it is now. 

Someone has to speak out about the current lack of action, and if that voice has to come from a big corporation, then so be it.

Correction

In my last column I wrote that Chet Valley Vineyard was the only vineyard in Norfolk making ‘Champagne Method’ sparkling wine on the premises.  It turns out I was wrong; Winbirri also makes its ‘Vintage Reserve’ sparkling wine at the vineyard.  I’m happy to set the record straight.