From smoking bans to junk-food restrictions: where’s the evidence?

Recorded at the Battle of Ideas festival 2024 on Saturday 19 October at Church House, Westminster.

ORIGINAL INTRODUCTION

One of the Labour government’s first big policy announcements was to float the idea of an outdoor smoking ban in pubs, restaurants and children’s play areas. Sir Keir Starmer justified the idea, saying; ‘80,000 people lose their lives every year because of smoking. That’s a preventable death that’s a huge burden on the NHS,’ The idea comes on top of the Conservative government’s plan to ban anyone born after 1 January 2009 from purchasing tobacco products, which Labour has announced it will legislate for. But are such ‘nanny state’ policies justified by the evidence?

No one can be under any illusions that smoking is good for your health. The link between smoking and lung cancer, for example, became known in the mid-1950s and governments have been warning us about the health risks for over 60 years. But while there is some evidence of risks from ‘second-hand smoke’ to justify the indoor smoking bans passed in the Noughties, that doesn’t seem to justify bans outdoors. The justification for bans on smoking and even buying tobacco seems to be to make it ever harder to smoke anywhere, encouraging smokers to quit, and thus protecting the NHS.

Government intervention and even legislation to protect the nation’s health has multiplied in recent decades. Both Scotland and Wales have imposed minimum unit prices on alcohol – with the minimum price increasing in Scotland from 30 September. Prior to the general election, Labour also promised to consider bans of ‘junk food’ advertising, inspired by Transport for London’s network-wide ban. More and more councils are introducing bans on takeaways near schools.

Critics have pointed out that these measures seem to have little impact on health. Smoking has been in decline for decades. Even with minimum pricing, alcohol deaths in Scotland are at a 15-year high. Advertising bans and other restrictions on ‘junk food’ have not seen the nation’s waistlines shrink. If smokers did quit en masse and live longer, opponents point out, the effect would be more pressure on government finances – from extra pension payments, social care and lost taxation – not less.

Where is the evidence for these interventionist measures? Are the risks from heart disease, cancer and obesity so strong that we must do everything possible to change people’s lifestyles? Or should we emphasise providing well-evidence advice and let adults choose for themselves?

SPEAKERS
Dr Carlton Brick
lecturer in sociology, University of the West of Scotland; author, Contesting County Lines: Case
studies in drug crime & deviant entrepreneurship

Reem Ibrahim
acting director of communications and Linda Whetstone Scholar, Institute of Economic Affairs

Molly Kingsley
co-founder, UsForThem; co-author, The Children’s Inquiry and The Accountability Deficit

Professor David Paton
professor of Industrial Economics, Nottingham University Business School

CHAIR
Alan Miller
co-founder and chair, Together Association