The Guardian view on public health: if Labour is serious about reducing illness, it must focus on causes | Editorial

Spectacular increases in life expectancy are one of the determining achievements of the modern era. From the age of 56 for men and 60 years for women in the United Kingdom a century ago, this vital measure of the amount of life increased to 79 and 83 respectively in 2022. The trend towards increased longevity is global, although not all countries have seen gains on the same scale, and the pandemic sent it temporarily.

We probably not talk enough. It is remarkable that most of us can expect to live for so long and that deaths against diseases such as tuberculosis and women in childbirth have been so radically reduced.

Quality of life is a different question. Estimates of healthy life expectancy – the number of years during which people are healthy – are less reliable and more subjective than data according to deaths. But chronic and long-term diseases have become more widespread in the United Kingdom (and in other Western countries) as overall life expectancy has increased. Last years have also experienced very disturbing increases in health inequalities, including infant mortality and obesity. Last week, two thinktanks warned of mortality rates in the four British countries compared to other high -income countries.

For the British government, which shares health responsibility with decontained administrations, the challenge is to reduce the number of diseases and disabilities so that more people live much longer. If they want to succeed, finding ways to prevent as well as healing diseases is crucial. This change is one of the three major themes of occupational health policy. It is therefore alarming that, just two months after the launch of its 10 -year plan, Wes Stting is faced with criticism from experts.

In particular, the heads of King’s Fund and Health Foundation fear that lobbying by the food, alcohol and tobacco industries have led to restrictions on junk food and alcohol – as has happened under the curators. They warn that if the increase in alcohol and food levels must be resolved and the pressure on the NHS has been held, there is no alternative to regulatory measures such as the minimum unit price for alcohol and a renewed accent on children’s poverty.

Mr. Streting, when the work was in opposition, undertook to use a “steam roll” to force food companies to cut the fats, salt and sugar of their products. The danger is now that the government’s fixing on economic growth, combined with anxiety about populist law, has made too shy to risk boring businesses – or give ammunition to libertarian criticisms that attack it to limit people’s choices.

On high caffeine energy drinks, ministers do the right thing by prohibiting their sale under 16. The new rules on unchanged advertising will be an improvement. But these are limited measures when what is necessary is an ambitious overview of the social determinants of the worsening of public health, including the development of deep poverty, and the innumerable ways in which people of all ages are pushed to unhealthy behavior.

It is a task for the whole government, not only for the Secretary of Health. Advice, companies and regulators all have roles to play in what work should consider as a national improvement project. Health policy does not only concern treatment. It is a question of being able, of profit and to have the political will to act.

• Do you have an opinion on the questions raised in this article? If you wish to submit an answer of up to 300 words by e-mail to be considered for publication in our Letters section, please click here.